RPI vs KenPom

[WSUwatcher]

Compare against 2011-12: some, but lower, preseason expectations that year; 26-4 against a lesser schedule; 1-1 in St. Louis. That translated to 27-5 on Selection Sunday and a #5 seed.

If this season's Shocks (especially LeFred) stay healthy; have regained Grady -- who knows about Shamet by that time? -- and are getting continued good play from Brown and McDuffie plus respectable work from the Morris + Wamukota + Nurger center crew; and if they show the kind of focus and ability to avoid silly losses that have characterized the last couple of seasons, then something like 27-6 or 28-5 should produce at least that high a seed for a preseason top ten team back at approximately full strength, with a good excuse for the early losses, and hitting on all cylinders.

And, dizzle, the committee and pundits can spout whatever party line they want, but I remain convinced that last year's #7 had as much to do with The Flagship being at #2 as anything else. If they had been a #3 instead, the committee would have found a way for WSU to be a #6; and if somehow the glorious permanent Big 12 champs who by rule are rewarded for quality losses almost as much as for victories had plummeted to a #4, WSU would have been a #5.

[Good News]

If they pulled that off, I could see them as high as a 3 or 4. It just seems like there will be at least 8 teams in front of them regardless, so I think a 1 or 2 is out of the question at this point. Not enough opportunities to prove themselves left on the schedule. It is not helpful that the MVC is borderline as even a top 10 conference this year. Dominating a mediocre conference and getting a 3 seed would not seem all that out of line considering the up and down non-conf.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but I have a question since you seem to follow this more closely than anyone else.

I don't know if it has changed, but in the recent past the committee was very clear in stating that the record over the last 10 games was separately considered in seeding (i.e. the last 10 games are more important than the first 10 games).

They also used to openly admit that they considered personnel in seeding and that if a key injury occurred that it could affect seeding (i.e. flipping the logic around, if a key injury can affect seeding negatively wouldn't it stand to reason that it would also help seeding by mitigating bad losses?)

My question lies at the confluence of those two things - if it were a case where the Shocks ran the table and Fred (and potentially Anton and Landry) were a part of it, couldn't a case be made to effectively evaluate the body of work the same as an undefeated or near-undefeated season of 29-0 or 28-1? Or are you saying the Valley is still so weak that even that resume wouldn't get better than a 3?

I agree with whoever brought it up earlier - that based on what has happened so far there won't be many teams with less than 6 or 8 losses this year due to the parity. I think this could be the most challenging free-for-all bubble environment since the tournament went to 68 and maybe even since it went to 64.

All that said, I don't even like talking about running the table. Taking one game a time is what resulted in 35-0.

[WSUwatcher]

All that said, I don't even like talking about running the table. Taking one game a time is what resulted in 35-0.

Luckily, GN, we can talk all we want so long as the players don't get caught up in the anticipation -- and as long as 3G, LeFred, and Baker are around, that's a given. They aren't going to lose sight of their goal.

I do agree that sometimes when things are looking really good is often when something bad is just about to happen, but conversely, when the sky seems to be falling can also be when some really dramatic, spectacular goodness is what actually descends. And so far this season, it's been much more of a "sky is falling" scenario. So that gives me encouragement.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I guess I don't get the optimism wrt seeding. We had an incredible year last year, following a F4 and a 35-1 season, and were rewarded with a 7 seed. No one is looking for an excuse to move WSU up seed lines. Clearly they were looking for an excuse to move them down seed lines. I don't see what could have changed in a year.

I think most of us feel that last year's committee was exceptionally bad.

Don't forget that a Shocker team with:
8 losses
12-6 in the MVC
Failed to win the MVC tournament
Was prior to making the Final 4 or completing the undefeated regular season

Yet that team still managed a 9 seed.

Don't let last year's committee convince you that WSU gets screwed in seeding every year. They don't.

[DUShock]

Wasn't last year a made for TV kinda thing?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I don't know if it has changed, but in the recent past the committee was very clear in stating that the record over the last 10 games was separately considered in seeding (i.e. the last 10 games are more important than the first 10 games).

I believe they have since changed their stance and said they no longer evaluate based on last 10. With that said, I'm not sure I believe them.

They also used to openly admit that they considered personnel in seeding and that if a key injury occurred that it could affect seeding (i.e. flipping the logic around, if a key injury can affect seeding negatively wouldn't it stand to reason that it would also help seeding by mitigating bad losses?)

My question lies at the confluence of those two things - if it were a case where the Shocks ran the table and Fred (and potentially Anton and Landry) were a part of it, couldn't a case be made to effectively evaluate the body of work the same as an undefeated or near-undefeated season of 29-0 or 28-1? Or are you saying the Valley is still so weak that even that resume wouldn't get better than a 3?

Injuries are accounted for, but losses never get wiped completely. The 4 losses in November will not be held against WSU as if they were full strength, but they won't be wiped away as if they didn't happen either. Probably somewhere in the middle.

It is very hard to reduce this all to a simple formula, but I could see a 29-4 Shocker team getting seeded like a 29-2 or 29-3 team. However, that takes WSU's solid SOS down a bit if you pretend like a couple good opponents never happened. Can't give the Shox credit for tough opponents if you just wiped the loss of their resume entirely.

That's why I think that an "adjusted 29-2/29-3" team gets placed behind the top 8-9 teams in the country as a 3 seed. You can reduce the impact of losing 4 games to non-elite teams, but at the end of the day, you can't just ignore those 4 entirely.

[Cdizzle]

I think most of us feel that last year's committee was exceptionally bad.

Don't forget that a Shocker team with:
8 losses
12-6 in the MVC
Failed to win the MVC tournament
Was prior to making the Final 4 or completing the undefeated regular season

Yet that team still managed a 9 seed.

Don't let last year's committee convince you that WSU gets screwed in seeding every year. They don't.

That years committee didn't account for WSU's injuries either. Clearly that team was a lot more like the team that didn't lose with Ron Baker playing in the non-con than the one that lost 7 games to Valley teams. So it goes. I don't think the committee is out to get WSU specifically. But I do not think they are out to do WSU some of the same favors they do for some other teams either.

I don't even know if the committee should account for injuries. It might be more fair if they just didn't. For instance, it's pretty easy to know that Paige and FVV were injured during some losses, but do they know about injuries on the LIU-Brooklyn team? And it doesn't work to somewhat ignore a loss by WSU or UNC without their AA PGs, but still give credit for a Top10 win to their opponent.

Shox can make it not matter by reeling off 33 in a row or so.

[ShockTalk]

Wasn't last year a made for TV kinda thing?

Losing to IL St in the MVC tourney gave the committee all they needed to set this TV game up. That one game probably cost us at least 2 seed levels.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

That Final Four team lost 3 of their last 5, including against Creighton WITH Ron Baker. It is much harder to give credit for a team being once again healthy and now improved when you haven't seen significant proof on the floor. That Shocker team was theoretically much improved, and it turned out that reality showed as much during the NCAA Tournament, but the impact of getting freshman Ron Baker was not as obvious on selection sunday as it appears looking back.

This year, we aren't talking about Freshman Ron, we are talking Senior Fred. We are also assuming that the Shox prove they are elite by winning something like 19 of their final 20. If this Shocker team continues strong all the way to Selection Sunday, they will have a much stronger case for the committee to account for injuries than the committee of 2013 did.

[Dave Stalwart]

Side note: I just want to point out that all 4 of WSU's losses are solidly within the top 50. Granted, the RPI is still unstable since it's before Christmas, but all of the teams we lost to are doing well enough that we are all the way up to #45 at 4-4 versus D-1. It seems like just about every game we've played this year has been against the top 50.

Losses:
Iowa - 25
Alabama - 28
USC - 30
Tulsa - 48

Wins:
Charleston Southern - 302
St. Louis - 169
UNLV - 56
Utah - 31

Upcoming:
Seton Hall - 51
Nevada - 124
New Mexico State - 248

I see that NMSU and Charleston Southern are pretty low, but those two teams generally do fairly well in their conferences. I think both of those numbers will rise.

[Stickboy46]

Side note: I just want to point out that all 4 of WSU's losses are solidly within the top 50. Granted, the RPI is still unstable since it's before Christmas, but all of the teams we lost to are doing well enough that we are all the way up to #45 at 4-4 versus D-1. It seems like just about every game we've played this year has been against the top 50.

Losses:
Iowa - 25
Alabama - 28
USC - 30
Tulsa - 48

Wins:
Charleston Southern - 302
St. Louis - 169
UNLV - 56
Utah - 31

Upcoming:
Seton Hall - 51
Nevada - 124
New Mexico State - 248

I see that NMSU and Charleston Southern are pretty low, but those two teams generally do fairly well in their conferences. I think both of those numbers will rise.

Unfortunately Alabama is probably going to start tanking now that Ingram is done for the year.

[Dave Stalwart]

Meanwhile, the MVC is gonna struggle to even bring ONE top 100 team into conference play. Evansville is at 88 and UNI is at 95. I'd love to see the conference pull it together over the next two weeks. Could we be so fortunate?

Currently, St Louis is a better win than anything the MVC will bring outside of UE and UNI... wow

Gotta win some games, MVC.

[SB Shock]

Yes, but only to an extent. On December 1st, while the real RPI was in the 200s, the forecasted RPI was still around 120. Even today, forecasted RPI at that site is 77.

KenPom has never left top 50.

I would recommend using it differently. The projected RPI you are looking at is based on the projected record due to sagrin game prediction algorithm with raw RPI of 74 which equates to RPI ranking of 67. Their forecasted RPI is based on WSU finishing with 20-9 record. The better way to look at is to project what you think WSU record will be and you can then see likely RPI. They even have a tool for that if you want to project specific wins and losses. Of course the also have some additional tools available to help you evaluate different trends and likelihoods.

25-4 - RPI 22
23-6 - RPI 34
21-8 - RPi 53
20-9 - RPI 67

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

KenPom has Evansville at 60, UNI at 68.
RPIForecast has Evansville's expected final RPI at 72. UNI at 79.

I think WSU will likely get 2 top 100 teams to add to the resume. The bad part is the other 7 MVC schools will all probably be outside the top 150.

[Dave Stalwart]

KenPom has Evansville at 60, UNI at 68.
RPIForecast has Evansville's expected final RPI at 72. UNI at 79.

I think WSU will likely get 2 top 100 teams to add to the resume. The bad part is the other 7 MVC schools will all probably be outside the top 150.

I do think their RPI's look a little low for me eye test. KenPom has them right where they should be, I think. We've gotta get all those sub-200 MVC teams to win a couple games and get on the better side of 200. It wouldn't take much at all, but that's exactly why it's so frustrating. If they all could just win pretty much one or two games against regular teams.... but they won't :)