Non-Conference Schedule needs more.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Who cares about seeding or the committee?

Considering they're the ones that pick the matchup and seeding sets your path in the NCAA Tournament, I'd say that's one of the dumber statements I've seen in quite a while.

My only possible explanation is that @ShocktheHawks was trying to say something along the lines of "Even if you ignore seeding or the committee, playing better teams would be fun in its own right".

However, he is a student at KU. Expecting him to communicate clearly is quite a tall order. The fact that his sentence even has punctuation and capitalization shows that he is probably at the top of his class. Cut him some slack.

[SB Shock]

Who cares about seeding or the committee?

I'm pretty sure the P5 do. In fact we have heard Bill Self complaining about seeding for the last few years.

The fact is seeding determines how easily you can get by your first opponent and sometime the second. After that it usually becomes a 50%/50% proposition of moving on. Since the committee decides the seeding - if you care about seeding you have to care about a rational committee.

[Kochaddict]

Two things

1. It is going to be a longggggggg off season.
2. I like beer.
:very_drunk:

[ShocktheHawks]

I'm pretty sure the P5 do. In fact we have heard Bill Self complaining about seeding for the last few years.

The fact is seeding determines how easily you can get by your first opponent and sometime the second. After that it usually becomes a 50%/50% proposition of moving on. Since the committee decides the seeding - if you care about seeding you have to care about a rational committee.

That is your falsely held belief. Getting a particular seed does not increase your ease of success in the tourney. The 50/50 number is an made up number you pulled from in between you crack. I don't care about seeding at all. Don't care what number is to the left of the name. We all knew that Kentucky wasn't even close to an 8 seed, no matter which reason you choose to seed. We were'nt seeded correctly. It's stupid, and you can't ever expect seeding to go your way, unless your DUKE, UNC, or KU. So again, no IDC. As long as we get in, IDC. Bill, Gregg, RIck Pitino, and others... they all whine about seeding. But if you want to rightfully claim to be a champion on a national level, you can't whine about not playing a true 8 seed.

[ShocktheHawks]

You're not crazy, you're just re-hashing subjects that have been discussed on this forum ad nauseam since creation. You might ask _kai_ if you could modify your username from what you have over to DeadHorseBeater, or something like that.

You are totally right. I am sorry I got carried away sitting around thinking about WSU BB and never thought that I am sure you guys have heard it a million times.

[wufan]

That is your falsely held belief. Getting a particular seed does not increase your ease of success in the tourney. The 50/50 number is an made up number you pulled from in between you crack. I don't care about seeding at all. Don't care what number is to the left of the name. We all knew that Kentucky wasn't even close to an 8 seed, no matter which reason you choose to seed. We were'nt seeded correctly. It's stupid, and you can't ever expect seeding to go your way, unless your DUKE, UNC, or KU. So again, no IDC. As long as we get in, IDC. Bill, Gregg, RIck Pitino, and others... they all whine about seeding. But if you want to rightfully claim to be a champion on a national level, you can't whine about not playing a true 8 seed.

The seeding doesn't really matter after the round of 64 and doesn't matter at all once you're in the sweet 16, but higher seeded teams (lower #) have a much improved chance of advancing early in the tourney. The longer you can go with the odds in your favor, the greater your chance of a final four or national championship.

[ShocktheHawks]

The seeding doesn't really matter after the round of 64 and doesn't matter at all once you're in the sweet 16, but higher seeded teams (lower #) have a much improved chance of advancing early in the tourney. The longer you can go with the odds in your favor, the greater your chance of a final four or national championship.

While I agree with you in most of what you say, Odds have zero to do with actual results. No matter what the seeding or Odds, we all knew Gonzaga wasn't going to the Final Four. This is a proven fact every year. I can't understand why this is enough a question. Seeds don't matter...ever.

[wufan]

While I agree with you in most of what you say, Odds have zero to do with actual results. No matter what the seeding or Odds, we all knew Gonzaga wasn't going to the Final Four. This is a proven fact every year. I can't understand why this is enough a question. Seeds don't matter...ever.

No.

[ShockerFever]

While I agree with you in most of what you say, Odds have zero to do with actual results. No matter what the seeding or Odds, we all knew Gonzaga wasn't going to the Final Four. This is a proven fact every year. I can't understand why this is enough a question. Seeds don't matter...ever.

Didnt you say you were gonna take a backseat to posting so much? Because this post is a prime example why you should.

Back away.

[Rlh04d]

The selection committee screwed up big this year and I wish we could change some things about them for the future, but it is what it is, and if that is how they are going to operate, then WSU would be greatly benefited by a better schedule if at all possible.

My original comment to cdizzle was simply to point out that it is true that WSU's RPI and KenPom have been impressive with the current level of schedules, but clearly this past year, the schedule hurt WSU in a much greater category... NCAA seed.

I don't think this is a fair post. This season was kind of a worst-possible-scenario for us from a scheduling standpoint. Several non-con teams had a chance to be very good teams this year and never quite got over the hump.

We had three teams riding multi-year NCAA tournament streaks in the non-con, and only one of the three made it back. Seton Hall and Alabama never lived up to their potential. We had expected Nebraska to be a fairly good team this year, and instead they were upset by Hawaii and had a pretty bad year anyway. George Washington never lived up to their potential. In conference, Loyola and Evansville both ended up being outside of the top 100 for the NCAA tournament selection, but well inside at the end of the season -- and while Evansville's might be "that's just Evansville," Loyola's was due to Doyle's injury.

Realistically, WSU could have easily expected to have a top 30 non-con SOS, 12 top 100 wins this year, and a 3-2 top 50 RPI record, just based on SLU/Loyola/Evansville being top 100 and Memphis being top 50. I don't really think overreacting to our schedule not working out the way it realistically should have is a good strategy, particularly when it forces us to go on the road in extremely difficult situations to win with no possibility of playing those teams at home in extremely favorable situations. Our schedule is being done well as is, IMO.

Legitimately, where would you have put WSU this year with a ~30 non-con SOS, 12 top 100 wins, and a 3-2 top 50 record? A three? Or hell, what would WSU's seed have been if everything stayed the same except Wessel's put back went in against Utah? I don't really think this season says anything long-term about our schedule.

Some years things will work out worse than you estimated and some years they'll work out better. This was a worse-than-estimated season.

[shockmonster]

I don't think this is a fair post. This season was kind of a worst-possible-scenario for us from a scheduling standpoint. Several non-con teams had a chance to be very good teams this year and never quite got over the hump.

We had three teams riding multi-year NCAA tournament streaks in the non-con, and only one of the three made it back. Seton Hall and Alabama never lived up to their potential. We had expected Nebraska to be a fairly good team this year, and instead they were upset by Hawaii and had a pretty bad year anyway. George Washington never lived up to their potential. In conference, Loyola and Evansville both ended up being outside of the top 100 for the NCAA tournament selection, but well inside at the end of the season -- and while Evansville's might be "that's just Evansville," Loyola's was due to Doyle's injury.

Realistically, WSU could have easily expected to have a top 30 non-con SOS, 12 top 100 wins this year, and a 3-2 top 50 RPI record, just based on SLU/Loyola/Evansville being top 100 and Memphis being top 50. I don't really think overreacting to our schedule not working out the way it realistically should have is a good strategy, particularly when it forces us to go on the road in extremely difficult situations to win with no possibility of playing those teams at home in extremely favorable situations. Our schedule is being done well as is, IMO.

Legitimately, where would you have put WSU this year with a ~30 non-con SOS, 12 top 100 wins, and a 3-2 top 50 record? A three? Or hell, what would WSU's seed have been if everything stayed the same except Wessel's put back went in against Utah? I don't really think this season says anything long-term about our schedule.

Some years things will work out worse than you estimated and some years they'll work out better. This was a worse-than-estimated season.

All of the television analysts that I heard,said that we were underseeded. There was only one (Jerry Palm) that I heard that said that we should be seeded where we were.

[WuDrWu]

When the season is over and we can look back, it is likely we'd have benefited from winning more games.

It's also likely that we would have benefited (seeding wise and ranking wise) from our opponents winning more games.

Have I got that about right?


As soon as some of you geniuses let the rest of us in on how you are able to correctly predetermine the amount of wins potential opponents will have before we schedule them, then we can all go to HCGM and let him know who he should schedule.

Until then, I guess we have to suffer through more threads like this one.

[shoxlax]

DeadHorseBeater: start a thread just for your comments. If it's orginal or something that we haven't discussed someone will weigh in. If not you will be talking to yourself away from the rest of us.

[Rlh04d]

how you are able to correctly predetermine the amount of wins potential opponents will have before we schedule them

The staff tries to figure that out every year.

And considering they do a pretty good job of it, obviously there's a way to do it :)

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I don't think this is a fair post. This season was kind of a worst-possible-scenario for us from a scheduling standpoint. Several non-con teams had a chance to be very good teams this year and never quite got over the hump.

We had three teams riding multi-year NCAA tournament streaks in the non-con, and only one of the three made it back. Seton Hall and Alabama never lived up to their potential. We had expected Nebraska to be a fairly good team this year, and instead they were upset by Hawaii and had a pretty bad year anyway. George Washington never lived up to their potential. In conference, Loyola and Evansville both ended up being outside of the top 100 for the NCAA tournament selection, but well inside at the end of the season -- and while Evansville's might be "that's just Evansville," Loyola's was due to Doyle's injury.

Realistically, WSU could have easily expected to have a top 30 non-con SOS, 12 top 100 wins this year, and a 3-2 top 50 RPI record, just based on SLU/Loyola/Evansville being top 100 and Memphis being top 50. I don't really think overreacting to our schedule not working out the way it realistically should have is a good strategy, particularly when it forces us to go on the road in extremely difficult situations to win with no possibility of playing those teams at home in extremely favorable situations. Our schedule is being done well as is, IMO.

Legitimately, where would you have put WSU this year with a ~30 non-con SOS, 12 top 100 wins, and a 3-2 top 50 record? A three? Or hell, what would WSU's seed have been if everything stayed the same except Wessel's put back went in against Utah? I don't really think this season says anything long-term about our schedule.

Some years things will work out worse than you estimated and some years they'll work out better. This was a worse-than-estimated season.

You are addressing the issues/phenomenons of "trying to schedule well" and "getting unlucky with opponents having poorer than predicted seasons.

I was not attempting to address either of those. I was trying to reference actual results. Whether the schedule was well planned, or simply the results of pure luck, I was simply saying that the 2014-2015 schedule, AS IT ACTUALLY PLAYED OUT, became a big hinderance on WSU's seed. I hate the fact that the committee did what it did, and I hate the fact that WSU tried to schedule better and ended up being a bit unlucky with teams like St. Louis tanking badly...

but...

It was what it was. Schedule hurt WSU were it really counts: seed. That was all I was trying to say, and I only brought it up as a counter to a post cdizzle made about how strong WSU's RPI had been the past several years. His wording made it sound like WSU had not been hurt in recent year's by its schedule. I simply wanted to counter that thought.