2015-16 Media love thread

[WuShock Reaper]

Katz Corner - ESPN (Recap of Coach Marshall and his thoughts regarding Fred VanVleet.)

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/2724/wichita-st-shockers

[WSUwatcher]

I don't know why writers at SBNation and other places have to make this so hard.

Yes, the Shocks have one win over a top 50 RPI team and no prospect for more. And yes, they lost to (now top 20) USC in the game that started them on the way to 0-3 in Orlando. But they did so when they missed a legitimate shot at a tying three at the buzzer, and despite not having the guy whose presence or absence everyone knows totally transforms the team. No one who knows anything about college basketball can seriously believe that the Shocks would have lost to USC with a healthy VanVleet.

So why can't a committee member, or all of them, say to themselves that WSU's resume obviously doesn't accurately reflect how good they are? Indeed, why shouldn't they? To stick your head in the sand and simply say, "But they DIDN'T beat USC," is to not just ignore but outright reject the idea that temporary factors such as injuries or illness can't taken into consideration in picking the tournament field. I'm not a huge fan of anything associated with the NCAA, but that just isn't going to happen.

The committee simply isn't going to go out of its way to discard an obvious tournament team, and one that just as obviously deserves a decent seed, on that reasoning -- nor will they do it even if the Shocks pick up a loss somewhere along the way home from here. And believing that they might is sheer paranoia. That's what I mean by "sky is falling" stuff.

[Bluzrover]

I think the answer to many of these head-scratching articles is simply the level of professional journalism in this country is at an all time low. Either that, or anything with analytical comparative metrics in it is like kryptonite to the IQ level of the average sports journalist, and so they simply ignore such things exist that would help quantify their work.

Actually, it's more the case of any moron with an opinion, keyboard and Internet connection can portray themself a journalist, gain a following and make a buck. When I grew up, Sports Illustrated was about the only legitimate journalistic organ that had respectable journalistic practice, editorial and analytical rigor and professional ethics in the world of sport and there were only three networks who competed for audience. There weren't that many journalism jobs available back then so if you didn't know your ****, you didn't have a job.

And now I sound like my old man, pining for the good old days.

But the Norlander piece linked above is quality work.

[WSUwatcher]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...-wichita-state

Lots of good publicity today.

My favorite factoid: "Now the Shockers are winning games by an average of 19.5 points in conference play -- the highest in-league margin of victory for any team in college basketball." Nobody is beating up their league the way the Shocks are ruling the MVC. Just have to keep it up.

[ripemupshocks]

Does anybody know, off the top of their head, Wichita States record the three previous seasons?

95-15

95-15. See, that's what I thought. But then I noticed, beginning last summer/fall, almost every article that made reference to the Shocks three previous seasons (such as the article from SBNation) stated a record of 90-15. So I was getting worried. I'm thinking I'm getting old. I'm thinking my mind is going. I'm thinking I can't count anymore. But I'm not worried now. Because now I know it's not just me. Now I know Cdizzle can't count either. Thanks Cdizzle.

:02.47-tranquillity:

[WSUwatcher]

Here are the numbers, rip, straight from goshockers:

2014-15: 30-5
2013-14: 35-1
2012-13: 30-9

Add 'em up, and you get 95-15. Maybe some people don't bother to check their facts before they write -- it happens, and quite a bit, not just in sports.

[DJShocker10]

Here are the numbers, rip, straight from goshockers:

2014-15: 30-5
2013-14: 35-1
2012-13: 30-9

Add 'em up, and you get 95-15. Maybe some people don't bother to check their facts before they write -- it happens, and quite a bit, not just in sports.

I think where people may get confused is the fact that this isn't accounting for our record this season (which would put us at 101 or 102-20 if I'm not mistaken).

[WSUwatcher]

Actually, with the Shocks at 17-5, it's now 112-20 during the Fred and Ron Dynamic Duo era, with many more to come.

[DJShocker10]

Actually, with the Shocks at 17-5, it's now 112-20 during the Fred and Ron Dynamic Duo era, with many more to come.

While I appreciate the wins we've had, I'd like to raise a toast to the "many more to come."

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Beyond bad seeding, teams with RPIs in the 20s have been left out of the tournament before. Even teams from the Missouri Valley.

Also, if WSU loses to any of the remaining teams on their schedule, those computer numbers will take a big hit.

So the worst case outlier in NCAA at large history should be used when trying to predict a median expected outcome?

The article is hot garbage and erroneously promotes the idea that the Shockers paper resume is barely tournament worthy. That is just plain false. Their paper resume doesn't do them justice, but talk of an 11 seed is bonkers. Even without accounting for injuries, they deserve much better than that.

[ShockerEngr]

95-15. See, that's what I thought. But then I noticed, beginning last summer/fall, almost every article that made reference to the Shocks three previous seasons (such as the article from SBNation) stated a record of 90-15. So I was getting worried. I'm thinking I'm getting old. I'm thinking my mind is going. I'm thinking I can't count anymore. But I'm not worried now. Because now I know it's not just me. Now I know Cdizzle can't count either. Thanks Cdizzle.

:02.47-tranquillity:

Might be excluding non-DI wins?

[Cdizzle]

So the worst case outlier in NCAA at large history should be used when trying to predict a median expected outcome?

The article is hot garbage and erroneously promotes the idea that the Shockers paper resume is barely tournament worthy. That is just plain false. Their paper resume doesn't do them justice, but talk of an 11 seed is bonkers. Even without accounting for injuries, they deserve much better than that.

I'm not talking about medians or deserved or what I think will happen. I'm saying teams have been screwed before, and I'd prefer not to give anyone the chance to screw this team.

[WSUwatcher]

I'm not talking about medians or deserved or what I think will happen. I'm saying teams have been screwed before, and I'd prefer not to give anyone the chance to screw this team.

Try to forget about Missouri State, and you'll feel much better, dizzle. The Hillbillies were a good, not outstanding, team in a strong league at a time when the buzz was that the Valley had figured out how to game RPI. But they weren't:

(1) a preseason top ten team
(2) whose most indispensable player got hurt, along with a couple of their other better players, with the result that
(3) they suffered a few sudden unexpected losses, after which
(4) most of them got healthy and another weapon became eligible,
(5) causing them to move into the KenPom top ten, dominate their league (leading the nation in margin of victory in conference games),
(6) and return to looking like the top ten team everyone expected them to be.

In other words, there was no comparison whatsoever between that team and this year's Shockers. And there's absolutely no reason to think they'll be treated similarly.

[Cdizzle]

In other words, there was no comparison whatsoever between that team and this year's Shockers. And there's absolutely no reason to think they'll be treated similarly.

Unless you compare the sheets the committee will use on the two teams on selection Sunday.

I get all the other crap. And I'm sure it will help. I'm just saying I'd prefer to remove all doubt.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I'm not talking about medians or deserved or what I think will happen. I'm saying teams have been screwed before, and I'd prefer not to give anyone the chance to screw this team.

So you quoted me only to totally ignore my comments and change the subject? Strange, although thanks for admitting it.