AP and Coaches Poll Watch Thread (2015-16 Edition)

[Cdizzle]

No @Kung Wu, I disagree with @ShockerFever and @SHOCKvalue that the MVC is holding back the Shox NCAA seedings in any significant way. Also, I'm not sure why you are being so cryptic with your posts.

In your opinion,

What is the seed cap for WSU this season?
What would the seed cap for WSU be this season if they were playing in a slightly better league, such as the AAC or A10?

[Shocker-maniac]

I've said all along that realignment is less about competition (though certainly that could be a huge byproduct/perk) and more about money. When we have a financial commitment to basketball (and all sports really) that roughly doubles the rest of the Valley since Creighton left, somethings got to give. Also at the end of the day, I wonder what percentage of the other schools revenue can be attributed to us. We are the national TV draw so any TV revenue is because of us, our game is the biggest crowd at every opponents arena, and we are contributing a fair amount of NCAA shares at the moment. Fun to be the big dog, but it would be nice if someone else would chip in.

While I agree with your overall point, there is one misconception. There are no TV revenues in the MVC. Basically the MVC is paying ESPN for its conference TV package. The AAC, MWC, and BE get TV revenue, but not the MVC. At least that's how I understand it.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

In your opinion,

What is the seed cap for WSU this season?
What would the seed cap for WSU be this season if they were playing in a slightly better league, such as the AAC or A10?

Assuming the same non-conf results, injuries, etc., and merely swapping conference play:

Sweep all MVC games: 3-4 seed
Sweep all AAC games: 2 seed

However, I think the most likely scenario either way is a 5-6 seed. 1 loss somewhere in MVC play, 3 losses scattered throughout AAC play. The AAC allows for a higher ceiling, but at extremely longshot odds. The AAC would also test WSU more regularly, and there would be more chance of losses on nights where WSU's C+ or B- teams showed up. Higher ceiling, lower floor, same general expected outcome, as far as seeding goes.

[WUpigsooie]

While I agree with your overall point, there is one misconception. There are no TV revenues in the MVC. Basically the MVC is paying ESPN for its conference TV package. The AAC, MWC, and BE get TV revenue, but not the MVC. At least that's how I understand it.

Right, I guess I assumed that the Fox games or CBS games generated something, maybe not. But that almost makes my point even more, lets get in a conference that does generate TV revenue so that our athletic department can continue to grow.

[OregonShocker]

While I agree with your overall point, there is one misconception. There are no TV revenues in the MVC. Basically the MVC is paying ESPN for its conference TV package. The AAC, MWC, and BE get TV revenue, but not the MVC. At least that's how I understand it.

I'm not in the area, but the ESPN3 feeds I see are usually Bruce and "somebody" for a Wichita market. Do you think our TV revenue would be unchanged in a different market (because of having to split Wichita money)? What's the breakdown now, and what would it be predicted to be in, say, AAC, MWC, etc? Would it cover travel? These are the important questions, I think.
Having said that, my opinions on tourney seeding have been made clear. I don't think we change conferences for "better seeding." And, I believe, like Few at Zaga, Marshall will keep us in the tourney for years. But, it MIGHT help us,come tourney time, to have played a number of teams that present a better challenge; blowing away teams by 20+ routinely may not be advantageous come Sweet 16 time.

[Kung Wu]

No @Kung Wu, I disagree with @ShockerFever and @SHOCKvalue that the MVC is holding back the Shox NCAA seedings in any significant way. Also, I'm not sure why you are being so cryptic with your posts.

I'm just trying to understand. You qualified that our seeding was proper based on the MVC being mediocre. I was thinking that if you had to qualify that statement with the MVC being mediocre then you are agreeing with them. I see now that was not your intent. But I think you are also missing theirs.

The MVC is holding us back because before we ever start the season we know that our SOS and RPI will be deflated. To offset that we have to 1) pull non-con scheduling miracles to get quality games instead of them being handed to us automatically, 2) win on the road more often than non-MVC opponents, and 3) dominate earlier in the season with newcomers much earlier than opponents in better conferences. Those are all very large chasms to leap across to get the results we have been getting, and if any of them go wrong, we end up with seeding deflation.

The problems with being in the MVC go way beyond entertainment value for the fans.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Thanks for clarifying @Kung Wu. It looks like I didn't finish my thought fully in the post you are referencing. Sorry about that. My intent was to point out WSU's relative dominance and seeding have, IMO, been sensible.

2014 - Complete dominance - 1 seed
2012 - Mostly dominant with couple bad losses - 5 seed
2013 - Upper tier, but not dominant - 9 seed

Relative to a mediocre league, I think those are fair seedings by the committee.

RPI will be deflated. To offset that we have to...

This is where you and I have had a long running disagreement. I do not agree that playing in the MVC automatically deflates WSU's RPI. Had WSU played the last 4 years in a tougher conference, they would have had more losses to go with the tougher SOS. Those two changes end up cancelling each other out and the net effect is basically zero change.

Selection Sunday RPI's
2015 - 17
2014 - 4
2013 - 37
2012 - 12

Do you think any of the last 4 Shocker teams would have had a higher RPI in a different conference? It seems to me that the RPI has been very fair to the Shox. Those numbers don't seem deflated at all.

[Ol skool]

Assuming the same non-conf results, injuries, etc., and merely swapping conference play:

Sweep all MVC games: 3-4 seed
Sweep all AAC games: 2 seed

However, I think the most likely scenario either way is a 5-6 seed. 1 loss somewhere in MVC play, 3 losses scattered throughout AAC play. The AAC allows for a higher ceiling, but at extremely longshot odds. The AAC would also test WSU more regularly, and there would be more chance of losses on nights where WSU's C+ or B- teams showed up. Higher ceiling, lower floor, same general expected outcome, as far as seeding goes.

^^^^
This!!!

[jdshock]

By "the NIT team", are you talking 2005 or 2011? Or both? Curious how you would respond to my earlier comments about each of those teams.

I only used "NIT team" because proshox did. I assumed it meant the NIT championship team from 11. I agree wholeheartedly with you that team lost the two non-conference games against meaningful opponents. But that is exactly my point: they only had those two opportunities. That team proved, by winning the NIT, it was a team talented enough to be in the NCAA tournament. (I guess, implicit in that is that I believe every NIT champion could've competed in the NCAA tournament) 2 games is a terrible sample size. In a better conference, that team would have almost certainly had a better win percentage against good teams than 0%. That team not making the NCAA tournament had little to do with 7 losses (or however many they had) and much more to do with lack of quality wins. A tougher conference would've solved that.

Also, regarding your Louisville kenpom argument. I don't think that's a persuasive argument. First, a team in a "non-elite" conference being shafted doesn't prove WSU doesn't get shafted. I don't remember if the AAC was power-six or whatever at the time. You almost concede in your post that the elite conferences get better treatment with seeding, and that's exactly what I want for WSU. Second, Kenpom is a helpful PREDICTIVE tool, and almost completely unhelpful in seeding a tournament. Going undefeated was a statistical anomaly. Kenpom had WSU at 5 overall. It would have been a travesty to have WSU as a 2 seed because they should have lost games they didn't. Similarly, it would have been absolutely terrible if Louisville had been a one seed just because they should have won five or six games they actually lost. Louisville should not have been a one seed or a four seed.

As I mentioned, no one--to this point--has pointed out a year we made the tournament because of a weak valley. I would hope that you would admit there is a decent chance the '11 team would have made the tournament in a tougher conference. To me, that means there is zero risk for us. There's only a risk the valley is holding us back.

[jdshock]

This is where you and I have had a long running disagreement. I do not agree that playing in the MVC automatically deflates WSU's RPI. Had WSU played the last 4 years in a tougher conference, they would have had more losses to go with the tougher SOS. Those two changes end up cancelling each other out and the net effect is basically zero change.

Selection Sunday RPI's
2015 - 17
2014 - 4
2013 - 37
2012 - 12

Do you think any of the last 4 Shocker teams would have had a higher RPI in a different conference? It seems to me that the RPI has been very fair to the Shox. Those numbers don't seem deflated at all.

You're employing the rarely seen "eye-test of statistics"!

Selection Sunday RPI's
2015 - 17
2014 - 4
2013 - 37
2012 - 12

KenPom end of season rankings
2015 - 10
2014 - 5
2013 - 17
2012 - 13

That's an average deflation of 6.25 spots per year.

Edit: I didn't think about it, but the kenpom numbers probably take into consideration the ncaa tournament. Regardless, my argument still stands: a high rpi doesn't mean we wouldn't have had a higher rpi in a different conference.

[Shocker-maniac]

I'm not in the area, but the ESPN3 feeds I see are usually Bruce and "somebody" for a Wichita market. Do you think our TV revenue would be unchanged in a different market (because of having to split Wichita money)? What's the breakdown now, and what would it be predicted to be in, say, AAC, MWC, etc? Would it cover travel? These are the important questions, I think.
Having said that, my opinions on tourney seeding have been made clear. I don't think we change conferences for "better seeding." And, I believe, like Few at Zaga, Marshall will keep us in the tourney for years. But, it MIGHT help us,come tourney time, to have played a number of teams that present a better challenge; blowing away teams by 20+ routinely may not be advantageous come Sweet 16 time.

Well, I wasn't referencing the Cox/ESPN3, but I was referring to our appearances on ESPN/2/U and CBS Sports Network. From what I understand the conference and WSU get no money for those TV appearances. On the positive side, we do get good exposure nationally, and I do think that from the point of national exposure we have a better deal than the A10.

[OregonShocker]

Well, I wasn't referencing the Cox/ESPN3, but I was referring to our appearances on ESPN/2/U and CBS Sports Network. From what I understand the conference and WSU get no money for those TV appearances. On the positive side, we do get good exposure nationally, and I do think that from the point of national exposure we have a better deal than the A10.

So, I assume we get ALL of Cox money? Would we be better off splitting this with another conference to get a piece of THEIR bigger pie? Which conferences (with the caveat of current status) would offer a better financial opportunity? While it STILL may be beneficial to play a more challenging reg season schedule, it has to offset the extra travel expense.
I was in Hawaii recently and actually thought of this; how much extra does it take to play in their conference and travel there annually? Cause I'm guessing they don't add a lot of TV revenue to the equation.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

You're employing the rarely seen "eye-test of statistics"!

Here's your data, fixed to reflect rankings as of Selection Sunday. KenPom makes that data available via a link near the top of his page.

Selection Sunday RPI's
2015 - 17
2014 - 4
2013 - 37
2012 - 12

KenPom end of season rankings
2015 - 14
2014 - 5
2013 - 35
2012 - 9

That is amazing how similar those 2 data sets are.

[jdshock]

Here's your data, fixed to reflect rankings as of Selection Sunday. KenPom makes that data available via a link near the top of his page.

Selection Sunday RPI's
2015 - 17
2014 - 4
2013 - 37
2012 - 12

KenPom end of season rankings
2015 - 14
2014 - 5
2013 - 35
2012 - 9

That is amazing how similar those 2 data sets are.

As I mentioned, I figured the kenpom ones were skewed because of the ncaa tournament. I hadn't thought it through before posting. I think I was not making a good argument when relying on kenpom to prove any potential deflation. Probably, and I haven't spent long thinking about it, any reason RPI could be deflated would be a reason kenpom could be deflated too, but I don't know.

As far as quoting just the "eye-test" portion of my post. I was just making a light-hearted joke that you said the numbers didn't look deflated despite relying on statistical services more than any other person on this board. I do still believe a high RPI doesn't inherently mean RPI deflation is not happening.

I'm much more interested in a response to the other post.

[SHOCKvalue]

Here's your data, fixed to reflect rankings as of Selection Sunday. KenPom makes that data available via a link near the top of his page.

Selection Sunday RPI's
2015 - 17
2014 - 4
2013 - 37
2012 - 12

KenPom end of season rankings
2015 - 14
2014 - 5
2013 - 35
2012 - 9

That is amazing how similar those 2 data sets are.

And yet, if you're using those as the sole metric for seeding, then the selection committee is hitting about .500, and the misses look like swings with their eyes closed.