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

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

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.

I disagree with your premise that the '10-'11 team was judged on a 2 game sample size. Outside of those 2 non-conf losses to UConn and San Diego St, they lost to VCU in the bracket buster and also lost 5 games to teams that didn't receive atlarge bids. Their 24-8 record on selection sunday was aided by 18 wins over teams outside the top 150! Forget small sample sizes. WSU was 6-8 vs the top 150 and only 6-6 vs 51-150. That is not very good. Had that team played in a tougher conference while they were struggling, they would have lost a whole bunch more games and still probably been on the wrong side of the bubble. It is undeniable that they came together during the NIT, but it is unfair to use the post season success to deny how mediocre they were in the 32 games before the NIT. The MVC didn't cost them a bid. Their mediocre play did.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

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.

I am not arguing that those should be the sole metrics for seeding. I'm saying that a tougher conference schedule wouldn't automatically mean stronger computer numbers.

Those are 2 very different topics.

[jdshock]

I disagree with your premise that the '10-'11 team was judged on a 2 game sample size. Outside of those 2 non-conf losses to UConn and San Diego St, they lost to VCU in the bracket buster and also lost 5 games to teams that didn't receive atlarge bids. Their 24-8 record on selection sunday was aided by 18 wins over teams outside the top 150! Forget small sample sizes. WSU was 6-8 vs the top 150 and only 6-6 vs 51-150. That is not very good. Had that team played in a tougher conference while they were struggling, they would have lost a whole bunch more games and still probably been on the wrong side of the bubble. It is undeniable that they came together during the NIT, but it is unfair to use the post season success to deny how mediocre they were in the 32 games before the NIT. The MVC didn't cost them a bid. Their mediocre play did.

I was just using your argument that they lost games to "the only 2 decent opponents" in the non-conference.

You are still ignoring the fact that it's only a risk we make the tournament that year, though. We missed the NCAA tournament. If we had been in a better conference, there's no possibility that we would have double-missed it or something. It's binary: you either make it or you don't. If you can't point to a time that we made the tournament because of our weak conference, it's only a risk that we make it more times in the last fifteen years if we'd been in a tougher conference.

[Shocker-maniac]

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.

Concerning the Cox package, I do not know. My speculation is that WSU retains the revenues. I would also guess that comparatively speaking that it is not a significant amount of money. Again conjecture on my part though. I agree WSU would need to find additional revenue stream to cover additional travel expenses of a new conference.

[Ashockalypse]

I disagree with your premise that the '10-'11 team was judged on a 2 game sample size. Outside of those 2 non-conf losses to UConn and San Diego St, they lost to VCU in the bracket buster and also lost 5 games to teams that didn't receive atlarge bids. Their 24-8 record on selection sunday was aided by 18 wins over teams outside the top 150! Forget small sample sizes. WSU was 6-8 vs the top 150 and only 6-6 vs 51-150. That is not very good. Had that team played in a tougher conference while they were struggling, they would have lost a whole bunch more games and still probably been on the wrong side of the bubble. It is undeniable that they came together during the NIT, but it is unfair to use the post season success to deny how mediocre they were in the 32 games before the NIT. The MVC didn't cost them a bid. Their mediocre play did.

Hey, you're flying around our noses again, could you slip back to phognet? I would hate for people to judge you a moron based on the small sample size (all of your posts).

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

If you can't point to a time that we made the tournament because of our weak conference, it's only a risk that we make it more times in the last fifteen years if we'd been in a tougher conference.

We are talking about basically 2 WSU teams that were truly on the bubble and failed to get in. If we expand our sample to all MVC teams, and not just WSU, 2011 Indiana St, 2009 UNI, and 2002 Creighton probably don't get in without a mediocre field to beat in the conference tourney. Throw those teams into a better conference, they probably don't win the auto-bid, and they are likely in the NIT instead.

Point being, it goes both ways.

[ShockerEngr]

Concerning the Cox package, I do not know. My speculation is that WSU retains the revenues. I would also guess that comparatively speaking that it is not a significant amount of money. Again conjecture on my part though. I agree WSU would need to find additional revenue stream to cover additional travel expenses of a new conference.

My understanding with the COX deal with WSU isn't so much the amount of money they were willing to pay as it was the amount of production they were willing to do as well as the number of games. The Cox deal covers a lot of sportsing outside of men's basketball

[jdshock]

We are talking about basically 2 WSU teams that were truly on the bubble and failed to get in. If we expand our sample to all MVC teams, and not just WSU, 2011 Indiana St, 2009 UNI, and 2002 Creighton probably don't get in without a mediocre field to beat in the conference tourney. Throw those teams into a better conference, they probably don't win the auto-bid, and they are likely in the NIT instead.

Point being, it goes both ways.

I appreciate your response, honestly. I think conference tournaments are a whole different ball game, though. I am hopeful that WSU doesn't have to rely on the auto-bid for its tournament appearance for many, many years. Certainly a weak field helps a team get the autobid. The poster, proshox, who I originally quoted and argued with, acted like we have our ticket punched because we are going to run roughshod through the Valley every year. That is where I disagree. I think we are less likely to make the NCAA tournament as an at large in the Valley than we are to make the tournament as an at large from a different conference.

I'm not even convinced you and I disagree at the core. @proshox: says the valley helps us. I say the valley has a risk of harming us and definitely doesn't help us. You say the valley doesn't harm us. That isn't really an endorsement that it is good to be in the valley.

Do you believe we are in a better position being in the Valley than we would be if we were in a tougher conference?

[proshox]

I appreciate your response, honestly. I think conference tournaments are a whole different ball game, though. I am hopeful that WSU doesn't have to rely on the auto-bid for its tournament appearance for many, many years. Certainly a weak field helps a team get the autobid. The poster, proshox, who I originally quoted and argued with, acted like we have our ticket punched because we are going to run roughshod through the Valley every year. That is where I disagree. I think we are less likely to make the NCAA tournament as an at large in the Valley than we are to make the tournament as an at large from a different conference.

I'm not even convinced you and I disagree at the core. @proshox: says the valley helps us. I say the valley has a risk of harming us and definitely doesn't help us. You say the valley doesn't harm us. That isn't really an endorsement that it is good to be in the valley.

Do you believe we are in a better position being in the Valley than we would be if we were in a tougher conference?

First, I am all for playing more competitive games and wouldn’t be sad about moving to a “better conference.” In fact, the best part of going to a shocker game during my time in school was that the outcome wasn't predetermined.

With all that said, I do not understand how being in a better conference would help the shockers. The most important aspect of recruiting is name recognition. There is one thing in college basketball that generates name recognition above all other events – it is called the NCAA tournament. LS, MM, & CF are all guys that don’t end up at WSU if had not been for consistent appearances in the tournament. WSU hasn’t missed the tournament since the MVC has gone down the tubes. I believe there is a correlation with causation there. I believe going to the tournament year after year will help continue the upward trend in recruiting to a point where the relative ability of the conference doesn’t matter (JH4P has supplied lots of data to substantiate this idea).

When I look at this year – I never felt like we were going to struggle in the Valley despite some of the play in the non-conference schedule. Going 8-0 in this weak conference got us back in the top 25 and well positioned for a single digit seed. Now let’s assume we were in the Big East or in a conference with some top 50 teams – would it be blasphemy to assume we would have lost a game or two out of our first eight? If we dropped two road games against good basketball teams would be on bubble or firmly out of consideration? I know we can find a number of teams in those conferences that looked strong going into conference which are now free falling due to losing some tougher games.

My bottom line – sure the MVC might hurt us in seeding, but it is going to help us stay in the tournament on a yearly basis which is much more important for the long run.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

WSU hasn’t missed the tournament since the MVC has gone down the tubes. I believe there is a correlation with causation there.

...

My bottom line – sure the MVC might hurt us in seeding, but it is going to help us stay in the tournament on a yearly basis which is much more important for the long run.

On this, I completely disagree. No way is there any causation there. WSU would have been an NCAA tourney team in any conference, ACC through SWAC, each of the last 4 years. Not because of the intricacies of SOS, or winning %, or conference rank, but because of one simple thing that overrules all of those... being a good team. The downfall of the MVC is nearly meaningless in comparison to the rise of Shocker talent. I love discussing what might seem like minor details, but let's not lose perspective. 99% of WSU's seeding is in WSU's hands, not their opponents.

[proshox]

On this, I completely disagree. No way is there any causation there. WSU would have been an NCAA tourney team in any conference, ACC through SWAC, each of the last 4 years. Not because of the intricacies of SOS, or winning %, or conference rank, but because of one simple thing that overrules all of those... being a good team. The downfall of the MVC is nearly meaningless in comparison to the rise of Shocker talent. I love discussing what might seem like minor details, but let's not lose perspective. 99% of WSU's seeding is in WSU's hands, not their opponents.

I agree about the prior four years. I think this year, playing in a very weak conference will help prevent us from stubbing our collective toes (Which is the golden ticket). When you are good enough to go to the tournament - most of the time it doesn't matter what conference you are in. When you have an occasional down year (injuries, etc.) - having some extra margin doesn't hurt. I don't see how a tougher non-power conference provides a better opportunity to make the tournament or get a better seed. I happen to think there is a slim benefit to playing in a weaker conference vs. playing in tier two conference.

[Kung Wu]

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.

I don't remember making that exact argument, but I cant remember my middle name -- oh wait it's Fu.

Anyway that argument, is correct, and when you finally realize you're wrong and fess up, you'll be one step closer to earning that coveted "WuShock Athletic Director" title under your username.

In the mean time you'll just have to understand that there is a calculable bias (not sure what the exact bias is anymore, it's been years since I calculated it) for P5 programs which means non-P5 programs will see a slight RPI and therefore seed deflation while other programs we see a slight gain.

It will be slight, but it will be there. And slight can be the difference between being a protected seed and not being a protected seed. It can be the difference between being in the tourney and out if you are a bubble team. There will always be some slight bias for the better conference team, as well as other uncalculable hurdles that the non P5 team faces such as having to win more away games.

[Kung Wu]

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.

Hmm I wonder what the average "error" calculation is for that dataset. Super easy to calculate but I am on my phone.

Can you easily produce that same dataset for all MVC teams going back to 2008 (arbitrary)?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Hmm I wonder what the average "error" calculation is for that dataset. Super easy to calculate but I am on my phone.

Can you easily produce that same dataset for all MVC teams going back to 2008 (arbitrary)?

To be honest, @jdshock: brought it up. I was just fixing his data for him based on his comment about needing to exclude tournament games. I'm not sure what the goal of that comparison is, relative to this thread's discussions so far.

It might be interesting to look at for its own sake. I'll see if I have time later to pull it together.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

It will be slight, but it will be there.

I have no problem with that statement regarding RPI bias toward BCS conferences. If you think WSU would earn an RPI of 24 in the MVC and an RPI of 22 in a BCS conference, same year, just due to different SOS, I can go along with that. Unfortunately, I regularly see people claiming much more than a "slight" bias. It's the claims that the bias is so great that a BCS team at #40 is not as good as an MVC team at #90 that I find wildly off base.