2016 Bracketology

[RoyalShock]

The Bracket Matrix has us up to a 9-seed.

[ShockdaWorld]

The Bracket Matrix has us up to a 9-seed.

It also has Utah as a 7. Go figure.

[Stickboy46]

The Bracket Matrix has us up to a 9-seed.

Only 2 brackets have us not making it.

[shockmonster]

Time for the annual "how the selection committee uses the RPI" tutorial.

WSU's RPI doesn't matter to the committee, except when discussing whether we are a good win/bad loss for another team. Could the committee look at our RPI without those games, when discussion those other teams? Sure, but I doubt they would go to the trouble unless it becomes a deciding factor.

Also, in regard to the committee discarding the games without Fred, my understanding (based on interviews with committee members and media who have been part of the mock selection process) is that only comes into play during discussion of seeding, NOT whether we are worthy of a bid. Bid-worthiness is based on the total resume, injuries or not. So, the Shocks needs to make sure they are not on the bubble.

I don't think that was what Andy Katz reported earlier. My memory was that injuries do figure into a teams resume and that Fred's injury would be considered. He didn't make a distinction regarding a bubble team vs a non bubble team.

[ShockdaWorld]

I don't think that was what Andy Katz reported earlier. My memory was that injuries do figure into a teams resume and that Fred's injury would be considered. He didn't make a distinction regarding a bubble team vs a non bubble team.

I agree with your interpretation of what Katz said.

[RoyalShock]

I don't think that was what Andy Katz reported earlier. My memory was that injuries do figure into a teams resume and that Fred's injury would be considered. He didn't make a distinction regarding a bubble team vs a non bubble team.

In the interview I remember watching (either last year or the year before), the committee member said it wouldn't be equitable to factor injuries into a team's bid-worthiness. For the sake of argument, consider WSU having a better resume, but getting left out because Creighton lost some games due to an injury to a key player. We would NOT be happy. Injuries happen and if WSU had the better season, they are more deserving of a bid.

Once the field is chosen, they would then consider injuries to determine the seeds.

[ShockdaWorld]

In the interview I remember watching (either last year or the year before), the committee member said it wouldn't be equitable to factor injuries into a team's bid-worthiness. For the sake of argument, consider WSU having a better resume, but getting left out because Creighton lost some games due to an injury to a key player. We would NOT be happy. Injuries happen and if WSU had the better season, they are more deserving of a bid.

Once the field is chosen, they would then consider injuries to determine the seeds.

Really, the way the committee changes their minds and moves teams up and down on a whim, I don't think anybody outside of the decision will really ever know what they do or don't consider. The only thing we know for sure is that the P5 will be well (probably overly) represented.

[ShockerFever]

This is why I never make predictions on my Shockers. Anyone with brains acknowledges that ODDS are against the Shocks going the rest of the way without some losses (2-3 are about right). Why would I want even a small part of me ok with a loss. But I'm more than a casual fan. Since I was a kid, I've always wanted them to win in the worst way. Not everyone is a fan in that way. But the other way is always predicting a win which defies logic. Therefore, I don't predict. Willie sounds more like a casual fan. Welcome aboard.

Exactly. You aren't going out on a huge limb predicting 3 more losses for WSU. It's basic mathematics.

I also agree with your casual fan assessment. I think that's pretty obvious to most people here.

[shockmonster]

In the interview I remember watching (either last year or the year before), the committee member said it wouldn't be equitable to factor injuries into a team's bid-worthiness. For the sake of argument, consider WSU having a better resume, but getting left out because Creighton lost some games due to an injury to a key player. We would NOT be happy. Injuries happen and if WSU had the better season, they are more deserving of a bid.

Once the field is chosen, they would then consider injuries to determine the seeds.

That may have been reported two years ago to defend who was and was not chosen, but that is not what Andy Katz reported by talking to the committee chair.

[ShockerFever]

Short answer... Jerry Palm is terrible at bracketology. I usually just ignore him.

Regarding South Carolina, I'll just say that if you take away your BCS hatred for a second and imagine WSU with that resume, I can guarantee you would be arguing they should be a single digit seed. I agree that they have a poor sample with so few really quality opponents. Thankfully that will change over the next 2 months. Still, at this point, I can't criticize anyone putting South Carolina somewhere between 5 and 10. I think Palm is a little high, but there is something to be said for going out each night and winning. No elite wins, but a handful of top 100 wins need to be worth something. The one big loss to Alabama is the reason I would say Palm is a bit high, but not unreasonably so.

Regarding WSU, you and I, as die hard fans, are both convinced that this is a top 20 Shocker team that just needs a chance to prove it now that they are healthy. However, if you look at the resume, there isn't a whole lot there. Orlando can be mostly written off, but Tulsa hurts a little (should have won that even without Fred at 100%) and Seton Hall was a huge missed opportunity to prove that November was a fluke. The wins, at home, over UNLV and Utah no longer look any better than the wins Alabama has. I disagree that WSU should be a 12 seed right now, but I don't think it is outside the realm of reasonable thought. Probably right at the edge of reasonable vs crazy. Now if WSU keeps winning and Palm doesn't start moving WSU up significantly, then I'll agree that Palm is back to being crazy like he often is.

As was mentioned, you're being too harsh on Utah.

As for the "BCS hatred" thing, I can flip the cards around and say would WSU gain the same benefits if they had SC's resume? I doubt it.

They're being ranked because of their record. And yes I agree that winning should hold merit. But they've played no one. They didn't challenge themselves at all and the one team with a pulse they played, they lost.

You are right that we'll get to know how good this team is when they actually go on the road and play some decent teams, although the SEC as a whole is looking to be a less than impressive conference.

[RoyalShock]

Here's a Q&A with Ron Wellman from 2014. I've quoted the two answers relevant to injuries.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2014-02-12/ron-wellman-answers-questions-about-seeding-game-sites-and

Q. Colorado appears to present the classic injury situation. They lost their best player Spencer Dinwiddie about a month ago. Historically the committee looks at what it has going forward from the point of that injury on. Specifically I'm wondering whether the committee has any way of actually assigning an RPI to that team post injury; in other words, how it would stack up in the RPI without that player?

RON WELLMAN: No, we have not factored that in in terms of the RPI. It is a factor that is considered when we receive the monitors' reports about the individual conferences. In fact, we just did a conference where we went into some depth about the injuries of those teams within that conference. So it is certainly considered to varying degrees by the individual members of the committee.

Q. The reference to Colorado a bit ago, I understand it's a subjective deal with the voters on the committee, but do committee members typically consider a team after a catastrophic injury, do they consider it a whole new team and discount or wipe away everything that happened before the injury or do they consider Colorado's win over Kansas maybe to a lesser degree? How does that work?

RON WELLMAN: I would say the injuries generally affect the seeding more than the selection process. We have to be very careful about the amount of emphasis that we put upon an injury. We don't know, for instance, the opponent of that player who is playing for Team A and might be injured. Well, what is the opponent's situation and what factors are impacting their level of play at that particular time. We just have to be very careful about what the injury impact is on any particular team.
But, like I said, I think my experience in the first four years on the committee is that the injuries affect the seeding rather than the selection to a greater degree.

[ShockdaWorld]

Those posts make sense, but they are in regards to a team that is going into the tournament with an injury (CU) rather than a team that was injured and became healthy. I think it could be a bit of a different scenario, although it may be a similar answer.

[WSUwatcher]

Royal, the second answer you quoted from Ron Wellman, including the parts you went to the trouble to put in boldface, does NOT say injuries aren't considered in the selection decision. It just says they're considered more in seeding than selection.

I think WSU will win often enough from here on out, possibly including in St. Louis, to remove any doubt. But what you quoted is consistent with what I've been expecting all along after the Andy Katz comments, which is that the three losses in Orlando aren't going to keep WSU out unless they would have been out anyway based on whatever happens after FVV's return.

[RoyalShock]

Royal, the second answer you quoted from Ron Wellman, including the parts you went to the trouble to put in boldface, does NOT say injuries aren't considered in the selection decision. It just says they're considered more in seeding than selection.

I think WSU will win often enough from here on out, possibly including in St. Louis, to remove any doubt. But what you quoted is consistent with what I've been expecting all along after the Andy Katz comments, which is that the three losses in Orlando aren't going to keep WSU out unless they would have been out anyway based on whatever happens after FVV's return.

That's true, but if you take the comments in their entirety (considered in varying degrees, and being very careful of the influence/impact), I think it's clear the impact on the selection process is minimal, and much less than some in this thread have insinuated.

[SB Shock]

I think anybody hanging their hats on that WSU going to get a break from the NCAA will be sadly disappointed. There are a lot of teams that have injuries. The NCAA uses these things when it convenient for them to rationalize their decisions. WSU just needs to take care of business and not expect any charity.

“Injuries are talked about extensively and they’re talked about throughout the year whenever we get together,” Rasmussen,said. “Injuries aren’t something that are discussed during selection week in March.

The committee can’t ignore the damage to this point, most notably opportunities missed for a important wins.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/sports/college...#storylink=cpy