2016 Bracketology

[Slalomshocker]

I listened to Palm on 'The Drive' last night, his main point is valid. WSU lacks quality wins. Everyone here can agree to that. However I believe he is basing his opinion 100% off the written statistics. The committee will take into account the 2 close losses in Orlando being w/o Fred. 3 of the 5 chances at quality wins were without Fred. That is where I believe Palm is missing the boat. The losses were by 3 & 4 points to top 50 teams. Pretty sure the results being that close are going to go in our favor. And like has been said before, its time to cash in on the good will this program has built up over the last 5 years. If KU can lose to Okie St (128rpi) by 18....and still be in the running for a 1 seed.... And UNC is in the running for a 1 seed with a loss to the same team that represents our worst loss.... pretty sure WSU is included in the top 68 teams in the country.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I don't like Palm either, but someone pointed out that he's been off ONE seed line for the last 3 years combined on WSU. Had last year and the year before correct and was one line off in 2013.

Palm has been off on WSU by a combined 2 seed lines (not 1) over the past 3 years. Consider the following breakdown.

2013 - Palm had WSU as an 11. WSU received a 9. Palm's negativity was excessive.
2014 - Palm had WSU as a 1 seed. 120 of the 121 brackets on bracketmatrix.com had WSU as a 1 seed. WSU was freakin' undefeated. The only credit Palm gets is not going full Gottlieb that year. That's not saying much.
2015 - Palm correctly placed WSU as a 7. Majority opinion was split between 5s and 6s. I guess you could say Palm did well, but majority opinion was only 1-2 seed lines away from his.

Now in 2016, majority opinion is widespread (currently ranges from 6-12 at the edges), but WSU's current average projection is a 9 seed. 94 of 94 brackets have WSU in. Nobody has WSU worse than a 12. Palm, surprise surprise, is part of the group of 12s. He is on the extreme negative edge. Unlike last year where he was correct, but only 1.5 seed lines from the consensus, this year he is 3 seed lines away. He is a huge outlier.

In his 9 years being tracked on the bracket matrix, Jerry Palm is literally BELOW AVERAGE in a group comprised mostly of amateurs who post to a free blog and get paid nothing to create a bracket during their lunch break!

Joe Lunardi has beaten Palm 5 years in a row! Joe Lunardi! The same Joe Lunardi that is ranked 36th of the 89 guys who have a 3+ year track record on the matrix.

Ignore Jerry Palm.

[Stickboy46]

I listened to Palm on 'The Drive' last night, his main point is valid. WSU lacks quality wins. Everyone here can agree to that. However I believe he is basing his opinion 100% off the written statistics. The committee will take into account the 2 close losses in Orlando being w/o Fred. 3 of the 5 chances at quality wins were without Fred. That is where I believe Palm is missing the boat. The losses were by 3 & 4 points to top 50 teams. Pretty sure the results being that close are going to go in our favor. And like has been said before, its time to cash in on the good will this program has built up over the last 5 years. If KU can lose to Okie St (128rpi) by 18....and still be in the running for a 1 seed.... And UNC is in the running for a 1 seed with a loss to the same team that represents our worst loss.... pretty sure WSU is included in the top 68 teams in the country.

If they do leave WSU out, it will be interesting to hear why they ignored a lot of the analytical rankings that they supposedly use (KenPom, Sagarin, etc etc). Many of those rank WSU very high.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

pretty sure WSU is included in the top 68 teams in the country.

Just a pet peeve of mine. The top 68 don't get in. Roughly the top 45-50 do.

2015 - The last at large was given to #46 on the S-Curve. 47-68 only got in because of their auto-bids.
2014 - #47 was the last at large
2013 - #50 was the last at large

It all depends on how many upsets occur in conference tourneys, and how many conferences have at least 1 at large worthy team at all.

I know you already know this, but like I said, it is a pet peeve of mine when people talk about needing to be top 68 to make the NCAA Tourney. If you aren't top 50, and you don't snag the auto-bid, you pretty much aren't going dancing.

[WSUwatcher]

...What scares me is to HEAR a pundit say it, or even put it out there. If he thinks that way, others likely do also.

The other thing is, once those things are said, they cannot be unsaid and how much influence will it have on those decision makers?

That's easy -- zero. Case closed.

Edit: Also, Jamar's point about needing to be in the top 50 is well taken; I always find the "top 68" talk annoying, too. And WSU is certainly in the top 50 -- well up in the top 50.

[Slalomshocker]

Completely agree and understand Jamar. I thought about it and decided I didnt want to look up how many 1 bid leagues there were, so I went with the big round number. Either way, WSU is in the top 50, belongs in any discussion for top 35 and probably any discussion for top 25 as far as performance. The resume is rusty, the product is fairly polished (unless viewed under zone principles)

[boltforge]

I know you already know this, but like I said, it is a pet peeve of mine when people talk about needing to be top 68 to make the NCAA Tourney. If you aren't top 50, and you don't snag the auto-bid, you pretty much aren't going dancing.

Discussion with a friend this morning. What do you all think about a 96 team tournament in the following way:
1) 32 conferences. Conference winner = auto-bid. Conference tournament winner = auto-bid. If same team, then second auto-bid goes to 2nd place in their conference tournament.
2) 32 at large bids.
3) First weekend is Tues-Thurs-Saturday or Wed-Fri-Sun. With the top 32 teams getting a bye for the Tues or Wed games.

It would make week one crazy. 16 games each day for Tues to Friday.

Bad idea?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I wish they would go back to 64, not expand beyond 68. It is a tournament for a national championship. Everyone who has a shot at winning the whole thing is going to get in with a field of 64. Every single national championship game has been played by 2 teams in the top 32. Allowing the top 40, 45, or even 50 is plenty of buffer to make sure that all the legitimate contenders get invited. The inclusion of 20-25 teams as auto-bids that otherwise "don't deserve to be there" is good because it gives every conference a representative, makes for excitement with fun upsets early, and provides a "near bye" for the top teams while still letting them play in the first round.

It is good as it is. Please, no major changes.

[Bluzrover]

Palm expounds on his reasoning today on cbssports.com. It's like he's been lurking here in SN. I quote below:

"And, that's how things have to be. What else could the committee do? Should they pretend those games didn't happen? Should they assume a team would have won if it played at full strength? It's pretty obvious they can't do that. Why play the game if it's going to be ignored? If that's how it's going to be, Wichita State should have just cancelled its games when Fred Van Vleet was injured since they weren't going to count anyway."

Not saying I agree with his thinking, but the article lays out why he makes the statements he does.

Here's the link to the article for any of you who care to read it: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/25488578/bracketology-teams-wont-get-much-sympathy-for-injuries-suspensions

[SHOCKvalue]

Palm expounds on his reasoning today on cbssports.com. It's like he's been lurking here in SN. I quote below:

"And, that's how things have to be. What else could the committee do? Should they pretend those games didn't happen? Should they assume a team would have won if it played at full strength? It's pretty obvious they can't do that. Why play the game if it's going to be ignored? If that's how it's going to be, Wichita State should have just cancelled its games when Fred Van Vleet was injured since they weren't going to count anyway."

Not saying I agree with his thinking, but the article lays out why he makes the statements he does.

Here's the link to the article for any of you who care to read it: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/25488578/bracketology-teams-wont-get-much-sympathy-for-injuries-suspensions

FYP

[Cdizzle]

It's fun having national media members actively campaigning against your program. Did Marshall poop in the cbssports coffee pot at some point or something? If not, he should probably go ahead and do it now.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Palm's logic sets up a false choice. Either ignore injuries, or ignore the results of games where teams were less than 100%. This is a dumb choice that is not required.

WSU lost to Alabama/USC/Iowa. Those 3 losses should count for something. However, they don't have to count 100%. If the paper resume leads you to say WSU is a 10 seed, and you think a healthy WSU would have won 2 of those 3 and have led to the resume of a 5 seed, why can't a committee member balance it all out and call WSU an 8, or even a 9. I don't care if they go 90% in favor of the actual paper resume, but don't tell me that the accounting for injuries can't factor in as 5, 10, or 20% of the decision. The committee already is fully open about their use of the eye test to compliment paper resumes. How is this any different?

Palm sets up stupid arguments based on false choices. I can't believe he is actually a math geek. Most math folks have a decent ability to use reason and logic.

[Topshock]

I would rather see something like the bottom 8 ranked conferences send their regular season champion to a tournament during conference tournament week, with the champion of that tournament getting an auto bid. That would free up 7 more at large bids.

[Cdizzle]

I would rather see something like the bottom 8 ranked conferences send their regular season champion to a tournament during conference tournament week, with the champion of that tournament getting an auto bid. That would free up 7 more at large bids.

And I'm sure the ACC would love to see the bottom 27 conferences send their regular season champions to a tournament during conference tournament week, with the champion of that tournament getting an auto bid. That would free up 26 more at large bids. Almost enough to get all the P5 teams in.

Slippery slopes are slippery. I think the NCAA is already doing it wrong by forcing AQ's to participate in play-in games. IMO, they earned their spot in the tournament fair and square, the bubble teams left it up to chance.

[The Mad Hatter]

I don't like Palm either, but someone pointed out that he's been off ONE seed line for the last 3 years combined on WSU. Had last year and the year before correct and was one line off in 2013.

Keep in mind that when people talk about the accuracy of bracket predictions, it is usually based on the bracket the pundit releases the morning of selection Sunday, which is often A) at a time when it is pretty obvious who is getting in and B) much different than previous predictions made by that same person. Even if we view Palm's final predictions as relatively accurate concerning WSU's seeding, that doesn't mean that what he was saying with several weeks left in the season was remotely accurate (past years have told me that he has been wildly inaccurate in these early predictions). Since we are talking about the accuracy of claims Palm is making right now, his selection Sunday track record is not particularly relevant.