2016 Bracketology

[WuShock16]

I'm not sure Bruce Rasmussen is on our side.

Meh. It seems like there is at least a good working relationship that exists with him. The fanbases hate each other, but it seems like the administration has worked well together.

But as you probably can guess, he wasn't the guy to whom I was referring.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

This is going per Lunardi... which we have established he is smarter than Palm but still not that great. Here are his 6 seeds ahead of WSU and their remaining schedules. Not including conference tournaments. The only one I see not taking multiple losses is Utah.

Texas: @ KSU, OU, KU, @Ok St
Notre Dame: @Wake, @FSU, Miami, NC State
Baylor: KU, @TCU, @OU, WVU (will likely lose 2 if not 3)
Utah: Az St, Arizona, Colorado (oddly all at home)

7s
Providence: @ Seton Hall, DePaul, Creighton, @ St Johns
S. Carolina: Tenn, @Miss St, UGA, @ Arkansas (if they get credit for the wins.... this remaining schedule is weak)
California: UCLA, USC, @Arizona, @ Az St

Texas, Baylor, and Notre Dame will all be hard to catch. Finish 2-2 and they are pretty much guaranteed the Shox won't catch them. Too big of a current gap. Finishing 1-3 and an early conf tourney exit while WSU wins out is about the only way the Shox will pass any of them.

Utah has 3 games at home, 2 of which they will be significant favorites. They would need to lose twice for the Shox to have a chance, and at that point, WSU's best win starts looking less impressive, which simultaneously hurts WSU.

Basically, I'll happily root against the 6 seeds (Utah not quite as much), but I'm not holding my breath. Lunardi's current 7 seeds are where I really start to get my rooting interests fired up.

[DwShock]

Meh. It seems like there is at least a good working relationship that exists with him. The fanbases hate each other, but it seems like the administration has worked well together.

But as you probably can guess, he wasn't the guy to whom I was referring.

I know that. I was just trying to be a little comical.

[ShockdaWorld]

Omaha...all I needed to know. (No, that is not intended as a blanket statement for all from Omaha, although I know it sounds that way.)

[ShockerFever]

My real name is Ron Baker. (Just kidding)

Why are you using the word "are"?

I hope and pray you people are right and I'm wrong. I just know how little respect mid-majors get from the committee unless they have NO excuses to leave you out. Unfortunately I'm afraid the Shockers gave them one. 1-5 against top 50 teams is all some of those idiots need. I just worry they are just looking for the slightest reason to put another crappy P5 team in ahead of WSU. All some of thes guys ask over and over is " Who have they beaten? Who have they beaten?" Not "Who have they not lost to?" Unfortunately, those arguing on the Shockers behalf (and there will be some) are not going to have an answer that will satisfy them. It's going to be "Utah" and crickets after that.

WSU isn't a Middle Tennessee State or Stephen F. Austin. They aren't just some random non-P5.

You are also forgetting what the committee specifically said about FVV in Orlando. If FVV is in the lineup, USC and Alabama are wins. Hell, they were winnable even without him. If WSU gets those two wins, how does your outlook change?

You're on the other side of the extreme. You're trying too hard to find a way for WSU not to make it. You're simply looking at one statistic under no other circumstances. There's a multitude of stats and numbers that point the other way which you are blatantly ignoring.

I realize Omaha has been pretty gray for a few years and is probably clouding your judgment on the issue.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Have ANY of these bracket experts EVER picked a perfect bracket, or even routinely 90%? I'd love evidence...

There are a lot of ways to define 90% accuracy. Selecting the correct 68 team field? Selecting exact seed lines?

For reference, here is a chart I put together back when I was more active with bracketology and had a blog. I might note that, as compared to the entirety of the last decade, 2012 was actually one of Jerry Palm's better years! Ha.



Of course, final projections always tend to group together much more so than projections a month ahead of time. By selection sunday, there is general consensus around most teams +/- 1 or 2 spots. As of today, Feb 22nd, you tend to find a little more disagreement. The hard part of quantifying accuracy with games yet to be played is that sometimes, a team gets hot or cold down the stretch. If the Shox lose 2 more games and miss the tourney, Jerry Palm will appear to have been smart with his February projections. In reality, he will still have been wrong, but the Shockers will have helped him out by "coming to him", so to speak.

[KC Shox]

According to ESPN's BPI, we are an at-large as a 5 seed. WOW!

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/type/tournament

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

We're on Palm's bracket too. How many of those 100 brackets are we on only as a presumed automatic bid like his? I'm curious. Does anyone have SMU's resume from the year they were left out even though they were ranked in the Top 25?

EDIT. I found some info on SMU from 2014 who were left out. Ended the season ranked 25. Only 4 wins over top 100. Non-conference SOS - 303! (that's what killed them). Lost last 3 games including first round of American Conference tourney. 23-9 record.

29 brackets have been updated this morning, including both Palm and Lunardi. WSU is in all 29 brackets.

WSU
7 Seed - 3 (including Lunardi)
9 Seed - 10
10 Seed - 7
11 Seed - 7 (including Palm)
12 Seed - 2

Also...
2014 SMU - KenPom 32, RPI 55
2016 WSU - KenPom 10, RPI 32/38 (RPI projection is if they win out until the MVC semis or finals)

[Cdizzle]

29 brackets have been updated this morning, including both Palm and Lunardi. WSU is in all 29 brackets.

WSU
7 Seed - 3 (including Lunardi)
9 Seed - 10
10 Seed - 7
11 Seed - 7 (including Palm)
12 Seed - 2

Also...
2014 SMU - KenPom 32, RPI 55
2016 WSU - KenPom 10, RPI 32/38 (RPI projection is if they win out until the MVC semis or finals)

Don't most bracket-builders assume that the conference champ or current 1st place team will take the auto-bid for that conference? While I can understand seeding helping to determine where a given bracketologist thinks a team is, how do we know how many would have a team in based on an at-large?

[Zubcut]

Don't most bracket-builders assume that the conference champ or current 1st place team will take the auto-bid for that conference? While I can understand seeding helping to determine where a given bracketologist thinks a team is, how do we know how many would have a team in based on an at-large?

I'm thinking some have WSU in their brackets only as an automatic qualifier not as an at-large.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

@Cdizzle, in many cases, we don't know. However, we can make assumptions. If WSU is a 10 seed on a bracket today, it would be silly to think a 3-1 or 4-1 finish drops them all the way out considering the cut line will likely be in the middle of the 12s. I bet 90% of the bracket makers with WSU as a 10 today think 3-1 or 4-1 gets WSU an atlarge. The 11 seeds are probably the ones with WSU truly on the bubble in that scenario.

[Slalomshocker]

Jamar-

Is Texas really capable of holding the 6 line ahead of WSU if they go 2-2, losing the OU/KU games? The caveat is WSU winning out I guess. If WSU loses the 6 seed is not happening, and likely neither is the 7. I just see Texas and Baylor as the two 6 seeds most likely to lose, and there for be passable for WSU. Not to say someone below WSU doesn't jump ahead and keep WSU pretty much stagnant. I don't see Texas or Baylor going more than 2-2 to finish and I dont think either make the B12 Finals. At some point the total # of losses has to count right?

[Zubcut]

WSU isn't a Middle Tennessee State or Stephen F. Austin. They aren't just some random non-P5.

You are also forgetting what the committee specifically said about FVV in Orlando. If FVV is in the lineup, USC and Alabama are wins. Hell, they were winnable even without him. If WSU gets those two wins, how does your outlook change?

You're on the other side of the extreme. You're trying too hard to find a way for WSU not to make it. You're simply looking at one statistic under no other circumstances. There's a multitude of stats and numbers that point the other way which you are blatantly ignoring.

I realize Omaha has been pretty gray for a few years and is probably clouding your judgment on the issue.

I realize by what I'm writing around here it looks like I'm just looking for ways for the Shocks to not make the tournament. Actually I'm looking at both. Ways the Shockers CAN make it and ways they could be snubbed. It seems people around here only consider one possibility. Other than non-conference strength of schedule, 2014 SMU's resume was comparable to 2016 WSU's Some ways better (4 top 25 wins, better conference). Some ways worse (lower RPI, lost last 3, bad SOS). I just don't consider it out of the realm of possibility that the Shocks could get screwed. You dismiss the possibility entirely. I've seen it happen to mid majors over and over.
I think if WSU could crack the AP Top 25 again it would be huge. Having the Shockers name out there and in highlights on ESPN I think has a psychological effect on some of those committee members. (If you're in the top 25 ESPN almost always shows your game highlights) If they are out of the rankings I'm afraid most of them don't give WSU a second thought.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

@Slalomshocker, if Texas beats KSU and OSU, loses to KU and OU, and then loses to the Big 12's 3 seed in the quarterfinals, their RPI will still be about 30 on selection sunday. They will still have a strong resume. Could WSU catch them on the S-Curve? Maybe, but doubtful.

Anything better than a 2-3 finish and Texas is ahead of WSU on selection sunday. 1-4 or 2-4 and WSU probably passes them.

Texas losing at K-State tonight would be a big help.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

2014 SMU's resume was comparable to 2016 WSU's Some ways better (4 top 25 wins, better conference).

Better conference is not in and of itself meaningful.

SMU finished 12-7 in the 7th ranked conference.
WSU going 17-3 or 18-3 in the 13th ranked conference is at worst a wash.