2016 Bracketology

[Cdizzle]

Lunardi's S-Curve on Saturday morning was:
#12 Iowa
#13 Kentucky
#14 Duke

All 3 teams lost over the weekend. Iowa's loss was the worst of the 3, so apparently Kentucky emerged as the highest ranked team in this group by simply falling the least. Lunardi didn't think anyone #15 or below deserved a bump all the way to #12, thus Kentucky became the new #12. 30 games into the season, most teams aren't moving around dramatically based on one single additional data point.

Come on Henry. If you've done half as many brackets as you claim, this stuff isn't that hard to figure out. It's not just about your team's single performance. It is about all the other games going on too.

Lunardi was just accounting for Kentucky getting continually screwed by the refs.

[HockeyShock]

We're going to be at peak derp for the next week and a half. Just let it flow through you.

The pundits keep forgetting that the committee has already said they take injuries into account in their analysis, and since five of our seven losses can be directly attributed to the injury of the MVC POY, I think we're in matter what. The only thing up for grabs is seed line.

[jdshock]

We're going to be at peak derp for the next week and a half. Just let it flow through you.

The pundits keep forgetting that the committee has already said they take injuries into account in their analysis, and since five of our seven losses can be directly attributed to the injury of the MVC POY, I think we're in matter what. The only thing up for grabs is seed line.

I agree with you, but I think we should be conservative and acknowledge that the committee will only say three (maybe four) of our losses are attributed to Fred's injury.

We're for sure in, though.

[Stickboy46]

I agree with you, but I think we should be conservative and acknowledge that the committee will only say three (maybe four) of our losses are attributed to Fred's injury.

We're for sure in, though.

The Brackets that are created by people that only look at one data point (Top 50 wins) and ignore the other 50-75% of the resume (Palm, SI) seem to be the ones that don't like WSU. The one's that actually take into account the full resume including the analytical services rate WSU much higher. Thankfully the committee looks at the full resume.

[Heinro]

And still running with only 1 top 100 win, even though Evansville and UNI have worked their way into the top 100

As for Evansville, to say they have "worked their way into the top 100" adds unnecessary credibility to the argument. In reality, Evansville has been safely in the top 100 since the start of Valley play.

[Horn28Clem30]

I say we just win the next 9 games and don't leave anything to chance!

[ShockerEngr]

As for Evansville, to say they have "worked their way into the top 100" adds unnecessary credibility to the argument. In reality, Evansville has been safely in the top 100 since the start of Valley play.

Fair enough - my bias from E-ville always being a drag on RPI is showing.

[im4wsu]

It just bothers me that the Shockers have 23 rank non-con SOS and the best in the only one in the Big12 under 100 is Texas at #66. I have a hard time seeing that these Big12 teams who have poor OOC rankings generate the type of RPI that gets their overall SOS up so high, just by beating each other. If they don't play anybody else,how do we know they're any good?

Rank	Team	SOS	OOC SOS		Rank	Team	SOS	OOC SOS
31	Texas	1	66		7	Wichita St.	115	23
1	Kansas	4	113		90	Northern Iowa	98	31
6	Oklahoma	3	141		338	Bradley	78	39
10	West Virginia	7	149		113	Illinois St.	106	56
35	Texas Tech	5	160		178	Indiana St.	113	106
18	Iowa St.	13	179		238	Missouri St.	107	112
26	Baylor	10	245		276	Drake	155	272
49	Kansas St.	9	253		184	Loyola Chicago	179	297
87	Oklahoma St.	16	301		89	Evansville	214	317
140	TCU	31	331		145	Southern Illinois	257	348
403	Totals	99	1938		1658	Totals	1422	1601

[HockeyShock]

It just bothers me that the Shockers have 23 rank non-con SOS and the best in the only one in the Big12 under 100 is Texas at #66. I have a hard time seeing that these Big12 teams who have poor OOC rankings generate the type of RPI that gets their overall SOS up so high, just by beating each other. If they don't play anybody else,how do we know they're any good?

Rank	Team	SOS	OOC SOS		Rank	Team	SOS	OOC SOS
31	Texas	1	66		7	Wichita St.	115	23
1	Kansas	4	113		90	Northern Iowa	98	31
6	Oklahoma	3	141		338	Bradley	78	39
10	West Virginia	7	149		113	Illinois St.	106	56
35	Texas Tech	5	160		178	Indiana St.	113	106
18	Iowa St.	13	179		238	Missouri St.	107	112
26	Baylor	10	245		276	Drake	155	272
49	Kansas St.	9	253		184	Loyola Chicago	179	297
87	Oklahoma St.	16	301		89	Evansville	214	317
140	TCU	31	331		145	Southern Illinois	257	348
403	Totals	99	1938		1658	Totals	1422	1601

Pfft. They're not. They all lose to Kansas every year, and we beat them handily. We'll do the same to Oklahoma next year.

I have no patience for loudmouth fanbases of teams that won't take a home-and-home with us.

[Dan]

We had a good SOS but we lost a good chunk of those games. We'd be looking at a Top 3 seed had Fred been healthy.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

There was an update to the bracket matrix today. WSU is in 100% of the 102 brackets with an average seed of 8.9.

In the 10 years that the bracket matrix has been tracking this stuff, only 3 teams have ever been in 50% or more of the matrix' brackets and had an average seed under 11.0 yet been snubbed of a bid and been sent to the NIT. The biggest surprise of these 3 was 2015 Colorado St, who was in 92% of brackets with an average seed of 10.1

A neutral loss to UNI, Evansville, or ISU would drop WSU a little, but it is still likely that WSU would be the biggest surprise snub of the last decade should they get sent to the NIT.

[Cdizzle]

Was 2015 Colorado left out because of injured players that didn't return? Seems like they had one of their big guns go down.

[ShockTalk]

It just bothers me that the Shockers have 23 rank non-con SOS and the best in the only one in the Big12 under 100 is Texas at #66. I have a hard time seeing that these Big12 teams who have poor OOC rankings generate the type of RPI that gets their overall SOS up so high, just by beating each other. If they don't play anybody else,how do we know they're any good?

Rank	Team	SOS	OOC SOS		Rank	Team	SOS	OOC SOS
31	Texas	1	66		7	Wichita St.	115	23
1	Kansas	4	113		90	Northern Iowa	98	31
6	Oklahoma	3	141		338	Bradley	78	39
10	West Virginia	7	149		113	Illinois St.	106	56
35	Texas Tech	5	160		178	Indiana St.	113	106
18	Iowa St.	13	179		238	Missouri St.	107	112
26	Baylor	10	245		276	Drake	155	272
49	Kansas St.	9	253		184	Loyola Chicago	179	297
87	Oklahoma St.	16	301		89	Evansville	214	317
140	TCU	31	331		145	Southern Illinois	257	348
403	Totals	99	1938		1658	Totals	1422	1601

Where are you coming up with these OOC SOS numbers? I like to use rpiforecast.com and their numbers are greatly different. They have 6 Big 12 teams between 21 and 93 on OOC SOS.

[WuShock16]

In the 10 years that the bracket matrix has been tracking this stuff, only 3 teams have ever been in 50% or more of the matrix' brackets and had an average seed under 11.0 yet been snubbed of a bid and been sent to the NIT. The biggest surprise of these 3 was 2015 Colorado, who was in 92% of brackets with an average seed of 10.1

Was 2015 Colorado left out because of injured players that didn't return? Seems like they had one of their big guns go down.

That has to be a mistake. Last year's Colorado team was awful (15-17, 7-11 on Selection Sunday) and was relegated to CBI, so they could not have been on any bracket projections. The Colorado team that might have been screwed was the 2011 team, but that team had such a bad non-conf SoS, which is probably what hurt them.

[jdshock]

Where are you coming up with these OOC SOS numbers? I like to use rpiforecast.com and their numbers are greatly different. They have 6 Big 12 teams between 21 and 93 on OOC SOS.

I think he got them from kenpom