If WSU Shoots 40%+ From 3PT The Remainder of the Season, the Team Will...

[pie n eye]

It's NOT the supporting casts that worry me it's the big men combined with pretty good
supporting casts that prevent us from sagging on a single big guy. Almost all top fifteen
teams have bigger, longer, more talented front lines than ours. It's our back court, our
team defense, and our depth that compensates for our lack of size and skill on the front
line. I, for one, have been underwhelmed by our front line players. We have an advantage
over nearly EVERY team with our back court and a disadvantage with every top ten team across
the front line and that includes KU and OU. Don't have to name one - I think it's ALL of them.

The thing that worries me is a team getting hot from three a la Notre Dame last year or Iowa this year (although I hesitate to put much stock in that game considering we were withouth FVV, Shamet, Grady, Shaq, and Frankamp).

Also, how did that disadvantage against KU workout last year? Vs. Tennesse the year they had the giants down low? Vs. Pitt? Vs. Ohio State? Vs. Kentucky...

Since Marshall has been here we rarely get blown out. If we do it's because a team shoots a high % from three (@CU 2013, Notre Dame NCAA, @UNI 2014, Iowa 2015). Otherwise we usually a chance to win every game we play against all different kind of competition. Might not always get the W but, hey, you can't win them all.

[Shocker1976]

To name a few...
Iowa
Purdue
North Carolina
Xavier
Maryland
Villanova

WSU could beat any of those teams on a given night. Fred and Ron are that good. However, all 6 would worry me with the combo of post presence and strong guards.

I'm not saying those teams are out of WSU's league whatsoever. I'm just promoting the idea that WSU has done well against bigs who don't have a great supporting cast. I think the bigs on those 6 teams would be much harder for WSU to handle because the rest of the team is so dangerous.

IMO a very weak argument when one uses the qualifier "on a given night"; the counter argument is obvious "on a given night" the Shockers could beat every other college team (including that 91 UNLV squad, possibly).

I have been fortunate this season to have watched the teams you listed and agree that on a given night they might be able to beat the Shockers. But I am also persuaded that none of those teams present insurmountable hurdles for the Shockers to clear in the coming NCAA tourney. As the season plays out and the Freshmen and Sophomores mature, Landry returns and the Shockers become a more complete offensive team; I am confident none of those teams you listed will want to play the Shockers in the early rounds of the tournament.

[pie n eye]

Very true. Of course in that context your comment is true. But you quoted me talking about a different context. Why quote me at all? Quoting with a brief, unrelated response only creates confusion.

I'm curious, do you disagree with anything I said in the original post?

Not necessarily. I just don't wring my hands over what seed we get in the tournament. The ultimate goal of playing in the NCAA tournament is to win it. In order to do that we're going to have to play several really good teams. Maybe we play a one or a two seed in the second round. Maybe we play them in the Final Final Four/championship game. Or maybe we don't. Maybe the bracket we end up in has a #2 seed that is overrated but a #9 seed that's capable of going to the championship game. Who knows? That's why I tend to not look at things in terms of teams not seeds. Sure you can give me all the historical data in the world that says better seed = better chance to advance. But each tournament, each game is a new data point that will not necessarily follow historical trends. In the end it's a win or go home scenario not a best of series. Once the ball is tipped I don't think seeding or rank will help one team score more than the other. Granted, I speak only from the perspective of a WSU fan. So, in my mind we're almost always under seeded, under rated, or under ranked. If they can't accurately judge our team then how much can I really trust their assessment of other teams? -\_(:))_/-

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Also, how did that disadvantage against KU workout last year? Vs. Tennesse the year they had the giants down low? Vs. Pitt? Vs. Ohio State? Vs. Kentucky...

I would argue that WSU had better bigs those years than they do this year.

Since Marshall has been here we rarely get blown out. If we do it's because a team shoots a high % from three (@CU 2013, Notre Dame NCAA, @UNI 2014, Iowa 2015). Otherwise we usually a chance to win every game we play against all different kind of competition. Might not always get the W but, hey, you can't win them all.

I don't think anyone here is predicting that WSU will get blown out by anyone. I'm just seeing a real good chance that WSU is headed home in late March after a solid effort, but coming up just a little short against a big man with quality guards feeding him.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

IMO a very weak argument when one uses the qualifier "on a given night"; the counter argument is obvious "on a given night" the Shockers could beat every other college team (including that 91 UNLV squad, possibly).

I have been fortunate this season to have watched the teams you listed and agree that on a given night they might be able to beat the Shockers. But I am also persuaded that none of those teams present insurmountable hurdles for the Shockers to clear in the coming NCAA tourney. As the season plays out and the Freshmen and Sophomores mature, Landry returns and the Shockers become a more complete offensive team; I am confident none of those teams you listed will want to play the Shockers in the early rounds of the tournament.

Fair enough. If you don't like that phrase, I will be more specific.

I think the 6 teams I listed would win 7/10 against WSU on a neutral court this year. 2 years ago, I would have said WSU was a 50/50 or better against any team in the country. Last year, only a couple teams would I have given a slight edge to. This year's squad could win the national championship without anything near a powerball type of surprise. I just don't have the confidence that WSU is in the upper tier (top 5, or top 10) teams, and I think post presence is the big reason why.

[ShockerFever]

I think the teams the all-knowing Jamar listed are more than likely scared of playing WSU and their touted guards.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Not necessarily. I just don't wring my hands over what seed we get in the tournament. The ultimate goal of playing in the NCAA tournament is to win it. In order to do that we're going to have to play several really good teams. Maybe we play a one or a two seed in the second round. Maybe we play them in the Final Final Four/championship game. Or maybe we don't. Maybe the bracket we end up in has a #2 seed that is overrated but a #9 seed that's capable of going to the championship game. Who knows? That's why I tend to not look at things in terms of teams not seeds. Sure you can give me all the historical data in the world that says better seed = better chance to advance. But each tournament, each game is a new data point that will not necessarily follow historical trends. In the end it's a win or go home scenario not a best of series. Once the ball is tipped I don't think seeding or rank will help one team score more than the other. Granted, I speak only from the perspective of a WSU fan. So, in my mind we're almost always under seeded, under rated, or under ranked. If they can't accurately judge our team then how much can I really trust their assessment of other teams? -\_(:))_/-

Your choice not to spend much time or effort worrying about seeding is perfectly understandable. As a fan, this is supposed to be fun, so focus on whatever you enjoy the most. You and I enjoy different aspects of the game differently. That is to be expected. Focus on whatever you enjoy the most.

If your argument is "I prefer to mostly ignore the odds and just root for my team to win", I see no problem.
If your argument is "unlikely events happen sometimes, therefore the odds are meaningless", I think you are dead wrong.

I'm hearing mostly the former, but just enough of the latter mixed in to say that we will just have to agree to disagree.

[pie n eye]

Your choice not to spend much time or effort worrying about seeding is perfectly understandable. As a fan, this is supposed to be fun, so focus on whatever you enjoy the most. You and I enjoy different aspects of the game differently. That is to be expected. Focus on whatever you enjoy the most.

If your argument is "I prefer to mostly ignore the odds and just root for my team to win", I see no problem.
If your argument is "unlikely events happen sometimes, therefore the odds are meaningless", I think you are dead wrong.

I'm hearing mostly the former, but just enough of the latter mixed in to say that we will just have to agree to disagree.

My "argument" is I'm skeptical of definitive statements regarding which path is easiest before anyone actually sees the bracket.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

My "argument" is I'm skeptical of definitive statements regarding which path is easiest before anyone actually sees the bracket.

That's a strawman argument right there.

You are more likely to get into a car accident if you run red lights than if you stop at them. However, running a specific red light could actually avoid a crash if you were about to be rear ended while stopped. I would never be able to say that stopping at a red light is safer in ALL cases, but it is obvious that it is much more likely to be the safer option in any given instance. We play the odds. We stop at red lights.

Now apply that to seeding. No one is arguing that a definitive statement can be made regarding the easiest path in a specific year. However, it should be blatantly obvious that you can look at past statistics and make a definitive claim that one seed provides an easier path on average, and therefore, is unquestionably to be preferred.

Before the bracket comes out and matchups can be analyzed, the statistics of the past are all we have to go on.

[Shocker1976]

Fair enough. If you don't like that phrase, I will be more specific.

I think the 6 teams I listed would win 7/10 against WSU on a neutral court this year. 2 years ago, I would have said WSU was a 50/50 or better against any team in the country. Last year, only a couple teams would I have given a slight edge to. This year's squad could win the national championship without anything near a powerball type of surprise. I just don't have the confidence that WSU is in the upper tier (top 5, or top 10) teams, and I think post presence is the big reason why.

IMO you are too pessimistic regards the Shockers' chances but you are entitled to your opinion.

We are in agreement that the Shockers at present are not in the upper tier (Top 10) of college teams as ranked by the AP. IMO the AP writers will not rank the Shockers in the Top 10 this year even if they win out through the MVC tournament. But that does not mean the Shockers will not be playing basketball as well as teams the AP writers rank in the Top 10 when March Madness begins!

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

@Shocker1976:, your logic is flawless, we merely have a difference of opinion in evaluating WSU's level of play. I completely agree that the AP voters are not the definitive end all be all of who is truly a top 10 level team. I routinely look at the polls and think, "what were they thinking?!?!"

Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate anyone who can be reasonable amid disagreement.

[Heinro]

To name a few...
Iowa
Purdue
North Carolina
Xavier
Maryland
Villanova

The thing I find interesting is of the teams you listed, only perhaps 2-3 meet your criteria of top 25 guards with a good big man.

Iowa, though a team I don't want to play, Woodbury is weak. I would be much more concerned about how Evan/McDuffie could contain Utoff. Secondly, in the games they have dominated (ignoring ours because we didn't have Fred), they blitz teams that don't pressure the perimeter. Not something I am concerned about.

Villinova, Ochefu is decent, but they are more of a well rounded team. Their guards are certainly their strong point. Ochefu is no where near Poeltl.
Xavier is in the same mold, though I haven't seen them enough to be definitive on this, they are guard oriented as well I think. No dominate force down low that will carry them.

Purdue has big men, but I am not sure their guards are drastically better than Utah's, let alone top 25 good. I am torn on playing Purdue, but they don't defend well, I will deal with that all day.

Maryland and North Carolina do fit the mold. Personally I think Maryland is overrated, but they do create the match up concerns you mentioned. Count North Carolina as a team I want to see on the opposite side of the bracket, I think they would be a very tough match up for us.

One more thing, I think you sell Utah short. Now I don't think they are world breaking, but to consider them an NIT team currently is a little off base. They are 29th in the RPI and currently around a 7 seed.

[pie n eye]

The thing I find interesting is of the teams you listed, only perhaps 2-3 meet your criteria of top 25 guards with a good big man.

Iowa, though a team I don't want to play, Woodbury is weak. I would be much more concerned about how Evan/McDuffie could contain Utoff. Secondly, in the games they have dominated (ignoring ours because we didn't have Fred), they blitz teams that don't pressure the perimeter. Not something I am concerned about.

Villinova, Ochefu is decent, but they are more of a well rounded team. Their guards are certainly their strong point. Ochefu is no where near Poeltl.
Xavier is in the same mold, though I haven't seen them enough to be definitive on this, they are guard oriented as well I think. No dominate force down low that will carry them.

Purdue has big men, but I am not sure their guards are drastically better than Utah's, let alone top 25 good. I am torn on playing Purdue, but they don't defend well, I will deal with that all day.

Maryland and North Carolina do fit the mold. Personally I think Maryland is overrated, but they do create the match up concerns you mentioned. Count North Carolina as a team I want to see on the opposite side of the bracket, I think they would be a very tough match up for us.

One more thing, I think you sell Utah short. Now I don't think they are world breaking, but to consider them an NIT team currently is a little off base. They are 29th in the RPI and currently around a 7 seed.

Not only were we without Fred but also Landry, Conner, Shaq (DNP-coaches decision), and Grady. Iowa seems kind of similar to Notre Dame's team last year.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

One more thing, I think you sell Utah short. Now I don't think they are world breaking, but to consider them an NIT team currently is a little off base. They are 29th in the RPI and currently around a 7 seed.

Fair point on Utah. I think, in my mind, they had fallen further than they actually have. You are correct that they are solidly in the field of 68 as of today.

[Shocker1976]

The thing I find interesting is of the teams you listed, only perhaps 2-3 meet your criteria of top 25 guards with a good big man.

Iowa, though a team I don't want to play, Woodbury is weak. I would be much more concerned about how Evan/McDuffie could contain Utoff. Secondly, in the games they have dominated (ignoring ours because we didn't have Fred), they blitz teams that don't pressure the perimeter. Not something I am concerned about.

Villinova, Ochefu is decent, but they are more of a well rounded team. Their guards are certainly their strong point. Ochefu is no where near Poeltl.
Xavier is in the same mold, though I haven't seen them enough to be definitive on this, they are guard oriented as well I think. No dominate force down low that will carry them.

Purdue has big men, but I am not sure their guards are drastically better than Utah's, let alone top 25 good. I am torn on playing Purdue, but they don't defend well, I will deal with that all day.

Maryland and North Carolina do fit the mold. Personally I think Maryland is overrated, but they do create the match up concerns you mentioned. Count North Carolina as a team I want to see on the opposite side of the bracket, I think they would be a very tough match up for us.

One more thing, I think you sell Utah short. Now I don't think they are world breaking, but to consider them an NIT team currently is a little off base. They are 29th in the RPI and currently around a 7 seed.

Thanks for the summary, I am in agreement with your analysis. UNC is the team that presents IMO the greatest difficulty for the Shockers. I would love to see this game in Houston for the NC.