Tweet
Alright, here is the hump day encouragement some of you need. THE definitive argument why the Shockers deserve (and will) receive an at-large bid.
Computer Rankings
The RPI is far and away the outlier here, and even it doesn’t necessarily recommend excluding WSU from a bid. Remember, the cut line is likely to fall around 47 or 48 this year. The RPI merely flags WSU as a team requiring further consideration. Historically, teams in the 45-50 range of the RPI get into the tournament more than half the time. Of those past teams left out despite a top 50 RPI, nobody has ever had anywhere near WSU’s numbers in the other computer metrics. Everyone keeps saying that advanced metrics are gaining traction with the committee more and more each year. For WSU to be left out, the 2016 committee would have to completely reverse that trend. Considering the chair of the committee has been quoted on record that he checks KenPom “every single day”, I just cannot see how these stellar numbers get sent to the NIT.
Here's some additional comments from the selection committee chair.
@SHURTZtheHERTZ: also compiled a nice list of the top KenPom teams to be left out each of the last 14 years. Notice that it has been 9 years since a top 30 team was left out. There is a clear trend that shows KenPom and other similar advanced metrics are becoming more and more relevant to the committee.
Utter dominance of mid-level competition
WSU played shorthanded in many of its toughest games (more on that later), but they were generally full strength for their 9 games against teams in the RPI 101-200 range. Teams in this range often get mislabeled as pushovers. That should be reserved for teams 200+, as anyone in the top 200 is capable of beating a really good team on a given night.
Notable upsets of elite teams this year:
Winning % vs 101-200:
WSU's Dominance vs Opponents Ranked 101-200:
*RPI top 10 includes KU, Virginia, Nova, Oregon, OU, Xavier, Miami, Utah, UNC, and West Virginia
*Bubble includes Lunardi’s last 8 in and first 4 out (as of 3/7): USC, Butler, Cincy, Pitt, Syracuse, St. Bonaventure, UConn, Oregon St, Tulsa, Gonzaga, Florida, Michigan
WSU utterly dominated the mid-level teams in Division 1, outscoring them by nearly 20 per game. This was double the average scoring margin of other bubble teams vs similar competition, and was even 5 points better than the average beat down the RPI top 10 was able to deliver. Being good at winning by a large margin shouldn’t be the #1 factor in any ranking system, but completely ignoring this level of dominance doesn’t make sense either. Bracketology is all about finding ways to compare apples to oranges. No two teams play the same exact schedule, so some method of finding equivalencies must be used. WSU played a limited number of healthy games against elite opponents. Why make a judgement on such a small sample size when their 9 games vs mid-level opponents scream loudly that they need to be considered too. Stop and think for a second. WSU beat #112 New Mexico State by 30 and won on the road at #138 SIU by 25. Are you really telling me that neither of those are “quality wins”, but fellow bubble team Valparaiso’s 4 point win at home over #100 Belmont IS a quality win? Any reasonable person would admit Valpo’s win is less impressive than either of those two wins by the Shox. Anyone who lives and dies by pure wins and losses, ignoring scoring margin, and binding themselves to rigid 1-50 and 51-100 type groups might as well be living in the age of dial-up internet when high speed wifi is readily available.
A Signature Win
WSU is not swimming in signature wins, but they have one, it is a really good one, and that is key. The committee need not assume that all those dominate performances against mediocre teams MIGHT mean WSU is capable of beating an elite team. The blowout win (up 13 at the half, final margin of 17 pts) over potential 3 seed Utah gives the committee an actual example of it happening, and it greatly strengthens any argument that WSU could have won more such games if given healthy opportunities to try. The only other teams to beat Utah so easily this year were Oregon and Miami, both looking at top 3 seeds themselves.
Follow me on a quick rabbit trail to 2013... that year Middle Tennessee received an at-large bid despite only having 1, count 'em, 1 top 100 win. It was merely a 3 point home win over eventual 12 seed Ole Miss. As a 5 loss team out of the #20 conference, Middle Tennessee wouldn't seem to be your normal at-large pick, but they were helped by an RPI of 28 and KenPom of 40. They played a ton of "easy" games, but they dominated those games with few exceptions. Ultimately, the list of teams they beat out for a bid included Kentucky, who was 3-4 vs the top 50 and 6-8 overall vs 51-100 with an RPI of 57 and KenPom of 62.
Why do I mention 2013 Middle Tennessee? Because WSU's 1 win vs the top 50, and 4 total vs the top 100, are far from record setting should they get a bid. Lower than average, sure, but backed up by computer metrics that love the Shox, total dominance of lesser teams, and in WSU's case, significant injury issues that have since been resolved. If ever we see a repeat of 2013 Middle Tennessee's resume, they may or may not get in next time. However, my point is that giving a bid to WSU this year is simply not anywhere close to groundbreaking. Teams with much less in the "quality wins" department have received bids in the past.
Non-Conference Schedule
The committee claims that it likes to reward teams for “scheduling up” in the non con. I seriously doubt that this has a major impact on their decisions, but whatever positive impact it does have will clearly benefit WSU this year.
Non Con SOS
WSU – 12
Average of Lunardi’s 12 bubble teams from the list above - 120
Close Losses, Often Shorthanded
*Seeding is based on current projections
I don't count games where players played hurt. I think that is stretching the bounds of what the committee will consider. I also don’t count Landry since he is not coming back and will effectively be scrubbed from the 2016 roster. However, it is possible that the committee will notice Landry went down for the year within days of Fred’s temporary absence, leaving the team in quite a lurch to make a sudden adjustment at PG on the fly vs quality competition. Remove any team’s starting and backup point guards in the same week and throw them on a neutral court vs top 100 teams. I doubt anyone performs very well under those circumstances.
Regarding the blowout vs Iowa, the additional loss of Grady on top of everything else makes that game a virtually throwaway data point. No Fred, Grady, Landry, or Conner. All but Landry are back now. The Shockers that played on Nov 29th were a shell of the team they are today.
One more note regarding the 3 losses in Orlando. The lack of Fred, Landry, or Conner at PG meant that Ty Taylor and John Roberts Simon played a combined 78 minutes in those 3 games. That’s nearly 2/3rds of the PG minutes going to players who, since Fred’s return in December, have not played a single competitive minute of basketball the rest of the season. Inserting bench warmers to replace the minutes of the two time MVC player of the year just might have been the difference in two of those outcomes.
We can never know for sure what would have happened had WSU been fully healthy and eligible, and every committee member gets to decide how much they personally want to adjust for injuries, but if the concept of adjusting for injuries exists at all, WSU deserves to be near the top of the 2016 list of beneficiaries.
Interesting data via rpiforecast.com
Conclusion
You have heard and will continue to hear TV commentators repeat variations of the phrase “WSU doesn’t have enough quality wins” to deserve a bid. If the at-large bids were assigned purely based on who has the most quality wins, then the commentators would be right. However, bids are not assigned by a computer ranking teams in order of quality wins, or by a rigid checklist that spits out answers for the committee. The process is about a group of people utilizing a wide array of data, including their own eyes watching basketball games, to select the best teams for the field of 68. Ultimately, all that matters is their personal opinions, however they choose to reach them.
The basketball season is more than 30 games long. WSU only got to play a handful of games against top 100 competition while healthy. When considering the full season, the computers say WSU is really good. On a vast majority of nights, the eye test says WSU is really good. The non con SOS was really good. WSU's road record was really good. Literally everything says WSU is really good with the exception of a small sample size of really close games where literal banked 3s were often the difference between a win and a loss. It is so easy to make the case to include WSU. It is so hard to make the case to leave them out.
WSU will be dancing for the 5th year in a row. Go Shox!
Computer Rankings
| RPI | 48 |
| ESPN BPI | 25 |
| Sagarin | 25 |
| Warren Nolan | 18 |
| KenPom | 11 |
Here's some additional comments from the selection committee chair.
Originally posted by 2016 NCAA Selection Committee Chair Joe Castiglione
Utter dominance of mid-level competition
WSU played shorthanded in many of its toughest games (more on that later), but they were generally full strength for their 9 games against teams in the RPI 101-200 range. Teams in this range often get mislabeled as pushovers. That should be reserved for teams 200+, as anyone in the top 200 is capable of beating a really good team on a given night.
Notable upsets of elite teams this year:
- KU lost at #163 Oklahoma St by 19pts
- Oregon lost at #142 UNLV by 11pts
- Miami, Indiana, and Kentucky combined for 8 losses to teams in this group
Winning % vs 101-200:
- RPI Top 25: 89%
- RPI 26-50: 80%
- RPI 51-75: 78%
WSU's Dominance vs Opponents Ranked 101-200:
| Team | Record | % | Avg Margin |
| Wichita St | 8-1 | 89% | 19.4 |
| RPI Top 10 | 56-6 | 90% | 14.6 |
| Bubble | 62-11 | 85% | 9.2 |
*Bubble includes Lunardi’s last 8 in and first 4 out (as of 3/7): USC, Butler, Cincy, Pitt, Syracuse, St. Bonaventure, UConn, Oregon St, Tulsa, Gonzaga, Florida, Michigan
WSU utterly dominated the mid-level teams in Division 1, outscoring them by nearly 20 per game. This was double the average scoring margin of other bubble teams vs similar competition, and was even 5 points better than the average beat down the RPI top 10 was able to deliver. Being good at winning by a large margin shouldn’t be the #1 factor in any ranking system, but completely ignoring this level of dominance doesn’t make sense either. Bracketology is all about finding ways to compare apples to oranges. No two teams play the same exact schedule, so some method of finding equivalencies must be used. WSU played a limited number of healthy games against elite opponents. Why make a judgement on such a small sample size when their 9 games vs mid-level opponents scream loudly that they need to be considered too. Stop and think for a second. WSU beat #112 New Mexico State by 30 and won on the road at #138 SIU by 25. Are you really telling me that neither of those are “quality wins”, but fellow bubble team Valparaiso’s 4 point win at home over #100 Belmont IS a quality win? Any reasonable person would admit Valpo’s win is less impressive than either of those two wins by the Shox. Anyone who lives and dies by pure wins and losses, ignoring scoring margin, and binding themselves to rigid 1-50 and 51-100 type groups might as well be living in the age of dial-up internet when high speed wifi is readily available.
A Signature Win
WSU is not swimming in signature wins, but they have one, it is a really good one, and that is key. The committee need not assume that all those dominate performances against mediocre teams MIGHT mean WSU is capable of beating an elite team. The blowout win (up 13 at the half, final margin of 17 pts) over potential 3 seed Utah gives the committee an actual example of it happening, and it greatly strengthens any argument that WSU could have won more such games if given healthy opportunities to try. The only other teams to beat Utah so easily this year were Oregon and Miami, both looking at top 3 seeds themselves.
Follow me on a quick rabbit trail to 2013... that year Middle Tennessee received an at-large bid despite only having 1, count 'em, 1 top 100 win. It was merely a 3 point home win over eventual 12 seed Ole Miss. As a 5 loss team out of the #20 conference, Middle Tennessee wouldn't seem to be your normal at-large pick, but they were helped by an RPI of 28 and KenPom of 40. They played a ton of "easy" games, but they dominated those games with few exceptions. Ultimately, the list of teams they beat out for a bid included Kentucky, who was 3-4 vs the top 50 and 6-8 overall vs 51-100 with an RPI of 57 and KenPom of 62.
Why do I mention 2013 Middle Tennessee? Because WSU's 1 win vs the top 50, and 4 total vs the top 100, are far from record setting should they get a bid. Lower than average, sure, but backed up by computer metrics that love the Shox, total dominance of lesser teams, and in WSU's case, significant injury issues that have since been resolved. If ever we see a repeat of 2013 Middle Tennessee's resume, they may or may not get in next time. However, my point is that giving a bid to WSU this year is simply not anywhere close to groundbreaking. Teams with much less in the "quality wins" department have received bids in the past.
Non-Conference Schedule
The committee claims that it likes to reward teams for “scheduling up” in the non con. I seriously doubt that this has a major impact on their decisions, but whatever positive impact it does have will clearly benefit WSU this year.
Non Con SOS
WSU – 12
Average of Lunardi’s 12 bubble teams from the list above - 120
Close Losses, Often Shorthanded
| Margin | Projected Postseason | Missing Players |
| OT | 7 seed | |
| OT | 13 seed | |
| 3pts | 10 seed | VanVleet, Frankamp |
| 3pts | 13 seed | |
| 4pts | NIT | VanVleet, Frankamp |
| 5pts | CBI | |
| 10pts | Bubble | Frankamp |
| 23pts | 5 seed | VanVleet, Frankamp, Grady |
I don't count games where players played hurt. I think that is stretching the bounds of what the committee will consider. I also don’t count Landry since he is not coming back and will effectively be scrubbed from the 2016 roster. However, it is possible that the committee will notice Landry went down for the year within days of Fred’s temporary absence, leaving the team in quite a lurch to make a sudden adjustment at PG on the fly vs quality competition. Remove any team’s starting and backup point guards in the same week and throw them on a neutral court vs top 100 teams. I doubt anyone performs very well under those circumstances.
Regarding the blowout vs Iowa, the additional loss of Grady on top of everything else makes that game a virtually throwaway data point. No Fred, Grady, Landry, or Conner. All but Landry are back now. The Shockers that played on Nov 29th were a shell of the team they are today.
One more note regarding the 3 losses in Orlando. The lack of Fred, Landry, or Conner at PG meant that Ty Taylor and John Roberts Simon played a combined 78 minutes in those 3 games. That’s nearly 2/3rds of the PG minutes going to players who, since Fred’s return in December, have not played a single competitive minute of basketball the rest of the season. Inserting bench warmers to replace the minutes of the two time MVC player of the year just might have been the difference in two of those outcomes.
We can never know for sure what would have happened had WSU been fully healthy and eligible, and every committee member gets to decide how much they personally want to adjust for injuries, but if the concept of adjusting for injuries exists at all, WSU deserves to be near the top of the 2016 list of beneficiaries.
Interesting data via rpiforecast.com
- Drop USC and Alabama from WSU’s resume altogether and their RPI becomes 34
- Turn USC and Alabama into wins on WSU’s resume and their RPI becomes 26
Conclusion
You have heard and will continue to hear TV commentators repeat variations of the phrase “WSU doesn’t have enough quality wins” to deserve a bid. If the at-large bids were assigned purely based on who has the most quality wins, then the commentators would be right. However, bids are not assigned by a computer ranking teams in order of quality wins, or by a rigid checklist that spits out answers for the committee. The process is about a group of people utilizing a wide array of data, including their own eyes watching basketball games, to select the best teams for the field of 68. Ultimately, all that matters is their personal opinions, however they choose to reach them.
The basketball season is more than 30 games long. WSU only got to play a handful of games against top 100 competition while healthy. When considering the full season, the computers say WSU is really good. On a vast majority of nights, the eye test says WSU is really good. The non con SOS was really good. WSU's road record was really good. Literally everything says WSU is really good with the exception of a small sample size of really close games where literal banked 3s were often the difference between a win and a loss. It is so easy to make the case to include WSU. It is so hard to make the case to leave them out.
WSU will be dancing for the 5th year in a row. Go Shox!
Comment