2016-17 Bracketology

[Cdizzle]

The 'right way to analyze teams' is always going to be in the eyes of the beholder, and is always going to favor Syracuse et al. Hard and fast rules, even ones that may have their own flaws, even ones that might be openly designed against mid-majors, are at least finite targets at which to shoot.

Also, where did you get 4-8? I get 5-7 using RPI.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Dayton lost to Davidson in the 1st round in the conference tourney. Could that help us move past them on the seed line?

It absolutely could... we just can't know for sure. All depends on how close the 2 teams were in the committee's eyes entering today.

[Stickboy46]

While I find your proposed rule "less bad", I'd prefer we simply avoid these hard fast rules altogether. I think a win over RPI #51 is a good win, especially if neutral or on the road. If someone thinks only top 50 wins matter, let's convince them that they are wrong and show them the right way to analyze teams.

I'll go back to what I say all the time. Let's not try to fix the system by adding new flaws to balance out the existing flaws. Rather, lets work to remove as many flaws as we can.

I'm going to disagree with you. I wish the selection was 100% based on rules, good or bad. Having the selection criteria 100% defined lets teams know what they need to do. Right now we have 320983409238402 different rules depending on what teams they look at. One team is eliminated for a bad loss, while for other teams, the losses don't matter. One team's RPI is the thing that makes them get cut, yet another team with a higher RPI is considered for a bid. Transparency is what is needed. Not more leniency in selection criteria.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Also, where did you get 4-8? I get 5-7 using RPI.

I used KenPom's 12 most difficult games. Remember, home vs 20 = road vs 90.

[Dave Stalwart]

Dayton lost to Davidson in the 1st round in the conference tourney. Could that help us move past them on the seed line?

Being outside of the P5, I'd say Dayton put themselves on the bubble with a loss...let alone paving the way for WSU to pass them in the seeding.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I'm going to disagree with you. I wish the selection was 100% based on rules, good or bad. Having the selection criteria 100% defined lets teams know what they need to do. Right now we have 320983409238402 different rules depending on what teams they look at. One team is eliminated for a bad loss, while for other teams, the losses don't matter. One team's RPI is the thing that makes them get cut, yet another team with a higher RPI is considered for a bid. Transparency is what is needed. Not more leniency in selection criteria.

"Knowing what they need to do" sounds good, but is often overrated IMO. If WSU knew they had to have a .500 record in their toughest 12 games (hey, that's an arbitrary rule we could propose), then they would have simply known around January 2016 that it was a St. Louis or bust season. That would have been really crappy since that was a good team, and I'm glad they earned an at-large bid.

Arbitrary rules way too often simply suck.

[AZ Shocker]

Kinda felt like we didn't get in last year. Dayton??? Bogus schedule??? Kind of an afterthought by the committee. Yes we won a couple and kicked-ass in doing so...but dyamn...that was a serious screw job to a Top-10 coach and a #20 Kenpom ranked team with 2 All-Americans and 4 previous years of tourney success.

I don't think they would've done that to Boheim. Maybe we'll see this time. Even though Boheim doesn't deserve even being discussed as a Last-Four in this year.

[BOBB]

A reasonable case for keeping us out of last season could have been made. I don't like the without this player or that coach line of argument in determining bids. As it was, we took one of the last if not the very last bid. Ofer in Orlando and losses to Seton Hall and Tulsa. Wins over Utah, UNLV and Nevada were goodish. Valley maybe not quite as bad that year. Starting the season top 10 may have helped.

Throw an "L" up against LSU that year or a loss to Drake and we are out without the autobid. We absolutely need to win a few games in Hawaii next year.

Edited to clarify this/that year.

[Stickboy46]

"Knowing what they need to do" sounds good, but is often overrated IMO. If WSU knew they had to have a .500 record in their toughest 12 games (hey, that's an arbitrary rule we could propose), then they would have simply known around January 2016 that it was a St. Louis or bust season. That would have been really crappy since that was a good team, and I'm glad they earned an at-large bid.

Arbitrary rules way too often simply suck.

I disagree. They would have known what they needed to do ... and failed, its 100% on them. When the target is moving, its out of a teams control.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Being outside of the P5, I'd say Dayton put themselves on the bubble with a loss...let alone paving the way for WSU to pass them in the seeding.

No way. Dayton is still in by a mile. They have 4 top 50 wins and their RPI is still 27, even after the loss today.

The matrix had them at 7.43 entering the day. They are likely in the 8/9 range now.

[kochHead]

There needs to be a balance of "fixed rules" and "discretionary guidelines". The problem now is that there is only one fixed rule; win your conference tournament and your in. But there are no fixed rules in regards to selection. Everything is 100% discretionary, which can lead to corruption and at the very least allows for significant cognitive bias. I don't necessarily like rules that keep teams out, but would rather see a few "fixed rules" that ensure the proper teams get in.

For example, utilize an advanced metric, such as kenpom, and make the top X # of spots safe from exclusion. Or if you have a win % of 80 or higher and are in the top 50 RPI your in. You would certainly have to evaluate what would yield the best results and what a good cut off would be for each metric. But have some set standards and then use discretion, don't use discretion and then "justify" it with different standards. Just my 2 cents.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

A reasonable case for keeping us out of last season could have been made.

I. COULD. NOT. DISAGREE. MORE.

http://shockernet.net/forum/showthread.php?21514-The-Definitive-Argument-Why-The-Shockers-Deserve-(And-Will)-Receive-An-At-large-Bid

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I disagree. They would have known what they needed to do ... and failed, its 100% on them. When the target is moving, its out of a teams control.

They would have failed to meet a terribly designed target and a great team would have been in the NIT. Sorry, that is not a good solution to our current system's problems.

[Cdizzle]

I. COULD. NOT. DISAGREE. MORE.

I find that this method doesn't work with a 3 syllable word. Could just be me.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I find that this method doesn't work with a 3 syllable word. Could just be me.

You got me. Send WSU to the CIT.