2016-17 Bracketology

[ShockerFever]

"Bracketology: Weak schedules hurting Kentucky, UCLA and Gonzaga" - CBS Sports

(The NCAA is clearly putting a lot of weight on a team's strength of schedule)

by Jerry Palm
02/13/17, 11:00am EST

http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/bracketology-weak-schedules-hurting-kentucky-ucla-and-gonzaga/

"...Specifically, if you are a Wichita State fan, Saturday was not a good day for you at all. The Shockers' overall (162) and non-conference strength of schedule (205) are both relatively poor and unlikely to get better. That slim chance for an at-large bid got slimmer. The at-large quality team in the bracket with the lowest SOS is UCLA at 104 (which includes their conference metrics too)...."

Here are a few other NC-SOC's, based on Nolan Warren Website:

Wichita State, Not even Mentioned, (205 NC-SOS)
Wisconsin, 5-seed (218 NC-SOS)
West Virginia, 3-seed (238 NC-SOS)
Kansas State, 10-seed, (239 NC-SOS)
Georgia Tech, 11-seed, (249 NC-SOS)
UCLA, 4-seed (252 NC-SOS)
Miami (FL), 9-seed, (262 NC-SOS)
Virginia Tech, 8-seed (289 NC-SOS)


My point is that there should be consistency in his position. He is entitled to his opinion and can use what every criteria he wants when he publish's his bracket, but to imply we have the worse SOS, then highlights our NC-SOS (non-conference Strength Of Schedule) to prove his point is just poor journalism in my opinion. It's just not factual correct.

There's a difference in trying to schedule good competition and getting unlucky. Then there's intentionally scheduling weak competition to pad pre-conference win counts on the home floor. Now, I don't expect the committee to have time to differentiate between it all but WSU clearly falls under option A. That just sucks.

Now, I also know WSU whiffed at their opportunities for quality wins (on neutral courts) and that's on them. But at that point, was WSU expected to go 29-2 to get an at-large? That's just not reasonable. There has to be a little give either way.

If you go by history and eye test evaluating that seems to always play a role in P5 admissions, then WSU should be a shoe-in, assuming they take care of business.

[another shocker]

The fact that he has specifically called out WSU twice now says alot. He really doesn't want them to be in and is actively campaigning in case someone on the committee is reading his junk.

palm has something against the shockers and i don't know what it is. here lately (probably since the loss at ilsu), this relatively young team has come together and is passing the eye test and then some. earlier in the season they looked nit.. now they look ncaa, no doubt.

i don't think many people agree with palm.

[Cdizzle]

When one works at CBS sports, one is bound to come in to contact with Gottlieb.

My recommendation: Quit giving them clicks.

[ShockerDropOut]

Here is Palm's Bracket with a comparison to AP Votes (points) this week (02/13/17). Can someone please tell me the commonality among those teams?

Team Name, Palm Seed, AP Votes (points)
USC, 6-seed, (16 points)
Minnesota, 7-seed, (0 points)
Xavier, 7-seed, (72 points)
Northwestern, 7-seed, (60 points)
California, 8-seed, (0 points)
Virginia Tech, 8-seed, (0 points)
Dayton, 8-seed, (4 points)
Iowa State, 9-seed, (0 points)
Miami (FL), 9-seed, (0 points)
VCU, 9-seed, (14 points)
Oklahoma State, 9-seed, (1 points)
Kansas State, 10-seed, (0 points)
Michigan, 10-seed, (0 points)
Michigan State, 10-seed, (0 points)
TCU, 10-seed, (0 points)
Georgia Tech, 11-seed, (0 points)
Providence. 11-seed, (0 points)
Seton Hall, 11-seed, (0 points)
Syracuse, 11-seed, (0 points)
Wake Forest, 11-seed, (0 points)
Middle Tenn., 11-seed, (3 points)
Monmouth, 13-seed, (2 points)
Vermont, 13-seed, (1 point)
Arkansas, First Four Out, (0 points)
Mississippi, First Four Out, (0 points)
Pittsburgh, First Four Out, (0 points)
Rhode Island, First Four Out, (0 points)
Wichita State, Not Even Mentioned (87 points)

Just wow! Jerry Palm, raising asinine to a new level.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Nothing like the mid-February joining of Shockernetters in common alliance against goons like Palm.

[AndShock]

Schaus and Rasmussen being on the committee will probably help a little bit in March.

[Steeleshocker]

To know if a team was intentionally scheduling weak, just look at the conferences they played. In our case that was:

ACC
BIG 10
Big 12 (x2)
AAC
A-10
SEC
MWC

And then some smaller conferences to fill out the rest. That doesn't read like we were trying to cherry pick a bad schedule, we just got unlucky.

[capnkirk]

I have an RPI question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the season starts they have each team assigned a starting RPI. For example KU 1, Duke 2, UK 3. What would everyone's RPI look like if everyone started off at zero or 1? How much different would each teams RPI be?

[WheatShock]

I have an RPI question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the season starts they have each team assigned a starting RPI. For example KU 1, Duke 2, UK 3. What would everyone's RPI look like if everyone started off at zero or 1? How much different would each teams RPI be?

If you're right that's where the real P5 bias is.

[WuDrWu]

palm has something against the shockers and i don't know what it is.

I'm pretty sure I know what it is, and I bet most people here do as well.

[SHOCKvalue]

I have an RPI question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the season starts they have each team assigned a starting RPI. For example KU 1, Duke 2, UK 3. What would everyone's RPI look like if everyone started off at zero or 1? How much different would each teams RPI be?

No, RPI requires a couple of degrees of winning percentage data to get the ball rolling before there are even numbers for comparison. The RPI formula is quite simple, actually. There's no way at all to interject bias into its calculation.

Kenpom and guys like him use prior stats plus some future assumptions to start their systems at the beginning of the season, so maybe you're thinking of that.

[DJShocker10]

I'm pretty sure I know what it is, and I bet most people here do as well.

Because Marshall told him he looks like a clean shaven Hitler?

[WSUwatcher]

I have an RPI question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the season starts they have each team assigned a starting RPI. For example KU 1, Duke 2, UK 3. What would everyone's RPI look like if everyone started off at zero or 1? How much different would each teams RPI be?

Okay, capn -- I'll bite: you're wrong. Before the season, nobody has an RPI, because it's not a number; it's a calculation based on results: your winning percentage, your opponents' winning percentage, and their opponents' winning percentage, adjusted for home and away games. That's all that goes into it. And at the start of the season, everyone is at zero in every category.

[Dan]

The committee will be smart enough to recognize that we are a team trending up, not down. We lost a lot of talent and started the year with a lot of new faces and some challenging games. While we ended up losing 3 of those games early, we have dominated most of the teams since then. You can't point to one specific metric and make a total conclusion off that one factor.

[ShockerPrez]

My dream scenario is we win out through the loo and get a 7 seed against K State.