2016-17 Bracketology

[AZ Shocker]

Is it not Sunday yet? Lol

[AZ Shocker]

Probably wrong here...but for some odd reason I think the committee is gonna bump us up a seed or two this year from what the matrix is predicting. What??? I know ridiculous! Just a gut feel....

[kcshocker11]

Probably wrong here...but for some odd reason I think the committee is gonna bump us up a seed or two this year from what the matrix is predicting. What??? I know ridiculous! Just a gut feel....

I think we are a 6 or 7. The committee has gotten a lot of flack for under seeding and hurting the top seeds.

[AZ Shocker]

I think we are a 6 or 7. The committee has gotten a lot of flack for under seeding and hurting the top seeds.

Exactly.

[engrshock]

Take up your "normal person" argument with all the posters who have expressed willingness to include conference tourney games as a sort of "compromise" for their sub .500 rule. Remember, I'm not in favor of the rule regardless of how .500 is calculated.

Also, your OSU vs Syracuse comparison furthers my point. OSU is clearly better than Syracuse. I would hope any sane person could see that. We should be able to easily conclude Syracuse deserves the NIT and OSU deserves the NCAAs. A hard fast rule potentially catches both teams under its net and removes the opportunity for common sense to prevail.

What reasoning would lead you to believe that in general a team that cannot even finish 0.500 in their league should be able to play for a national championship over an "unproven" team that finishes first or second in their conference? I sure there are exceptions but why should a team that went 8-10 or 7-11 or 6-12 in their conference be playing for a national championship?

[fansince80s]

Baylor might sneak into a #1 seed. That's my guess. Judging by the way things are going.

[OregonShocker]

What reasoning would lead you to believe that in general a team that cannot even finish 0.500 in their league should be able to play for a national championship over an "unproven" team that finishes first or second in their conference? I sure there are exceptions but why should a team that went 8-10 or 7-11 or 6-12 in their conference be playing for a national championship?

It was this line of thinking that led to the initial "one per conference" 32 team tourney. Then folks realized that how a team finishes a season might actually be a better predictor than overall conference standing; that and money changed things.

[Heinro]

It was this line of thinking that led to the initial "one per conference" 32 team tourney. Then folks realized that how a team finishes a season might actually be a better predictor than overall conference standing; that and money changed things.

6-12 or 7-11 in conference isn't how a team finished a season, it is how a team has played nearly 2/3s of the season.

Edit: After rereading your post, my post above doesn't address your post properly. I kind of agree with your statement, however the NCAA has been going the other direction. They did away with the last 10 criteria quite a few years back. So either how a team finishes matters or it doesn't. One hot weekend shouldn't erase 7 straight loses to finish the regular season.

[Stickboy46]

Take up your "normal person" argument with all the posters who have expressed willingness to include conference tourney games as a sort of "compromise" for their sub .500 rule. Remember, I'm not in favor of the rule regardless of how .500 is calculated.

Also, your OSU vs Syracuse comparison furthers my point. OSU is clearly better than Syracuse. I would hope any sane person could see that. We should be able to easily conclude Syracuse deserves the NIT and OSU deserves the NCAAs. A hard fast rule potentially catches both teams under its net and removes the opportunity for common sense to prevail.

Then lets compromise. If you are not a Top 50 RPI team ... you are excluded if you didn't at least finish >.500 in conference. As stated by someone above, If someone wins against you and you aren't a "quality win" ... How the heck are you an at-large team.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

What reasoning would lead you to believe that in general a team that cannot even finish 0.500 in their league should be able to play for a national championship over an "unproven" team that finishes first or second in their conference? I sure there are exceptions but why should a team that went 8-10 or 7-11 or 6-12 in their conference be playing for a national championship?

If you look at WSU's 12 toughest games last year, they were merely 4-8. Should they have been denied a bid so that some small conference "unproven" team could have gone? Why should 4-8 have been good enough?

[Heinro]

If you look at WSU's 12 toughest games last year, they were merely 4-8. Should they have been denied a bid so that some small conference "unproven" team could have gone? Why should 4-8 have been good enough?

Without consideration of Fred's injury, yes, WSU should not have been included. If we had lost to USC, Alabama, and Iowa with Fred, we should not have gotten a bid.

[vancedave56]

They likely took into account FVV injury.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Then lets compromise. If you are not a Top 50 RPI team ... you are excluded if you didn't at least finish >.500 in conference. As stated by someone above, If someone wins against you and you aren't a "quality win" ... How the heck are you an at-large team.

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.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Without consideration of Fred's injury, yes, WSU should not have been included. If we had lost to USC, Alabama, and Iowa with Fred, we should not have gotten a bid.

KenPom had WSU as #20 on Selection Sunday last year. WSU absolutely deserved to be in the dance, injury or not. It is sad that it potentially came down to the injury in the committee's eyes, but that shows how flawed they were. WSU deserved a bid, period. Of all places, shockernet is not where I would expect to have to explain this. Jerry Palm, is that you?

[newshock1234]

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