2016-17 Bracketology

[pinstripers]

That is your opinion, which is fine, but it is not as simple as "common sense".

It's like saying "common sense tells us Kevin Ollie is a better coach than Gregg Marshall because he has a more prestigious job and has actually won a national championship, unlike Gregg". Too much nuance gets left out of those statements.

You stick with nuance, and I'll stick with common sense.

[WstateU]

That is your opinion, which is fine, but it is not as simple as "common sense".

It's like saying "common sense tells us Kevin Ollie is a better coach than Gregg Marshall because he has a more prestigious job and has actually won a national championship, unlike Gregg". Too much nuance gets left out of those statements.

You stick with nuance, and I'll stick with common sense.

[shockmonster]

That is your opinion, which is fine, but it is not as simple as "common sense".

It's like saying "common sense tells us Kevin Ollie is a better coach than Gregg Marshall because he has a more prestigious job and has actually won a national championship, unlike Gregg". Too much nuance gets left out of those statements.

I'll translate what he is saying here that makes sense but is difficult for you to grasp. It's not new but he is saying that too much respect is given to BCS schools for only being in the same conference as Top Power teams. Their records aren't dissected enough. Jerry Palm only sees a good victory or two probably only from a bad night for the team who loses and the negative analyses for the bad losses they have doesn't happen, thus the lack of common sense. On the other hand, the consistency of our wins for schools like WSU are neglected, again, thus the lack of common sense.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I'll translate what he is saying here that makes sense but is difficult for you to grasp. It's not new but he is saying that too much respect is given to BCS schools for only being in the same conference as Top Power teams. Their records aren't dissected enough. Jerry Palm only sees a good victory or two probably only from a bad night for the team who loses and the negative analyses for the bad losses they have doesn't happen, thus the lack of common sense. On the other hand, the consistency of our wins for schools like WSU are neglected, again, thus the lack of common sense.

I agree with every word you just said (shockmonster), but that is not what he (pinstripers) said.

You stick with nuance, and I'll stick with common sense.

It need not be either/or, and the reality is, you are using neither.

If 7 of the best teams in the country come from the same 12 team conference, then that conference should send 7 teams dancing.

Tell me why one of those 7 isn't actually worthy and I'll listen. THAT is where the discussion should be.
Tell me that even though they are worthy, you simply want to exclude them anyway, and you are no longer arguing for the best teams to be selected.

[ShockerFever]

Your definition of "best" is swayed simply by conference affiliation, which happens to WSU too, but exactly opposite.

If you want the perks of being in a big conference and all the chances and opportunities that come with it, you better win more games than you lose. Otherwise, get out and join one of those "easy" mid majors where you better not have an off night.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Your definition of "best" is swayed simply by conference affiliation

I'm 100% ok with discussions on how to define best. Of course we will all have different opinions there, as would be expected.

I'm saying there is no reason that 6 teams in the same 10 team conference couldn't all be good in the same year. It is silly to make an arbitrary rule that says they can't all go dancing even if they all deserve to.

We need better systems for judging who is best (aka KenPom, not RPI) rather than arbitrary rules that incorporate even more unfairness into the system.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The solution to an unfair system is to fix the unfair parts, not to add more unfair parts until you have somehow balanced the unfairness.

The goal shouldn't be 100 unfair rules, with 50 that help WSU, and 50 that hurt them. The goal should be all unfair rules eliminated until there are 0 of them left.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

If you want the perks of being in a big conference and all the chances and opportunities that come with it, you better win more games than you lose.

I'd rather they fix the system so that the unfair perks of a big conference are removed (stop obsessing over quality wins as a total, start giving more credit to teams who blow away mediocre competition night in and night out) rather than keeping those perks and then tacking on a penalty.

Trying to balance Perks + Penalties is like the Federal tax code. Way too complex, and ultimately, the balance is never really fair for all. Lets simplify things and just work to remove all perks and all penalties wherever they are found.

[molly jabali]

The solution to an unfair system is to fix the unfair parts, not to add more unfair parts until you have somehow balanced the unfairness.

The goal shouldn't be 100 unfair rules, with 50 that help WSU, and 50 that hurt them. The goal should be all unfair rules eliminated until there are 0 of them left.

That first line might be the most sensible thing I've ever read on Shockernet...congrats for being the one saying it!

[ShockerPrez]

I'm 100% ok with discussions on how to define best. Of course we will all have different opinions there, as would be expected.

I'm saying there is no reason that 6 teams in the same 10 team conference couldn't all be good in the same year. It is silly to make an arbitrary rule that says they can't all go dancing even if they all deserve to.

We need better systems for judging who is best (aka KenPom, not RPI) rather than arbitrary rules that incorporate even more unfairness into the system.

Agreed. I think what most of us see is the 6th place team in the big 12 beat the bottom 4 teams for 8 wins and get 2 wins against the top 5 teams and voila! Look at those 2 wins! They must be a tourney team. Not consider the 8 losses to those teams as well. Or lose a couple to the bottom 4 teams with no recourse and go 8-10 in conference and still be considered.

I know thats a bit simplistic example, but I think thats the jist of it, at least for me.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Agreed. I think what most of us see is the 6th place team in the big 12 beat the bottom 4 teams for 8 wins and get 2 wins against the top 5 teams and voila! Look at those 2 wins! They must be a tourney team. Not consider the 8 losses to those teams as well. Or lose a couple to the bottom 4 teams with no recourse and go 8-10 in conference and still be considered.

I know thats a bit simplistic example, but I think thats the jist of it, at least for me.

WSU got smoked by one of the Big 12's bottom 4, at home no less.
The Big 12's cellar dweller gave WSU all it could handle.

Let's not act like going 8-0, 7-1, or even 6-2 vs the bottom 4 of the Big 12 is some small feat. That's just another variation of the crap we dealt with when people called 31-0 "no big deal" back in 2014, or this year when people will write off 17-1 as "eh, didn't win enough vs elite teams... send them to the NIT".

[pinstripers]

I agree with every word you just said (shockmonster), but that is not what he (pinstripers) said.



It need not be either/or, and the reality is, you are using neither.

If 7 of the best teams in the country come from the same 12 team conference, then that conference should send 7 teams dancing.

Tell me why one of those 7 isn't actually worthy and I'll listen. THAT is where the discussion should be.
Tell me that even though they are worthy, you simply want to exclude them anyway, and you are no longer arguing for the best teams to be selected.

I guess we just don't agree. The beauty of the tournament is to give different teams a chance to match up against the bluebloods. Sending 7 teams dancing involves using a formula that we all know is flawed.

[Cdizzle]

Is it arbitrary that ESPN schedules half of Duke's games for them? Or that all of UK's games are on TV? Or that if half of the national talking heads got their journalism degree from your school, losses incurred when your coach was suspended for cheating don't count? There are a lot of 'arbitrary' things about how NCAA basketball is set up.

Establishing an 'arbitrary' rule like "one must go .500+ in conference to receive an at-large bid" seems just, if not much more, as valid. And it would help to keep the playing field from becoming even more unbalanced than it already is.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Sending 7 teams dancing involves using a formula that we all know is flawed.

Do you think KenPom is highly flawed? (note that it is routinely very high on the Shox)

KenPom has ranked over 50% of a conference as at-large worthy on multiple occasions through the years. Is your problem really with 6 of 10 getting in, or is your problem with the RPI, and stupid national pundits and committee members who do a poor job of assessing resumes?

[ShockerPrez]

WSU got smoked by one of the Big 12's bottom 4, at home no less.
The Big 12's cellar dweller gave WSU all it could handle.

Let's not act like going 8-0, 7-1, or even 6-2 vs the bottom 4 of the Big 12 is some small feat. That's just another variation of the crap we dealt with when people called 31-0 "no big deal" back in 2014, or this year when people will write off 17-1 as "eh, didn't win enough vs elite teams... send them to the NIT".

Im not trying to diminish it. Just trying to point to what our plight is. You just said that we got blown out by a bottom 4 team and that is a negative to us. But OSU plows KU, and its not a negative to KU, its a net positive for the conference as OSU gets elevated.