2016-17 Bracketology

[SHOCKvalue]

I'd be 100% okay if the tournament seeding and inclusion of the at-large field was handled by some sort of an advanced analytical metric. The human, subjective, biased side of the equation historically does nothing but s*** on the Shocks, and there's nothing to indicate that will change.

Hopefully the new metric being crafted for the NCAA by Pomeroy, Sagarin, etc. will get done sooner rather than later, because if recent history is any indication (humans versus RPI versus advanced metrics) if will be a boon to WSU. I was going to say "a boon to WSU and schools like us", but I'm not sure if there's another program with the advance metric versus ranking/seeding disparity of the Shocks. We're an anomaly, and frankly it is getting a little old taking it up the rear every year.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Is it arbitrary that ... 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.

That is exactly my point. The Boeheim stuff from last year was dumb. Let's remove the dumb, not add more dumb to somehow balance it out.

Regarding UK playing on TV all the time, are you willing to carry this out fully up and down D1? If UK gets an unfair benefit of so much TV, then Drake gets an unfair penalty of very little TV. If we are going to penalize UK to help "make things more fair", then should we give Drake a handicap boost? I mean, if Drake goes over .500, that's pretty impressive given their wimpy TV schedule and various other difficulties. Send them dancing, right?

I don't want any of this. Pick the best teams. Send them dancing. If this process for picking is imperfect, work to make it better. Don't add more tax exemptions, subsidies, sin taxes, etc. until you think you've found the right balance. The more of that you tack on, the more distorted and unfair system you ultimately create.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I was going to say "a boon to WSU and schools like us", but I'm not sure if there's another program with the advance metric versus ranking/seeding disparity of the Shocks. We're an anomaly, and frankly it is getting a little old taking it up the rear every year.

Barry Hinson 2006 and 2007 would like to petition to join your campaign. Dude got unjustly sent to purgatory (DOBO at KU).

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

But OSU plows KU, and its not a negative to KU, its a net positive for the conference as OSU gets elevated.

The bolded part of your quote is simply inaccurate, and even if it was true, let's fix that and evaluate KU properly going forward, rather than tacking on some sort of new penalty to compensate for the unfair bonus you say they receive.

0 = 0
is a better and more concise formula than
0 + 1 - 1 = 0

If the problem today is that KU get's a undeserved +1, let's take that away, rather than adding a -1 somewhere else. Sooner or later, you end up with something resembling the U.S. tax code. I hope we can all agree that's not a good thing.

[WheatShock]

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.

It is a negative to KU but isn't really treated as such by the media unless they manage to acquire several similar losses. That's one area where metrics can help.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

It is a negative to KU but isn't really treated as such by the media unless they manage to acquire several similar losses. That's one area where metrics can help.

Just this week, people on this board screamed that KU lost yet stayed at #3 in the polls. I pointed out that a bunch of teams right behind them lost also, making it hard for anyone to pass them. Also, one team did pass them, but one team lost twice and dropped behind them. All in all, staying at #3 made complete sense.

None of the complainers came back to revisit the convo. Whine about unfairness, get the idea floated out there, and then the damage is done, even if a closer look dispels any reason for the anger.

This. Happens. All. The. Time.

[Stickboy46]

Frankly I don't care what they choose. I just want them to use the same thing for everything. I want them to be transparent. RPI is fine .. if they use the RPI for everything and not cherry pick.

The fact that TEAM A can have an RPI of 48, and Team B can have an RPI of 72, and Team B gets a better seed because They have more wins against (and losses) against Top 50 RPI teams drives me crazy. You are using a ranking to determine the quality of team so you can say whether a win is a "good" win, but you don't use that same ranking to just determine whether a team is good. That's what blows my mind. Either RPI for everything, or don't use it at all.

[SHOCKvalue]

RPI is cool.

So are Model A Fords, oil lamps, and butter churns. Antiques are neat; they help us see into a time when we didn't know any better.

[ShockerPrez]

The bolded part of your quote is simply inaccurate, and even if it was true, let's fix that and evaluate KU properly going forward, rather than tacking on some sort of new penalty to compensate for the unfair bonus you say they receive.

0 = 0
is a better and more concise formula than
0 + 1 - 1 = 0

If the problem today is that KU get's a undeserved +1, let's take that away, rather than adding a -1 somewhere else. Sooner or later, you end up with something resembling the U.S. tax code. I hope we can all agree that's not a good thing.

Let me rephrase....

And I am speaking just from a perception point of view because Im not a numbers guy.

All conference games, to me, should have no net affect on a conferences perception or rank. So if the big 12 is ranked say, the 3rd best conference, after conference play starts, its still the 3rd best conference. KU beating UK can elevate it and such, but not conference games.

What I see happening is that when an OSU beats KU, people start thinking, wow! The Big 12 is really tough. And it very well may be. And the net affect is that the big 12 elevates itself by beating each other and i just disagree with that logic.

As I ssid, this may or may not be happening, but its just my perception of how it seems the system works.

[ShockerPrez]

I dont care what they use. I just want WSU in and with a good seed.

Anything less is bullshit! And I will use any logic necessary to find teams that got in over WSU or seeded higher so that I can know who to root against and be pissed at!

When it comes down to it. That's how I feel.

[WheatShock]

Just this week, people on this board screamed that KU lost yet stayed at #3 in the polls. I pointed out that a bunch of teams right behind them lost also, making it hard for anyone to pass them. Also, one team did pass them, but one team lost twice and dropped behind them. All in all, staying at #3 made complete sense.

None of the complainers came back to revisit the convo. Whine about unfairness, get the idea floated out there, and then the damage is done, even if a closer look dispels any reason for the anger.

This. Happens. All. The. Time.

I had no problem with them remaining at #3 for the same reasons you do. I don't think KU is truly the 3rd best team in the NCAA but there was not a good enough reason to drop them other than "I don't like them".

I think we can all agree that both the AP and Coaches polls are flawed. People simply can't watch every game to get an accurate feel for where a team should be ranked. I hope more voters will start using the advanced metrics as a large part of the ranking process. That would certainly be a step in the right direction.

[WheatShock]

Let me rephrase....

And I am speaking just from a perception point of view because Im not a numbers guy.

All conference games, to me, should have no net affect on a conferences perception or rank. So if the big 12 is ranked say, the 3rd best conference, after conference play starts, its still the 3rd best conference. KU beating UK can elevate it and such, but not conference games.

What I see happening is that when an OSU beats KU, people start thinking, wow! The Big 12 is really tough. And it very well may be. And the net affect is that the big 12 elevates itself by beating each other and i just disagree with that logic.

As I ssid, this may or may not be happening, but its just my perception of how it seems the system works.

I agree with this with the for the most part. I would say that conference ranks should still fluctuate somewhat due to the performance of teams outside the conference that were part of the non conference schedule.

[ShockerFever]

I had no problem with them remaining at #3 for the same reasons you do. I don't think KU is truly the 3rd best team in the NCAA but there was not a good enough reason to drop them other than "I don't like them".

I think we can all agree that both the AP and Coaches polls are flawed. People simply can't watch every game to get an accurate feel for where a team should be ranked. I hope more voters will start using the advanced metrics as a large part of the ranking process. That would certainly be a step in the right direction.

I think it's pretty hilarious that the resident analytics guy is getting bent out of shape over what people think of a human voting poll.

[WUpigsooie]

My biggest problem with the selection committee is the use of records vs the top 50/100. I could go into why but Ken Pomeroy explains it better than I could here: http://kenpom.com/blog/tiers-of-joy/

[WheatShock]

I think it's pretty hilarious that the resident analytics guy is getting bent out of shape over what people think of a human voting poll.

I think its pretty hilarious that we still put so much stock in human voting polls when there are much better options out there.