2016-17 Bracketology

[Stickboy46]

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.

Agree to disagree. At least at that point we can have discussions about which Fixed targets are incorrect and work to fix those. Right now we can't have that discussion, because there are no requirements, there are no specific items to try to fix. Heck the committee doesn't even explain why they choose them (that would be a good start). I'd love for them to publish a report after of all discussion that caused teams in contention to be put in, or left out. Yet again, no transparency/consistency is the biggest problem.

[BOBB]

I. COULD. NOT. DISAGREE. MORE.

http://shockernet.net/forum/showthre...n-At-large-Bid

I'm comparing this year to last. This year is measurably better than last and we were looking 9 seed to Bubble without the autobid. Last year was a worse record, some iffy losses, but with a good Utah win to hang our hat on. I would rather take my chances on this year's results. There's only 8 teams between a 9 seed and the NIT.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

@BOBB, I don't disagree that last year's team came uncomfortably close to missing out.

However, my disagreement is with your statement that "a reasonable case could have been made". No way. The committee could have left WSU out, but their case would have been insane, not reasonable. I am aware of the unfortunate reality that there are stupid people in charge of things in this world. That does not mean I have to conflate their decisions with reason. I will go to my grave arguing that last year's Shox were absolutely, positively, without doubt deserving of their bid, and anyone who argues otherwise is a fool.

*Sorry, but not sorry, to any fools reading this* :-)

[Dave Stalwart]

You got me. Send WSU to the CIT.

Speaking of the CIT, someday I really hope a new tournament could be set up for the worst 64 teams in the NCAA around the 300+ RPI range. Perhaps Seton Hall could host the event and call it the Seton Hall Invitational Tournament. Or perhaps the Sam Houston Invitational Tournament.

Bonus, it would allow some MVC teams to make the postseason more often than they currently do.

[BOBB]

@BOBB, I don't disagree that last year's team came uncomfortably close to missing out.

However, my disagreement is with your statement that "a reasonable case could have been made". No way. The committee could have left WSU out, but their case would have been insane, not reasonable. I am aware of the unfortunate reality that there are stupid people in charge of things in this world. That does not mean I have to conflate their decisions with reason. I will go to my grave arguing that last year's Shox were absolutely, positively, without doubt deserving of their bid, and anyone who argues otherwise is a fool.

*Sorry, but not sorry, to any fools reading this* :-)

I mean reasonable in the sense of how things work, not how they should be. We deserved to be in last year, but deserved it in '11 more. Much better Valley with half the league 20 game winners. The zebra and Kemba screw job in Hawaii still stings.

[OregonShocker]

Agree to disagree. At least at that point we can have discussions about which Fixed targets are incorrect and work to fix those. Right now we can't have that discussion, because there are no requirements, there are no specific items to try to fix. Heck the committee doesn't even explain why they choose them (that would be a good start). I'd love for them to publish a report after of all discussion that caused teams in contention to be put in, or left out. Yet again, no transparency/consistency is the biggest problem.

I agree. The silly post-selection interview doesn't do much to justify the decision-making going on behind closed doors. It often seems to just be a way for them to justify their biases.

[ShockerPhi]

Speaking of the CIT, someday I really hope a new tournament could be set up for the worst 64 teams in the NCAA around the 300+ RPI range. Perhaps Seton Hall could host the event and call it the Seton Hall Invitational Tournament. Or perhaps the Sam Houston Invitational Tournament.

Bonus, it would allow some MVC teams to make the postseason more often than they currently do.

I like this idea. Except to move on, you lose. The team that "wins" this tournament would be declared the worst team in the NCAA. The Toilet Bowl of college basketball.

Imagine the desperation in the championship of this tournament to not be declared the worst team of the season. That would be some interesting basketball.

[Dave Stalwart]

I like this idea. Except to move on, you lose. The team that "wins" this tournament would be declared the worst team in the NCAA. The Toilet Bowl of college basketball.

Imagine the desperation in the championship of this tournament to not be declared the worst team of the season. That would be some interesting basketball.

and since none of those teams will have the athletic budget to even afford to be in the tournament in the first place, they will be thrilled when their teams win and get out ASAP. There would be lots of incentive to win a game and play yourself out. :) Most importantly, make sure Charles Barkley is doing commentary in the finals so he can call the winner TURBLE. The ultimate overall loser of the entire NCAA season, will be given a contract with Bruce Weber.

[60Shock]

So are we really saying that wins or loses in conference tournament games don't really matter so far as the concept concerning that if you don't win half of your regular conference games you are not eligible for NCAA consideration?

Yet, on the other hand, if you are less than a 50/50 team and beat one or more of your top 50 conference teams, but you don't win the conference championship, you should not be considered for the NCAA,. because these wins do not matter?

Oftentimes, hard, fast rules need a lot of tweaking.

[BOBB]

So are we really saying that wins or loses in conference tournament games don't really matter so far as the concept concerning that if you don't win half of your regular conference games you are not eligible for NCAA consideration?

Yet, on the other hand, if you are less than a 50/50 team and beat one or more of your top 50 conference teams, but you don't win the conference championship, you should not be considered for the NCAA,. because these wins do not matter?

Oftentimes, hard, fast rules need a lot of tweaking.

In any system there will be exceptions that prove the rule. Some 7-9 or 8-10 team will get hot and lose in their conference final, but that would only get them to .500.

[kochHead]

The sad part is 70% (an arbitrary number i just made up) of the selection issues could be solved if there was some kind of NCAA scheduling mandate (never gonna happen).

[WSUwatcher]

PaulS passed along the suggestion by Jay Bilas that at-large teams be chosen before the conference tournaments (thus, based only on regular season results) and that the tournaments be used only to determine automatic qualifiers.

That could certainly be done, if the selection committee chose its 36 at-large teams plus a list, in order, of teams that would be plugged in as auto-bids were filled by those already designated as tournament teams. Would certainly provide complete transparency.

[BOBB]

PaulS passed along the suggestion by Jay Bilas that at-large teams be chosen before the conference tournaments (thus, based only on regular season results) and that the tournaments be used only to determine automatic qualifiers.

That could certainly be done, if the selection committee chose its 36 at-large teams plus a list, in order, of teams that would be plugged in as auto-bids were filled by those already designated as tournament teams. Would certainly provide complete transparency.

Tremendous idea.

[Shockers5150]

I would still like regular season champs in. But bilas is on to something

[60Shock]

I don't really care what they do as long as the Shockers make the NCAA every year. '

And in that rare case we do not, I will ***** bloody murder.