Selection Sunday Thread

[1972Shocker]

The thing is that now the Shocks have to take advantage of the opportunities to prove beyond a doubt that they are grossly under-seeded. Only one way to do that. Git 'er dun Shocks!

[Shocker-maniac]

Today sucked as a Bird fan. Simply put the Valley needs to be better. After seeing the disrespect you guys got with the seed I'm all in on the Shockers for the rest of the season. Good luck and kick some Kentucky ass. Would love to see Calipari whine some more.

No doubt both of our teams were tremendously let down by the pathetic MVC. Now, let's go make some noise in both of our tournaments. I will be rooting for the Redbirds to win the whole enchilada!

[WSUwatcher]

The fact that based upon the information we have, the MVC Tournament finale was probably an elimination game from our perspective despite a top 8-15 ranking across the board in nearly all advanced metrics.

No, you don't know that, PA. To say that you have to assume that the selectors regarded WSU and the Jailbirds as equivalent and interchangeable, and we can't assume that at all. If WSU had lost, it's true that IllSt would have had a better RPI (for what that's worth) than the Shocks, or even than the Shocks do now. But WSU would still have been in respectable territory, and would still have been ranked higher, would have had a (big) advantage in metrics (or ratings like Sagarin), and would still have had a bunch of people talking them up vs. one Facepalm crank disparaging them (a guy who doesn't have the power to talk WSU's seed down, despite the paranoia of posters like Shockie) while his colleagues almost unanimously scoffed at him.

In that event, it's entirely possible that the Jailbirds would have been a #10 seed and the Shocks still in, maybe by the "prove yourselves" Dayton route they were handed last year. We just don't know -- and I'll grant you that I'm glad we didn't have to find out, but it's hardly the open and shut case you suggest.

(Edit: And by the way, I'm with the guys from Illinois, even though I'm no big fan of the Jailbirds, as my name for them suggests -- I think they got the short end of the stick, and I hope they make some noise in the NIT.)

Frankly, I wish the committee had (as some are saying) "screwed" WSU one notch more and put them in the slot that instead went to Rhode island. Are you kidding me? WSU at #10 has Dayton (probably as a betting favorite, color of uniform notwithstanding), then potentially Kentucky, UCLA, and Carolina; whereas#11 URI has Creighton, then potentially Oregon, Louisville, and the Chickenhawks. If I had to choose, I'd take that #11 seed and route over WSU's #10 every day of the week -- and in my view it isn't that close.

[Play Angry]

That is a lengthy response that does very little to convince me that our #38 slot on the S-Curve did not have an outstanding chance of dropping off the radar entirely if half of our Top 50 wins were eliminated with a loss last Sunday.

The point of the post was that a Top 10-15 ranking in a composite of advanced metrics, a Top 20 spot in the AP Polll (and, even when using the least favorable and least advanced formula we still slotted out as an 8 seed) should set off alarm bells when we instead receive a 10 seed with an S-Curve slot a half dozen spots away from an NIT 1 seed. It is ridiculous, and I see no merit in your odd attempt at a refutation.

It is an extraordinarily unwelcome precedent. I want us to receive the seed line respect our resume merits.

[Kel Varnsen]

I said from day one that I would prefer an 11 seed to any seed 7-10. Much easier path. But regardless, to go far in the tournament, you have to beat good teams. Let's do it. But as far as the process is concerned...

The entire selection process is currently rife with confirmation bias. The committee has basically invented new ways to splice their current awful metric, the RPI. Mid-major with a good RPI? Well, did they beat high RPI teams? Not really. Did they play any high RPI teams? No, because the P5 teams know that they need to schedule other P5 teams in their non-conference schedule in order to make the tournament, and there's no incentive to playing a game against a team like Illinois State or Monmouth. So by the RPI, mid-major NCSOSs are going to be weak unless they're fortunate to be in a good November tournament. Basically, if a mid-major team meets one criteria, they start including the other ones they know will exclude them from the field. Really, the committee has no set criteria that they can point to and say, "SEE HERE? THIS IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR IF YOU WANT TO BE AN AT-LARGE TEAM AND/OR HAVE A HIGH SEED." Nothing. It's so subjective. Is it the best resume? Maybe. Are they looking for the best teams? Definitely not, as WSU got a 10 seed and SMU just got a 6.

And the CBS guys like Clark Kellogg making excuses for the committee don't help. Saying, "they have a really tough job and they always get it done" is like saying "well my employees totally fudged the accounting numbers and gave us an inaccurate picture of our financial standing, but they got it done!" (not the greatest analogy, I know). They didn't even ask the MSU AD about our seed because everyone there aside from Gary Parrish and Matt Norlander seems to be stuck in the 20th century and doesn't know a lick about advanced metrics, let alone basic math and logic. The same goes for the committee, as I highly doubt any of them have an advanced understanding of the game of basketball. The committee and its members need to be challenged. This is an important event with a lot of money on the line for individual schools, especially mids. Thankfully, public sentiment (if Twitter is any measuring stick) is starting to move in the right direction. Hopefully the NCAA recognizes this.

And this supports my opinion that we were out if we didn't beat ISUR in STL a week ago. I said before that I didn't trust the committee, and I trust them even less now. They have really dug their heels in on the whole RPI thing, taking an awful metric and compounding the problem by using it to stratify teams and wins (what if you beat the team who was a 51 RPI three times? Why does that not matter?). The whole process has become as much of a sham as the bidding to host a World Cup.

[Kel Varnsen]

And screw the feud between our teams, Illinois State should have been in. I really feel for Muller in that regard. Hope they curb stomp the P5 teams they play in the NIT and win the damn thing.

[WSUwatcher]

Dayton is 2 hours from Indianapolis. You have to be kidding, right?

No problem -- you know who's the best road team around. WSU wouldn't care if they were playing the Flyers IN Dayton.

[shocker43]

They just gave the hungriest team and coach in the country more fire. Let's go shox.

Good luck to the Redbirds in the NIT.

[Shock Top]

I said from day one that I would prefer an 11 seed to any seed 7-10. Much easier path. But regardless, to go far in the tournament, you have to beat good teams. Let's do it. But as far as the process is concerned...

The entire selection process is currently rife with confirmation bias. The committee has basically invented new ways to splice their current awful metric, the RPI. Mid-major with a good RPI? Well, did they beat high RPI teams? Not really. Did they play any high RPI teams? No, because the P5 teams know that they need to schedule other P5 teams in their non-conference schedule in order to make the tournament, and there's no incentive to playing a game against a team like Illinois State or Monmouth. So by the RPI, mid-major NCSOSs are going to be weak unless they're fortunate to be in a good November tournament. Basically, if a mid-major team meets one criteria, they start including the other ones they know will exclude them from the field. Really, the committee has no set criteria that they can point to and say, "SEE HERE? THIS IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR IF YOU WANT TO BE AN AT-LARGE TEAM AND/OR HAVE A HIGH SEED." Nothing. It's so subjective. Is it the best resume? Maybe. Are they looking for the best teams? Definitely not, as WSU got a 10 seed and SMU just got a 6.

And the CBS guys like Clark Kellogg making excuses for the committee don't help. Saying, "they have a really tough job and they always get it done" is like saying "well my employees totally fudged the accounting numbers and gave us an inaccurate picture of our financial standing, but they got it done!" (not the greatest analogy, I know). They didn't even ask the MSU AD about our seed because everyone there aside from Gary Parrish and Matt Norlander seems to be stuck in the 20th century and doesn't know a lick about advanced metrics, let alone basic math and logic. The same goes for the committee, as I highly doubt any of them have an advanced understanding of the game of basketball. The committee and its members need to be challenged. This is an important event with a lot of money on the line for individual schools, especially mids. Thankfully, public sentiment (if Twitter is any measuring stick) is starting to move in the right direction. Hopefully the NCAA recognizes this.

And this supports my opinion that we were out if we didn't beat ISUR in STL a week ago. I said before that I didn't trust the committee, and I trust them even less now. They have really dug their heels in on the whole RPI thing, taking an awful metric and compounding the problem by using it to stratify teams and wins (what if you beat the team who was a 51 RPI three times? Why does that not matter?). The whole process has become as much of a sham as the bidding to host a World Cup.

Bingo. The almighty $ always rules.

[ACW]

Someone (may have been Barkley) made a GREAT point last night that I'd never even thought of. Not only is underseeding unfair to the underseeded teams themselves, but it's also unfair to their opponents, who have to play teams that are better than teams they should have to play.

[Royalno5]

Has anyone seen any Calipari quotes yet?

[AndShock]

Has anyone seen any Calipari quotes yet?

He was on ESPN and seemed much more concerned with Dayton.

[Kung Wu]

Someone (may have been Barkley) made a GREAT point last night that I'd never even thought of. Not only is underseeding unfair to the underseeded teams themselves, but it's also unfair to their opponents, who have to play teams that are better than teams they should have to play.

Collectively, Shockernetters have exhaustedly thought of every single thing there is to consider regarding being underseeded, from every angle and every perspective. Now we just get to enjoy the annual ritual of restating, reaffirming, rehashing, reliving, remorsing, readjusting, reese's pieces, reacting, rejoicing, reese witherspoon, and remind me what I was talking about?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Humanity is dumb. The committee is dumb. Why even bother? Eat Arby's.

[Slalomshocker]

I gotta say, I came to the 'thought' last night that this thing was entirely corrupt based upon the committee members being P5 ADs and wanting as much $$ flowing to their conferences as possible. I mean, lining up non-P5 teams against each other in round 1, eliminating $$ to one of the non-P5 conferences right off. It screams corrupt........but look at the committee members:

Mich St, Kentucky, Stanford, Duke. Thats your P5 representation. 4 of 10. Remainder: UNC-Ashville, BYU, New Mexico, Ohio, Northeastern, Creighton.

To me, Rasmussen probably evens the field at 5/5. So I will humbly say, as much as it appears corrupt, it probably isn't as bad as we perceive it. Though, it could be that 4 guys run the show and the rest are there to 'look' the part. That said, WSU has been given 2 good seeds over the last 6 years. A 5 seed (lost to VCU rd 1) and the 1 (lost to UK rd 2). Say what you will about the matchups there, but WSU has not exactly performed well as a high seed. Time to prove it, because next season...there will be another argument for a top seed