Selection Sunday Thread

[ShockMe300]

Yes, but they would also have to change the directives. They are using the "wins against x RPI team" and "losses against x RPI team" model of selecting and seeding. Well that would be all good if there was a balanced and fair scheduling practice in the NCAA, but it's just the opposite. It's rigged against all but 5 or 6 conferences, and until they change how they select and seed, we will always get the same results. Garbage in garbage out as they say in the coding world.

While this is true this year, they make up "models" to select and seed every year. Just a couple of years ago it was the "eye test" that held back "Mid-Majors" and now it's metrics and RPI that they are choosing to ignore. They just make it up as they go along.

[WSUwatcher]

Indeed, kochHead. Any set of guidelines that relies on RPI is going to be garbage, because the RPI is garbage. The committee knows it too, but when dutiful university bureaucrats are given guidelines to follow, follow them they will.

[Cdizzle]

I like the part where even 2-4 vs. RPI Top 50 wasn't making their point enough, so they moved the target again to record against tournament teams (a metric they were solely responsible for creating).

[ShockerPhi]

Does anyone know the historical trend for mid-major at large bids? By my count there were only 3 this year. VCU, Dayton and St. Mary's. Is this less than previous years, indicating a further trend towards P5 bias?

[Shock Top]

Does anyone know the historical trend for mid-major at large bids? By my count there were only 3 this year. VCU, Dayton and St. Mary's. Is this less than previous years, indicating a further trend towards P5 bias?

Remember when the MVC had 4 at-large bids on there own?! Oh those were the times!!

[WuShock16]

Remember when the MVC had 4 at-large bids on there own?! Oh those were the times!!

Technically, it was just three at-large spots, but your point remains true. It has been sad to see this conference fall to such mediocre standards.

[Shock Top]

Technically, it was just three at-large spots, but your point remains true. It has been sad to see this conference fall to such mediocre standards.

Right! And that's was when MSU should have made it and Creighton wasn't even in the picture that year!

That year had to be the begin from of the death of the little guy! The P5 boys had to have been PISSED!

[Shock Top]

In 2006 the MVC had 6 teams in the Top 51 teams in Kenpom!!

6!!! How has Elgin let the ball drop so much???

[Kel Varnsen]

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2017/03/how_the_ncaa_abuses_statistics_to_stack_the_deck_against_small_schools_like.html

Good article by Ken Pomeroy.

[Aargh]

+1 Wouldn't look good losing to Dayton. Bet they are motivated.

They certainly are. Dayton is highly motivated, considering they're the underdog and everyone is making a big deal out of it.

[Aargh]

They are also 12-5 against the RPI Top 100.

Which means if they had 'Syracuse' written on their jerseys, they would be a 3 seed.

And 7 of those wins were against 51-100. Suddenly this year, top-100 wins are the standard. Teams with a lot of games against 51-100 had a huge advantage. A tournament team is SUPPOSED to beat teams in the 51-100 range, not get extra credit for doing that.

[im4wsu]

We were young and not ready for prime time when we played in the Bahamas. We all know that we're a different team now. The committee, and probably everyone else outside the MVC, thinks we're the same team that can't beat anyone but patsies. Now is out time to prove that we've grown up and are ready to kick some ass.

We've talked about young and that our D-1 experience doubled between the LSU game and the end of the regular season.

The four losses have something in common, a very, very slow start. We outscored two of the four teams in the second half. and was within one in another, and 5 in the other.

Louisville (RPI 7) had 16-pt lead with 2:58 in 1st half. We cut it to 6 at 11:42 and 9:28 in second half.
..UL FG% 36.5% 3-pt 29.2%
..WSU.... 31.6..........27.3

Michigan State (RPI 50) had 39-29 lead at half (12-pts at 4:29 of first half) and 18-pts at 11:56, cut to 1 at 4:13 and 2 with 1:09 left to lose by 5
..MSU .. 50.0% and 44.0%
..WSU.. 35.5 and 22.7%

Oklahoma State (RPI 40) led 49-33 at half. down 25 at 4:47 in 1st. Never got closer than 13 at the 18:25 mark of second half
OSU .. 52.5% and 50.0%
..WSU.. 36.5 and 17.6

Illinois State (RPI 33) led 37-26 at half, biggest margin in first half. Got it to 1-pt at 13:36 then lost by 14.
..ISU...54.2...45.5
..WSU 34.9...33.3

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

And 7 of those wins were against 51-100. Suddenly this year, top-100 wins are the standard. Teams with a lot of games against 51-100 had a huge advantage. A tournament team is SUPPOSED to beat teams in the 51-100 range, not get extra credit for doing that.

According to KenPom, #40 (a generic bubble, but in, team) playing #75 is only going to win about 60% of the time on the road, 80% of the time at home. Let's not go so far as to undervalue wins over 51-100.

[Dave Stalwart]

I hold paper from both, so I come by it honestly. It's been no picnic as an IU basketball fan in recent years (decades really).

When you say "paper" are we talking paper classes or are we talking about degrees? I've heard of several people holding paper classes at UNC.

[shock]

So they are 85 instead of 75?

Every coke at Tulsa comes with a packet of peanuts.