2017-2018 Bracketology

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

If the Shockers win out, what's the highest seed they'll get?

Some recent discussion a few pages back that covered this topic...

https://shockernet.net/forum/wichita...15#post1111015

I still find it hard to see WSU getting a 2, though stuff like KU beating Texas Tech and Auburn losing at Florida has since increased the odds a tad. Need much more of those types of outcomes though.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

We want to generally root for all Shocker opponents to do well, but here are the most important teams in terms of possibly advancing or falling to a different Quadrant.

#21 Houston (top 30 = Q1 home win)
#34 Oklahoma (top 30 = Q1 home loss)
#40 Temple (top 30 = Q1 home win)
#63 Baylor (top 75 = Q1 road win)
#69 UCF (top 75 = Q2 home win, Q1 road game Thurs) DOUBLY IMPORTANT
#71 Charleston (top 75 = Q2 home win)
#76 Tulsa (top 75 = Q1 road win, Q2 home win) DOUBLY IMPORTANT

[Cdizzle]

We want to generally root for all Shocker opponents to do well, but here are the most important teams in terms of possibly advancing or falling to a different Quadrant.

#34 Oklahoma (top 30 = Q1 home loss)

Fun wrinkle of a question: Do people think it's better for OU to be a Q1 loss or a Q2 loss?

Logic says Q1 is obvious. Logic also says just using the metric itself is obvious. The committee has pounded for years that the MOST important thing was your record against the top tier (formerly Top 50 RPI, now Q1 RPI).

Which is better:
5-3 vs. Q1
5-4 vs. Q1

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

That's a "oh come on the answer is obviously...... ummm... well.... hmmmm" type of question.

I know what the answer *should be*, but not necessarily what the answer actually is.

[Cdizzle]

Not knowing or understanding the answer to this question, IMO, is the problem that exists with the selection committee.

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

My experience is that you want every home loss to be as good as it can.

If it were road or neutral, they could be Q2 and not look as bad.

[shock]

Fun wrinkle of a question: Do people think it's better for OU to be a Q1 loss or a Q2 loss?

Logic says Q1 is obvious. Logic also says just using the metric itself is obvious. The committee has pounded for years that the MOST important thing was your record against the top tier (formerly Top 50 RPI, now Q1 RPI).

Which is better:
5-3 vs. Q1
5-4 vs. Q1

Using big 12 logic, a quality loss is as good as a non-quality win, but we are not in the big 12. I still think its good to have it as a Q1 beacuse the other thing they harp is strength of schedule.

[AndShock]

Q1 or Q2 would have a negligible effect on SOS. It might have a human bias effect when someone looks at it and sees “9 Q1 games”.

[Cdizzle]

Right. The difference between RPI 30 and RPI 31 is ridiculously small, but we're willing to treat one like the most important thing that happened all year, and the other like it didn't happen.

The minute you start artificially super-imposing brackets around parts of the rating system, no matter how intelligently you go about it, you've already lost.

[ShockerFever]

ESPN Bracketology - Joe Lunardi
Updated: 02/26/18

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-bas...l/bracketology

EAST REGION - Dallas
#3 Wichita State vs. #14 Bucknell

#3 Cincinnati vs. #14 Charleston


WEST REGION - Nashville
#7 Houston vs. #10 Arizona State

Maybe we can show a team from this state a thing or two on how to deal with Bucknell in the NCAA Tournament.

[WuShock16]

Evaluate these teams. Any guesses?

Team A
Q1 3-3
Q2 8-2
Q3 10-0
Q4 3-0
SOS: 16
NCSOS: 14

Team B
Q1 3-2
Q2 10-2
Q3 4-1
Q4 6-0
SOS: 46
NCSOS: 68

Team C
Q1 3-3
Q2 5-0
Q3 11-0
Q4 9-0
SOS: 89
NCSOS: 220

[Cdizzle]

Ooh! Ooh! I know! Pick me! Pick me!

[ShockerPhi]

Evaluate these teams. Any guesses?

Team A
Q1 3-3
Q2 8-2
Q3 10-0
Q4 3-0
SOS: 16
NCSOS: 14

Team B
Q1 3-2
Q2 10-2
Q3 4-1
Q4 6-0
SOS: 46
NCSOS: 68

Team C
Q1 3-3
Q2 5-0
Q3 11-0
Q4 9-0
SOS: 89
NCSOS: 220

Team A > Team B > Team C. No idea what seed lines these should fall on. However, I'm gonna guess we are Team B and Michigan State is Team C?

[Cdizzle]

Your 2 guesses are correct. A is Duke. Duke and MSU currently projected as 2 seeds, WSU currently projected as a 3-4 seed.

[shock-it-to-me]

Anyone hear Bruce Rasmussen from the committee on local sports talk a week or so ago? He basically said the quadrants are overblown, and that the committee “digs much deeper” than that, looking at every individual game, not just quadrant records.

[Cdizzle]

Gonna go ahead and call bull-honky on that one.

[WSUwatcher]

We can only hope that's true. Quadrants sound sophisticated, but they're still based on RPI, and to say RPI is flawed is to say that Antarctica is cold. Finding a fancy sounding way to use it doesn't make it any less flawed.

[WheatShock]

Anyone hear Bruce Rasmussen from the committee on local sports talk a week or so ago? He basically said the quadrants are overblown, and that the committee “digs much deeper” than that, looking at every individual game, not just quadrant records.

What I took from that interview was that he was saying "not all wins within a quadrant are created equal". Road wins over #3 and #63 are both Q1 but one is better than the other and will get more weight from the committee.

[AndShock]

Translated: wins by teams we like will have more weight than wins by teams we don’t like.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I would be happy to shred the argument that WSU's resume is equal or better than MSU's, should anyone here be attempting to make it.

[Cdizzle]

Go for it. But pretend you are on the selection committee and the name of MSU's conference is Missouri Valley.

[ShockdaWorld]

I’d like to hear this too, with CDizzle’s qualifiers.

[Cdizzle]

For the record, I still owe JH4P a response before he owes one to me.

[Cdizzle]

Random, and ultimately useless, but WSU currently has the most Q2 wins in the country.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

WSU vs Michigan State - Resume Comparison

Let's start with all the wins and losses that are virtually identical. Below are the RPI numbers (losses identified in parenthesis) that can be considered equal and therefore eliminated from both resumes for comparison purposes.

Home (WSU / MSU)
34 / 25 (Losses)
52 / 58
69 / 65
71 / 68
76 / 84
117 / 121
155 / 168
206 / 206
229 / 226
295 / 276
308 / 336

Neutral
221 / 179

Road
21 / 18 (Losses)
63 / 65
102 / 110
117 / 121
274 / 212

I think there are also two games that can be paired despite not being similar in home/neutral/away status.

Mixed
@11 / N5
H148 / N176

Note, I tried to be as fair as possible. Home wins vs 229 / 226 are basically a dead match. I think if you look closely, you will see that I actually favored WSU in this part of the analysis. MSU's loss to 25 is probably a step up from WSU's to 34. The neutral 221 / 170 and road 274 / 212 are both somewhat stretching the concept of equality, both in WSU's favor. Yes, home 52 / 58 gives MSU equal credit for an ever so slightly less impressive win, but I would hope everyone can agree that in total, this is a fair attempt to eliminate similar outcomes and that WSU is given generous treatment.

Before I move on to remaining games on the resumes, what can we learn so far? Both teams are 17-2 in similar games, with many vs good or even great competition. Looking at *only* these similar games, I would call both teams elite. If we were 19 games into the season, and these were the two resumes, we would probably be looking at two top 5 teams. Let's use that as a starting point, shall we? So... what's left after we eliminate these 19 "equal" games?

WSU 6-3		.	MSU 11-1
Wins	Losses	.	Wins	Losses
21	@40	.	9	4
40	N68	.	110
N66	H98	.	N117
@76		.	@152
@94		.	@158
@98		.	@165
		.	@168
		.	201
		.	212
		.	222
		.	311

Conclusion:
Remember, we said both these teams look elite based on their 19 similar games, and that if anything, I gave WSU the tiniest level of favoritism in order to call those 19 games "equal". So what do the 9 WSU and 12 MSU games that we are left with tell us? For MSU, I see a split with 2 elite teams, and then undefeated vs mediocre and bad teams. This is fully in line with expectations for an elite team. These 12 games don't prove elite status. That part is the previous 19 games. These just continue to fall in line with it.

For WSU, 6-3 is a bit underwhelming vs mostly NIT level competition. If we are starting from the perspective of elite status, These last 9 games give us a little reason to doubt. None of the losses are to likely nation title contenders, and if played chronologically after the other 19 games, I'm sure WSU fans would go from "wow, these guys are headed to the Final Four" to "hmmm, I see some flaws".

No, WSU and MSU aren't worlds apart. That's not my point. My point is that there is no conceivable way, IMO, that WSU can be considered MSU's equal on paper thus far. When the Bracket Matrix has MSU at 2.25 and WSU at 3.87 for seeding, and then I truly look at their resumes, I feel like the separation of 1.5 seed lines is about right.

[jdshock]

That's a really effective argument. Thanks for the work on this.

I will say that I think the chart is a little misleading. It really relies on the fact that MSU won most of the games in front of them. In those 12 games, MSU split with the only two top 100 teams they played (admittedly, they were top 10 teams). All of WSU's other 9 games are top 100 opponents. The frustration on our part comes from the fact that we've been told repeatedly our wins aren't good enough and we always said "look, we can only win the games on our schedule." But MSU isn't going to get screwed over in seeding like we have over and over again.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

AndShock, WSU wishes they had a schedule as good as 2018 MSU back when they were in the MVC. The vast majority of years, they did not.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

jdshock, note that in past years, I’ve always argued that WSU’s winning % and avg margin of victory vs 51-150 was extremely impressive and underrated by the committee. Beating a 3rd place MVC team by 25 deserved more credit than it got. Doing that nightly is something Ron and Fred did in their senior year and got virtually zero credit for. KenPom recognized the value, but the committee didn't.

Looking at this year, 6-3 vs NIT level competition might help your argument if you are on the bubble, but it is unimpressive if you are looking for a top 4 seed. The top 15 or so teams in the country typically would be expected to go 7-2, with more going 8-1 than 6-3. Maybe it is hard as a Shocker fan to adjust our thinking, but if we want to be a top 5-8 team, this new plethora of "good, but not great" competition we are seeing needs to still be beaten with regularity. 6-3 isn't good enough.

The current top 10 in the RPI has an 88% winning percentage in Q2 games and has only 3 total Q3 losses amongst the 10 teams. If you want to be elite, gotta raise your expectations.

[ShockerFever]

WSU vs Michigan State - Resume Comparison

Let's start with all the wins and losses that are virtually identical. Below are the RPI numbers (losses identified in parenthesis) that can be considered equal and therefore eliminated from both resumes for comparison purposes.

Home (WSU / MSU)
34 / 25 (Losses)
52 / 58
69 / 65
71 / 68
76 / 84
117 / 121
155 / 168
206 / 206
229 / 226
295 / 276
308 / 336

Neutral
221 / 179

Road
21 / 18 (Losses)
63 / 65
102 / 110
117 / 121
274 / 212

I think there are also two games that can be paired despite not being similar in home/neutral/away status.

Mixed
@11 / N5
H148 / N176

Note, I tried to be as fair as possible. Home wins vs 229 / 226 are basically a dead match. I think if you look closely, you will see that I actually favored WSU in this part of the analysis. MSU's loss to 25 is probably a step up from WSU's to 34. The neutral 221 / 170 and road 274 / 212 are both somewhat stretching the concept of equality, both in WSU's favor. Yes, home 52 / 58 gives MSU equal credit for an ever so slightly less impressive win, but I would hope everyone can agree that in total, this is a fair attempt to eliminate similar outcomes and that WSU is given generous treatment.

Before I move on to remaining games on the resumes, what can we learn so far? Both teams are 17-2 in similar games, with many vs good or even great competition. Looking at *only* these similar games, I would call both teams elite. If we were 19 games into the season, and these were the two resumes, we would probably be looking at two top 5 teams. Let's use that as a starting point, shall we? So... what's left after we eliminate these 19 "equal" games?

WSU 6-3		.	MSU 11-1
Wins	Losses	.	Wins	Losses
21	@40	.	9	4
40	N68	.	110
N66	H98	.	N117
@76		.	@152
@94		.	@158
@98		.	@165
		.	@168
		.	201
		.	212
		.	222
		.	311

Conclusion:
Remember, we said both these teams look elite based on their 19 similar games, and that if anything, I gave WSU the tiniest level of favoritism in order to call those 19 games "equal". So what do the 9 WSU and 12 MSU games that we are left with tell us? For MSU, I see a split with 2 elite teams, and then undefeated vs mediocre and bad teams. This is fully in line with expectations for an elite team. These 12 games don't prove elite status. That part is the previous 19 games. These just continue to fall in line with it.

For WSU, 6-3 is a bit underwhelming vs mostly NIT level competition. If we are starting from the perspective of elite status, These last 9 games give us a little reason to doubt. None of the losses are to likely nation title contenders, and if played chronologically after the other 19 games, I'm sure WSU fans would go from "wow, these guys are headed to the Final Four" to "hmmm, I see some flaws".

No, WSU and MSU aren't worlds apart. That's not my point. My point is that there is no conceivable way, IMO, that WSU can be considered MSU's equal on paper thus far. When the Bracket Matrix has MSU at 2.25 and WSU at 3.87 for seeding, and then I truly look at their resumes, I feel like the separation of 1.5 seed lines is about right.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I know "these two numbers are close together" is tough mathematics, but you are a smart guy Fever. You can do it.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I find it interesting that all the screaming and yelling about WSU's quality KenPom rating the past 5 years has now been replaced with "I think #17 and #5 are pretty much equal on paper."

[jdshock]

I'm absolutely in the camp that thinks MSU deserves to be ranked/seeded higher than we do.

I think most of us who are experiencing some cognitive dissonance about the whole thing are just rooting for MSU to get punished for not winning better games. If we could hear someone say the same stuff that got said about us ("Yeah, they won a lot of games, but they've only won a couple of tough games! They haven't proven it!"), it would finally feel like vindication. Two wrongs don't make a right, and I'd rather the committee just get it right every time. But it'd sure feel good to see a powerhouse like MSU get knocked a couple of lines for not winning enough tough games.

[WuDrWu]

I find it interesting that you've spent most of the last couple of days trying to create a controversy that doesn't exist so that you can argue the opposite side and pat yourself on the back for being the only one smart enough to see the real truth, as you see it. Don't hurt your shoulder.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

WuDrWu, you can be disinterested in the discussion, but it is dishonest to claim I am making up a controversy when multiple other posters have brought up the comparison.

If you have something of substance to say, I'm all ears.

[ShockCrazy]

WSU vs Michigan State - Resume Comparison

Let's start with all the wins and losses that are virtually identical. Below are the RPI numbers (losses identified in parenthesis) that can be considered equal and therefore eliminated from both resumes for comparison purposes.

Home (WSU / MSU)
34 / 25 (Losses)
52 / 58
69 / 65
71 / 68
76 / 84
117 / 121
155 / 168
206 / 206
229 / 226
295 / 276
308 / 336

Neutral
221 / 179

Road
21 / 18 (Losses)
63 / 65
102 / 110
117 / 121
274 / 212

I think there are also two games that can be paired despite not being similar in home/neutral/away status.

Mixed
@11 / N5
H148 / N176

Note, I tried to be as fair as possible. Home wins vs 229 / 226 are basically a dead match. I think if you look closely, you will see that I actually favored WSU in this part of the analysis. MSU's loss to 25 is probably a step up from WSU's to 34. The neutral 221 / 170 and road 274 / 212 are both somewhat stretching the concept of equality, both in WSU's favor. Yes, home 52 / 58 gives MSU equal credit for an ever so slightly less impressive win, but I would hope everyone can agree that in total, this is a fair attempt to eliminate similar outcomes and that WSU is given generous treatment.

Before I move on to remaining games on the resumes, what can we learn so far? Both teams are 17-2 in similar games, with many vs good or even great competition. Looking at *only* these similar games, I would call both teams elite. If we were 19 games into the season, and these were the two resumes, we would probably be looking at two top 5 teams. Let's use that as a starting point, shall we? So... what's left after we eliminate these 19 "equal" games?

WSU 6-3		.	MSU 11-1
Wins	Losses	.	Wins	Losses
21	@40	.	9	4
40	N68	.	110
N66	H98	.	N117
@76		.	@152
@94		.	@158
@98		.	@165
		.	@168
		.	201
		.	212
		.	222
		.	311

Conclusion:
Remember, we said both these teams look elite based on their 19 similar games, and that if anything, I gave WSU the tiniest level of favoritism in order to call those 19 games "equal". So what do the 9 WSU and 12 MSU games that we are left with tell us? For MSU, I see a split with 2 elite teams, and then undefeated vs mediocre and bad teams. This is fully in line with expectations for an elite team. These 12 games don't prove elite status. That part is the previous 19 games. These just continue to fall in line with it.

For WSU, 6-3 is a bit underwhelming vs mostly NIT level competition. If we are starting from the perspective of elite status, These last 9 games give us a little reason to doubt. None of the losses are to likely nation title contenders, and if played chronologically after the other 19 games, I'm sure WSU fans would go from "wow, these guys are headed to the Final Four" to "hmmm, I see some flaws".

No, WSU and MSU aren't worlds apart. That's not my point. My point is that there is no conceivable way, IMO, that WSU can be considered MSU's equal on paper thus far. When the Bracket Matrix has MSU at 2.25 and WSU at 3.87 for seeding, and then I truly look at their resumes, I feel like the separation of 1.5 seed lines is about right.

I agree with your premise and MSU SHOULD be seeded highly and above us(assuming they don't pick up a terrible loss in B10 tourney this week). But I would like to say MSU's resume is the exact type of resume and RPI/SOS(MSU 14/89 WSU 17/102) we were punished for in 2015. Now MSU's top wins are better than our wins were that year(and a bit better kenpom), which is why a true seeding would have MSU around 2-3 and 2015 WSU should have been 4-5. The question is MSU going to get treated the same way we were and be bumped down a couple seed lines? Doubtful.

[MadaboutWu]

Well put. And the next time a non power five team has a similar resume to MSU they are likely to be punished for it--hell it will likely even happen this year (perhaps not exactly comparable record but a discounting of seed lines from 8 to 11 or whatever). People are just frustrated at how the committee has about ten different measures that they weight inconsistently but generally to the benefit of the power five.

[ShockCrazy]

Oh also I want to add one thing because it kinda drives me crazy, if we are doing a comprehensive resume comparison between two teams all the way down, we actually have a very simple way that encapsulates all that: RPI Rank WSU: 13 MSU: 14. Now if you want to emphasize parts of the resume sure(god I hate the RPI), but what you did top to bottom is already covered in the calculation.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

ShockCrazy, you have a point about WSU and MSU’s pure RPI tank being a tie. I think my response is that the committee has never claimed they consider pure RPI anything but a way to start the conversation. I wish they would improve the formula itself (clearly it hurts teams way too much for playing a 300+ squad, even if they win by 50), but I see that they like to keep the formula simple and then make “judgement adjustments” afterward. I agree this opens them up to significant criticism, but I don’t always agree that all criticisms folks throw out are fair, thus my occasional defenses of their selections.

I’m not always on their side though. I’ve been very vocal about WSU deserving better the last couple years.