The tools in Bristol are at it again.

[WSUwatcher]

No biggie

Easy there, Hockey. If you're sickened by this, you need to boost your immune system. As others have noted, it just shows how far and how quickly WSU sank after Mike Cohen took over.

Ten losing seasons from 1989-2001 did some pretty serious damage to WSU's point count in the ESPN ranking, and last year's star-crossed, injury-riddled mess (as opposed to the .500 record they missed by literally a handful of shots) probably knocked WSU down a number of spots as well. Plus, the luck of the years that were chosen cost WSU all of the success from early in Gene Smithson's career. If they had looked at 30 years rather than 25, the Shocks would no doubt have climbed a ways, too.

[shocks771]

Where did I say that Evansville had a better program? All that I was pointing out is that they have had just as much success as WSU has had over the past 24 seasons.

They have been in the Valley for 14 seasons now and have an overall record of 107-145 in Valley games and Wichita State is 115-137 in that same time period. Both schools have made the NCAA's once and have won the regular season title once in that time period.

I will agree that the rankings probably do give a little more credit for winning the smaller conferences than they should. It would probably be more fair to say that you get 5 bonus points for winning a Top 10 RPI league and you get 3 bonus points for winning a league that is below the Top 10.

However, when WSU made it to the NCAA's in the 80's out of the MVC we did not win a game in the tournament and Evansville was able to win a game in the tournament while in the MCC.

I agree with you that today our program is in much better shape than Evansville's, you really can't say that there is too much of a difference in our program's performances over the past 24 years, which is what this article concentrates on.

[HockeyShock]

I know the math adds up, but I don't agree with their scoring system. Making the Big Dance scores the same as making the NIT? Losing to a lower seed in the first round can actually give you a negative prestige score? The same penalty for a run-of-the-mill bad season as for being actively BANNED from post-season play? It's skewed to hell and back. And it conveniently makes WSU look like crap by putting the cutoff right at the end of the Fogler era.

We've made a Final Four, that alone should get us in the top 150.

:clap: :wsu_posters: :yahoo: :clap:

[Snapshot9]

Post Season 1985 was selected because that is when the big Dance went to 64 teams.

[KC Shox]

Makes sense to me. WSU fell off the map in the 90's.

[vbird53]

Makes sense to me. WSU fell off the map in the 90's.

But the climb back onto that map should dispel much of that. In my opinion, it would have been much easier to stay off that map.

I really like what HockeyShock said about this whole thing.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Makes sense to me. WSU fell off the map in the 90's.

...and you're still a @$!%'ing moron.


T


...8)

[60Shock]

Didn't they do a similar poll a while back where they rated the top basketball schools for either the entire 20th Century, or perhaps it was the last half of the century?

I seem to recall that we did not show up well in that one either because of several terrible decades.

[The Mad Hatter]

Makes sense to me. WSU fell off the map in the 90's.

But the climb back onto that map should dispel much of that. In my opinion, it would have been much easier to stay off that map.

I really like what HockeyShock said about this whole thing.

The problem is that the system rewards mediocrity, and punishes up and down programs. Let's look at a scenario over three years of two teams.

Team 1
Year 1 - Record 15-15, no post season, no points
Year 2 - Record 15-15, no post season, no points
Year 3 - Record 15-15, no post season, no points
Total - .500 record, no post season, no points

Team 2
Year 1 - Record 14-16 (-3), no post season, -3 points
Year 2 - Record 14-16 (-3), no post season, -3 points
Year 3 - Record 25-5 (1), Conference Tourney Champs (3), NCAA Berth (1), Lose in first round, 5 points
Total - .589 record, 1 post season, -1 point

[vbird53]

Makes sense to me. WSU fell off the map in the 90's.

But the climb back onto that map should dispel much of that. In my opinion, it would have been much easier to stay off that map.

I really like what HockeyShock said about this whole thing.

The problem is that the system rewards mediocrity, and punishes up and down programs. Let's look at a scenario over three years of two teams.

Team 1
Year 1 - Record 15-15, no post season, no points
Year 2 - Record 15-15, no post season, no points
Year 3 - Record 15-15, no post season, no points
Total - .500 record, no post season, no points

Team 2
Year 1 - Record 14-16 (-3), no post season, -3 points
Year 2 - Record 14-16 (-3), no post season, -3 points
Year 3 - Record 25-5 (1), Conference Tourney Champs (3), NCAA Berth (1), Lose in first round, 5 points
Total - .589 record, 1 post season, -1 point

Send this to the higher ups!!! The system is flawed!!!

:o :o :o :o

[ShockerFever]

Makes sense to me. WSU fell off the map in the 90's.

But the climb back onto that map should dispel much of that. In my opinion, it would have been much easier to stay off that map.

I really like what HockeyShock said about this whole thing.

The problem is that the system rewards mediocrity, and punishes up and down programs. Let's look at a scenario over three years of two teams.

Team 1
Year 1 - Record 15-15, no post season, no points
Year 2 - Record 15-15, no post season, no points
Year 3 - Record 15-15, no post season, no points
Total - .500 record, no post season, no points

Team 2
Year 1 - Record 14-16 (-3), no post season, -3 points
Year 2 - Record 14-16 (-3), no post season, -3 points
Year 3 - Record 25-5 (1), Conference Tourney Champs (3), NCAA Berth (1), Lose in first round, 5 points
Total - .589 record, 1 post season, -1 point

Nice job.

I don't think anyone should take this article too seriously. It's just a bunch of bored basketball no-namers with nothing better to do in the heat of summer.

This proves it. Good find. :good: