At-Large

[vancedave56]

None of the other bubble teams listed have losses as bad as Evansville.

Sorry, teams that lose to teams like that just don't deserve it. You know if it was the other way around, you'd feel the same way.

Bingo! We can't help who we play in-conference, so we just needed to take care of business. We didn't. Drake and E-Ville were bad losses and they are already haunting us.

...and your point is?

If some people want to think "there is a chance," why not let 'em? If some people want to think there is absolutely positively no way, why not let 'em?

blah blah blah

...and when it's all said and done...it doesn't matter who was right or wrong...they are only opinions; it is what it is.

Just enjoy the fact that we are considered for post season play once again...and the future is bright.
:wsu_posters:

[SB Shock]

None of the other bubble teams listed have losses as bad as Evansville.

Sorry, teams that lose to teams like that just don't deserve it. You know if it was the other way around, you'd feel the same way.

Hopefully that is a lesson for the players will takeaway from this year - every game is important, even against the Div II teams in the MVC.

[ShockerFever]

A tad off topic, but after watching some of the Mountain West and Conference USA Tournaments, I find it pretty humorous that they like to be considered equal or greater than the Valley in the pecking order but still host their tourneys on campus sites or in campus cities. Very, very low majorish IMO.

[shocker3]

A tad off topic, but after watching some of the Mountain West and Conference USA Tournaments, I find it pretty humorous that they like to be considered equal or greater than the Valley in the pecking order but still host their tourneys on campus sites or in campus cities. Very, very low majorish IMO.

That puts both of them at least 20 years behind the Valley.

It is also interesting looking at the warren nolan conference rpi. The Valley is actually very close to the MWC in rpi .5420 vs. .5371. While we have a pretty large lead over CUSA: .5371 vs. .5175.

It kind of bugs me that as close as we are the MWC they will probably end up with 4 teams dancing and the Valley will only have one team (not to mention the Valley's 5-4 record against the MWC).

:wsu_posters:

[ShockerFever]

A tad off topic, but after watching some of the Mountain West and Conference USA Tournaments, I find it pretty humorous that they like to be considered equal or greater than the Valley in the pecking order but still host their tourneys on campus sites or in campus cities. Very, very low majorish IMO.

That puts both of them at least 20 years behind the Valley.

It is also interesting looking at the warren nolan conference rpi. The Valley is actually very close to the MWC in rpi .5420 vs. .5371. While we have a pretty large lead over CUSA: .5371 vs. .5175.

It kind of bugs me that as close as we are the MWC they will probably end up with 4 teams dancing and the Valley will only have one team (not to mention the Valley's 5-4 record against the MWC).

:wsu_posters:

Good points, but I still think our loss to Evansville killed us. I hate to keep repeating it but it really was that big. No other team in the MWC that's in or on the bubble has a loss to their cellar dweller.

[shocker3]

A tad off topic, but after watching some of the Mountain West and Conference USA Tournaments, I find it pretty humorous that they like to be considered equal or greater than the Valley in the pecking order but still host their tourneys on campus sites or in campus cities. Very, very low majorish IMO.

That puts both of them at least 20 years behind the Valley.

It is also interesting looking at the warren nolan conference rpi. The Valley is actually very close to the MWC in rpi .5420 vs. .5371. While we have a pretty large lead over CUSA: .5371 vs. .5175.

It kind of bugs me that as close as we are the MWC they will probably end up with 4 teams dancing and the Valley will only have one team (not to mention the Valley's 5-4 record against the MWC).

:wsu_posters:

Good points, but I still think our loss to Evansville killed us. I hate to keep repeating it but it really was that big. No other team in the MWC that's in or on the bubble has a loss to their cellar dweller.

Actually San Diego St. has a loss to Wyoming (#230 in rpi) which isn't much differen't than losing to UE (#250). But I do think that San Diego St. does deserve to be in the dance.

Even Gonzaga (rpi #38 in the WCC- a conference way behind the MVC in rpi) has a very bad loss to USF, rpi #204.

I was actually kind of surprised to see Gonzaga's rpi as being so close to WSU (38 vs. 42). It must come from Gonzaga playing in such a weak conference. They play a good non-con schedule.

[PlaneShocker]

God sometimes KU looks like a crappy team.

Isn't that a good thing? : :D

[shocker3]

A tad off topic, but after watching some of the Mountain West and Conference USA Tournaments, I find it pretty humorous that they like to be considered equal or greater than the Valley in the pecking order but still host their tourneys on campus sites or in campus cities. Very, very low majorish IMO.

That puts both of them at least 20 years behind the Valley.

It is also interesting looking at the warren nolan conference rpi. The Valley is actually very close to the MWC in rpi .5420 vs. .5371. While we have a pretty large lead over CUSA: .5371 vs. .5175.

It kind of bugs me that as close as we are the MWC they will probably end up with 4 teams dancing and the Valley will only have one team (not to mention the Valley's 5-4 record against the MWC).

:wsu_posters:

Good points, but I still think our loss to Evansville killed us. I hate to keep repeating it but it really was that big. No other team in the MWC that's in or on the bubble has a loss to their cellar dweller.

Actually San Diego St. has a loss to Wyoming (#230 in rpi) which isn't much differen't than losing to UE. But I do think that San Diego St. does deserve to be in the dance.

Even Gonzaga (rpi #38 in the WCC- a conference way behind the MVC in rpi) has a very bad loss to USF, rpi #204.

I was actually kind of surprised to see Gonzaga's rpi as being so close to WSU (38 vs. 42). It must come from Gonzaga playing in such a weak conference. They play a good non-con schedule.

Actually just doing a quick check of other teams with rpis worse than WSU, I found some other pretty bad losses:

Marquette #49 rpi, lost to #211 DePaul
Memphis #53 rpi, lost to #208 SMU
Florida #54 rpi, lost to #212 So. Alabama
Minnesota #68 rpi, lost to #221 Indiana

Other bubble teams may not have as bad of a loss as these teams but they have plenty of other flaws, such as Illinois having a rpi in the 70s and a 11-13 record against the rpi top 200.

All of the teams left on the bubble have some flaws, I think WSU should be in the discussion and we actually stack up pretty well against most of them.

[vancedave56]

Isn't this ALL taken into account in the RPI?????????????

[rayc]

Isn't this ALL taken into account in the RPI?????????????

Yes, it is.

But the buzz term this year seems to be the SOS (which is 75% of the RPI). The SOS only tells you how difficult of a schedule you played, you can lose them all and have a good SOS. Your winning % tells you how well you performed playing that schedule. Together they comprise the metric called the RPI. Not perfect of course, but FAR better then anything else in use.

I love the non sequitur often used where the RPI is first passed off as meaningless and then a statement to the effect that you have to look at a team's "good" wins and "bad" losses. "Good" and "bad" of course defined in terms of the opponents RPI. This is just a way of justifying the "eye test" used in favor of the BCS bubble teams.

[shocker3]

Isn't this ALL taken into account in the RPI?????????????

Yes, it is.

But the buzz term this year seems to be the SOS (which is 75% of the RPI). The SOS only tells you how difficult of a schedule you played, you can lose them all and have a good SOS. Your winning % tells you how well you performed playing that schedule. Together they comprise the metric called the RPI. Not perfect of course, but FAR better then anything else in use.

I love the non sequitur often used where the RPI is first passed off as meaningless and then a statement to the effect that you have to look at a team's "good" wins and "bad" losses. "Good" and "bad" of course defined in terms of the opponents RPI. This is just a way of justifying the "eye test" used in favor of the BCS bubble teams.

If the committee went straight off the rpi, we would be IN.

[Shocktoberfest]

Crashingthedance has us back in. This is hilarious.

Uhhhh. I'm glad the selection show is tomorrow. This thread might start making at run at the EO thread.

[SB Shock]

A tad off topic, but after watching some of the Mountain West and Conference USA Tournaments, I find it pretty humorous that they like to be considered equal or greater than the Valley in the pecking order but still host their tourneys on campus sites or in campus cities. Very, very low majorish IMO.

That puts both of them at least 20 years behind the Valley.

It is also interesting looking at the warren nolan conference rpi. The Valley is actually very close to the MWC in rpi .5420 vs. .5371. While we have a pretty large lead over CUSA: .5371 vs. .5175.

It kind of bugs me that as close as we are the MWC they will probably end up with 4 teams dancing and the Valley will only have one team (not to mention the Valley's 5-4 record against the MWC).

:wsu_posters:

Good points, but I still think our loss to Evansville killed us. I hate to keep repeating it but it really was that big. No other team in the MWC that's in or on the bubble has a loss to their cellar dweller.

Actually San Diego St. has a loss to Wyoming (#230 in rpi) which isn't much differen't than losing to UE. But I do think that San Diego St. does deserve to be in the dance.

Even Gonzaga (rpi #38 in the WCC- a conference way behind the MVC in rpi) has a very bad loss to USF, rpi #204.

I was actually kind of surprised to see Gonzaga's rpi as being so close to WSU (38 vs. 42). It must come from Gonzaga playing in such a weak conference. They play a good non-con schedule.

Actually just doing a quick check of other teams with rpis worse than WSU, I found some other pretty bad losses:

Marquette #49 rpi, lost to #211 DePaul
Memphis #53 rpi, lost to #208 SMU
Florida #54 rpi, lost to #212 So. Alabama
Minnesota #68 rpi, lost to #221 Indiana

Other bubble teams may not have as bad of a loss as these teams but they have plenty of other flaws, such as Illinois having a rpi in the 70s and a 11-13 record against the rpi top 200.

All of the teams left on the bubble have some flaws, I think WSU should be in the discussion and we actually stack up pretty well against most of them.

San Diego St has a pretty bad loss also.

[Ashockalypse]

Fever, UNI was in before they won the tourney and they lost to Evansville so I don't see why you think that is the silver bullet?

[Ashockalypse]

I can't see why that since the BCS thinks the Big East has the divine right to have 9 teams in the dance before any games are even played every year that we should not have the same right to claim 2 after we have won 24 games. I think some people on our board just concede because it has been pounded into our head so much how inferior we are that we don't even have the right to claim 2 teams. We are still just being paid back for 2006.