At-Large

[ShockRef]

If WSU got in it would not be a 7-9 seed, generally the last 4 teams in get 12 seeds. Seeds 13-16 are reserved for the auto qualifiers from the small conferences.

Correct!

First of all, WSU isn't getting an invite. Count on it.

Secondly, all '14-16' seeds plus 2 '13' seeds come from the 'lower' conferences. This includes the 64th & 65th or 'play in' teams.

On that note, there has been a debate about expanding to 96 teams which is stupid. Dilution is not the solution.

The best solution - expand the field to 68 & add 3 more 'play in' games. This would balance the brackets and open up 3 more at-large spots.

It would also keep the field exclusive to the elite and worthy teams. 8)

[ShockBand]

Yeah, in reading the article on midmajority.com about the mock selection committee they had to help demystify the process, the two data points that caught him off guard were average RPI win and average RPI loss. That is what will nip us this year. We do need to return to tougher OOC scheduling conference wide. Yes, it is higher risk if you don't deliver the galaxy, but if you do, the rewards for everyone in the Valley are much sweeter.

[ShockTalk]

Yeah, in reading the article on midmajority.com about the mock selection committee they had to help demystify the process, the two data points that caught him off guard were average RPI win and average RPI loss. That is what will nip us this year. We do need to return to tougher OOC scheduling conference wide. Yes, it is higher risk if you don't deliver the galaxy, but if you do, the rewards for everyone in the Valley are much sweeter.

Schedule a little tougher OOC, lose possibly a couple of more games early; team gets better experience (and is tougher); because of that, come Evansville, Drake, Creighton, and Bradley, you probably win at least two or more of those games. Overall, your record may be the same, but your RPI is much better and your team is better. UNI did this, and they were a lock even if they had lost to us. Ill St did what we did and we both ended up in the same place.

[Veritas]

I'm not going to get my hopes up for an at-large, but rather at this point that the Shockers get a home game in the NIT against a pseudo "power" team and beat the living "Tar" out of them.

a 'pseudo' power? Hardly. But I understand the hate. ;-)

On a normal basis perhaps, but certainly not this year.
Roy = :cry:

[1979Shocker]

The best solution is to get rid of the BCS bias.

As people have mention in other threads and as I mentioned a couple years or so ago, just code each team name. Then all that the selection committee can do is go by the record, SOS, RPI, etc without letting the name of the team influence them.

[ShockTalk]

The best solution is to get rid of the BCS bias.

As people have mention in other threads and as I mentioned a couple years or so ago, just code each team name. Then all that the selection committee can do is go by the record, SOS, RPI, etc without letting the name of the team influence them.

The only problem with this is, many times one can still tell it's a BCS school because of the total number of 50+ and/or 100+ teams played. So, yes, they may not know it's UConn, but it'll smell like UConn. No team should be allowed in unless they have a positive (maybe just .500) conference record.

[Ixiah]

If WSU got in it would not be a 7-9 seed, generally the last 4 teams in get 12 seeds. Seeds 13-16 are reserved for the auto qualifiers from the small conferences.

Feel free to argue with our radio announcers then. ;-) Kennedy said they would be an 8 or a 9. Then they talked about it on the air and said maybe as high as a seven.

[kstarheel]

I'm not going to get my hopes up for an at-large, but rather at this point that the Shockers get a home game in the NIT against a pseudo "power" team and beat the living "Tar" out of them.

a 'pseudo' power? Hardly. But I understand the hate. ;-)

On a normal basis perhaps, but certainly not this year.
Roy = :cry:

Roy got exposed this year a bit. He's a great manager of talent and has taken some 'good' teams very far and won with 'great' teams. This team, especially with the injuries, was neither good and not even close to great. They got early season wins vs. Ohio St. and Mich. State, but that was by playing their best ball of the season. Everyone else got better and they regressed. Rough year for us Heel fans. But, you gotta be able to take your lumps. I would still pull for WSU over them.

[shock-it-to-me]

If WSU got in it would not be a 7-9 seed, generally the last 4 teams in get 12 seeds. Seeds 13-16 are reserved for the auto qualifiers from the small conferences.

Feel free to argue with our radio announcers then. ;-) Kennedy said they would be an 8 or a 9. Then they talked about it on the air and said maybe as high as a seven.

Kennedy's comments were made before the championship game, and I believe he was making a guess to what our seed would have been had we won the game and were getting the auto bid, and I do think that would have made another seed or two difference if we had beaten UNI.

[Snapshot9]

We should be discussing whether we will be a 3 or 4 seed in the NIT, and host a first round game. We just have too many strikes against us this year to be considered for the Big Dance.

[tropicalshox]

I don't believe this has been posted. Marshall, Shockers, Jacobson make case for Shockers' at large bid:

http://gantdaily.com/2010/03/07/wichita-state-stakes-case-for-ticket-to-the-big-dance/

[wufan]

If WSU got in it would not be a 7-9 seed, generally the last 4 teams in get 12 seeds. Seeds 13-16 are reserved for the auto qualifiers from the small conferences.

Correct!

First of all, WSU isn't getting an invite. Count on it.

Secondly, all '14-16' seeds plus 2 '13' seeds come from the 'lower' conferences. This includes the 64th & 65th or 'play in' teams.

On that note, there has been a debate about expanding to 96 teams which is stupid. Dilution is not the solution.

The best solution - expand the field to 68 & add 3 more 'play in' games. This would balance the brackets and open up 3 more at-large spots.

It would also keep the field exclusive to the elite and worthy teams. 8)

I think that if you are good enough to win your conference AND your conference is good enough to be D-I, you shouldn't be a play in team. Either, we need to eliminate the less stellar conferences, or we need to require that all play in teams are at-large. In the scenerio above (which I like) Teams 60-68 should all be conference losers, from the BCS IMO.

[shocks02]

Ok what is up with this bracketology?

I was just watching the Sun Belt championship game and it shows the "first four in, next four out" graphic and we're the second team out.

Then, I log on to ESPN.com and we're not even in the next 8 out.

I don't know what to believe. Maybe ESPN is just trying to get my hopes up.

[Steeleshocker]

Here's my plan for this week.

I am going to have nothing to do with college basketball until late Sunday night, when I will log on to begin filling out my bracket.

I am fully expecting WSU not to be in it. In my opinion, with no games left to play, and being on the wrong side of the bubble, it will pop. (Somebody is going to blow it in their conference tourney and take an at-large spot away from somebody else.

Then if I happen to see WSU in the bracket, I can get wildly excited and call all my friends :)

The NCAA committee does not make me want to get my hopes up. We were close this year, but considering the progress we've made, I think we'll be in good shape for numerous years to come.

[ShockerFever]

This whole at-large scenario is getting more painful by the minute. The already weak bubble is getting weaker by the second. It's a shame we laid our bed with that Evansville game. A few asinine people thought it was "just another game, each game carries its own weight, etc." Well, this is proving to be simply not true. Take away that loss, and either the Drake or Bradley debacles and we are 28-7 and likely on the good side of the bubble.

It's like the basketball gods were begging us to get in this year, even with a weak resume, but we choked at our easy, easy chances. :roll: