Gonzaga and Wichita St.

[azchamps]

Okay, when someone starts their post with name calling I'm done talking.
Good luck to your team the rest of the season.

GO CATS! BEAR DOWN!

 

[CatsTopPac]

Trolly, I couldn't give a fuck about seeding. As far as I'm concerned, if AZ gets a #2 seed then they play in SLC and then LA anyway. It's better than us as a #1 seed playing in Portland first round. And I don't think AZ is a #1 seed right now either.

My point is that they don't take a team's weak conference schedule into account when assigning seeding. I don't care. I didn't care last year, or the year before that. But it just makes them look like dumbfucks when they put a team as a #1 seed when they haven't played a tourney team in almost 3 months. It look ridiculous when you can predict that GU and WSU wouldn't make it out of the first round. Let me clarify once again. I'm not saying that they suck. They are both great teams. But no one seems to understand that when you don't play a top 50 team in the last 3 months of the season, you are going to have a insurmountable hill to climb as a #1 seed.

I am not hating because I think AZ should get a #1 seed. I also am not hating because I don't like mid majors getting #1 seeds. I think it's ridiculous that people actually think that a #1 seed who doesn't play a single tourney team in the last 3 months is good enough to be a #1 seed. This is the 3rd year in a row that it's going to happen, and I have no doubt that GU will not make it to Indy, once again. I don't care that they pile-drive their conference, or that they played a ranked team or two in non-con. There is something to be said for not playing a single quality team in the last two-plus months, and then getting rewarded a #1 seed. It makes the committee look like complete idiots from the very onset, for the soon to be, last three selection sundays. I just wish that they would fucking learn that a #1 seed is a team that has been tested all year against quality opponents. They scream every year that they are seeding against teams that don't play quality schedules, and then they reward a team that doesn't play anyone the second half of the season. I'm not saying they suck, I'm saying that GU is not a #1 seed. They will not make it to the FF, and it doesn't matter about the match-up, etc.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Gonzaga is loaded this yr. Wichita st is still a good team but has taken a step back imo

GU is a loaded team, no argument there. But do you really think that a team playing a bunch of sub 100 teams for the last three months is really getting better, compared to teams that are banging it out for half their conference schedule against other teams that will be playing in March? They aren't getting weaknesses exposed when they are blowing scrub teams out of every gym for months. They aren't getting comfortable playing under pressure away from home when they go to a bunch of empty gyms and beating high school teams. And, it shows in March when they get a #1 seed and they have to play 3-4 ranked teams to get to the FF.

 

[Smart]

I'm not sure why you think the committee should rank teams by how they think they will do in the tourney. The seedings should be based on merit, with only slight exceptions for injuries which significantly alter a team's makeup (eg Kenyon Martin for Cincy).

Even if the committee thinks Wichita State won't make the Sweet 16, they should get a 1 seed if they had a top four resume, which they absolutely did. It's as simple as that.

 

[CatsTopPac]

I hear ya. And I understand what you are saying. But SOS is part of that resume. And there is a reason that the committee gives more weight to stronger non-con schedules. They are saying that you can't just smash shitty teams and build up your wins before conference play. I just think that it's more important to differentiate a strong conference SOS from a very weak conference SOS, than non-con. That's what is prepping you over the last two plus months for March. Maybe they think that they can pressure coaches into scheduling tougher non-cons because the coaches can't control their conference strength. And I get it, that's not GU's fault. But it's also not doing them any favors for March. Again, I normally don't like to base too much on SOS, but both GU and WSU had a SOS over 100 as #1 seeds. That's a huge red flag to me.

And I understand that a team will play a very weak SOS and end up in the FF. But I don't think that a #1 seed sneaks up on anyone.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Trolly, I couldn't give a fuck about seeding.

That sure is a lot of words for something you couldn't give a fuck about.

The poster doth protest too much me thinks.

 

[The Derski]

Trolly has been uptight lately. I wish he could lose his vendetta against UA and go back to the way he was.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

What vendetta do you speak of? I have no issue with UA whatsoever. I think they're a great squad this year. I would have told CTP to worry about his own team no matter who he cheers for. My point was that bitching about Gonzaga and Wichita State doesn't serve any pointless. It's just whining, regardless of who is doing it.

 

[The Derski]

What vendetta do you speak of? I have no issue with UA whatsoever. I think they're a great squad this year. I would have told CTP to worry about his own team no matter who he cheers for. My point was that bitching about Gonzaga and Wichita State doesn't serve any pointless. It's just whining, regardless of who is doing it.

Well Gonzaga plays a big part in where UA gets seeeded in the West.

 

[The Derski]

As pathetic as that is with them playing HS teams every week.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Okay, let's say Gonzaga runs the table, and the committee decides to give them a #2 seed instead of a #1 seed...

What pans out differently in that scenario? Does Gonzaga make it any further than they would have at a #1? Do they make it as far? Do they probably go out in the same round they would have as a #1? What difference do you think it makes for Gonzaga? What about UA? Does that mean UA probably gets a #1? Do they make it farther because of that? Do they not go as far? Again... in these scenarios that you guys seem to be fretting over, what's the actual difference?

Let me remind you, who plays the biggest part in where UA gets seeded in the West... UA.

 

[The Derski]

Okay, let's say Gonzaga runs the table, and the committee decides to give them a #2 seed instead of a #1 seed...

What pans out differently in that scenario? Does Gonzaga make it any further than they would have at a #1? Do they make it as far? Do they probably go out in the same round they would have as a #1? What difference do you think it makes for Gonzaga? What about UA? Does that mean UA probably gets a #1? Do they make it farther because of that? Do they not go as far? Again... in these scenarios that you guys seem to be fretting over, what's the actual difference?

Let me remind you, who plays the biggest part in where UA gets seeded in the West... UA.

How can you discount what seed you are? It makes all the difference in the world. If UA and Gonzaga both win out I think we jump them in seeding but if UA happens to lose another conference game and Gonzaga keeps killing inferior opponents, the committee will probable give them a top seed. Not that Gonzaga usually does anything in March. I guess it means more to us than to them. Seeding matters.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

How can you discount what seed you are? It makes all the difference in the world. If UA and Gonzaga both win out I think we jump them in seeding but if UA happens to lose another conference game and Gonzaga keeps killing inferior opponents, the committee will probable give them a top seed. Not that Gonzaga usually does anything in March. I guess it means more to us than to them. Seeding matters.

CTP and azchamps are discounting what seed you are. Take it up with them.

azchamps is the one that wants to get rid of seeding altogether. CTP says he'd rather be a #2 seed than the #1 seed.

What's up [strike]Trolly[/strike] AZ-DbacksAZ? Afraid your team couldn't hang unless they were playing a 16 seed?

 

[CatsTopPac]

For the record, I'm just debating to debate. I think it's fun to have conversation and then see what the results are come March. I obviously have no control over the situation, but I think it's still fun to chop it up and see what happens.

Here's the thing Trolly. I feel like you think I have some axe to grind with WSU or GU. I keep trying to tell you that I don't. You can switch them out with 200 other teams and my argument would remain the same. My problem is not with a team, but with the committee and the way they seed.

I think in some cases seeding matters. In other cases it doesn't. This year, for us, it really doesn't. If we are a #2 seed we play in SLC and then LA. If we are a #1 seed, it's Portland and then LA. I think getting a #1 seed is great for almost every program. It is a bit of a feather in the cap for the fans and the players. Also, depending on the location of the team and the region, a #1 seed could be the difference between playing a geographically favorable road to the FF, and having to travel away from your base and lose a bit of an advantage. So yes, in those ways it does matter. THis year specifically for AZ, it really doesn't. Also, the difference between being a #1 seed and playing a #4 seed to get to the EE could be a bigger deal than being a #2 seed playing a #3 seed. But other than that, it is pretty comparable. The tournament style bracket is set up to where the #1 seed gets the best road, but it's not that much different than the #2 seed. All of that aside....

Trolly, do you really think that a team with a SOS around 100 deserves a #1 seed? Again, don't get too caught up on thinking that I'm self-destructing over here because AZ might not get a #1 seed. Just to remind you, I had this same argument last year about WSU, despite the fact that AZ got a #1 seed. So this isn't some hidden insecurity about seeding, AZ, or GU, etc.

I just think it's ridiculous to have a #1 seed with a SOS around 100. I think that means that you could put a half dozen other teams into their schedule and those teams would certainly compare if not do better. So essentially, teams like GU and WSU are rewarded for a shitty conference schedule, whereas the committee specifically warned of worse seeding for shitty non-conference schedules. See that?

Beyond that, my argument is above. Other than thinking that I am going after GU or WSU, or that I'm a butt-hurt AZ fan who is complaining about seeding, or that I think a #1 seed is the holy grail, I don't think you have addressed my only point, which is about justifying a team with near 100 SOS as a #1 seed.

Overall, sure, it's March. Essentially, who gives a fuck, right? #1 seeds fall at every point but the first round, and #2 seeds fall at every round. Everyone still has to win 6 games, and making it to the FF is a challenge, regardless. But I see a place where the committee can improve when it comes to seeding. Physically, no; other than sometimes when geography can help, I don't think seeding matters much. BUt to a program, I think that a #1 seed is a valuable marker. I personally don't care, but it does matter to the program, the players, and many fans. One more time, I don't care if AZ gets a #1 or #2 seed. I still cared about this last year when AZ already had a #1 seed. I just think that a team that has a 90 SOS is not a contender for the FF or NC enough to be established a #1 seed. I think a #1 seed is earned by a team that the committee thinks has the best shot to win their region. Understanding that it's still March, the committee is trying to pick a perfect bracket. Especially with the 1-4 seeds, they want to get that as close to right as possible. Again, there is a reason that they want more difficult non-con schedules. They want tested teams who replicate March games. They don't want teams that just cruise through the season and expect #1 seeds, and then flop because they haven't played anyone. They care a great deal about non-con schedules, but I think there is something to be said about conference schedules. That's all this is about Trolly. Not AZ, or the divinity of a #1 seed, or some hatred for a certain team. I want to see the four best teams as #1 seeds (AZ or otherwise), because they deserve it. I want to see the next 4 teams as #2 seeds, and so forth. I don't think that WSU last year, or GU the year before, or this year, are one of the 4 best teams come March. I think it's a hiccup in the seeding that I think I recognize and I'm putting it out there for discussion, to see what others think, and to find out if it's correct. So, if we can get passed to bullshit of making this about AZ, or the actual importance of a #1 seed, or any other derailment of the discussion, that would be great. I don't think that a teams near 100 SOS team has proven that they are one of the best 4 teams in the nation.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Smart, to your point, I don't care about mid-majors. That's not my point. There are midmajors that have played very good SOSs (such as those Memphis teams). That's fine with me. And being conservative with 5 in the last 15 years is a little different when the other teams have good SOSs and not back to back to back. Memphis both years and St Joes have respectable SOSs. The last two years, and this year with GU, they don't/won't. And, it's 3 years in a row now. That's moving toward being a trend, and no longer conservative. I wouldn't care if some MWC team earned a #1 seed as a midmajor, A10, or some CUSA team, etc. But that is different that a WCC team or a MVC team. Those conferences offer nothing for March competition.

 

[ralphiewvu]

So in this thread we have:
an Arizona fan (CatTopPac) who "doesn't care" about seeding but yet created this thread

an we have another zona fan (azchamps) who thinks someone other then a zona fan created this thread and now is chastizing him about it

Are Arizona fans all on drugs or just these two?

 

[CatsTopPac]

So in this thread we have:
an Arizona fan (CatTopPac) who "doesn't care" about seeding but yet created this thread

an we have another zona fan (azchamps) who thinks someone other then a zona fan created this thread and now is chastizing him about it

Are Arizona fans all on drugs or just these two?

Alright smart guy. How about this; I care about conference (specifically) and over all (generally) SOS. It results in seeding.

Are all UWV fans illiterate, or just this one?

 

[azchamps]

So in this thread we have:
an Arizona fan (CatTopPac) who "doesn't care" about seeding but yet created this thread

an we have another zona fan (azchamps) who thinks someone other then a zona fan created this thread and now is chastizing him about it

Are Arizona fans all on drugs or just these two?

I posted my opinion about how I think the tourney should be done. The thread was about seeding. Then someone got all butt hurt and said I was making accusations against him. Then since he had nothing original to say, he turned one of my post around on another AZ fan.
Thin skin?

Go back and read from the beginning.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

CTP, let's start with the entire premise of your argument being bad.

By most measures, Gonzaga doesn't have an SOS around 100.

RPI: 16
KenPom: 45
Sagarin: 65
BPI: 97

1 of the 4 (the only one I don't know for sure if the selection committee even looks at) has Gonzaga with an SOS close to 100. Yes, it will likely drop before the end of the year. I still doubt by most measures it will be close to 100.

Second, SOS is pretty much a meaningless number to start with. It doesn't tell you anything about how a team was challenged over the course of a season. It's an average that is made up of 30+ games by the end of the season. Just by looking at it, you can't tell if a team avoided really awful team, played lots of awful teams, played really good teams, or just managed to play a bunch of also-rans that weren't gawdawful. Unless a team is undefeated, or winless, SOS doesn't really tell you much at all. So just pointing to a single number as justification for what a team should or shouldn't be seeded somewhere completely misses the point.

Third, Even if Gonzaga ends up with a SOS around 100, and even if I thought SOS was a meaningful statistic, I still don't think a team should be punished for playing in a weak conference. If they drop games in that weak conference, then that should absolutely drop them. Generally speaking #1 seeds shouldn't have any bad losses. But if they run the table, and their only loss is to AZ, I have no problem at all with them getting a #1 seed.

Fourth, stop making shit up. This horse shit about the committee trying to predict a perfect bracket is fucking hysterical, but not in a good way. I've never seen a single thing to indicate the committee is trying to predict anything with the brackets. I'd also point out if that was their objective, then their heavy reliance on the RPI works counter to that goal. If they want to predict game outcomes, the RPI is probably the worst tool imaginable. In reality they use the RPI because the RPI is designed to be a gauge of what you've already done, not a predictor of what you will do. Don't project what you want on the committee. If the committee didn't want teams that had easy conference schedules to get #1 seeds, then it wouldn't have happened in the past and we wouldn't be having this conversation. But you're obviously wrong in your assessment because it's already happened on more than one occasion.

But yeah... other than being off the mark on nearly everything you said, it was a great post.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Alright Trolly, at this point, you can definitely go fuck off.

First of all, I am once again clearly stating that GU's SOS will be awful at the end of the season, and more specifically, their conference SOS (the last two plus months before March) will be terrible. You telling me what is is by the various sources on Jan 25 means absolute shit to me when they have another 10 games against Portland, USD, LMU, Pepperdine, Santa Clara, Pacific, etc. So that whole first point of yours was a complete waste of everyone's time. See how that works when you're the fucking asshole?

Second of all, if you can't see that playing 1 game against a ranked team this year is a garbage schedule by the end, then I don't know what to tell you. You really need to see who all of these teams played etc. to calculate that GU plays a fucking horrendous conference schedule? And ONCE A-FUCKING-GAIN my WHOLE point is that Gonzaga, for how good they are right now, and for the quality of their non-con schedule, they regress compared to other teams who continue to develop as the result of playing tourney teams in harsh environments understanding how to play under pressure, and learning their weaknesses. When you have a team that doesn't play but maybe one other tourney team in the last almost 3 months of the season, that is a completely different course of preparation for March, than teams that play 8,10, 12 or more games in those last two plus months against tourney teams, on the road, and gaining from the experience. Gonzaga doesn't get that. Neither does WSU. Once you are done catching teams off guard in March, and as a #1 seed, you are getting everyone's best game. So I'm not just going absolutely only on SOS. What in the fuck is so difficult for you to understand about what I am saying. You keep getting lost on peripheral shit and trying to pick it apart. Take my argument as I made it. I specify what I think needs explaining, but then you only focus on that like it's all I'm saying.

Gonzaga will not be ready for March. That is my prediction. Take it or leave it. But now you have moved from focusing on AZ not getting a #1 seed, or my hatred for midmajors, to now talking shit about GU's CURRENT SOS, or the committees reliance upon SOS. Those are tertiary elements of my point.

If you really think that playing a whole second half of garbage teams is going to get GU as ready for March as the other teams around them that are playing tourney competition week in and week out, and they you think they will be a legit #1 seed with top potential to get to the FF, then say that and we'll see. Period. But your ability to debate without getting so hung up on bullshit that you either completely make up as being an issue, or just focusing on an aspect and trying to make it my main point, is fucking horrendous. Seems like everyone else did a pretty decent job of either agreeing or disagreeing. Where my point was a little unclear, I tried to clarify.


I'm done with you. Clearly you don't agree with me. I get it. Great, we'll see. But trying to derail the discussion is pissing me off a bit. I don't know what your hard-on is for AZ fans, but please, keep generalizing people who you know nothing about.

You try to project some irritability on my part, but clearly you can't leave this alone. I can't help you with that. Like I said, I put this up to see how people feel about GU and WSU getting #1 seeds over the last couple seasons, and if they think they deserve it. Most seem to believe so. I bumped it up to the top again just to do a midseason check and see if there is any new points of view since I started the thread. And again, we'll see what happens in March. But you taking some fucking personal angle at me or other AZ fans because I don't think that GU will have shown me on Selection Sunday that they are one of the four best teams to make it to the FF is bullshit. I'm stating my opinion with points to support it. The last two years I have been spot on. We'll see about this season. If you are so personally offended by me, as an AZ fan saying that I don't think GU will have developed into a legit #1 seed, based on their conference schedule, then get the fuck off the thread buddy. No one is holding a gun to your head telling you that you need to be here. Go find some other thread to terrorize with your vast, indepth, unmatched, superior knowledge of CBB, and let us fucking knuckledraggers revel in our stupidity. But when I have been spot on for the last two years concerning teams that I don't think played well enough to be #1 seeds, then fuck off, I'll see where it's at come March.