• Have something to say? Register Now! and be posting in minutes!

Will Committee treat Michigan State like Wichita State last year?

ericd7633

Well-Known Member
18,113
3,145
293
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 11,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I think it's a really fascinating question, and one that should probably be asked. Going into Selection Sunday this was Wichita State's resume:

Record: 29-4
SOS: 184
Non Conf SOS: 213
Vs RPI top 50: 2-4
Vs RPI top 100: 3-4(meaning 1 additional win between teams ranked 51-100)
Vs RPI top 150: 6-4(meaning 3 additional wins between teams ranked 101-150)
Vs RPI sub 150: 23-0

This ended up with Wichita State being a 10 seed(which I thought was a little low, I think I had them as an 8 seed)

Now as far as Michigan State's potential resume, I'm going to use a hypothetical scenario of the following: They beat Purdue in the regular season match up. They lose to Ohio State in the B1G Tournament semifinal. I think that's being pretty fair. Having it play out like that, this would be there resume:

Record: 29-4
Projected SOS: 77
Projected Non Conf SOS: 232
Projected vs. RPI Top 50: 2-4
Projected vs. RPI Top 100: 6-4(meaning 4 additional wins between teams ranked 51-100)
Projected vs RPI Top 150: 16-4(meaning 10 additional wins between teams ranked 101-150)
Projected vs RPI sub 150: 13-0

I guess the biggest question is this? Is beating 7 more teams ranked between 100-150 in the RPI(essentially teams not even good enough to make the NIT) as opposed to teams ranked 150 or worse really worth the 7/8 difference in seed lines that I'm seeing projected at this point?
 

Myles

Well-Known Member
8,065
2,645
293
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Location
Decatur, IN
Hoopla Cash
$ 900.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I think it's a really fascinating question, and one that should probably be asked. Going into Selection Sunday this was Wichita State's resume:

Record: 29-4
SOS: 184
Non Conf SOS: 213
Vs RPI top 50: 2-4
Vs RPI top 100: 3-4(meaning 1 additional win between teams ranked 51-100)
Vs RPI top 150: 6-4(meaning 3 additional wins between teams ranked 101-150)
Vs RPI sub 150: 23-0

This ended up with Wichita State being a 10 seed(which I thought was a little low, I think I had them as an 8 seed)

Now as far as Michigan State's potential resume, I'm going to use a hypothetical scenario of the following: They beat Purdue in the regular season match up. They lose to Ohio State in the B1G Tournament semifinal. I think that's being pretty fair. Having it play out like that, this would be there resume:

Record: 29-4
Projected SOS: 77
Projected Non Conf SOS: 232
Projected vs. RPI Top 50: 2-4
Projected vs. RPI Top 100: 6-4(meaning 4 additional wins between teams ranked 51-100)
Projected vs RPI Top 150: 16-4(meaning 10 additional wins between teams ranked 101-150)
Projected vs RPI sub 150: 13-0

I guess the biggest question is this? Is beating 7 more teams ranked between 100-150 in the RPI(essentially teams not even good enough to make the NIT) as opposed to teams ranked 150 or worse really worth the 7/8 difference in seed lines that I'm seeing projected at this point?
I think the SOS is pretty glaring. I'm missing something. How did you get "7 more teams ranked between 100-150"? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am missing it. To me it looks like Michigan State beat 10 more teams ranked in the top 150 than WS. I see the same record, but Wichita State having 10 more games against 150+ teams. Wichita State was probably ranked a little too low and should have been a 8-9. Michigan State should be a 2-3 if that is how the season plays out.
 

ericd7633

Well-Known Member
18,113
3,145
293
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 11,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I think the SOS is pretty glaring. I'm missing something. How did you get "7 more teams ranked between 100-150"? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am missing it. To me it looks like Michigan State beat 10 more teams ranked in the top 150 than WS. I see the same record, but Wichita State having 10 more games against 150+ teams. Wichita State was probably ranked a little too low and should have been a 8-9. Michigan State should be a 2-3 if that is how the season plays out.

Michigan State would also have 3 more wins against teams ranked 51-100, on top of the 7 more wins against teams ranked 100-150. Which would equal the 10 more total wins against teams ranked 1-150.

But even if you think Wichita State was seeded a little low, I still don't see the separation warranted to where Michigan State would be 7/8 seed lines better. The SOS number is glaring, but that's only because the bottom half of the schedule(due to conference) was worse than what Michigan State is having to deal with this year.

Just looking at conference by itself, Michigan State is projected to play 13 games with an RPI of 100 or lower. The average rank of those teams is 135(and even if they don't play 13 teams 100 or lower that average rank wouldn't change drastically) or what would be equivalent to playing this year's Central Michigan team 13 games. Last year Wichita State had to play 16 games against an RPI of 100 or lower in conference. The average rank of those teams was 205 or what would be equivalent to playing this year's Boston University 16 games. I just don't understand how the committee could reward a team 7/8 seed lines for essentially being able to beat a team like Central Michigan 13 times while the other team had to beat Boston U 16 times. Unless the committee is willing to put a ton of more emphasis on beating 3 more teams ranked 51-100(which vary from bubble teams to teams that miss the NIT) I too think Michigan State will probably be on the 2/3 line if the scenario played out, but they should probably be on the 4/5 line.
 

Myles

Well-Known Member
8,065
2,645
293
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Location
Decatur, IN
Hoopla Cash
$ 900.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Michigan State would also have 3 more wins against teams ranked 51-100, on top of the 7 more wins against teams ranked 100-150. Which would equal the 10 more total wins against teams ranked 1-150.

But even if you think Wichita State was seeded a little low, I still don't see the separation warranted to where Michigan State would be 7/8 seed lines better. The SOS number is glaring, but that's only because the bottom half of the schedule(due to conference) was worse than what Michigan State is having to deal with this year.

Just looking at conference by itself, Michigan State is projected to play 13 games with an RPI of 100 or lower. The average rank of those teams is 135(and even if they don't play 13 teams 100 or lower that average rank wouldn't change drastically) or what would be equivalent to playing this year's Central Michigan team 13 games. Last year Wichita State had to play 16 games against an RPI of 100 or lower in conference. The average rank of those teams was 205 or what would be equivalent to playing this year's Boston University 16 games. I just don't understand how the committee could reward a team 7/8 seed lines for essentially being able to beat a team like Central Michigan 13 times while the other team had to beat Boston U 16 times. Unless the committee is willing to put a ton of more emphasis on beating 3 more teams ranked 51-100(which vary from bubble teams to teams that miss the NIT) I too think Michigan State will probably be on the 2/3 line if the scenario played out, but they should probably be on the 4/5 line.
It's pretty simple. Michigan State beat better teams. WS had a SOS of 184. That is going to come with consequences.
 

ericd7633

Well-Known Member
18,113
3,145
293
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 11,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
It's pretty simple. Michigan State beat better teams. WS had a SOS of 184. That is going to come with consequences.

Sure they beat better teams overall. But not in terms of quality. I'm just saying, in this scenario, Michigan State shouldn't be treated 7/8 lines better, which will probably be the case.
 

rmilia1

Well-Known Member
44,428
10,422
1,033
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Location
iowa
Hoopla Cash
$ 86,060.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I'd probably have MSU as a 6 or 7 in that case
 

ericd7633

Well-Known Member
18,113
3,145
293
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 11,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I'd probably have MSU as a 6 or 7 in that case

I'd probably agree, though I don't think the committee would do that. Seriously being 2-4 against the top 50/field doesn't warrant a 2/3 seed. It also doesn't help they only play the other 3 teams in the B1G worth a damn this year once. And have to play Rutgers, Illinois and Wisconsin twice, who could be the 3 worst teams in the B1G(at least RPI wise)
 

jontaejones

Well-Known Member
3,904
739
113
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Hoopla Cash
$ 149.32
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Sparty beat UNC and Notre Dame when they had Coulson and were on the verge of beating Duke.

Wichita State didn't beat anybody last year.

Still were underseeded though.
 

ericd7633

Well-Known Member
18,113
3,145
293
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 11,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Sparty beat UNC and Notre Dame when they had Coulson and were on the verge of beating Duke.

Wichita State didn't beat anybody last year.

Still were underseeded though.

The UNC win is obviously good, but I think ND would have been a fringe tournament team even had Colson stayed healthy. Remember they also lost to Ball State and Indiana with Colson.
 

jontaejones

Well-Known Member
3,904
739
113
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Hoopla Cash
$ 149.32
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
The UNC win is obviously good, but I think ND would have been a fringe tournament team even had Colson stayed healthy. Remember they also lost to Ball State and Indiana with Colson.

I don't know about borderline with him, but I get your point.

The committee is going to have to make a decision on Sparty. Right now their RPI is 30 but Lunardi has them as a 2 seed.

Cincy is another interesting one. They have an RPI of 25. No real good wins, but nothing even resembling a bad loss. And more opportunities to get RPI points.

Who deserves the higher seed?
 

pumpkinhead33793

Well-Known Member
2,339
185
63
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
The public perception is overrating the middle teams in the Big Ten. Those teams ranked between 51-100 in the Big Ten are perceived to be significantly better than all other teams in the MVC last year. I don't agree with it, especially this year, but it is what it is.
 

Edonidd

Well-Known Member
5,133
2,264
173
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,360.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I'd probably agree, though I don't think the committee would do that. Seriously being 2-4 against the top 50/field doesn't warrant a 2/3 seed. It also doesn't help they only play the other 3 teams in the B1G worth a damn this year once. And have to play Rutgers, Illinois and Wisconsin twice, who could be the 3 worst teams in the B1G(at least RPI wise)

A 4 loss team from a major conference who spent a portion of tgdd season sat #1 and the whole season in the top 10 is Not getting a 6-7 seed much less an 8-9. And if that major conference team has a HoF coach and is generally regarded as a basketball power that goes doubly.

Wichita State had an RPI 100+ lower, but more importantly they're Wichita State and most importantly they play in the MVC.
 

ericd7633

Well-Known Member
18,113
3,145
293
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 11,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I don't know about borderline with him, but I get your point.

The committee is going to have to make a decision on Sparty. Right now their RPI is 30 but Lunardi has them as a 2 seed.

Cincy is another interesting one. They have an RPI of 25. No real good wins, but nothing even resembling a bad loss. And more opportunities to get RPI points.

Who deserves the higher seed?

Michigan State has GREAT metric numbers, but until the committee actually puts significant weight on them instead of the team sheets they use, I'm skeptical that's even a big part of the discussion.

As far as Cincy vs. Michigan State, I'd have Cincy as a higher seed atm. They are currently 4-2 against quadrant 1 teams, while Michigan State is 1-2(technically the loss against michigan is a Q2 loss since they are outside the RPI top 30 atm). So Cincy has 4 times as many Q1 wins and MSU has 1 more "bad" loss(Q2 loss). Cincy should be the higher seed IMO.
 

ericd7633

Well-Known Member
18,113
3,145
293
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 11,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
A 4 loss team from a major conference who spent a portion of tgdd season sat #1 and the whole season in the top 10 is Not getting a 6-7 seed much less an 8-9. And if that major conference team has a HoF coach and is generally regarded as a basketball power that goes doubly.

Wichita State had an RPI 100+ lower, but more importantly they're Wichita State and most importantly they play in the MVC.

The B1G is a major conference in name only this season. They are the worst P6 conference and just slightly better than the AAC this season. Half the conference projects to have an RPI in the 100's. Honestly the only thing that is keeping the B1G ahead of the AAC at this point is that the B1G doesn't have 2 teams like East Carolina and South Florida.

I'm not saying they'll get a 6/7 seed, but they shouldn't be treated much differently than this Wichita State team last season. If the committee was going to be consistent, and the above scenario played Michigan State SHOULD probably be a 4/5 seed. 2 top 50 wins and 2 wins against the field is pretty awful.
 

Edonidd

Well-Known Member
5,133
2,264
173
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,360.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
The B1G is a major conference in name only this season. They are the worst P6 conference and just slightly better than the AAC this season. Half the conference projects to have an RPI in the 100's. Honestly the only thing that is keeping the B1G ahead of the AAC at this point is that the B1G doesn't have 2 teams like East Carolina and South Florida.

I'm not saying they'll get a 6/7 seed, but they shouldn't be treated much differently than this Wichita State team last season. If the committee was going to be consistent, and the above scenario played Michigan State SHOULD probably be a 4/5 seed. 2 top 50 wins and 2 wins against the field is pretty awful.

In name only or not. The BIG 10 is still the Big 10. Until they go to blind seeding or using strictly computer rankings that is always going to mean something to the committee.

I'm not saying it should or shouldn't I'm just saying it will.
 

ericd7633

Well-Known Member
18,113
3,145
293
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 11,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
In name only or not. The BIG 10 is still the Big 10. Until they go to blind seeding or using strictly computer rankings that is always going to mean something to the committee.

I'm not saying it should or shouldn't I'm just saying it will.

Not with it this bad though. The B1G is only going to get 4 teams in the tournament, unless someone outside of MSU, OSU, Michigan or Purdue wins the B1G tournament. 18, 19 or even 20 wins won't get a team in this year.
 

Myles

Well-Known Member
8,065
2,645
293
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Location
Decatur, IN
Hoopla Cash
$ 900.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Not with it this bad though. The B1G is only going to get 4 teams in the tournament, unless someone outside of MSU, OSU, Michigan or Purdue wins the B1G tournament. 18, 19 or even 20 wins won't get a team in this year.
I think there will be 6 from the Big 10.

If a Big 10 Michigan State goes 29-4, They will not be less than a #3 seed.
Wichita State should not have been better than a #6 seed. They played nobody, had a horrible strength of schedule.
Really it doesn't matter much which is what makes the NCAA tournament great.
 

DJ

Generic line for rent here
Supporting Member Level 3
161,879
47,037
1,033
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Location
Soon to be the west coast
Hoopla Cash
$ 12,101.14
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
MSU has big problems more important than March Madness.
 

ericd7633

Well-Known Member
18,113
3,145
293
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 11,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
The following teams have as many Quadrant 1 wins as Michigan State(2): Belmont, Iowa State, Minnesota, Ball State, San Diego.

The following teams, to date, have played a tougher SOS than Michigan State: Rhode Island(A-10), Nevada(Mtn. West), MTSU(C-USA), Boise State(Mtn. West), Buffalo(MAC), St. Bonaventure(A-10), Western Kentucky(C-USA), Wyoming(Mtn. West), Illinois State(MVC), Southern Illinois(MVC), Northeastern(CAA), Fresno State(Mtn. West), VCU(A-10), Miami(Oh)(MAC), Evansville(MVC), Hofstra(CAA), Tulane(AAC), Missouri State(MVC), Northern Colorado(Big Sky), St. Louis(A-10), Pacific(WCC), UC-Irvine(Big West).

I'm not posting this to rag on Michigan State, I think they are a very good team, my point is that I hope just because they have Michigan State on the front of their chests and not Middle Tennessee State, that they don't get preferential treatment from the committee. The fact that teams from the MAC, CAA, Big Sky, and Big West all have tougher SOS's than Michigan State, really says all you need to know about the truly awful schedule they've played thus far.
 

ralphiewvu

Well-Known Member
18,255
2,484
173
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Location
Central PA
Hoopla Cash
$ 3,751.35
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
The following teams have as many Quadrant 1 wins as Michigan State(2): Belmont, Iowa State, Minnesota, Ball State, San Diego.

The following teams, to date, have played a tougher SOS than Michigan State: Rhode Island(A-10), Nevada(Mtn. West), MTSU(C-USA), Boise State(Mtn. West), Buffalo(MAC), St. Bonaventure(A-10), Western Kentucky(C-USA), Wyoming(Mtn. West), Illinois State(MVC), Southern Illinois(MVC), Northeastern(CAA), Fresno State(Mtn. West), VCU(A-10), Miami(Oh)(MAC), Evansville(MVC), Hofstra(CAA), Tulane(AAC), Missouri State(MVC), Northern Colorado(Big Sky), St. Louis(A-10), Pacific(WCC), UC-Irvine(Big West).

I'm not posting this to rag on Michigan State, I think they are a very good team, my point is that I hope just because they have Michigan State on the front of their chests and not Middle Tennessee State, that they don't get preferential treatment from the committee. The fact that teams from the MAC, CAA, Big Sky, and Big West all have tougher SOS's than Michigan State, really says all you need to know about the truly awful schedule they've played thus far.

You know they will (get preferential treatment) like a bunch others would too. It is unfortunate but I guess it’s just the way it is.
 
Top