Gonzaga and Wichita St.

[CatsTopPac]

You are just more then fucking retarded if you are calling me illiterate when you contradicted yourself. You say in one post you don't care about seeding, yet you create this thread that critcizes mid majors for SEEDING.

An people like you wonder why they deserve to be shot. Pure stupidity would be the reason.

Once again you illiterate fuck, go back and read the thread. The seeding is the symptom, and the shitty conference schedule is the cause. Don't miss the forest for the trees. You focus on whatever you want but to come on here, troll, and then blast off banging your keyboard makes you look like a dipshit. No one told you that you had to come on her, offer absolutely nothing to the convo, and pop off with some dumb shit. If you are so upset with the thread, GTFO.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

The seeding is the symptom, and the shitty conference schedule is the cause.

Shitty conference schedules cause teems to get #1 seeds?

Now I'm really confused.

 

[CatsTopPac]

You said you hadn't seen anything to indicate that Gonzaga is ready for Sweet 16 play (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean) I simply pointed out they went to Tuscon and took a highly ranked team that is also a contender for a #1 seed to overtime. Had the game been against Kentucky or Virginia I would have said that instead, but it wasn't. It was against Arizona. So get your panties out of a wad.

But you seem pretty confident that Arizona isn't a #1 seed caliber team, so if they get a #1 seed, will you be complaining about how the selection committee did? (They're currently #5 in the RPI behind VCU who has zero chance of getting a #1 seed)

You said you wanted discussion about this. Well, you got it. Did you want discussion, or did you want people to tell that you're right, and tell you how clever you are for figuring out that Gonzaga plays in a bad conference? It seems to me like you were hoping for the latter.

That's not what I said. I said that I will not have seen anything from GU that tells me that they are ready to play in a Sweet 16 game, THEN AN ELITE EIGHT GAME, etc. What I mean is that if AZ is the only ranked team that GU plays all season (and that game was back in December) then what tells me that GU should be able to beat a top 15 team, and then a top ten team a couple days later, three months after that one game in December???? They will have only played one ranked team all year, and it was three months prior. So you play one ranked team (albeit a top ten team) in December and that means you are ready to be a number one seed and win 4 games to get to the FF three months later?

Second of all, it was not only your inclusion of AZ against GU that I reacted to, it was the followup questions where you focused only on AZ insinuating that I thought AZ was a #1 seed. Don't pull that shit. This conversation is about GU, not AZ.

And just to actually have the discussion if you are not just trying to go after me as an AZ fan (funny you are no longer just asking about random teams that you question as a #1 seed, but only focusing on AZ), then fine. I think that if AZ can win in Utah, that will be a test against against a team (at or knocking on the door of top ten), along with winning some other games down the stretch. Winning @ CU is always tough, this home game against OSU will be a challenge. And then the last game of the year will be difficult as well, against Stanford. Finally, playing in the Pac 12 tourney on neutral courts against other tourney teams will certainly be great for getting ready for March. Finally, if AZ plays Utah in the final, then once again, its a matchup against a top team to get ready for March.

Let me see if I can anticipate your next line of questioning. I am not saying that the Pac is as tough as the ACC, B12, etc. What I am saying is that AZ will have played some ranked opponents and tough neutral site games in the non-con, but then also balanced that out with some hard conference road games, and some games against tourney teams. Their conference tourney will help to get them ready. That is a far cry from what lies ahead for GU. They play no one in conference who is going to offer any competition similar to the quality of teams most likely found in the second half of March. Yes, I understand that Cinderella's etc. can get deep into March, so "what does a Sweet 16 team/ game look like?" It's a top 15 matchup, just like an Elite Eight game is a top ten match up. No it is not exact, but most of the teams that make it to the EE or the SS in any given year deserve to be there and are usually the quality of team that a team will face at that point. For example, last year AZ played a SS game against SDSU, who was a good SS level opponent, an EE game against Wisky, who was a very good EE opponent. But I don't think that GU can play an 8/9 seed, win, AND THEN the next week play a top 15 team on a neutral court, win, AND THEN two days later play a top ten team on a neutral court and win. They have only played one ranked team all season, back in December. I'm also not saying that if AZ eats Utah a couple times and looks good against some other strong teams that they will have exactly mirrored what would most likely be ahead of them in deep march (top 15 matchup followed closely by a top ten matchup). But AZ (and other top ten teams fighting for a #1 seed) will have played in conference tourneys and conference seasons against tourney teams away from home, and in challenging conference tourneys on neutral sites. GU will have done none of that. They won't do anything close to telling me that they can win in those situations except for blowing every scrub conference team away, and then doing the same in their tourney.

As far as AZ, like I said, if they can put together a string of wins against some decent to very good conference foes at home and on the road, and also win the Pac tourney, then yes, I think they will have played themselves into the #1 seed, depending on how other potential #1s look in the remainder of their season. But again, I am saying that RIGHT NOW they are not a #1 seed to me. They need to develop more. I think that the games they have for the rest of the season and into the tourney have the opportunity to get them in position to be a #1 seed.

I think UK and UVA are the only clear cut teams I see as valid #1s right now. I think that Wisky, Duke, Ville, AZ, Nova, and some others still have some kinks to work out. Hell, I think Utah would be a great #1 seed if they beat us two more times and beat some other teams in tough games. There are a lot of games left for teams to improve or not. But I don't see any of those opportunities for GU to play quality teams for them to further develop over the last two plus months of the season (while a half dozen other teams are doing so).

As far as #1 seeds predicted to make the FF, I guess we'll just have to disagree. Seriously though, by your own evidence, if 40% of #1 seeds make it to the FF, that is clearly more than any other seed, right? They have almost half of all FF teams right? So is it really so fucking crazy to say that #1 seeds are supposed to be the ones everyone thinks is going to make it to the FF? No, it's fucking not, but thanks for the condescending remark about me not knowing basketball, your fucking highness. If you are a #1 seed, the committee thinks that you are one of the 4 best teams in basketball, and the stats show you are more likely to reach the FF than any other seed. With the quality of opponents that GU plays in the last two months of the season, along with the lack of development against quality competition, I don't think that they will be one of the 4 best teams, nor do I think that they are more likely to get to the FF than some of the other teams below them.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Shitty conference schedules cause teems to get #1 seeds?

Now I'm really confused.

How does that not make sense to you? My whole point of this thread is that top ten teams like GU this year and two years ago, and WSU last year played shitty conference schedules which kept them from losing where other teams in better conferences were beating up on each other, both winning and losing, and GU and WSU were able to bypass those teams and get a #1 seed. If Wisky or Michigan didn't have to run the gauntlet of the BIG, and instead had the WCC, I think there is no doubt that they would have gotten a #1 seed. When you are a top ten team who plays a horrible conference schedule, then you don't lose where others do, you move up in the polls, and other matrixes with obliterating horrible teams, and you get a #1 seed. GU did it two years ago, WSU did it last year, and GU is doing it again this year.

 

[CatsTopPac]

I've read through this whole thread. IMO to suggest Wichita State didn't deserve a 1 seed last year is being simply misguided.

Here are some facts regarding Wichita State's resume:
Record: 34-0
RPI: 4
BPI: 5(following tournament)
Ken Pom: 5(following tournament)
Non Conf. SoS: 29
SoS: 111

You basically want to penalize them for playing in an average conference where they won by an average margin of over 17 ppg. It's not like they ran through the MEAC or SWAC, the MVC was still the 11th best conference last year.

Arguing over their seeding based on tournament results are dumb IMO, especially in a one and done format. Wichita State wasn't the first 1 seed to lose to the 8/9 and they won't be the last either, it happens. Pitt lost to Butler in 2011 in the round of 32 as well, should they have not been a 1 seed?

Much the same can be said for Gonzaga as well. They were a two loss team that year heading into the tournament. There was also no P5 team(including Big East) that had fewer than 5 losses heading in the tournament that year. That was a strange year because you had a 5 loss Louisville, 5 loss Kansas, and 6 loss IU teams' get the other #1 seeds. I guess the committee could have given Duke the other #1 seed, but they kept them much closer to home instead of shipping them out west, which would have been their only option.

The point of seeding is to reward the teams for their regular season, not how you think each team will perform in the tournament itself.

I don't think that WSU was a bad team last year. I do think that if they played in a much better conference, then they would have lost much more. I think that a #2 or #3 seed would have been more reflective. I guess the converse is that instead of penalizing a team for playing in a weak conference (yes, 11 is weak), then they were awarded for playing in a weak conference. Is that acceptable? Again, I think that if all the top ten teams were in the MVC or the WCC, they would most likely go undefeated, so what give WSU the #1 seed for winning in a shitty conference, when I'd argue that any top ten team would most likely have done the same thing?

I think it's really easy to play scrubs every week, not be challenged, and waltz into the tourney ranked in the top 3. But I don't think that is a very accurate reflection of how good the team is.

Tell me, do those matrixes that ranked WSU so high, or that rank GU so high, calculate the difficulty of going on the road and playing two ranked teams back to back, or playing two ranked teams at neutral sites back to back? Because if a top ten team does that, it tells me that they are a better team and more ready for a #1 seed than blowing out scrubs week in and week out and being a top 5 team. Teams like UM and Wisky did that, and teams like WSU and GU never even sniffed that level of competition, especially in the last two months of the season. WSU's two best wins last year (according to BPI) were both in November against Tulsa and Tennessee St.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Well, I'm not sure what's so difficult to figure out about the 40% thing, but that means that historically #1 seeds are less likely to make the Final Four than not. Yes, its still more likely than any other single seed, but it's still less than 50%.

Here's an interesting stat for you. If you're playing Hold'em and you have pocket Aces (the best starting hand in poker) and you get it all in against 5 other random hands, you are not a favorite to win the hand. You have a better likelihood than any other individual hand, but collectively the "field" is more likely to win.

This situation is exactly the same. If you expect 1 seeds to get to the Final Four just because they are 1 seeds, you a) haven't been paying attention because historically, that has proven to be false, and b) still don't seem to understand the purpose of seeding and think it has to do with predicting future play instead of rewarding previous play and c) are ignoring the fact that the committee (despite your insistence to the contrary) has no qualms with giving a team that played in a bad conference a #1 seed.

We've already established that we agree that playing in a shit conference doesn't prepeare you as well for tournament play compared to playing in a good one. That's been established, no? And we've establsihed that the committee has no issue with giving a team from a crappy conference a #1 seed, no? Was that not the impetus behind your initial post? So knowing that the committee has a history of giving #1 seeds to teams that are less prepared for tournament play compared to the majority of the field, why then would you continue to insist that #1 seeds should be expected to make the Final Four? I'm really at a loss for this.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks to me like you have a belief that it should work that way, and now you're just trying to rationalize it.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

How does that not make sense to you? My whole point of this thread is that top ten teams like GU this year and two years ago, and WSU last year played shitty conference schedules which kept them from losing where other teams in better conferences were beating up on each other, both winning and losing, and GU and WSU were able to bypass those teams and get a #1 seed. If Wisky or Michigan didn't have to run the gauntlet of the BIG, and instead had the WCC, I think there is no doubt that they would have gotten a #1 seed. When you are a top ten team who plays a horrible conference schedule, then you don't lose where others do, you move up in the polls, and other matrixes with obliterating horrible teams, and you get a #1 seed. GU did it two years ago, WSU did it last year, and GU is doing it again this year.

It doesn't make sense because if playing in a shit conference lead to #1 seeds, then the SWAC would have a lot more teams in the tournament.

Playing in a shit conference doesn't get you a #1 seed. Winning a crapload of games get's you a #1 seed. Those two can't be used interchangeably just because it's convenient for you. And while I'm sure you'll say that it's easier to win a crapload of games in a crap conference (and I agree) the committee isn't stupid. They pretty much expect perfection in those cases. So the margin of error is a lot smaller when you play in those crap conferences. Duke seems to be considered a strong contender for a #1 seed and they already have 2 losses, and are likely to pick up 1 or 2 more and could still be a #1 seed. Gonzaga doesn't have that luxury. At this point any loss is going to be a bad loss, so they are pretty much forced to be perfect to get a top seed. Teams in power conferences have a much lower bar to get over.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

It's very likely that UK won't have played a ranked team in 2015 when the tournament rolls around. Do you think they should get a #1 seed if they roll through the craptacular SEC?

 

[ericd7633]

I thought I would get this debate set up early this year. No reason to wait for midseason when we already know what is going to happen.

So here it goes:

Gonzaga and Wichita State are once again going to find themselves in early January with only about 0-2 losses each, heading into conference play. Then they will play absolutely horrible teams in conference, and basically keep themselves in the top 5-10 while everyone else beats the shit out of each other in conference play. Then everyone will say how well Gonzaga and Wichita State are playing because they keep winning (and because of a game or two in Nov/Dec in which they played well, against a good team).

Come March, they will only have a loss or two and be complaining that they should be a #1 seed. Then, regardless, and because they haven't played but one top 50 team since Dec, they will lose in March before the Sweet 16 (once again proving that they had no business being a top seed).

I don't mean to just shit on these teams, and I'm not even just picking on them. I think that right now, both of those teams are good, and deserve their current rankings. But I also think there is something to be said for what is lost when you go 2 months at the end of a season without playing but one or two teams that are even in the top 100, let alone the top 50. St. Mary's should be good this year, but Gonzaga has basically weeks and weeks to prep for them, and then that's it. BYU might be worth mentioning this year as well. And that's it for the Zags. And for Wichita State, it's worse. I'm not sure they play a top 100 team after Dec.

I get that Wichita State played UK well in the tourney, but every UK game was close. Should Michigan have been a #1 seed because they only lost to UK by 3? I don't think seeding is justified like that. If you are a #1 seed, you are expected to go to the Final Four, or at least play a hell of an Elite Eight game. When you are a #1 seed and you lose in the first weekend, I don't think you should have been a #1 seed, period. I have been saying this about GU and WSU for the last couple years, and I am just wondering when we stop blowing #1 seeds on teams that run the table on some shitty conference.

Just to show you how ridiculous the bold statement is, you really think the following teams shouldn't have been 1 seeds:

2011 Pittsburgh(27-5, 15-3) Won the Big East outright, which was the #1 conference according to RPI.
2010 Kansas(32-2, 15-1) Won the Big 12 outright, which was the #1 conference according to RPI.
2004 Kentucky(26-4, 13-3) Won the SEC Tournament Championship.
2004 Stanford(29-1, 17-1) Won the Pac 12 Regular season and tournament.
2002 Cincinnati(30-3, 14-2) C-USA Regular season and tournament champions. RPI of #2, Ken Pom of #3.
2000 Stanford(26-3, 15-3) Tied for first in the Pac 12 with Arizona.
2000 Arizona(26-6, 15-3) Tied for first in the Pac 12 with Stanford. RPI of #3.
1998 Kansas(34-3, 15-1) Won the Big 12 outright, #4 RPI.
1996 Purdue(25-5, 15-1) Won the Big 10 outright, #6 RPI.
1994 UNC(27-6, 11-5) 2nd in the ACC, #3 RPI.

I'm sure there are many more examples, but I decided to stop at the last 20 years.

I mean if you really think that way, let's just decide this thing like football does. Have 4 #1 seeds and let them battle it out for the championship.

My point is, giving out seeds predicated on how you think a team will perform in the tournament is illogical. Upsets are a part of the game and tournament. It certainly doesn't mean these teams didn't deserve their respective #1 seeds.

The above mentioned teams are no different than 2013 Gonzaga and 2014 Wichita State. All the teams earned #1 seeds in the eyes of the committee.

I mean seriously how can you not give a one loss Pac 12 team(2004 Stanford) a #1 seed??

 

[ericd7633]

I don't think that WSU was a bad team last year. I do think that if they played in a much better conference, then they would have lost much more. I think that a #2 or #3 seed would have been more reflective. I guess the converse is that instead of penalizing a team for playing in a weak conference (yes, 11 is weak), then they were awarded for playing in a weak conference. Is that acceptable? Again, I think that if all the top ten teams were in the MVC or the WCC, they would most likely go undefeated, so what give WSU the #1 seed for winning in a shitty conference, when I'd argue that any top ten team would most likely have done the same thing?

I think it's really easy to play scrubs every week, not be challenged, and waltz into the tourney ranked in the top 3. But I don't think that is a very accurate reflection of how good the team is.

Tell me, do those matrixes that ranked WSU so high, or that rank GU so high, calculate the difficulty of going on the road and playing two ranked teams back to back, or playing two ranked teams at neutral sites back to back? Because if a top ten team does that, it tells me that they are a better team and more ready for a #1 seed than blowing out scrubs week in and week out and being a top 5 team. Teams like UM and Wisky did that, and teams like WSU and GU never even sniffed that level of competition, especially in the last two months of the season. WSU's two best wins last year (according to BPI) were both in November against Tulsa and Tennessee St.

So you're making a big deal about the committee's selecting Wichita State as the #3 overall seed, but the #5 overall seed would have fine? That is REALLY splitting hairs at this point. As for your any top 10 team, could have ran through that schedule undefeated, that is probably true, and Wichita State DID accomplish that. Would they have gone undefeated in the B1G or ACC, no, but NOBODY else did either. Why are you holding Wichita State to a higher regard, when NOBODY else accomplished an undefeated conference schedule in a P5 conference. Could Wichita State have gone 12-6 in conference like Wisconsin did last year? I most certainly think they could have.

The second bold statement is just a flat out lie.

Tulsa had a BPI of 87 last year.

Wichita State had wins over the following teams ranked higher in the BPI than Tulsa:

#25 Tennessee
#32 Saint Louis
#49 BYU
#86 Alabama

Wichita State had ZERO losses. Played a top 30 SoS in the non conf(including 3 wins over NCAAT teams) And went through their conference undefeated and in good fashion(winning by over 17 ppg)

 

[CatsTopPac]

Well, I'm not sure what's so difficult to figure out about the 40% thing, but that means that historically #1 seeds are less likely to make the Final Four than not. Yes, its still more likely than any other single seed, but it's still less than 50%.

Here's an interesting stat for you. If you're playing Hold'em and you have pocket Aces (the best starting hand in poker) and you get it all in against 5 other random hands, you are not a favorite to win the hand. You have a better likelihood than any other individual hand, but collectively the "field" is more likely to win.

This situation is exactly the same. If you expect 1 seeds to get to the Final Four just because they are 1 seeds, you a) haven't been paying attention because historically, that has proven to be false, and b) still don't seem to understand the purpose of seeding and think it has to do with predicting future play instead of rewarding previous play and c) are ignoring the fact that the committee (despite your insistence to the contrary) has no qualms with giving a team that played in a bad conference a #1 seed.

We've already established that we agree that playing in a shit conference doesn't prepeare you as well for tournament play compared to playing in a good one. That's been established, no? And we've establsihed that the committee has no issue with giving a team from a crappy conference a #1 seed, no? Was that not the impetus behind your initial post? So knowing that the committee has a history of giving #1 seeds to teams that are less prepared for tournament play compared to the majority of the field, why then would you continue to insist that #1 seeds should be expected to make the Final Four? I'm really at a loss for this.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks to me like you have a belief that it should work that way, and now you're just trying to rationalize it.

This goes back to my disagreement with the committee in terms of their emphasis on awarding better non-con schedules, whereas I think it is much more important to award tougher conference schedules. Overall, a #1 seed is expected more to make the FF than any other seed. It's March anything can and does happen, but I think the committee emphasizing non-con SOS over conf SOS is misguided. Hell, if it doesn't matter, then why does the committee specifically emphasize tougher non-con schedules?

 

[CatsTopPac]

It doesn't make sense because if playing in a shit conference lead to #1 seeds, then the SWAC would have a lot more teams in the tournament.

Playing in a shit conference doesn't get you a #1 seed. Winning a crapload of games get's you a #1 seed. Those two can't be used interchangeably just because it's convenient for you. And while I'm sure you'll say that it's easier to win a crapload of games in a crap conference (and I agree) the committee isn't stupid. They pretty much expect perfection in those cases. So the margin of error is a lot smaller when you play in those crap conferences. Duke seems to be considered a strong contender for a #1 seed and they already have 2 losses, and are likely to pick up 1 or 2 more and could still be a #1 seed. Gonzaga doesn't have that luxury. At this point any loss is going to be a bad loss, so they are pretty much forced to be perfect to get a top seed. Teams in power conferences have a much lower bar to get over.

I would say that apparently, winning a crapload of games in a shitty conference gets you a #1 seed. If there was a team that did pretty well in whatever non-con schedule they played, and then ran through the SWAC, according to WSU last year, they should get the #1 seed.

And I understand the margin of error is smaller for a GU. As it should be, but that is because of a worse SOS. My point though is that it is easier to win against horrible competition than it is to lose a couple more times but have half your conference play against tourney teams, ranked teams, on the road, neutral site conference tourneys etc. I don't think that weak conference schedules should be awarded.

It's like football before the playoff. If Boise State goes undefeated for a year that doesn't necessarily mean that they should automatically be in the NC game. They played a shit conference, and I will take a 1 or even 2 loss SEC team over them any day. Now, BSU might pull some shit and beat OU, but that is not to say that they should automatically have been chosen for the NC game just because they were undefeated.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Just to show you how ridiculous the bold statement is, you really think the following teams shouldn't have been 1 seeds:

2011 Pittsburgh(27-5, 15-3) Won the Big East outright, which was the #1 conference according to RPI.
2010 Kansas(32-2, 15-1) Won the Big 12 outright, which was the #1 conference according to RPI.
2004 Kentucky(26-4, 13-3) Won the SEC Tournament Championship.
2004 Stanford(29-1, 17-1) Won the Pac 12 Regular season and tournament.
2002 Cincinnati(30-3, 14-2) C-USA Regular season and tournament champions. RPI of #2, Ken Pom of #3.
2000 Stanford(26-3, 15-3) Tied for first in the Pac 12 with Arizona.
2000 Arizona(26-6, 15-3) Tied for first in the Pac 12 with Stanford. RPI of #3.
1998 Kansas(34-3, 15-1) Won the Big 12 outright, #4 RPI.
1996 Purdue(25-5, 15-1) Won the Big 10 outright, #6 RPI.
1994 UNC(27-6, 11-5) 2nd in the ACC, #3 RPI.

I'm sure there are many more examples, but I decided to stop at the last 20 years.

I mean if you really think that way, let's just decide this thing like football does. Have 4 #1 seeds and let them battle it out for the championship.

My point is, giving out seeds predicated on how you think a team will perform in the tournament is illogical. Upsets are a part of the game and tournament. It certainly doesn't mean these teams didn't deserve their respective #1 seeds.

The above mentioned teams are no different than 2013 Gonzaga and 2014 Wichita State. All the teams earned #1 seeds in the eyes of the committee.

I mean seriously how can you not give a one loss Pac 12 team(2004 Stanford) a #1 seed??

Touché. You are absolutely correct. That was a horrible statement on my part. I guess to rephrase it with my actual intent would be to say," That any #1 seed who didn't play a single ranked team for the last two months of the season, who loses in the first weekend should not have been a #1 seed to begin with.

 

[CatsTopPac]

So you're making a big deal about the committee's selecting Wichita State as the #3 overall seed, but the #5 overall seed would have fine? That is REALLY splitting hairs at this point. As for your any top 10 team, could have ran through that schedule undefeated, that is probably true, and Wichita State DID accomplish that. Would they have gone undefeated in the B1G or ACC, no, but NOBODY else did either. Why are you holding Wichita State to a higher regard, when NOBODY else accomplished an undefeated conference schedule in a P5 conference. Could Wichita State have gone 12-6 in conference like Wisconsin did last year? I most certainly think they could have.

The second bold statement is just a flat out lie.

Tulsa had a BPI of 87 last year.

Wichita State had wins over the following teams ranked higher in the BPI than Tulsa:

#25 Tennessee
#32 Saint Louis
#49 BYU
#86 Alabama

Wichita State had ZERO losses. Played a top 30 SoS in the non conf(including 3 wins over NCAAT teams) And went through their conference undefeated and in good fashion(winning by over 17 ppg)

Sorry, I mistyped on Tenn St. But the Tulsa win was statistically their best win last year. They beat Tulsa by 23 on the road.

Wichita St Shockers Basketball Power Index - ESPN

 

[CatsTopPac]

It's very likely that UK won't have played a ranked team in 2015 when the tournament rolls around. Do you think they should get a #1 seed if they roll through the craptacular SEC?

Yes, for a couple of reasons. First, like GU and WSU of the past, UK played a very nice non-con. But in addition to that, they also have to play three other teams that right now are projected to go to the tourney. THat may change a little, but I think there is a difference between Uk playing 3 other tourney teams on the road, and in the conference tourney. Compare that to 0 for GU.

 

[ericd7633]

Sorry, I mistyped on Tenn St. But the Tulsa win was statistically their best win last year. They beat Tulsa by 23 on the road.

Wichita St Shockers Basketball Power Index - ESPN

Again, Tulsa was NOT their best win. It may have been their best performance relative to who they played according to the BPI, but their best win according to the BPI was Tennessee.

Do you not see the difference?

 

[CatsTopPac]

So you're making a big deal about the committee's selecting Wichita State as the #3 overall seed, but the #5 overall seed would have fine? That is REALLY splitting hairs at this point. As for your any top 10 team, could have ran through that schedule undefeated, that is probably true, and Wichita State DID accomplish that. Would they have gone undefeated in the B1G or ACC, no, but NOBODY else did either. Why are you holding Wichita State to a higher regard, when NOBODY else accomplished an undefeated conference schedule in a P5 conference. Could Wichita State have gone 12-6 in conference like Wisconsin did last year? I most certainly think they could have.

The second bold statement is just a flat out lie.

Tulsa had a BPI of 87 last year.

Wichita State had wins over the following teams ranked higher in the BPI than Tulsa:

#25 Tennessee
#32 Saint Louis
#49 BYU
#86 Alabama

Wichita State had ZERO losses. Played a top 30 SoS in the non conf(including 3 wins over NCAAT teams) And went through their conference undefeated and in good fashion(winning by over 17 ppg)

I guess my second point on this is, take a look back at those stats. THey played a #30 non-con SOS, right? That's great. But oif their overall SOS was like 110, then how bad was their conference schedule, like 150? So going undefeated against a conference schedule that is around 150 and going undefeated is to be praised, especially when you are getting ready to play for the NC? No. Props to WSU and GU on their non-cons. I've maintained that. But when your undefeated conference schedule takes you from #30 SOS to 114, then no, that doesn't mean shit to me to earn a #1 seed.

 

[ericd7633]

Yes, for a couple of reasons. First, like GU and WSU of the past, UK played a very nice non-con. But in addition to that, they also have to play three other teams that right now are projected to go to the tourney. THat may change a little, but I think there is a difference between Uk playing 3 other tourney teams on the road, and in the conference tourney. Compare that to 0 for GU.

Again, that's false. Gonzaga played 4 games against tournament competition once conference play began in 2013. 1 at home, 2 on the road, and one on a neutral court.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Again, that's false. Gonzaga played 4 games against tournament competition once conference play began in 2013. 1 at home, 2 on the road, and one on a neutral court.

I'm not seeing where GU played a single team after conference play started who finished the season ranked. The only game they played against a ranked team at the time was @ Butler, a loss, and Butler fell from the top 25 by the end of the season.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

This goes back to my disagreement with the committee in terms of their emphasis on awarding better non-con schedules, whereas I think it is much more important to award tougher conference schedules. Overall, a #1 seed is expected more to make the FF than any other seed. It's March anything can and does happen, but I think the committee emphasizing non-con SOS over conf SOS is misguided. Hell, if it doesn't matter, then why does the committee specifically emphasize tougher non-con schedules?

The committee emphasizes non-con schedule because a team actually has some level of control over their non-con schedule. They have zero control over their conference schedule. It makes little sense to reward or punish a team simply because of their conference affiliation.

You're free to disagree with the reasoning, but you should at least understand it before doing so.