Gonzaga and Wichita St.

[ericd7633]

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.

Yes, the MVC wasn't very good last year. Why should the committee penalize them for that? They showed in the non conf they were already a good team. And they blew out the majority of their opponents in that conference, hence the great BPI and Ken Pom numbers. You may have a better argument if EVERY metric didn't have them in the top 5.

 

[CatsTopPac]

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?

I do see the difference, two different definitions of "best win".

And again, I'm not really focussing on non-con. My point is that a team with a horrible conference schedule is not a top 4 team, nor should their seeding reflect such.

 

[ericd7633]

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.

Now you're changing it to ranked, when before you said tournament teams?

"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." - CatsTopPac

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

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.

Why is it that you seem to grasp the concept of tournament results not retroactively dictating seeding merit for football, but you seem completely unwilling to accept the very same premise for basketball?

 

[CatsTopPac]

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.

I do understand the reasoning Trolly, I outlined that exact reasoning of not controlling conference schedules in a prior fucking post. Another great attempt to belittle me in this discussion. I said almost word for word what you just wrote. Damn it it's difficult to have a simple discussion with you. All you are interested in doing is keeping the discussion going and asking different probing questions so that you can adjust the argument away from the main crux of the discussion. You're arguing just to argue. You try to find absolutely anything to cling onto so that you can disagree and try to talk shit.

I fucking know that they have zero control over their conference schedule. But that doesn't mean that they should be rewarded either.

 

[ericd7633]

I do see the difference, two different definitions of "best win".

And again, I'm not really focussing on non-con. My point is that a team with a horrible conference schedule is not a top 4 team, nor should their seeding reflect such.

No.

There is "best win" and "best performance"

Look at KU's BPI page.

NCAA College Basketball Rankings, Polls - ESPN

Their best performance was against Texas. Texas most definitely wasn't KU's best win last year.

And you HAVE to take into account what happens in non conference. It's 40% of the season for christ sakes. I mean how the hell do you determine what teams are considered good heading into conference play, same goes for conferences.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Now you're changing it to ranked, when before you said tournament teams?

"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." - CatsTopPac

I've used both almost interchangably, Eric. The reason is because I am essentially referring to the at-large bids. There are 25 ranked teams and 33 at-large bids. Most of the at-large are ranked. I am not referring to weak seeded teams. My point is that tourney teams are the at large bids, and most of them are ranked. Those are the opponents that teams develop against and be tested by playing. Yes, technically the winner of the SWAC is a tourney team, but that's not the kind of team I'm focusing on.

 

[Smart]

Cats, your argument is getting worse now. Even if their best win relative to opposition is Tulsa, what exactly does that prove? It certainly doesn't indicate a weak schedule, which is what you were implying. A team could beat the top 10 teams in the country but a 144-17 win over Prairie View A&M could be better. Does this mean they played a weak schedule? Of course not. It would just mean they beat the shit out of PV.

Frankly, there is no good argument for Wichita not being the #1 seed. Adjusted for schedule, they were still a top 4 team in basically every metric. Add to that the fact that their last loss was a tight loss in the FINAL FOUR the year before, it just doesn't work.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

All you are interested in doing is keeping the discussion going and asking different probing questions so that you can adjust the argument away from the main crux of the discussion. You're arguing just to argue. You try to find absolutely anything to cling onto so that you can disagree and try to talk shit.

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.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Why is it that you seem to grasp the concept of tournament results not retroactively dictating seeding merit for football, but you seem completely unwilling to accept the very same premise for basketball?

Overall, I do accept it, same as in football. But when I see a pattern of WSU and GU getting #1 seeds (especially when others argue that WSU was a FF team the year prior, as a justification of being a #1 seed the year after!) then it reminds me of BSU in football.

But I also acknowledge that when you have a situation where two years in a row, a team who beat up on a weak conference, played no one, and then is able to stay at the top of the polls and get a #1 seed, only to lose in the first weekend, that is a red flag to me. That's not a coincidence to me, especially when I called that it was going to happen. And now I see the same thing happening for a third consecutive year. And GU still doesn't look like they have any more reason to be considered one of the best just because they beat up on an easy conference for the final two months.

If it was sporadic that it happened, I wouldn't care at all. But this, to me, is a glaring case where a team is vastly overrated because they just didn't lose against a weak conference. And then it shows in the tourney; not once, not every once in a while, but two years in a row, and a third looking very likely. Can you guys at least acknowledge that it's not coincidence that both teams played shitty conference schedules, never played anything close to the games late that would get them ready for March, got to March and then lost?

What if it happens again this year, is that still not a red flag? Again, it's the same thing with football before the playoff. There is a reason that they didn't pick some of the midmajors to play in the NC even though they were undefeated.

So if it happens again, that GU was top 4, playing a horrible conference schedule, and then losing even before the EE, that they were still a top 4 team, and deserved the #1 seed? I don't see anything that tells me that just because they beat up on shit that they are as good as the teams around them, and they don't deserve a #1 seed just to be the third team in three years to have essentially the same season, ranking, seeding, and loss.

 

[ericd7633]

I've used both almost interchangably, Eric. The reason is because I am essentially referring to the at-large bids. There are 25 ranked teams and 33 at-large bids. Most of the at-large are ranked. I am not referring to weak seeded teams. My point is that tourney teams are the at large bids, and most of them are ranked. Those are the opponents that teams develop against and be tested by playing. Yes, technically the winner of the SWAC is a tourney team, but that's not the kind of team I'm focusing on.

Actually over half the at large teams entered the tournament last year unranked. And UK's schedule was brought up. They play 3 teams left projected to make the tournament. two 9 seeds, and a 7 seed. Conversely, Gonzaga played a team that ended up being a 6 seed, and played 3 games against an 11 seed. In other words, there isn't much difference. And their first 6 conference games are against teams projected not to make the tournament.

So to conclude: Gonzaga played 4 tournament teams once conference play began, UK is projected to play 4 during the conference season, and more than likely 1 in the conference tournament. For a grand total of 5.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

If it was sporadic that it happened, I wouldn't care at all. But this, to me, is a glaring case where a team is vastly overrated because they just didn't lose against a weak conference. And then it shows in the tourney; not once, not every once in a while, but two years in a row, and a third looking very likely. Can you guys at least acknowledge that it's not coincidence that both teams played shitty conference schedules, never played anything close to the games late that would get them ready for March, got to March and then lost?

So in 2013 you want to point to Gonzaga losing to WSU (who narrowly lost to eventual champions UofL in the FF) as justification for teams that play in crappy conferences not being ready for tournament play.... I hope I don't have to explain why that isn't a very good argument.

In 2014 WSU went out early in what lots of people called the most brutal bracket ever assembled. You think the committee did WSU a favor by making them a 1 seed in that region? That was the biggest screwjob ever. The only reason UK made it out of that region alive was because somebody had to.

If either team had been blown out in their loss you might have a better argument but as it stands now... nope.

What if it happens again this year, is that still not a red flag?

Nope. Even if I believed that tournament results retroactively justify seeding... nope.

So if it happens again, that GU was top 4, playing a horrible conference schedule, and then losing even before the EE, that they were still a top 4 team, and deserved the #1 seed?

Yep. That's how it works.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Good, well I'm glad we had this talk.

I'll be waiting for March and I predict that for a 3rd straight year, a midmajor team that played a fucking atrocious conference schedule, who (to me) is undeserving of their ranking, will get a #1 seed, and will not make it to the FF, and I would be surprised to see them in the EE (although even that would be a marked improvement at this point). You guys can sharpshoot each team and make excuses for why they didn't play toward seeding expectations, and I'll keep looking at the patterns of explicitely predicting that it will happen. If GU gets to the FF, or even if they play a hell of an EE game, I'll come back on here and plainly admit I was wrong.

 

[ericd7633]

Good, well I'm glad we had this talk.

I'll be waiting for March and I predict that for a 3rd straight year, a midmajor team that played a fucking atrocious conference schedule, who (to me) is undeserving of their ranking, will get a #1 seed, and will not make it to the FF, and I would be surprised to see them in the EE (although even that would be a marked improvement at this point). You guys can sharpshoot each team and make excuses for why they didn't play toward seeding expectations, and I'll keep looking at the patterns of explicitely predicting that it will happen. If GU gets to the FF, or even if they play a hell of an EE game, I'll come back on here and plainly admit I was wrong.

And your argument will still be weak if it does indeed happen. Because you know what has happened:

Wichita State made the FF in 2013
Butler made the FF in 2011 and 2010
VCU made the FF in 2011
George Mason made the FF in 2006

So your theory that a mid major team can't make the FF because they played in a "shitty" conference has already been proven wrong.

It's hard to make the FF or even an EE, even as a 1 seed.

 

[dcZONAfan]

Good, well I'm glad we had this talk.

I'll be waiting for March and I predict that for a 3rd straight year, a midmajor team that played a fucking atrocious conference schedule, who (to me) is undeserving of their ranking, will get a #1 seed, and will not make it to the FF, and I would be surprised to see them in the EE (although even that would be a marked improvement at this point). You guys can sharpshoot each team and make excuses for why they didn't play toward seeding expectations, and I'll keep looking at the patterns of explicitely predicting that it will happen. If GU gets to the FF, or even if they play a hell of an EE game, I'll come back on here and plainly admit I was wrong.

So if Gonzaga makes the Elite 8, that won't be enough for you? They will have to play "a hell of an elite 8 game"?

 

[ralphiewvu]

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.

LOL

I never knew you'd get this butt hurt you hypocritical, illiterate bitch. I am merely pointing out how you directly say " I couldn't give a fuck about seeding" yet you create this thread criticizing seeding. Is that really hard to understand ya dumbshit?

No one told you to start this stupid freakin thread and be an absolute hypocritical jackass in it. But yet here we all are.

 

[ralphiewvu]

is chastiZing. I knew I would have to point it out to you.

Oh, one word. I misspelled one word in four posts. I'm sure we can both agree, spelling is not my problem. Two simple Arizona fans seem to rank higher.

 

[CatsTopPac]

So if Gonzaga makes the Elite 8, that won't be enough for you? They will have to play "a hell of an elite 8 game"?

Normally, it's March, so a #1 seed losing before the FF is not a big deal. But I just see that with these specific kinds of teams lately, even getting to the EE being top ranked in both polls and seeding, with nothing in the last two months to get them ready doesn't end well, bottom line. It's a pattern that I see. I think if for a third straight year this type of team (this year GU), doesn't show in the second half of March, then, again, it's not crazy to question a trend, a pattern, and wonder why. I don't know, despite all of the season success of GU over the last 15 years, they haven't been to a EE in that span, so that would be impressive. But that kind of furthers my point. If they don't get blown out then its definitely something to consider. But I've had this problem with GU for a while that was exacerbated by them and WSU getting #1 seeds and still not getting far. Despite the fact that Few has more wins in the last decade or whatever than all but a couple, they still haven't gotten to the EE in 15 years. I think some of those reasons are similar with WSU when they weren't surprising anyone anymore, as a #1 seed.

I think that in general, being a #1 seed is a bunch of pressure for a school that just got done playing scrubs in gyms that in no way resemble being a #1 seed in the second half of March. It's one thing to have the Pacifics and the Drakes try and knock you off, and it's another to play against a top 15 team and top ten team to get to the Final Four; especially when you are the #1 seed in the bracket. I completely agree that a #1 seed is 40% likely to get to the FF, and I think it's even more difficult when you haven't seen that or better developed for that in the past two months. You don't just coast past anyone after the first round. You can't be underrated as a #1 seed. Everyone is completely focused on your game. Beating a #1 seed is the biggest game of the year outside a FF for a lot of schools. There is no pressure for a Cinderella.

The seeding is largely based on polls and the matrixes (and many also incorporate polls). But they don't account for the issue of going from the WCC to top teams trying to knock of a #1 seed deep into March. I believe there is something to be lost for not playing in the B1G or the ACC, or the B12. Even the Pac, SEC, and Big East are better to compare to March games than playing most of your games in front 2k people against USD, Pepperdine, LMU, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Pacific, and Portland. I don't think you are as good of a team when that is your competition, compared to teams in conferences that are playing in front of 10k plus and much better competition game in and game out, week in and week out (not to mention a more competitive conference tourney). I feel like those are the better, more tested, more developed teams both over the course of the whole season, and in preparation for March. I think all of that has a habit of playing out in March when one of those teams has a target on their back as a #1 seed. It's happened the last two years, and I see it lining up to happen for a third.

And that's all I'm saying. Simple observation that I wanted to discuss. That's it.

 

[CatsTopPac]

LOL

I never knew you'd get this butt hurt you hypocritical, illiterate bitch. I am merely pointing out how you directly say " I couldn't give a fuck about seeding" yet you create this thread criticizing seeding. Is that really hard to understand ya dumbshit?

No one told you to start this stupid freakin thread and be an absolute hypocritical jackass in it. But yet here we all are.

And you can jump ship whenever you want. You're throwing fucking tantrums on a random thread online. I don't know how many times to tell you. If you are so offended by my opinion of what weak conference schedules potentially do to #1 seeds over the last couple years, then by all means, you can kindly go fuck off. Is that really hard to understand?

Or does banging your keyboard calling me names make you feel good?

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Normally, it's March, so a #1 seed losing before the FF is not a big deal. But I just see that with these specific kinds of teams lately, even getting to the EE being top ranked in both polls and seeding, with nothing in the last two months to get them ready doesn't end well, bottom line. It's a pattern that I see. I think if for a third straight year this type of team (this year GU), doesn't show in the second half of March, then, again, it's not crazy to question a trend, a pattern, and wonder why. I don't know, despite all of the season success of GU over the last 15 years, they haven't been to a EE in that span, so that would be impressive. But that kind of furthers my point. If they don't get blown out then its definitely something to consider. But I've had this problem with GU for a while that was exacerbated by them and WSU getting #1 seeds and still not getting far. Despite the fact that Few has more wins in the last decade or whatever than all but a couple, they still haven't gotten to the EE in 15 years. I think some of those reasons are similar with WSU when they weren't surprising anyone anymore, as a #1 seed.

First of all you haven't discovered any trend, at least not a statistically relevant one. You accused another poster of sharpshooting, but that's exactly what you did to arrive at your not very profound conclusion. You cherry picked examples (and not very good ones) just so you could make a point.

GU in 2013 not deserving a #1 seed has already been busted.
WSU in 2014 not deserving a #1 seed has already been busted.
Your best example of the phenomenon is GU this season, and it's purely a hypothetical. You don't know if they're going to run the table, you don't know if they're going to get a #1 seed and you don't know how far they're going to go in the tournament.

Then you start cherry picking again... Yeah Gonzaga didn't make it to the EE in 15 years. Were they a 1 seed all those years? A 1 or 2? No. So expecting them to be in Elite Eight a bunch doesn't make any sense. The mighty Boeheim of the mighty Syracuse playing in the mighty Big East had a 35 year stretch where he made the EE 4 times. That's a smidge above once a decade. And that's from a power program in what was perennially a top 3 conference.

Losing in the Sweet 16 isn't unique to Gonzaga or mid-majors. It happens to lots of programs. Getting to the Sweet 16 is hard. It's the top 5% of college basketball teams. You make it sound as if it's a foregone conclusion. Making it past the Sweet 16 is even harder. That's Top 2%. Once you make it to the Sweet 16 all of the shitty filler teams are typically out. Teams are rarely favored by more than a couple of points in those games and expected win percentages are generally don't go over 60%. The games are basically coin flips at that point. It's a crapshoot.

If you applied your same level of standards to every team, only a small handful would ever qualify as a #1 seed. You're simply making the bar unreasonably high for a few teams for no apparent reason.

It looks to me like you've got some vendetta with mid majors and you're grasping at any straw within reach to try and justify it.

I'm also looking forward to the reappearance of azchamps so he can criticize your spelling of matrices.