Agree. Wichita State should be a 2.
Wellman ripped at end of article
- Thread starter JacksonvilleDeac
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Agree. Wichita State should be a 2.
Turd Ferguson
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,285
- Reaction score
- 1,675
Biff just made two points I agree with. UK a little low, Wichita St. a little high. Also, UK lost 10 games. Either record matters or it doesn't. I know RPI is important and all that, but as long as we keep final scores and W-L records, I guess it has to be used somehow.
Wichita should have been the #2 overall seed. They were in the Final four last year, returned four starters and ran the table. It took a nearly perfect game by "the greatest recruiting class ever" to loss by a bucket in a mis-seeded game.
Turd Ferguson
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,285
- Reaction score
- 1,675
Would WSU have been a 1 seed if they played in a power conference? I don't think so.
pourdeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,405
- Reaction score
- 136
Kentucky could have lost to a 16 seed and no one would have really thought it an upset either....like UNC losing to Wake this year except Kentucky was more hot and cold than UNC.
I don't get the need to bash Wellman over this stuff. I looked up the RPIs of most of the other teams that he complains about and the seedings were in line with RPI. Seems DeCourcy has been reading a lot of these boards lately and caught the hater bug. Bashing Wellman over Bz...now after firing the guy? That was certainly strange.
They would have. they are better than UVA. It took a perfect game for KY to beat them.
Disagree. It's a sign of parity in college basketball not poor seeding. See Mercer, Stanford, North Dakota State and Dayton.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Wichita State was fourth in KenPom entering the tournament. The problem wasn't that Wichita State was overseeded - they went undefeated and were a top four team in the country - it was that Kentucky, 20th in KenPom, was underseeded. This will always happen as long as wins and losses are the ultimate proxy for how good a team is. They are A proxy and likely the best single proxy, but using a combination of things we can determine where teams should be seeded. Wichita was something like a 65% favorite over Kentucky and yesterday was one of the 35% of the time. It doesn't indicate that Wichita was overseeded, which they clearly were not, it indicates that this is what happens when two top twenty teams play a sample size of one game.
Louisville as a four seed was laugable by every single metric - KenPom (2nd entering tournament), BPI (I believe third entering tournament), eye test, whatever test - Louisville as a four seed was ridiculous.
The real problem is the NCAA uses the RPI at all. I don't mean the usage of the RPI is dispositive by the committee, I mean the fact that anybody looks at it as anything other than one of fifty or sixty models is completely worthless. The RPI is one of the worst metrics out there to use - it may be worse than the eye test. If you're ranked highly in the RPI you get a huge bump (Massachusetts was a top 30 RPI team and was ranked higher in the RPI than any of sixty other computer rankings - thus giving it a huge bump) and if you are low in the RPI you get fucked (Utah was lower in the RPI than any other objective computer ranking and weren't even mentioned on the bubble despite almost certainly being a top 40 team and deserving of an at-large bid).
Louisville as a four seed was laugable by every single metric - KenPom (2nd entering tournament), BPI (I believe third entering tournament), eye test, whatever test - Louisville as a four seed was ridiculous.
The real problem is the NCAA uses the RPI at all. I don't mean the usage of the RPI is dispositive by the committee, I mean the fact that anybody looks at it as anything other than one of fifty or sixty models is completely worthless. The RPI is one of the worst metrics out there to use - it may be worse than the eye test. If you're ranked highly in the RPI you get a huge bump (Massachusetts was a top 30 RPI team and was ranked higher in the RPI than any of sixty other computer rankings - thus giving it a huge bump) and if you are low in the RPI you get fucked (Utah was lower in the RPI than any other objective computer ranking and weren't even mentioned on the bubble despite almost certainly being a top 40 team and deserving of an at-large bid).
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Wichita and UVA are roughly equivalent, 4th and 5th in KenPom. I do agree that Kentucky played the best game of their season yesterday and it was a major reason why they won. Wichita held their own and was quite clearly a top 10 team.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Also the Kentucky/Kansas difference in seeding was just stupid. Kansas lost 9 games prior to the tournament against the hardest schedule in the country while Kentucky lost 10 games against the sixth hardest schedule in the country. Somehow Kansas got a two seed and Kentucky got an eight seed. There is no reconciling those two.
Oh...and Kansas is 9th in KenPom, Kentucky is now 11th. So the two teams are roughly the same on paper, played roughly the same strength of schedule, had roughly the same record, have roughly the same media bias/attention given to them as large programs, and somehow Kansas got a 2 while Kentucky got an 8. Utterly indefensible. Horrific seeding.
Oh...and Kansas is 9th in KenPom, Kentucky is now 11th. So the two teams are roughly the same on paper, played roughly the same strength of schedule, had roughly the same record, have roughly the same media bias/attention given to them as large programs, and somehow Kansas got a 2 while Kentucky got an 8. Utterly indefensible. Horrific seeding.
So what? That's completely irrelevant and after the fact.
UVA went 16-2 in the ACC this year, won the conference tournament and barely got a #1 seed.
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Michigan State - two 2 seeds and a 4 seed.
The other 1 seeds lost 2, 4, and 6 games respectively. If WSU were in a power conference, they would have played a tougher OOC schedule to begin with and then been subject to the vagaries and brutality of play within a tough conference. Maybe they could have scratched out a conference championship in a tough conference, but even that doesn't get you a #1 seed.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Wichita certainly wouldn't have played a much tougher OOC schedule if they were in a power conference. They tried to play a lot of schools/schedule them, but nobody wanted to play them. Low upside to playing them.
Yeah they would have. Who would you rather schedule? A top team from a power conference or a top team from a mid-major?
Why do you think UNC plays Kentucky, Michigan State, and Louisville and not Wichita State?
Turd Ferguson
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,285
- Reaction score
- 1,675
Uh, it's funny to me how people are saying it took a perfect UK game to win, but I don't think Wichita St. could have played much better, either. They shot 55% from the field (about 9 % pts. higher than season average) and 47% from 3 (12% pts over season average). They beat UK in every major stat except rebounding and free throw attempts...UK wins both those categories every time due to size and athleticism. They pretty much outperformed UK and still lost. I think WSU is great but they were not going to shoot 47% 3-pt FG against every athletic team in a power conference season. They would have lost some.
ETA: And in reference to UVA, they lost 2 conference games this year? Whether or not you think WSU is better or worse than UVA, I could easily see WSU losing more than 2 games in an ACC season. It just happens.
Last edited:
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Yeah but Wichita State wouldn't be a UNC or a Kansas in a power conference, they would be like a Virginia or someone who isn't a powerhouse.
greekdeac2011
Well-known member
Wichita State barely played anyone of note this season. I was not surprised at all that UK beat them. I would've been more surprised had they won the game to be honest.
UVa played Wisconsin the the Big Ten ACC Challenge, Tennessee, and VCU. If they had been ranked in the top 5 in the country preseason you can almost guarantee that they'd have another big time matchup. Back when Wake was good they'd play games against other power conference teams like Alabama, Cal, Marquette. They also scheduled Temple and UMass.
(Yes I realize WSU also played Tennessee)
Last edited:
DeacDaddy
Hoping Against Hope
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 9,012
- Reaction score
- 2,176
Wellman had to know that, with the timing of the [Redacted] situation, he and the committee had to get this bracket as close to perfect as possible or he'd be opening himself up to these [Redacted] comments. I've got no problem with the national media finally calling him out a little. And can you really say he should be immune from the criticism because he "fired the guy"? He "accepted his resignation" then spent a long time essentially telling us why he wished he didn't have to.
All that said, it's been an entertaining tourney, so in that sense they succeeded terrifically. It's pretty obvious they wanted to try to set up a lot of crowd-pleasing matchups, like Louisville-Manhattan, Wich State-KY, Louisville-KY, Villanova-UConn, and Oh State-Dayton. I realize they do this every year to some degree, but this year it seemed like it was a particular focus.
Shorty
Boomer Boy
Maybe it's karma. Last year, Wichita State beat #1 seed Gonazaga as a 9 seed. Gonzaga was kind of the Wichita State of last year's tournament. They were 31-2 going in, but had played in a bad conference and had lost to the only two highly rated teams they'd played. WS also got some help from La Salle and Mississippi.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Wichita State's OOC schedule this year was harder than Virginia's. In fact, it was harder than Arizona, Louisville, Tennessee, Michigan State, Michigan, and UCLA's respective OOC schedules. So I don't think there's any correlation between Wichita State's OOC SOS this year versus if they were in a power conference.