If Wichita St. runs the table, do they deserve a #1 seed?

[Jays26]

I'm OK with WSU getting a #1 seed. But if that were to happen I really hope Nova is the 2 in that side of the bracket.

+10000 (but replace Nova with Jays)

[whiteandblue77]

For me the best scenario is WSU knocking off Cuse in the FF and us taking down the Shocks in the NC game after blowing out the Jayhawks.

Uh, now i'm going to have a drink of my blue koolaid (see ceramic Bluejay decanter of Ezra Brooks straight bourbon whiskey) .

[XUFan09]

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-basketball/story/reid-forgrave-what-i-learned-going-behind-scenes-seeds-mock-ncaa-tournament-021714

Interesting article from Fox Sports on last week's mock bracket drill by the NCAA. Also, here is what he says about Wichita State.

"- People are going to argue against Wichita State being a 1-seed, even if the Shockers make it to the NCAA tournament undefeated. Those people are wrong. As longtime Sporting News college basketball writer Mike DeCourcy put it, "You can't fake undefeated." He's right. As of now the Shockers are absolutely a 1-seed. You can't hold it against them for trying to schedule a difficult nonconference schedule, then having a few of those nonconference opponents underperform."

Who did Wichita State schedule that didn't work out? Alabama, definitely (not happy with that one as a Xavier fan). Tennessee has faltered, but they are still projected in the top 50 of the RPI (though barely). Was BYU supposed to be better than a projected 42 in the RPI?

[stever20]

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-basketball/story/reid-forgrave-what-i-learned-going-behind-scenes-seeds-mock-ncaa-tournament-021714

Interesting article from Fox Sports on last week's mock bracket drill by the NCAA. Also, here is what he says about Wichita State.

"- People are going to argue against Wichita State being a 1-seed, even if the Shockers make it to the NCAA tournament undefeated. Those people are wrong. As longtime Sporting News college basketball writer Mike DeCourcy put it, "You can't fake undefeated." He's right. As of now the Shockers are absolutely a 1-seed. You can't hold it against them for trying to schedule a difficult nonconference schedule, then having a few of those nonconference opponents underperform."

Who did Wichita State schedule that didn't work out? Alabama, definitely (not happy with that one as a Xavier fan). Tennessee has faltered, but they are still projected in the top 50 of the RPI (though barely). Was BYU supposed to be better than a projected 42 in the RPI?

I'd kind of think Alabama and actually also Western Kentucky. Maybe even Tulsa to some degree...

RPI forecast has their OOC SOS at #42. That's not too bad at all.. .

[Randy]

you and I just fundamentally disagree on the issue.

if they are 34-0 or whatever it would be, you are telling teams from conferences 10 on down it is literally impossible for you to get a number 1 seed. That, i can't agree with.

reasonable minds can differ.

Okay. Given that we are 2 guys with reasonable minds, let's probe this a little bit just for fun. Okay?

1. What would be wrong with telling lower tier conferences that it's impossible to get a #1 seed? It's not that big a deal. They're still in the tournament a and still getting a higher seed than they probably ever thought they could. It's simply telling them that if it's not possible for them to put together a highly competitive schedule during the regular season, then the committee will make sure they're well tested by the time they get to the Final Four. Why is that a bad thing?

2. It's actually not telling those conferences that it's impossible. Just that they have to go to greater lengths than WSU did with their OOC schedule. As I recall, Gonzaga put together a schedule last year that included 5 Big XII teams plus Butler and Indiana. That's why they were able to get the 1-seed when some had doubts about them.

3. Let's think for a minute what an undefeated record really means. It's simply that you have no bad losses. It says nothing about whether you have any quality wins. Which is part of the seeding criteria. When you only play 4 teams in the top 100, you don't really put yourself at much risk of picking up bad losses. But neither do you put yourself in position to pick up quality wins. Doesn't WSU have to present a resume with quality wins to get a #1 seed like everyone else? If they haven't done that, why do they deserve a #1 seed?

you are acting as if quality wins and SOS are the only criteria. As long as I have been alive, the number one criteria has been wins and losses. that is the number one criteria. They have no losses. And, why should a school like WSU be forced to play those tough games on the road to get an equal schedule to a BCS team that gets those games at home? Thats not the same criteria.

[XUFan09]

you and I just fundamentally disagree on the issue.

if they are 34-0 or whatever it would be, you are telling teams from conferences 10 on down it is literally impossible for you to get a number 1 seed. That, i can't agree with.

reasonable minds can differ.

Okay. Given that we are 2 guys with reasonable minds, let's probe this a little bit just for fun. Okay?

1. What would be wrong with telling lower tier conferences that it's impossible to get a #1 seed? It's not that big a deal. They're still in the tournament a and still getting a higher seed than they probably ever thought they could. It's simply telling them that if it's not possible for them to put together a highly competitive schedule during the regular season, then the committee will make sure they're well tested by the time they get to the Final Four. Why is that a bad thing?

2. It's actually not telling those conferences that it's impossible. Just that they have to go to greater lengths than WSU did with their OOC schedule. As I recall, Gonzaga put together a schedule last year that included 5 Big XII teams plus Butler and Indiana. That's why they were able to get the 1-seed when some had doubts about them.

3. Let's think for a minute what an undefeated record really means. It's simply that you have no bad losses. It says nothing about whether you have any quality wins. Which is part of the seeding criteria. When you only play 4 teams in the top 100, you don't really put yourself at much risk of picking up bad losses. But neither do you put yourself in position to pick up quality wins. Doesn't WSU have to present a resume with quality wins to get a #1 seed like everyone else? If they haven't done that, why do they deserve a #1 seed?

you are acting as if quality wins and SOS are the only criteria. As long as I have been alive, the number one criteria has been wins and losses. that is the number one criteria. They have no losses. And, why should a school like WSU be forced to play those tough games on the road to get an equal schedule to a BCS team that gets those games at home? Thats not the same criteria.

If they played some RPI 51-100 mid-majors on the road, it would have looked really good on the tournament resume. Getting those games at home would actually decrease their value. A road win against the RPI #80 team actually has more value than a home win against the RPI #50 team, for example. I agree though that good mid-majors like WSU have an unfair disadvantage in trying to get good home-and-homes, which even mediocre BCS teams can regularly get.

[Randy]

Plus, we have some evidence to show this WSU team is not a fluke.

1) they made the final four last year. extremely relevant since they only lost two starters, and most would argue FVV is a major upgrade from last year's starter.

2) Creighton needed to beat them head to head in the last regular season game to win the MVC last year. That Creighton team is going to finish 1st or 2nd in the BE.


I think this evidence plus an undefeated record would clearly warrant a #1 seed, despite relatively weak SOS, which is largely out of their control.

I don't think either side will convince the other on this debate.

[stever20]

Plus, we have some evidence to show this WSU team is not a fluke.

1) they made the final four last year. extremely relevant since they only lost two starters, and most would argue FVV is a major upgrade from last year's starter.

2) Creighton needed to beat them head to head in the last regular season game to win the MVC last year. That Creighton team is going to finish 1st or 2nd in the BE.


I think this evidence plus an undefeated record would clearly warrant a #1 seed, despite relatively weak SOS, which is largely out of their control.

I don't think either side will convince the other on this debate.

I think the Creighton angle can't be diminished here. Creighton doing extremely well does nothing but help Wichita(I know, Creighton fans probably want to throw up in their mouths at this notion). Team that they were very close to last year possibly winning the BE(and dominating the other top team in the conference in Nova).

[sciencejay]

Randy is right, no one will be convinced by the other side's argument, but here's my two cents. I have watched WSU 4-5 times this year, and as a CU fan, I have seen Gregg Marshall's teams play for several years now. He's taken WSU to a Sweet 16 and last year a FF as others have stated. His teams play aggressively on both ends of the court, rebound well, play unselfishly and have several means of scoring. That is his style, and his players have bought in to what he wants them to do. His teams have performed well historically during both the regular season and the tourney regardless of their schedule.

This year's team is the best Marshall has assembled to date, and in my opinion, they absolutely deserve a #1 seed. They are athletic, deep and talented, and they can play fast or slow with success. With regard to their 'resume', we all know that SOS, RPI, etc are used by the selection committee, but as others have also noted, those are not the only criteria. W-L record counts for a lot, and at this point in time, WSU's record is unblemished.

Trust me, no one wants to play this team in the tourney. Does that mean they will win it all or make it to the FF? Not necessarily of course, but Syracuse, Florida and Kansas are not guaranteed to make it either. I'm a Jays fan, and if we end up on a collision course with WSU, I hope they get upset before we meet. That's how good I think the Shox are this year.

Having said all that, there is an extremely long history of the selection committee giving MVC teams a seed that is considerably lower than what most would predict based upon the aforementioned criteria. For that reason, my guess is that they'll get a 2 seed.

[XUFan09]

FWIW Wichita State's expected non-conference SOS is 42. That's pretty solid.