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

[Sumdumguy]

There is certainly something to be said for beating every team that takes the court against you for an entire season. WSU might get a one seed and if they do I won't be surprised or mad about it, but I think there are at least 4 other teams in the discussion too.

[BillikensWin]

There is certainly something to be said for beating every team that takes the court against you for an entire season. WSU might get a one seed and if they do I won't be surprised or mad about it, but I think there are at least 4 other teams in the discussion too.

It's probably about the best "discussion" left. I think they will probably get a 1. I saw them live @ SLU. They can get after it.

[theNEWbigeast]

Saying that the committee might look at the lack of impressive wins is a weird argument? Did you just start following college basketball? It's a valid point. I didn't say WSU won't get a one seed, I almost guarantee the committee brings up the lack of big wins when discussing WSU's résumé. How much will they punish them for their schedule? Your guess is as good as mine.

Teams with more impressive(to me) OOC wins include, but are not limited to, Arizona, Florida, Syracuse, Creighton and Villinova. Who will be the #1s? I don't know, but after conference records are included in the discussion it is absolutely possible that WSU will be left off the first line.

Try reading it again. I didn't say "lack of impressive wins" was a weird argument. I said arguing that WSU's Top 5 wins were "unimpressive" when they are not too incomparable to the other Top 25 teams and their Top 5 wins is.

I agree that those teams you listed have more impressive OOC wins, but not so drastic as to justify this huge anti-WSU sentiment when it comes to their schedule. The RPI rankings of those teams' Top 5 victories are within range of WSU's. That's all.

And if you're going to question whether somebody just started following college basketball, you absolutely cannot spell "Villanova" as poorly as you did. You just can't. Typos are fine, but to question me about basketball knowledge while misunderstanding my argument, and then butcher a great Big East program's name - too funny.

[Bill Marsh]

Okay then, go to the other projected top seeds and see if they're drastically different. They're not.

ARIZONA

6 - Duke
13 - Mixhigan
15 - @UCLA
20 - @San Diego State
26 - @Colorado

KANSAS

6 - Duke
11 - @Iowa State
11 - Iowa State
18 - New Mexico
23 - @Oklahoma

FLORIDA

1 - Kansas
10 - @Kentucky
36 - Memphis
45 - Missouri
49 - Richmond

VILLANOVA

1 - Kansas
28 - Iowa
38 - @St. Joe's
50 - Xavier
53 - @St. John's

WISCONSIN

3 - Florida
12 - St Louis
13 - @Michigan
16 - @Virginia
17 - Michigan State

[OutlawWales]

Go to any other team in the Top 10. I did. They usually have one or two top 20 wins, and wins in that 30-60 range, for their Top 5 VICTORIES.

Full disclaimer: I despise absolutely everything associated with Wichita. Everything. That said, I have enormous respect for what that team has actually accomplished this year. They deserve all kinds of credit and recognition for going undefeated. As noted, NOBODY ever pulls that off, regardless of conference or level of competition. It's easy to say that lots of teams would be undefeated with that schedule -- but for the most part, everybody else manages to find a way to lose at least one game in which they are favored and supposed to win; Wichita has avoided that and deserves props for doing so.

My personal opinion is that Wichita does not deserve a #1 seed for that accomplishment, because the seeding has always taken into account far more than just your final record. The committee has always stressed a number of other considerations, including quality wins, bad losses, RPI numbers, etc. And while you can change those metrics a little, like you did, to make the case that Wichita is comparable, the reality is that the committee doesn't use "top 20" and then "30-60 range" -- the committee historically has broken things down with Top 25, Top 50, Top 100 RPI wins, etc. A Nebraska journalist last week did something really similar to what you did there, making the case that Nebraska's resume is comparable to lots of top ten teams when you look at "top 40" wins -- but that's not a number anyone uses, and Nebraska having a few games in the 35-40 range skewed those comparisons.

So, if you look at RPI Top 25 and RPI Top 50 wins, Wichita's resume is absolutely markedly different and, arguably, not impressive when compared to other top ten teams. And many of these teams aren't even in consideration for a #1 seed ('Nova, Creighton, for example don't have any business being considered for a #1 seed, but even their numbers are dramatically better under these actual metrics).

Looking just at the "top 5" RPI wins for other teams (thanks to Bill Marsh above for some of these numbers) -- and keeping in mind some of these teams actually have even MORE RPI wins in the Top 50:

#1 FLORIDA = 2 top 25 wins; 5 top 50 wins
1 - Kansas
10 - @Kentucky
36 - Memphis
45 - Missouri
49 - Richmond

#3 ARIZONA = 4 top 25 wins, 5 top 50 wins
6 - Duke
13 - Michigan
15 - @UCLA
20 - @San Diego State
26 - @Colorado

#4 SYRACUSE = 3 top 25 wins, 5 top 50 wins
4 - Villanova
6 - Duke
22 - North Carolina
39- Baylor
44 - Pitt (twice)

#5 KANSAS = 5 top 25 wins; 5 top 50 wins
6 - Duke
11 - @Iowa State
11 - Iowa State
18 - New Mexico
23 - @Oklahoma

#6 DUKE = 4 top 25 wins, 5 top 50 wins
9 - Syracuse
14 - UCLA
15 - Virginia
16 - Michigan
44 - Pitt

Other teams not really even in the #1 Seed discussion:

VILLANOVA = 1 top 25 win, 4 top 50 wins (almost 5)
1 - Kansas
28 - Iowa
38 - @St. Joe's
50 - Xavier
53 - @St. John's

WISCONSIN = 5 top 25 wins, 5 top 50 wins
3 - Florida
12 - St Louis
13 - @Michigan
16 - @Virginia
17 - Michigan State

CREIGHTON = 2 top 25 wins, 5 top 50 wins
4 - @Villanova (twice)
4 - Villanova
32 - Arizona State
38 - St. Joseph
46 - Nebraska

And compare all of those with:

WICHITA = 1 top 25 win; 2 top 50 wins.
12 - @St Louis
33 - BYU
59 - @Indiana State
59 - Indiana State
60 - Tennessee

In other words, every team in that list has more than twice as many wins over RPI Top 50 teams as Wichita has EVEN PLAYED. Almost every team on that list has anywhere from twice to four or five times as many RPI Top 25 wins. A total of 2 top 50 wins is not something that is usually going to get you on the #1 seed line. And many of those teams have additional Top 25 and Top 50 RPI games to come -- Wichita doesn't. Wichita absolutely gets some extra consideration for going undefeated, but that has to be balanced out a little bit by the reality that their entire conference schedule included only one other team in the RPI top 100. I think it's absolutely arguable that despite being undefeated that does not merit a #1 seed.

Will they get one? Don't know. But I absolutely think you can make the argument that they should not.

[SJHooper]

It's amazing to me that ESPN spends as much time as they do drooling over WSU. Don't get me wrong, they are having a phenomenal season that should still make headlines, but not the front page. They just beat Bradley but by the attention they got you would think they just beat Cuse. This is where rankings become just plain wrong. Do we really think Wichita State is better than Cuse, Nova, Duke, Kansas, etc.? Of course not. Hell, I bet the #20-25 teams would dispose of them.

We should not be rewarding them for having a cupcake schedule. Want to be seen as a big boy that earned your keep? Be Gonzaga. Technically mid major but schedule top 10 power conference teams and beat them. And prove it's not just a few year wonder. Replicate the same success over and over. It was not long ago at all that Wichita St. was only known for baseball, not even remotely known as a basketball school. Once their crop graduates they are finished nationally. Creighton is different because they still showed lots of success even before McDermott and co. Wichita State is just totally out of nowhere.

[Jet915]

Going undefeated for any team is tough so give credit to WSU for doing it. Their schedule is a joke still but it's an accomplishment. Funny thing is, if they lose one game, they will probably drop from a 1 seed to a 3 seed.

[stever20]

It's amazing to me that ESPN spends as much time as they do drooling over WSU. Don't get me wrong, they are having a phenomenal season that should still make headlines, but not the front page. They just beat Bradley but by the attention they got you would think they just beat Cuse. This is where rankings become just plain wrong. Do we really think Wichita State is better than Cuse, Nova, Duke, Kansas, etc.? Of course not. Hell, I bet the #20-25 teams would dispose of them.

We should not be rewarding them for having a cupcake schedule. Want to be seen as a big boy that earned your keep? Be Gonzaga. Technically mid major but schedule top 10 power conference teams and beat them. And prove it's not just a few year wonder. Replicate the same success over and over. It was not long ago at all that Wichita St. was only known for baseball, not even remotely known as a basketball school. Once their crop graduates they are finished nationally. Creighton is different because they still showed lots of success even before McDermott and co. Wichita State is just totally out of nowhere.

it's 3 things...
1- ESPN is spending time on them because they are the 1st team since UNLV back in '91 I guess to go 30-0. It's a story.
2- Wichita did make the final 4 last year. It's not like a team coming out of no where and that would matter to the committee.
3- Wichita like it or not does get credit that a team leaves their conference and comes in and is winning the Big East. It helps them big time.

If you say that 2 doesn't matter- than you point about having to replicate the same success over and over is gone as well. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Also as was brought up earlier- in a lot of ways, we don't want them to lose after Saturday. A loss after that and that's 1 fewer tourney spot open.

[Sumdumguy]

Saying that the committee might look at the lack of impressive wins is a weird argument? Did you just start following college basketball? It's a valid point. I didn't say WSU won't get a one seed, I almost guarantee the committee brings up the lack of big wins when discussing WSU's résumé. How much will they punish them for their schedule? Your guess is as good as mine.

Teams with more impressive(to me) OOC wins include, but are not limited to, Arizona, Florida, Syracuse, Creighton and Villinova. Who will be the #1s? I don't know, but after conference records are included in the discussion it is absolutely possible that WSU will be left off the first line.

Try reading it again. I didn't say "lack of impressive wins" was a weird argument. I said arguing that WSU's Top 5 wins were "unimpressive" when they are not too incomparable to the other Top 25 teams and their Top 5 wins is.

I agree that those teams you listed have more impressive OOC wins, but not so drastic as to justify this huge anti-WSU sentiment when it comes to their schedule. The RPI rankings of those teams' Top 5 victories are within range of WSU's. That's all.

And if you're going to question whether somebody just started following college basketball, you absolutely cannot spell "Villanova" as poorly as you did. You just can't. Typos are fine, but to question me about basketball knowledge while misunderstanding my argument, and then butcher a great Big East program's name - too funny.

Sorry, Villanova. I apologize to the University, coaches, players and fans. It was an oversight I obviously should have caught.

TheNEWbigeast, please fix this sentence before we start playing grammar-nazi.

"You're not impressed, but is it really that worse than Creighton's when you line up the numbers for the Top 5 victories?"

I agree with Bill Marsh and OutlawWales regarding their lists of teams with more impressive wins. That's my opinion, I'm sorry you don't agree with it.

[Randy]

In the end, my philosophy is that the players (not coaches, administration, etc.) should dictate 100% of the seeding. Not 99%, but 100%. If Wichita does not lose, the players literally could have done nothing else to earn a 1 seed. I don't think you could take that away from them. Every other discussion about how they would preform in other conferences is 100% in the hypothetical.