Seed Watch

[Bill Marsh]

I'm sorry but playing Clemson, WV, and Wash St last year didn't help Gonzaga with the committee at all. Just like playing DePaul doesn't help Wichita this year. But SLU sure as heck does.

Also there is no such thing in committee eyes as top 70. It's top 50 and top 100.

Southern Miss didn't get a spot because they didn't have a single top 50 win. They did however take Middle Tennessee who had what 2 top 100 GAMES all year long.

Fact right now is simple- of the 99 bracketologists on bracket matrix, all but 3 thinks Wichita is getting a 1 seed. And by all looks they will be getting it. It's not even as close as Gonzaga was last year.

1. You're not sorry.
2. You have no idea what the committee looks at unless you sit in their meetings.
3. By all reports, they look initially at the top 50 and top 100. But that's superficial. But also by all reports, when they compare Team X with team Y, they are looking at the entire body of work, which means that they are not treating games against #50 differently than games against #51 simply because they fall of different sides of an arbitrary line.
4. Bracketologists have no more say than you or I in the decisions. Theirs is nothing more than a sophisticated guess.

We know that factors other than RPI go into their decisions. It seems self-evident to me that NCAA politics is one of those factors.

[Bill Marsh]

Gonzaga should not have gotten a 1-seed last year and Wichita State shouldn't be getting one this year.

Past committees have sent the message to mid majors that if they want to be treated on the same level as teams from major conferences, they have to go out and schedule teams from major conferences. That is essentially one of their criteria. So, it had to influence their decision making that Gonzaga had gone out and done precisely that.

Big XII - 5 games
Big Ten - 1 game
ACC - 1 game
PAC-12 - 1 game

Wichita State had the following on their schedule from power conferences:

SEC - 2
Big East - 1

Wichita state can point to the fact that they also scheduled a couple of top mid majors from the A10, but Gonzaga had done the same thing the year before by scheduling Butler and Davidson.

The dilemma for the committee last year was how to say no to Gonzaga when they had done everything that past committees have asked mid majors to do AND their conference was good enough to receive a 2nd bid at-large. That committee responded to the dilemma by giving Gonzaga the 1-seed, recognizing that they were ranked #1 in the country in the human polls, but they also sent a message by denying a bid to southern Miss despite the fact that their RPI was #31. That was the only team getting a bid last year that did not follow the RPI rankings.

We'll see how the committee resolves the dilemma this year. The pressure this year is not a #1 ranking but an undefeated season. The difference between the 2 situations is that WSU cannot point to 8 games vs power conference teams on their schedule AND their conference is a 1-bid league. If the committee follows precedent they will now to the pressure and give WSU the 1-seed, but some other mid major like Southern Miss will pay the price.

Why is this even a conversation? Gonzaga WAS a #1 and WSU is a lock at a #1 this year. It really doesn't matter what Bill Marsh thinks. The NCAA trumps Bill Marsh every time. You need to figure out how to deal with it. I'm losing zero sleep over this. And Southern Miss is only connected to WSU in that they play NCAA basketball. If Southern Miss makes it or not is not related to WSU's spot on the brackets. Southern Miss gets in on winning the CUSA, or they get in by being on the right side of the bubble. WSU is in and #1 Seed. Southern Miss is looking at the other bubble teams that are trying to get in, not Wichita State.

It doesn't matter what you think either. It doesn't matter what any of us thinks when it comes time to make these decisions.

I don't see any of this as any different than a bunch of guys sitting around a bar talking over beers. It's just interesting conversation. Different points of view keep the conversation going.

If you object and think it's meaningless, why are you wasting your time posting at this point in the thread?

[stever20]

with them counting all games, one thing Wichita has is a lot of games in that 101-127 range. They have 7 more there. so that's 17 vs the top 127. Gonzaga only had 1 in the 101-127 range. So 15 vs the top 127. And then Gonzaga had 2 more games in the 201+ range than Wichita did.

The committees report doesn't have top 70 or anything like that. It's top 50 and top 100.

You can easily see where Wichita would get a #1 seed. easily. The schedule for Wichita is not that much worse than Goznaga, and the 2 fewer losses makes that up. Also, I would say the group of competition for the #1 seed is much weaker this year compared to last year. I mean, look at all the teams that lost last week- Arizona, Virginia, Kansas, Wisconsin just to name 4.

[HoosierPal]

I have actually watched Wichita State play three times this year. They are good, perhaps better than last year's team. Not saying they are final four, but they certainly meet the eye test. I dare say that if they were in the Big East, they would have been on equal terms with Villanova and Creighton. VanVleet is one of the top guards in the country, and what's not to like about a 6'8" banger who shoots 36% from the three.

Baker pulled one of the classiest acts of the year in the Valley Finals. When ISU pulled their senior guard Odom near the end of the game, Baker started clapping for him and motioned to the WSU crowd to join in. This has nothing to do with their #1 seed, but shows they run a first class program.

[Jays26]

Baker pulled one of the classiest acts of the year in the Valley Finals. When ISU pulled their senior guard Odom near the end of the game, Baker started clapping for him and motioned to the WSU crowd to join in. This has nothing to do with their #1 seed, but shows they run a first class program.

Did not see the game but that is classy. Most of their players have always seemed to act that way.

But sometimes, their coach Gregggggg can be a major D-Bag!

[Bill Marsh]

I have actually watched Wichita State play three times this year. They are good, perhaps better than last year's team. Not saying they are final four, but they certainly meet the eye test. I dare say that if they were in the Big East, they would have been on equal terms with Villanova and Creighton. VanVleet is one of the top guards in the country, and what's not to like about a 6'8" banger who shoots 36% from the three.

Baker pulled one of the classiest acts of the year in the Valley Finals. When ISU pulled their senior guard Odom near the end of the game, Baker started clapping for him and motioned to the WSU crowd to join in. This has nothing to do with their #1 seed, but shows they run a first class program.

I agree. They may be the best team in the country and go on to win it all.

But according to the comments of committee members in the past, seeding is based on what a team has accomplished. And when a team plays a weak schedule, it really hasn't accomplished much - especially when compared with other teams who have played more challenging schedules. Really all that seeding should do is to give the teams who have already proven themselves by winning against other top teams the easiest route to the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 while requiring teams that have played less demanding schedules to make up for that by facing some more challenging teams a little earlier in the tournament.

None of the seeding decisions should reflect badly on Wichita State or anyone else. I don't think that these decisions are about how good a team is but rather about what they've already demonstrated. As I said above, it wouldn't surprise me at all if wichita state wins it all. They're an excellent team.

[GumbyDamnit!]

Bill, let me ask again. Who do you believe should be a number 1 seed ahead of them, and where would you seed them?

I guess your unwillingness to answer this question tells me that the argument against WSU being a #1 has little merit. It's easy to say they don't deserve it and throw out stats in an effort to naysay. But when pressed to find someone else to take their place on the 1 line you see how many warts other teams also have.

[Bill Marsh]

Bill, let me ask again. Who do you believe should be a number 1 seed ahead of them, and where would you seed them?

I guess your unwillingness to answer this question tells me that the argument against WSU being a #1 has little merit. It's easy to say they don't deserve it and throw out stats in an effort to naysay. But when pressed to find someone else to take their place on the 1 line you see how many warts other teams also have.

Sorry, Gumby, I never saw your post. I had kind of given up on this thread.

Arizona
Florida
Kansas
Villanova

However, with the back injury to Embiid, things may change for Kansas if they don't win the big XII tournament.

That's the short list. There are a number of other teams lined up who will better meet the established criteria than Wichita State if they win their conference tournaments.

[stever20]

the bracketologists all seem to have Kansas out. Guess the fact they have 8 losses already having a big to do with that. The most losses any #1 seed has ever gotten was 7. I think at some point those losses knock you out.

[HoosierPal]

Of the 100 bracketoligists participating in the Bracket Matrix, Villanova is the team that is the shakiest as far as a #1 is concerned. And they appear as a #1 on about 95% of the brackets. WSU is about 97%. Kansas isn't in the picture at all. Three have KU as a #1 seed instead of Villanova, and one or two have Syracuse.

The only way this changes is if Villanova doesn't win the Big East and Kansas wins the Big 12. Even then, it would be an upset for KU to move past Villanova.