Valley Game 4

Discuss the MVC hoops season here.

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby Play Angry » January 9th, 2017, 9:42 am

Shaq committed some braindead fouls per usual, but a UNI fan claiming the only two flops were perpetrated by WSU is certainly lol. The Panthers biceps have a circumference equal to the wrists of most Shocker players, so it is simply good gameplanning to teach the toothpicks to drop like bowling pins when the ogres brush up against them. On the flipside, the Shockers absolutely got away with at least 3 uncalled travels and I was happy to take them.

I was glad to see Koch and Carlson show some signs of life. Carlson in particular looked like he was going to have a big game early, then he generally disappeared in the second half. The Panthers will need their post duo to reemerge as bullies down the stretch if they are going to recover their season.
Play Angry
All MVC
All MVC
 
Posts: 814
Joined: October 17th, 2013, 12:06 pm

Re: Valley Game 4

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby Stickboy46 » January 9th, 2017, 9:47 am

BirdsEyeView wrote:
Stickboy46 wrote:Also please list out all the other rankings that are considered.. Kenpom , Massey, sagarin etc etc. Nearly all of those really love WSU


I'll answer this one as well...
You lead us on those.
However, how much weight has the NCAA Tourney Selection Committee actually placed on any of the above listed rankings? It seems like all they care about is RPI and top 50 wins. I never, ever hear them talk about Kenpom, Massey, Sagarin, etc. when they are defending (after the fact) the reasons for putting certain schools into the field over others.


I agree they should be used, but RPI and top 50 wins seems to be their barometer for justification....thus those others are just there for show, in my opinion, until they start using them within the committee.

Again, why are we arguing resumes 4 games into the conference season? Both teams are long shots at getting an at-large right now.
Stickboy, SpecialSauce, WuFan, etc should all be rooting for ISUr when not facing us and vice versa.

Sauce won't

You others can and should.


They have said multiple times in the last few years that those number are becoming more important and ARE discussed in the selection room.

That said, the problem is that they will pick and choose which numbers to use AFTER they make their decision. There is no rhyme or reason. They decide who they want in .. and then they come up with their reasoning after.
Stickboy46
All MVC
All MVC
 
Posts: 710
Joined: April 21st, 2015, 9:24 am

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby Play Angry » January 9th, 2017, 9:50 am

Stickboy46 wrote:They have said multiple times in the last few years that those number are becoming more important and ARE discussed in the selection room.

That said, the problem is that they will pick and choose which numbers to use AFTER they make their decision. There is no rhyme or reason. They decide who they want in .. and then they come up with their reasoning after.


Syracuse last year pretty much offers Exhibits A - ZZZ on this issue. Their resume was deficient in nearly every measure vis a vis other bubble teams, and the fact that they were not even subjected to the play-in round was probably the most egregious misstep by the Committee in a decade. The after-the-fact justification that Boeheim's missed games didn't count (when it was for punishment approved by the NCAA, not health reasons or other unforeseen circumstances) showed how far the Committee was willing to stretch to get the Orange in the field at the expense of a more deserving resume like, say, Monmouth.

Then, of course, they got hot and made a huge run to justify further future screwjobs.
Play Angry
All MVC
All MVC
 
Posts: 814
Joined: October 17th, 2013, 12:06 pm

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby Cdizzle » January 9th, 2017, 9:53 am

Yeah, the ISUr/WSU at-large pissing match is probably a lot of wasted breath. But we shall see. Both teams need at least 16-2 in conference to have a chance, probably more likely 17-1. Both resumes will be terrible by the metrics the selection committee and talking heads like to use, so you're going to have to rely on getting 28-30 wins. Neither team has "good wins." ISU does have "bad losses." But like I said, I think these teams are gonna have to rely on 29-5 getting you in, not a resume that says "look at all my Top 50 wins" so I'm not sure it's worth comparing much. And in that regard, ISU is probably hurt a bit by already having 4 losses. If ISU goes, say 16-2, and loses in the STL finals, that'd be 26-7? I'd bet heavily on that not getting an at-large, even if the RPI says it should.
Cdizzle
MVC Hall Of Famer
MVC Hall Of Famer
 
Posts: 2188
Joined: November 11th, 2010, 11:28 am

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby specialsauce » January 9th, 2017, 10:02 am

Khan4Cats wrote:
Right, because my team won by 16 and I'm still complaining about officiating? Sorry, baller, my team didn't play well enough to win yesterday. The officials did nothing to help them either. The game was called consistently throughout (though different than a lot of UNI's games this year). The only two flops in the game occurred by WSU players-one on Koch, one by a WSU player acting like he was shot flying out of bounds on a rebound that got a call from Janssen two seconds after the play occurred.


The sore is flowing your veins pretty steadily this morning.

The only reason the game was mercilessly kept within 16 was because of the gift-wrapped officiating you received. The game was closer to a 30 point win than a single-digit one. Your flop comments pretty much summed up your blinded, sore mindset.
specialsauce
MVC starter
MVC starter
 
Posts: 231
Joined: October 26th, 2016, 9:08 pm

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby BirdsEyeView » January 9th, 2017, 10:12 am

Redbirdgrad wrote:
2livewu wrote:To the Redbird poster: Please tell me WSU's "bad" loss. I'm looking forward to your answer.



You are 100% correct, my bad. I was in my head considering the bad loss to be Oklahoma State because of how bad that beat-down was, but when referencing the numbers it's not as bad as it seems. I still don't think Oklahoma State is a good team, and I fully expected you to win that game (as did you guys)... that's probably why I slotted it that way in my head.

Again, in the context of the original discussion, we were discussing resumes and wondering who we should be pulling for right now in the Valley to run the table and lose in the Championship game in order to get 2 teams in since we all agree this is most likely a 1 bid conference right now.

Pertaining to that discussion, and that discussion alone, the numbers work out in favor of Illinois State this year, at this point in time. Here is the current breakdown of the resumes using RPI (Stickboy, when massey, etc. starts being more seriously used by the committee, we can start looking at those numbers, but those metrics aren't referenced at this present time.. but I do concede they favor Wichita currently):

Illinois State:
Current RPI - 46
Current SOS - 79
Wins by RPI - 59, 118, 128, 145, 158, 165, 169, 180, 194, 211, 320
Losses by RPI - 36, 159, 165, 226
Average RPI Win - 167.9
Average RPI Loss - 146.5
RPI should ISU run the table - 24
SOS should ISU run the table - 136

Wichita State:
Current RPI - 96
Current SOS - 251
Wins by RPI - 97, 139, 165, 167, 169, 170, 186, 200, 212, 261, 275, 278, 319
Losses by RPI - 9, 35, 54
Average RPI Win - 202.9
Average RPI Loss - 32.7
RPI should Wichita run the table - 31
SOS should Wichita run the table - 169

So in looking at the data above...

Best win - ISU
Best collection of wins - ISU (Wichita barely has a top 100 win and 6 of their wins come against 200+ teams)
Best loss - Wichita
Best collection of losses - Wichita (by a longshot)

ISU's RPI/SOS numbers are better after showing what would hypothetically happen should each team run the table, so for the purposes of the MVC's best chance at getting 2 in... the Valley should be rooting for ISU to do it.

It's all moot anyway, because no matter which side you look at, neither team gets in as an at large this year. It was a hypothetical exercise in who to root for to run the table, and the numbers back up my original claim.

I appreciate the discussion with the Wichita fans who can have intellectual ones such as this, and look forward to more. I'll be pulling for the Shockers in every single game but 2 this year (maybe 3 in St. Louis). Good luck to you guys!


Great Post :+1:
BirdsEyeView
MVC Hall Of Famer
MVC Hall Of Famer
 
Posts: 1654
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 12:51 pm

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby BirdsEyeView » January 9th, 2017, 10:14 am

Play Angry wrote:
Stickboy46 wrote:They have said multiple times in the last few years that those number are becoming more important and ARE discussed in the selection room.

That said, the problem is that they will pick and choose which numbers to use AFTER they make their decision. There is no rhyme or reason. They decide who they want in .. and then they come up with their reasoning after.


Syracuse last year pretty much offers Exhibits A - ZZZ on this issue. Their resume was deficient in nearly every measure vis a vis other bubble teams, and the fact that they were not even subjected to the play-in round was probably the most egregious misstep by the Committee in a decade. The after-the-fact justification that Boeheim's missed games didn't count (when it was for punishment approved by the NCAA, not health reasons or other unforeseen circumstances) showed how far the Committee was willing to stretch to get the Orange in the field at the expense of a more deserving resume like, say, Monmouth.

Then, of course, they got hot and made a huge run to justify further future screwjobs.


I agree 100%. They have set a terrible precedent and the committee will defend their Power 5 agenda to the furthest lengths. It's sad for us "mid-majors" that we already probably have little chance of getting in even at 17-1 in the conference for both teams.

That said, I am still just waiting for ISUr to lose a game they should win (hasn't happened since early non-con Tulsa and Murray St.). SIU on Wednesday looks like a great shot at Muller getting in his own way type of game.
BirdsEyeView
MVC Hall Of Famer
MVC Hall Of Famer
 
Posts: 1654
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 12:51 pm

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby Redbirdgrad » January 9th, 2017, 10:32 am

Play Angry wrote:Syracuse last year pretty much offers Exhibits A - ZZZ on this issue. Their resume was deficient in nearly every measure vis a vis other bubble teams, and the fact that they were not even subjected to the play-in round was probably the most egregious misstep by the Committee in a decade. The after-the-fact justification that Boeheim's missed games didn't count (when it was for punishment approved by the NCAA, not health reasons or other unforeseen circumstances) showed how far the Committee was willing to stretch to get the Orange in the field at the expense of a more deserving resume like, say, Monmouth.

Then, of course, they got hot and made a huge run to justify further future screwjobs.


You're 100% correct on this. The fact that they made the run is more of a problem than anything because it justified to them that this precedent they set was the correct one. Going to take many years of P5 included teams who fall flat on their face to erase the memory of Syracuse excelling.

Couldn't agree more with you.
Redbirdgrad
All MVC
All MVC
 
Posts: 428
Joined: December 2nd, 2015, 1:40 pm

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby Stickboy46 » January 9th, 2017, 10:37 am

Redbirdgrad wrote:
Play Angry wrote:Syracuse last year pretty much offers Exhibits A - ZZZ on this issue. Their resume was deficient in nearly every measure vis a vis other bubble teams, and the fact that they were not even subjected to the play-in round was probably the most egregious misstep by the Committee in a decade. The after-the-fact justification that Boeheim's missed games didn't count (when it was for punishment approved by the NCAA, not health reasons or other unforeseen circumstances) showed how far the Committee was willing to stretch to get the Orange in the field at the expense of a more deserving resume like, say, Monmouth.

Then, of course, they got hot and made a huge run to justify further future screwjobs.


You're 100% correct on this. The fact that they made the run is more of a problem than anything because it justified to them that this precedent they set was the correct one. Going to take many years of P5 included teams who fall flat on their face to erase the memory of Syracuse excelling.

Couldn't agree more with you.


What's even more frustrating is the fact that mid-major teams that get included and make runs don't get that same leeway in years after.
Stickboy46
All MVC
All MVC
 
Posts: 710
Joined: April 21st, 2015, 9:24 am

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby squirrel » January 9th, 2017, 11:07 am

Historic performance has zero impact on future tournament appearances.

Historically, the "last team in" or team that seems to be the focus of arguments against their inclusion do tend to go on tournament runs. I predicted this would continue with Syracuse last year.

This has been the case during the entire expansion era going back to 1982 and Boston College. That team has frequently been a mid-major team, coming from leagues like the WAC, Big West, WCC, MVC, MAC, A10.

So the favoritism toward the power 5 isn't real in this case. It's just that often times they have to do less to benefit from inclusion.

I think the committee most year's has done a pretty good job of putting the right teams in. I was miffed about the Orange last year, too, because I thought the Bonnies were every actually the better overall team last year. Except they lost the H2H against the 'Cuse when they played. That may have been one of the determining criteria.
squirrel
All MVC
All MVC
 
Posts: 848
Joined: August 4th, 2010, 11:49 am

PreviousNext

Return to Missouri Valley Conference Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], tribecalledquest and 57 guests