Wichita St

[AZOrange]

When teams have different schedules, I think this is where KP comes in handy to see if a team is legit or not.

Wichita st is #10 in KP. It's a legit team, but possibly not #1 seed quality.

What's Tennessee in kenpom?

 

[jordoo]

Win or lose WichSt is a solid team but they don't scare me all that much. I think they are definitely a top 20ish team. If they get a 1 seed going undefeated it will be worse than the 1 seed Gonzaga got last season. 3 is fair but 1 or 2 is kind of a joke IMO.

 

[690West]

What's Tennessee in kenpom?

22

 

[jncuse]

What's Tennessee in kenpom?

#22. Its inflated by their huge win over Virginia. I don't think they are quite that good.

I do find it odd that all the people that want things ranked like the "polls", and when are things are not ranked like a poll criticize KP. After all that mighty poll has St Louis at 13, and KP only has them in low 20's.

As an aside, does Virginia still suck like you said early last week.

 

[AZOrange]

We haven't played the hardest schedule to this point, but we have 6 top 50 rpi wins with some neutral sites in there. We've got 3 top 25 rpi wins, and 2 top 12 or so rpi wins. We haven't lost in any top 50 game. Our schedule doesn't prove we're infallible, but it proves we're legit.

St. Louis' schedule pretty much says the opposite. Give them an opportunity, they don't deliver.

I'd guess more than 6...no? At the end of the day it doesn't mean much. Does anyone really think creighton is stronger than us?

 

[AZOrange]

22

#22. Its inflated by their huge win over Virginia. I don't think they are quite that good.

I do find it odd that all the people that want things ranked like the "polls", and when are things are not ranked like a poll criticize KP. After all that mighty poll has St Louis at 13, and KP only has them in low 20's.

As an aside, does Virginia still suck like you said early last week.

I don't know that I said suck, but I'm not impressed. I watch them play though, and don't rely solely on rpi rankings. UVA up until Pitt had beaten no one...and as you know I've stated here that I don't even think Pitt is a second weekend team. UVA is the St. Louis of the ACC.

 

[AZOrange]

22

Do they strike anyone as a top 25 rpi team?

 

[cusetown1]

#22. Its inflated by their huge win over Virginia. I don't think they are quite that good.

I do find it odd that all the people that want things ranked like the "polls", and when are things are not ranked like a poll criticize KP. After all that mighty poll has St Louis at 13, and KP only has them in low 20's.

As an aside, does Virginia still suck like you said early last week.

Kenny p is in love with the wiscys and Pitts early on, that's where he looks bad.

 

[jordoo]

Kenpom, RPI what-evs WichSt is a good team but there are probably 12 or more other teams I'd prefer to avoid in the NCAA torney.

 

[jncuse]

Win or lose WichSt is a solid team but they don't scare me all that much. I think they are definitely a top 20ish team. If they get a 1 seed going undefeated it will be worse than the 1 seed Gonzaga got last season. 3 is fair but 1 or 2 is kind of a joke IMO.

The big problem for the #1 seeds right now, is that the two conferences that have the best chances at getting many top 50 wins (Big 12 and Big Ten) may not get any #1 seeds.

Teams like Texas and Oklahoma are playing havoc in the B12 but didn't really have a good OOC. In the Big Ten you have Michigan bouncing back from a poor start, and some of its early season stars sliding in Michigan St and Wisconsin.

It opens the door for two teams that are a bit of a "mystery" in Wichita St and San Diego St to get #1 seeds. The MWC like the MVC is down this year.

I'm not sure if Wichita St is a top 5 team if they go undefeated. But if they go undefeated, I just can't see the committee not giving a #1 seed to them. To me its not even much of a debate -- even if the committee questions how good they are, at 33-0 or whatever, they get a #1.

I think where debate will get interesting going up to Sunday is if they lose 1 game. Then they may get assessed a little more fairly, and will not be forced to the top line.

 

[jncuse]

We haven't played the hardest schedule to this point, but we have 6 top 50 rpi wins with some neutral sites in there. We've got 3 top 25 rpi wins, and 2 top 12 or so rpi wins. We haven't lost in any top 50 game. Our schedule doesn't prove we're infallible, but it proves we're legit.

St. Louis' schedule pretty much says the opposite. Give them an opportunity, they don't deliver.

Your veering off the discussion. Remember it was whether St Louis was more than just barely a somebody or a nobody. Was it a good win or not.

I don't disagree with anything you said about Syracuse. We are totally legit, and I never questioned our mystery level, vs that of a Wichita St.

But you can't say At St Louis is not a good win, while saying our wins over Pitt, Minnesota, Cal, Baylor are good win. They are all good wins, and I think of this bunch AT St. Louis is the best.

 

[jncuse]

Kenny p is in love with the wiscys and Pitts early on, that's where he looks bad.

By mid-December his rankings also said UConn and Baylor were two most overranked teams in the AP.

 

[jordoo]

The big problem for the #1 seeds right now, is that the two conferences that have the best chances at getting many top 50 wins (Big 12 and Big Ten) may not get any #1 seeds.

Teams like Texas and Oklahoma are playing havoc in the B12 but didn't really have a good OOC. In the Big Ten you have Michigan bouncing back from a poor start, and some of its early season stars sliding in Michigan St and Wisconsin.

It opens the door for two teams that are a bit of a "mystery" in Wichita St and San Diego St to get #1 seeds. The MWC like the MVC is down this year.

I'm not sure if Wichita St is a top 5 team if they go undefeated. But if they go undefeated, I just can't see the committee not giving a #1 seed to them. To me its not even much of a debate -- even if the committee questions how good they are, at 33-0 or whatever, they get a #1.

I think where debate will get interesting going up to Sunday is if they lose 1 game. Then they may get assessed a little more fairly, and will not be forced to the top line.

I would think the committee learned there lessen last year with giving Gonzaga a 1 seed. They were maybe worthy of a protected seed but the 1 was stupid and they proved that. You just cannot reward teams for playing such a weak schedule IMO, especially when power conference teams have been being punished for such OOC schedules. There will be teams in both BiG with more and better wins but they will have 7-8 losses on the season.

 

[AZOrange]

The big problem for the #1 seeds right now, is that the two conferences that have the best chances at getting many top 50 wins (Big 12 and Big Ten) may not get any #1 seeds.

Teams like Texas and Oklahoma are playing havoc in the B12 but didn't really have a good OOC. In the Big Ten you have Michigan bouncing back from a poor start, and some of its early season stars sliding in Michigan St and Wisconsin.

It opens the door for two teams that are a bit of a "mystery" in Wichita St and San Diego St to get #1 seeds. The MWC like the MVC is down this year.

I'm not sure if Wichita St is a top 5 team if they go undefeated. But if they go undefeated, I just can't see the committee not giving a #1 seed to them. To me its not even much of a debate -- even if the committee questions how good they are, at 33-0 or whatever, they get a #1.

I think where debate will get interesting going up to Sunday is if they lose 1 game. Then they may get assessed a little more fairly, and will not be forced to the top line.

If Wichita wins out they will be a no. 1 without a doubt. As for havoc in the big10 and big12, Kansas and msu are still in the drivers seat.

 

[cusetown1]

By mid-December his rankings also said UConn and Baylor were two most overranked teams in the AP.

You may like his computations I don't care for them.

 

[Orangemen]

I would think the committee learned there lessen last year with giving Gonzaga a 1 seed. They were maybe worthy of a protected seed but the 1 was stupid and they proved that. You just cannot reward teams for playing such a weak schedule IMO, especially when power conference teams have been being punished for such OOC schedules. There will be teams in both BiG with more and better wins but they will have 7-8 losses on the season.

What's funny about that logic is that you're saying Wichita st should be looked at skeptically because last year gonzaga lost to Wichita st.

If gonzaga had just beaten Wichita st and gone on to the final four, then no one would be doubting Wichita st.

Wichita st sure put themselves in a tough spot.

 

[jncuse]

I would think the committee learned there lessen last year with giving Gonzaga a 1 seed. They were maybe worthy of a protected seed but the 1 was stupid and they proved that. You just cannot reward teams for playing such a weak schedule IMO, especially when power conference teams have been being punished for such OOC schedules. There will be teams in both BiG with more and better wins but they will have 7-8 losses on the season.

I think your point is valid if they have 1 loss. There will still be some arguing fro them as a #1, but the committee may consider what happened last year. Also Gonzaga had a tougher non conference and conference sched.

I just think if they are 33-0, that is irrelevant. First unbeaten team in 20 years, no matter how, will trump anything. They would not have the balls to not give them a #1, even if they think it is undeserved.

As I said before, debate on Wichita St as a #1 seed will only be a talking point if they have 1 loss.

 

[RF2044]

I think your point is valid if they have 1 loss. There will still be some arguing fro them as a #1, but the committee may consider what happened last year. Also Gonzaga had a tougher non conference and conference sched.

I just think if they are 33-0, that is irrelevant. First unbeaten team in 20 years, no matter how, will trump anything. They would not have the balls to not give them a #1, even if they think it is undeserved.

As I said before, debate on Wichita St as a #1 seed will only be a talking point if they have 1 loss.

Wasn't St. Joseph's undefeated in 2004 until the NCAA tournament?

 

[jordoo]

What's funny about that logic is that you're saying Wichita st should be looked at skeptically because last year gonzaga lost to Wichita st.

If gonzaga had just beaten Wichita st and gone on to the final four, then no one would be doubting Wichita st.

Wichita st sure put themselves in a tough spot.

no I'm saying Gonzaga didn't have the resume to be a 1 seed. Then I'm saying WichSt doesn't have one to be a 1 seed this year.

 

[jordoo]

Wasn't St. Joseph's undefeated in 2004 until the NCAA tournament?

I think they lost one late and still got a 1 seed but the A10 was a pretty legit conference that year, nothing like last years WCC or this years MVC

 

[jordoo]

I think your point is valid if they have 1 loss. There will still be some arguing fro them as a #1, but the committee may consider what happened last year. Also Gonzaga had a tougher non conference and conference sched.

I just think if they are 33-0, that is irrelevant. First unbeaten team in 20 years, no matter how, will trump anything. They would not have the balls to not give them a #1, even if they think it is undeserved.

As I said before, debate on Wichita St as a #1 seed will only be a talking point if they have 1 loss.

If they do they aren't following their own rules as set out. I'm not saying you aren't correct that they will do this I'm saying the resume still would not be1 seed worthy from what I can see.

 

[Cootface]

Wasn't St. Joseph's undefeated in 2004 until the NCAA tournament?

They finished the regular season undefeated but got absolutely destroyed (by around 25 points, I think) by Xavier in the first round of the A-10 tourney. They got a 1 seed and lost to Ok St in the elite eight.

 

[jncuse]

What's funny about that logic is that you're saying Wichita st should be looked at skeptically because last year gonzaga lost to Wichita st.

If gonzaga had just beaten Wichita st and gone on to the final four, then no one would be doubting Wichita st.

Wichita st sure put themselves in a tough spot.

Interesting point.

A 32-1 Wichita St could get punished because of their own win last year.

Getting back to Jordoo's point Gonzaga did lose in the second round. But
1) Big Schools have done the same a few times recently (Pitt/Kansas)
2) The other mid-majors to get #1's the last 10 years did not embarrass themselves (St. Joes/Memphis)
3) More mid-majors have made the Final Four in the last 6 years than any recent times, despite not getting preferential seeds in most cases (Wichita St/VCU/Butler (2) / UCONN / Memphis)

Add in that Wichita St was in the F4 last year, and that they were responsible for beating Gonzaga.

I think based on all of the above they will just not dismiss a 32-1 Wichita St because of what Gonzaga did.



And UConn was not a mid-major, but I felt like including them as one.

 

[jncuse]

Wasn't St. Joseph's undefeated in 2004 until the NCAA tournament?

I think St. Joes will have a better resume as a 1 loss team vs Wichita St as a 1 loss team. A-10 was not great, but it did provide more top 50 / top 100 wins than the MVC.

 

[PoppyHart]

Teams like WSU and SLU have earned the benefit of the doubt imo. When talking about #1 seeds, certainly the margin for error for Wichita is Ally McBeal-esque, but at the same time no team has entered the tourney since UNLV 23 years ago, right? It would be a special achievement.