KCRag Forum

Wichita St hosed again by the selection committee by seeding them as a 7. I don't think the selection committee is doing anything malicious, but can't help feel like they care more about story lines of potential matchups than they do seeding and pairing teams equally. That said, a KU-WSU game should be good and hard for me to choose who to root for.

kcjak wrote:Wichita St hosed again by the selection committee by seeding them as a 7. I don't think the selection committee is doing anything malicious, but can't help feel like they care more about story lines of potential matchups than they do seeding and pairing teams equally. That said, a KU-WSU game should be good and hard for me to choose who to root for.

Agreed (on everything but choosing who to root for).

Wichita St. is penalized because the committee must bet getting bogged down by evaluating individual games. This has been a big problem over the years. If a team only has 4 losses, they would have to play a pretty terrible schedule to get a 7 seed. WSU only has one top 50 win in the Kenpom.com efficiency rankings, but they did, for the most part, take care of business consistently throughout the season. Last year, as a 1 seed, WSU had a strength of schedule of 144. This year, with only 4 losses, their SOS is 86, and they somehow get a 7 seed.

Don't understand how Xavier got a 6 seed.

.

both valley teams got shafted by their seeds. we fans of valley teams are used to it, but it doesn't make it any less grating. a few years ago, my bears won the valley title (which is always a much better league top-to-bottom than they get credit for), but lost in the championship game and got overlooked for a large mediocre school simply because they were a bigger name. what really pisses me off is that they, once again, let in mediocrity in ucla and texas instead of bringing in teams like murray state and colorado state. of course they want the eyeballs that those universities bring with them, i get that. i don't care. i firmly believe that, for the big conferences, their benefit should also be their burden. they get the benefit of always playing other big schools to raise their strength of schedule and other stuff like more money and on and on. however, if they're no more than mediocre in that league, then those known benefits should work against them when deciding who gets in the tournament. listen, these last 5-6 bubble teams aren't going to win the whole thing. no one thinks texas or ucla or indiana is going to win this tourney, so why not let kids from these smaller schools that won 25+ games get into the dance and have a go?
i'm not just advocating that any smaller school should automatically get in over a larger school, but there are clear examples that are as plain as day.

as far as wsu v ku is concerned, i'm no fan of wichita state for sure, but i'll be pulling for them all the way ... assuming the matchup happens, of course. i'll take valley pride over the larger team any day of the week. that and my dislike of all things ku.

Unknown JimmyD wrote:both valley teams got shafted by their seeds. we fans of valley teams are used to it, but it doesn't make it any less grating. a few years ago, my bears won the valley title (which is always a much better league top-to-bottom than they get credit for), but lost in the championship game and got overlooked for a large mediocre school simply because they were a bigger name. what really pisses me off is that they, once again, let in mediocrity in ucla and texas instead of bringing in teams like murray state and colorado state. of course they want the eyeballs that those universities bring with them, i get that. i don't care. i firmly believe that, for the big conferences, their benefit should also be their burden. they get the benefit of always playing other big schools to raise their strength of schedule and other stuff like more money and on and on. however, if they're no more than mediocre in that league, then those known benefits should work against them when deciding who gets in the tournament. listen, these last 5-6 bubble teams aren't going to win the whole thing. no one thinks texas or ucla or indiana is going to win this tourney, so why not let kids from these smaller schools that won 25+ games get into the dance and have a go?
i'm not just advocating that any smaller school should automatically get in over a larger school, but there are clear examples that are as plain as day.

as far as wsu v ku is concerned, i'm no fan of wichita state for sure, but i'll be pulling for them all the way ... assuming the matchup happens, of course. i'll take valley pride over the larger team any day of the week. that and my dislike of all things ku.

Based on what I saw, the Valley was pretty bad this year. I agree, there have been times in the past when they had been underrated, but not sure this year is one of those cases. I think UNI and WSU got screwed if you base it on their rankings, but I feel those rankings were a bit inflated.

Loosing Creighton really hurt the national perception of the MVC. Plus Missouri State was historically bad this year, almost as bad as MU.

WSPanic wrote:

Unknown JimmyD wrote:both valley teams got shafted by their seeds. we fans of valley teams are used to it, but it doesn't make it any less grating. a few years ago, my bears won the valley title (which is always a much better league top-to-bottom than they get credit for), but lost in the championship game and got overlooked for a large mediocre school simply because they were a bigger name. what really pisses me off is that they, once again, let in mediocrity in ucla and texas instead of bringing in teams like murray state and colorado state. of course they want the eyeballs that those universities bring with them, i get that. i don't care. i firmly believe that, for the big conferences, their benefit should also be their burden. they get the benefit of always playing other big schools to raise their strength of schedule and other stuff like more money and on and on. however, if they're no more than mediocre in that league, then those known benefits should work against them when deciding who gets in the tournament. listen, these last 5-6 bubble teams aren't going to win the whole thing. no one thinks texas or ucla or indiana is going to win this tourney, so why not let kids from these smaller schools that won 25+ games get into the dance and have a go?
i'm not just advocating that any smaller school should automatically get in over a larger school, but there are clear examples that are as plain as day.

as far as wsu v ku is concerned, i'm no fan of wichita state for sure, but i'll be pulling for them all the way ... assuming the matchup happens, of course. i'll take valley pride over the larger team any day of the week. that and my dislike of all things ku.

Based on what I saw, the Valley was pretty bad this year. I agree, there have been times in the past when they had been underrated, but not sure this year is one of those cases. I think UNI and WSU got screwed if you base it on their rankings, but I feel those rankings were a bit inflated.

WSU went to the final four two years ago and had national champion Louisville essentially beat until the refs came to the rescue and had a very similar resume as they did this year. Last year, they had the unfortunate draw of Kentucky in the second round after going undefeated and played them down to the wire in one of the best college basketball games I've ever seen. This year, they've lost Cleanthony Earley who was among the best players in the country the last two years but they are still very good. The valley isn't great but they've got some decent teams and UNI can beat anyone in the country. I'm not a WSU fan but, yea, I think they've got screwed two straight years.

Should KC be pushing harder to get the "First Four" on a rotating basis? Seems unfair that Dayton gets to play on their home court. At least Sprint Center isn't anyone's home court, and its unlikely KU or UMKC would be in the First Four.

KCMax wrote:Should KC be pushing harder to get the "First Four" on a rotating basis? Seems unfair that Dayton gets to play on their home court. At least Sprint Center isn't anyone's home court, and its unlikely KU or UMKC would be in the First Four.

This is the last year of Daytons contract. They have already opened the next 5 year contract to bids. Looking at attendance levels and the desire for this to be held in historic locations I would put it in Municipal Auditorium where most of the Final Fours have been held. Would be a great lead in to the NAIA.

There was also a proposal to hold games in various "Historical" arenas, i.e. Rupp, Allen, Gallager-Iba, UCLA, Cameron Indoor, Hinkle, Bud Lathrop and so on.

shinatoo wrote:

KCMax wrote:Should KC be pushing harder to get the "First Four" on a rotating basis? Seems unfair that Dayton gets to play on their home court. At least Sprint Center isn't anyone's home court, and its unlikely KU or UMKC would be in the First Four.

This is the last year of Daytons contract. They have already opened the next 5 year contract to bids. Looking at attendance levels and the desire for this to be held in historic locations I would put it in Municipal Auditorium where most of the Final Fours have been held. Would be a great lead in to the NAIA.

There was also a proposal to hold games in various "Historical" arenas, i.e. Rupp, Allen, Gallager-Iba, UCLA, Cameron Indoor, Hinkle, Bud Lathrop and so on.

That would be really cool.

Send the KC sports commission an email and tell them to get on it

so great. well done, wichita state.

No one is left on the team at K-State.

http://www.kansas.com/sports/college/bi ... 87069.html