PDA

View Full Version : Wichita State



Wander
03-03-2014, 12:13 PM
There are a lot of threads getting derailed by this topic (of which I'm partially guilty of), so I think it'd be nice to have the conversation in one place so it can stop being a tangential topic elsewhere. I've made most of the points I care to make before, but in summary:

1. Wichita State is awesome.
2. Wichita State's mascot is a bale of wheat.
3. Wichita State has not played as strong a schedule as the other contenders for the 1 and 2 seeds.
4. Quality of wins are only part of the equation. I KNOW that Duke and Kansas and Florida have better wins than Wichita. But losses matter too. A lot. For example, Wichita has played 15 or more games that are as difficult or more difficult than a home game against Boston College.
5. Tangentially: I still don't know why Florida, a team that is not #1 in RPI, kenpom, or Sagarin, is getting a free pass for similar issues and automatically assumed by many to be the overall #1 seed. All the arguments that apply for Team X > Wichita also apply for Duke/Kansas > Florida.
6. Wichita State was expected to be really good this year. They didn't come out of nowhere.
7. If that dude tries to tell me again that NC Central's 349th ranked schedule out of 351 Division 1 teams is as difficult as Wichita's, I respectfully ask the powers that be to make him pay some sort of tribute or animal sacrifice to this board.

Not only does Wichita deserve a 1 seed if they win their conference tournament, but for however much the S-curve matters (which I'm not sure it does that much), there's no reason to assume that they're the fourth ranked 1 seed.

tbyers11
03-03-2014, 12:33 PM
There are a lot of threads getting derailed by this topic (of which I'm partially guilty of), so I think it'd be nice to have the conversation in one place so it can stop being a tangential topic elsewhere. I've made most of the points I care to make before, but in summary:

1. Wichita State is awesome.
2. Wichita State's mascot is a bale of wheat.
3. Wichita State has not played as strong a schedule as the other contenders for the 1 and 2 seeds.
4. Quality of wins are only part of the equation. I KNOW that Duke and Kansas and Florida have better wins than Wichita. But losses matter too. A lot. For example, Wichita has played 15 or more games that are as difficult or more difficult than a home game against Boston College.
5. Tangentially: I still don't know why Florida, a team that is not #1 in RPI, kenpom, or Sagarin, is getting a free pass for similar issues and automatically assumed by many to be the overall #1 seed. All the arguments that apply for Team X > Wichita also apply for Duke/Kansas > Florida.
6. Wichita State was expected to be really good this year. They didn't come out of nowhere.
7. If that dude tries to tell me again that NC Central's 349th ranked schedule out of 351 Division 1 teams is as difficult as Wichita's, I respectfully ask the powers that be to make him pay some sort of tribute or animal sacrifice to this board.

Wichita St is a very good team. Winning every game that you are supposed to win is an important trait. If they had played to statistical norm and dropped, say 2 MVC games, they would be a 2 or 3 seed which is about where I think they belong talent-wise. However, they haven't lost those games and I don't have a problem with them getting a 1 seed.

I want to address the WSU vs Florida issue. Yes, the SEC is down this year and Florida's undefeated (so far) run of the SEC gauntlet is not as impressive as it normally would be. However, I think that even the down SEC is still much better than the MVC. By KPom, there are only 2 other teams in the MVC (Ind St and N Iowa) rated above 140. Every SEC team except Miss St and South Carolina are above 140 with 7 teams above 100 in the SEC. Florida's SEC slate has been quite a bit stronger than the WSU's MVC slate.

For me the apt ACC comparison is that Florida has to play quite a few games against Clemson/Md/NC ST type teams that while not a NCAA tourney-caliber team, have a decent chance of beating a top (Duke or WSU-like) team at home while WSU is basically playing GTech, BC, VT type teams almost every game who very little chance of beating a top team at all.

Troublemaker
03-03-2014, 12:39 PM
One thing I've seen repeated a lot is the "I'd love for Duke to be Wichita St's 2 seed" sentiment.

I really disagree with that, as they seem to be a terrible matchup for Duke. (I do expect to be pretty close to the lone voice of dissent here, though.)

WSU's best player is Cleanthony Early who plays the 4 and can shoot threes, which will spread out Duke's defense. He's a senior who is aggressive and draws fouls and I can see him getting Jabari into foul trouble. WSU also has great playmaking guards in Baker and Van Fleet who should be able to take advantage of Duke's spread out defense to drive for scores and dumpoffs. I don't think we can guard WSU, and their defense is actually the slightly stronger element of their team. The Shockers are a great defensive rebounding team, even owning the defensive boards against Tennessee, who is typically the 5th best offensive rebounding team in the country but was held to 25% OffReb rate against WSU. In fact, WSU won the rebounding battle against the 3 best teams they've played: Tennessee, St. Louis, and BYU. If Duke's not hitting 3s, I don't think we can score enough in 2-pt range or grab enough of our misses against WSU's great defense and great defensive rebounding to offset the lack of threes. It isn't often that I'll agree that Duke needs to hit threes very well to win, but I think it's true against WSU.

Furthermore, WSU should have a huge crowd advantage if we played them in a regional final since the non-partisans will root heavily for them.

Wichita State is a nightmare matchup for Duke. If the choice is between being Kansas' 2 seed in MSG and being WSU's 2 seed in Indianapolis, bring on Kansas.

Kedsy
03-03-2014, 12:48 PM
Wichita State is a nightmare matchup for Duke. If the choice is between being Kansas' 2 seed in MSG and being WSU's 2 seed in Indianapolis, bring on Kansas.

You are missing a major point. The reason a Duke fan might want to be the #2 in Wichita's region is not necessarily because of the #1/#2 matchup, but because Wichita State seems less likely to reach the Elite Eight. I mean, you'd rather face some #4 or #5 seed instead of Kansas or Florida, right?

CDu
03-03-2014, 12:49 PM
You are missing a major point. The reason a Duke fan might want to be the #2 in Wichita's region is not necessarily because of the #1/#2 matchup, but because Wichita State seems less likely to reach the Elite Eight. I mean, you'd rather face some #4 or #5 seed instead of Kansas or Florida, right?

Well, I'd say it's BOTH. If we're a #2, I want to be in the bracket with the worst #1. That means that if we both hold serve, we'll have the easiest elite 8 game. AND it means that presumably we'll have the best shot at avoiding our #1 seed altogether.

Wander
03-03-2014, 01:03 PM
I want to address the WSU vs Florida issue. Yes, the SEC is down this year and Florida's undefeated (so far) run of the SEC gauntlet is not as impressive as it normally would be. However, I think that even the down SEC is still much better than the MVC. By KPom, there are only 2 other teams in the MVC (Ind St and N Iowa) rated above 140. Every SEC team except Miss St and South Carolina are above 140 with 7 teams above 100 in the SEC. Florida's SEC slate has been quite a bit stronger than the WSU's MVC slate.


I completely agree that Florida's SEC run is harder than Wichita's MVC run. I should have been more clear, but I wasn't trying to argue for Wichita over Florida. My only point is the following statement:

"Team X has a better record than Team Y, but Y played a much harder schedule than X, so X doesn't deserve to be above Y"

is valid for both X = Wichita/Y = Florida and X = Florida/Y = Duke or Kansas. And yet nobody seems to be questioning Florida's claim to the OVERALL #1 seed.

Olympic Fan
03-03-2014, 01:18 PM
I've seen Wichita State play half a dozen times and I don't think they are one of the 10 best teams in the country.

I would LOVE to face Wichita State in the Elite Eight to get to the Final Four.

They deserve credit for winning 30 straight games in a decent mid-major conference (the MVC is the 11th best conference in the RPI ratings). But it's not as impressive to be as St. Joe's 27-0 regular season in 2004 in a much stronger A-10. But beating a ton of mediocre teams is not my ideal of a great team. At this moment, 22 of their 30 wins are in the 100-plus range ... three more are 94-plus two are in the 70s. Their best win is at St. Louis -- another team that has a high RPI without beating anybody.

Troublemaker
03-03-2014, 01:20 PM
You are missing a major point. The reason a Duke fan might want to be the #2 in Wichita's region is not necessarily because of the #1/#2 matchup, but because Wichita State seems less likely to reach the Elite Eight. I mean, you'd rather face some #4 or #5 seed instead of Kansas or Florida, right?

I agree with that, but I don't think I'd consider WSU to be more vulnerable to an upset than the other 1 seeds. That's just me personally though. I'm all-in with my belief in them. My belief is 3-pronged: (a) that they're a deserving 1 seed in general, (b) that they're no more likely to be upset than the other 1 seeds, and (c) that they match up with Duke at least as well as the other 1 seeds, probably better.

Kedsy
03-03-2014, 01:41 PM
I agree with that, but I don't think I'd consider WSU to be more vulnerable to an upset than the other 1 seeds.

They may or may not be. Arguments in favor of the Shockers being more susceptible are (a) Wichita State's not used to playing high pressure games (somewhat ameliorated by last year's Final Four run, but not completely); and (b) Wichita's computer ranking is lower than the other contenders in most of the major computer systems -- in the RPI Wichita ranks worse than Arizona, Kansas, Florida, Wisconsin, and Syracuse; in the BPI Wichita ranks lower than Arizona, Florida, and Kansas; in Pomeroy, Wichita ranks lower than Arizona, Virginia, Duke, and Florida; in Sagarin, Wichita ranks worse than Arizona, Duke, Kansas, Florida, Virginia, and Wisconsin (in several of these systems, Wichita also ranks worse than other teams, like Villanova, Louisville, etc., but since those teams aren't serious contenders for a #1 seed I left them out).

So if the computers think Wichita is worse than Arizona, Florida, and Kansas (as well as some others), I think that's decent evidence that Wichita would be more vulnerable to an upset.

CDu
03-03-2014, 01:44 PM
I completely agree that Florida's SEC run is harder than Wichita's MVC run. I should have been more clear, but I wasn't trying to argue for Wichita over Florida. My only point is the following statement:

"Team X has a better record than Team Y, but Y played a much harder schedule than X, so X doesn't deserve to be above Y"

is valid for both X = Wichita/Y = Florida and X = Florida/Y = Duke or Kansas. And yet nobody seems to be questioning Florida's claim to the OVERALL #1 seed.

Florida is 2-1 against the top-25, 6-2 against the top-50, and 14-2 against the top-100. Their only losses are @Wisconsin (a possible #1 seed) and @UConn (a likely tourney team). They have beaten Kansas and Memphis along with Tennessee twice, Missouri, and @UK. That's a SUBSTANTIALLY different resume than Wichita State's resume.

Has UF had the toughest conference schedule ever? Absolutely not. But they've played enough really good teams to support their case.

Wander
03-03-2014, 02:19 PM
Florida is 2-1 against the top-25, 6-2 against the top-50, and 14-2 against the top-100.


And why is that obviously better than the resume of Kansas or Arizona?

flyingdutchdevil
03-03-2014, 02:22 PM
I've seen Wichita State play half a dozen times and I don't think they are one of the 10 best teams in the country.

I would LOVE to face Wichita State in the Elite Eight to get to the Final Four.

They deserve credit for winning 30 straight games in a decent mid-major conference (the MVC is the 11th best conference in the RPI ratings). But it's not as impressive to be as St. Joe's 27-0 regular season in 2004 in a much stronger A-10. But beating a ton of mediocre teams is not my ideal of a great team. At this moment, 22 of their 30 wins are in the 100-plus range ... three more are 94-plus two are in the 70s. Their best win is at St. Louis -- another team that has a high RPI without beating anybody.

Pitchforks for you, my friend.

Echo everything here, and this is my train of thought:

-Duke is a really good team this year. Anything less than a Sweet 16 would be utterly disappointing
-I see Duke going to the EE, even barring a tough 3 or 4 seed. If we are a top 5 team, we should play like one.
-Florida, Arizona, and Kansas are the three teams that scare me the most. Florida has the experience and a really good coach, Arizona has the talent, the coach, and a top defense, and Kansas has the best collective talent in the country and a top coach. I don't want to face any of these teams before the Final Four
-What Wichita St has done is impressive, but, like OF, I don't see them as a top 10 team. Would you rather face Wichita St or Florida/Kansas/Arizona? IMO, I don't really think it's a debate
-I hope the committee puts the top 2 seed in WSU's bracket. If Kansas and Duke win out, that means one team gets the last 1 seed and the other gets WSU's 2 seed.

Is this simplistic? Absolutely. Do I have a simplistic mind? Probably.

Dev11
03-03-2014, 06:00 PM
I hope the committee puts the top 2 seed in WSU's bracket. If Kansas and Duke win out, that means one team gets the last 1 seed and the other gets WSU's 2 seed.

We know that as of last year, the committee doesn't seed that way. They take the top 16, split them into their respective seed lines, then geographic preferences goes to the best in each seed. This system results in it being arguably better to be the committee's fifth rated team then its fourth rated team, if geography makes a big difference for you (Duke, we know, has a pretty bad history playing out west).

Somebody else said that if Wichita lost a game or two in conference, they would wind up a 2 or 3 seed. I disagree. If Wichita loses in its conference tournament, I think they are no higher than a 3, but most likely a 4. They don't have a high enough quality win (I, too, discount Saint Louis a bit for also not playing anybody good) to boost them up. The rest of the top ten and maybe even the top 15 have better wins.

That said, Wichita went to the Final Four last year, so its not like they aren't used to the spotlight. They appear to have plenty of talent and coaching (what program did Marshall turn down last summer to stay there?) to compete with the big dogs. They deserve that 1 seed until they lose, I think.

ice-9
03-03-2014, 06:51 PM
I've been one of the voices on this board consistently criticizing WSU's and SLU's poll rankings on this board, but I would like to say that while WSU doesn't deserve a 1-seed, I have no real issues if they were and think it would make a more interesting NCAA tournament anyway.



One thing I've seen repeated a lot is the "I'd love for Duke to be Wichita St's 2 seed" sentiment.

I really disagree with that, as they seem to be a terrible matchup for Duke. (I do expect to be pretty close to the lone voice of dissent here, though.)

WSU's best player is Cleanthony Early who plays the 4 and can shoot threes, which will spread out Duke's defense. He's a senior who is aggressive and draws fouls and I can see him getting Jabari into foul trouble. WSU also has great playmaking guards in Baker and Van Fleet who should be able to take advantage of Duke's spread out defense to drive for scores and dumpoffs. I don't think we can guard WSU, and their defense is actually the slightly stronger element of their team. The Shockers are a great defensive rebounding team, even owning the defensive boards against Tennessee, who is typically the 5th best offensive rebounding team in the country but was held to 25% OffReb rate against WSU. In fact, WSU won the rebounding battle against the 3 best teams they've played: Tennessee, St. Louis, and BYU. If Duke's not hitting 3s, I don't think we can score enough in 2-pt range or grab enough of our misses against WSU's great defense and great defensive rebounding to offset the lack of threes. It isn't often that I'll agree that Duke needs to hit threes very well to win, but I think it's true against WSU.

Furthermore, WSU should have a huge crowd advantage if we played them in a regional final since the non-partisans will root heavily for them.

Wichita State is a nightmare matchup for Duke. If the choice is between being Kansas' 2 seed in MSG and being WSU's 2 seed in Indianapolis, bring on Kansas.

I think WSU is a great match-up for Duke. WSU plays a packed defence that tempts teams to shoot the 3 while taking away the drive -- this is why they are a great defensive rebounding team, because once the shot is up there are a lot of Shocker players nearer the basket to get the rebound. It's not because of any innate rebounding talent.

If WSU gives us the open 3, wow, it's going to be candy-land for Duke's shooters. And while the Shockers get lots of rebounds, they don't have particularly tall players on the roster (tallest is 6-9), so a 7-footer like Marshall can probably steal a few.

They are a good defensive team but we can score. And it won't require as much for us to shoot our season 3-point average against a packed defence...heck, chances are we'll have a GOOD shooting night.

Defensively, they have only one (maybe two) possible NBA players. That guy is Cleanthony Early. But we have not just one but TWO guys who can keep up with him defensively in Parker and Jefferson. The advantage of playing in a conference like MVC and not playing any top tier competition is that Early doesn't have to face anyone like himself. Well, he gets two guys as big and quick as he is with Duke. Early will struggle against us.

But the real key to this team is not Early but Van Vleet. He is the engine that drives this team. He's more important to WSU than Parker is to us. He boasts an unbelievable 4 A/TO for the season. We must contain him, and that means a repeat of our defensive performance against Ennis and Syracuse; and unlike Ennis, Van Vleet won't get selected in the first round of the NBA draft. Seeing how we've done it before, I feel good in us doing it again and to a lesser athletic talent.

The flipside is...what if we can get Van Vleet in foul trouble? This Shockers team would grind to a halt because they don't have anybody to replace him.We have the tools to cut off the head and the arm of this Shockers offence.

Overall, I say we are just about the Shockers' nightmare match-up.

ice-9
03-03-2014, 07:05 PM
4. Quality of wins are only part of the equation. I KNOW that Duke and Kansas and Florida have better wins than Wichita. But losses matter too. A lot. For example, Wichita has played 15 or more games that are as difficult or more difficult than a home game against Boston College.

I think everyone can agree that both wins and losses matter.

But don't you think that in order to be considered the best, a necessary ingredient is to have beaten the best?

Can a tennis player who hasn't lost but also hasn't beaten any of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic or Murray be ranked #1 in the ATP? Can you imagine the outcry in that scenario?

Avoiding losses is important, sure, but winning games that show you belong among the best is more important. The former is hygiene, the latter is proof.

All season long WSU has been holding its hat on the SLU win as its proof -- but this is another team with no good wins and who today looks barely top 25 worthy.

FerryFor50
03-03-2014, 07:14 PM
But don't you think that in order to be considered the best, a necessary ingredient is to have beaten the best?


This guy agrees:


http://youtu.be/yjW9UXoKU2s

Troublemaker
03-03-2014, 09:22 PM
WSU plays a packed defence that tempts teams to shoot the 3 while taking away the drive -- this is why they are a great defensive rebounding team, because once the shot is up there are a lot of Shocker players nearer the basket to get the rebound. It's not because of any innate rebounding talent.

If WSU gives us the open 3, wow, it's going to be candy-land for Duke's shooters. And while the Shockers get lots of rebounds, they don't have particularly tall players on the roster (tallest is 6-9), so a 7-footer like Marshall can probably steal a few.

They are a good defensive team but we can score. And it won't require as much for us to shoot our season 3-point average against a packed defence...heck, chances are we'll have a GOOD shooting night.

We don't disagree much here; just two different spins on the same story. I agree that WSU is like a mid-major version of UVA in that they play a great packed in defense. That, to me, means Duke must hit threes to open up other things, and I'd feel better if there were other paths to offensive success, even though Duke has been a tremendous 3-pt shooting team for most of the season.



Defensively, they have only one (maybe two) possible NBA players. That guy is Cleanthony Early. But we have not just one but TWO guys who can keep up with him defensively in Parker and Jefferson. The advantage of playing in a conference like MVC and not playing any top tier competition is that Early doesn't have to face anyone like himself. Well, he gets two guys as big and quick as he is with Duke. Early will struggle against us.

But the real key to this team is not Early but Van Vleet. He is the engine that drives this team. He's more important to WSU than Parker is to us. He boasts an unbelievable 4 A/TO for the season. We must contain him, and that means a repeat of our defensive performance against Ennis and Syracuse; and unlike Ennis, Van Vleet won't get selected in the first round of the NBA draft. Seeing how we've done it before, I feel good in us doing it again and to a lesser athletic talent.

The flipside is...what if we can get Van Vleet in foul trouble? This Shockers team would grind to a halt because they don't have anybody to replace him.We have the tools to cut off the head and the arm of this Shockers offence.

This is where we really disagree. A significant factor in Duke's defensive success against Ennis in Cameron was our big men being able to leave Syracuse's big men all alone on ball screens in order to double-team Ennis and force him to pass. Even when left all alone momentarily, Syracuse's bigs weren't able to hurt us. I think Christmas hit a 2-pt jumper for Cuse's first score of the game, and Grant rolled to the rim for a dunk late in the game (which was also a miscommunication by Duke), but in between they didn't do enough. Cleanthony Early will hurt us if we use that strategy. First of all, he's able to pop out and hit a three after setting a pick, so we can't play him the same way. A stretch 4 changes everything. I also think, ball screens aside, he can usually score 1-on-1 against Jabari or Amile.

Also, I like Van Fleet a lot but I think Ron Baker is an even better player who can also drive, pass, and score. I think Baker's better than any Duke guard and will be an NBA player. So WSU has two efficient playmakers at guard and that's kinda scary to me in a potential matchup with them.



Overall, I say we are just about the Shockers' nightmare match-up.

Hopefully what will happen is WSU gets bounced early in the tourney. I'll be happy, and everyone who thinks they're overrated will be happy.

NYBri
03-03-2014, 10:00 PM
One thing I've seen repeated a lot is the "I'd love for Duke to be Wichita St's 2 seed" sentiment.

I really disagree with that, as they seem to be a terrible matchup for Duke.

The reason I want this bracket isn't because of the matchup between WSU and Duke, but it's because I know WSU won't make it far enough to play #2 Duke. If we are in that bracket and advance , we won 't have to play the #1 to get to the FF.

Wander
03-03-2014, 10:22 PM
But don't you think that in order to be considered the best, a necessary ingredient is to have beaten the best?

Can a tennis player who hasn't lost but also hasn't beaten any of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic or Murray be ranked #1 in the ATP? Can you imagine the outcry in that scenario?


I don't agree with your premise, and to use an example close to home, I'll note that this is the exact line of reasoning that Carolina fans level against Duke's 2010 team. The consensus teams most of the late season were Kansas, Kentucky, and Syracuse. We didn't have to play any of them. Obviously, Duke 2010's schedule is miles ahead of Wichita's - don't think I'm pretending otherwise - but by your logic, we can't consider them to be the best.

Just as importantly, I'm not claiming Wichita is the best team (FWIW, I think Arizona is pretty clearly the overall #1 seed right now).

throatybeard
03-03-2014, 11:14 PM
I don't really have an opinion about Wichita State, although all the snideness directed at them certainly makes me pull for them.

What's really weird is is seeing everyone refer to SLU as "Saint Louis." No one at that school calls it such. It's called SLU ([slu] in the international phonetic alphabet, or "sloo" rendered as fallible English spelling). It's a Jesuit school so its social network is a little, um, closed. I don't know any of its graduates who call the place "Saint Louis." Not even one.

This is similar to calling NYU "New York" or Boston University or Boston College "Boston." It's just bizarre.

SLU won 19 in a row before soiling themselves this past week. They're in a harder conference than Wichita State is. What to make of that, hell if I know.

ice-9
03-04-2014, 01:35 AM
I don't agree with your premise, and to use an example close to home, I'll note that this is the exact line of reasoning that Carolina fans level against Duke's 2010 team. The consensus teams most of the late season were Kansas, Kentucky, and Syracuse. We didn't have to play any of them. Obviously, Duke 2010's schedule is miles ahead of Wichita's - don't think I'm pretending otherwise - but by your logic, we can't consider them to be the best.

Just as importantly, I'm not claiming Wichita is the best team (FWIW, I think Arizona is pretty clearly the overall #1 seed right now).

Are we being a little legalistic? You know what I mean. To be considered a top team you have to beat good teams.

2010 Duke beat plenty of good teams, including #13 UCONN, #15 Gonzaga, #18 Clemson and #21 Georgia Tech.

Wichita State beat one good team, and it's a team who itself hasn't beaten anybody.

ice-9
03-04-2014, 01:43 AM
This is where we really disagree. A significant factor in Duke's defensive success against Ennis in Cameron was our big men being able to leave Syracuse's big men all alone on ball screens in order to double-team Ennis and force him to pass. Even when left all alone momentarily, Syracuse's bigs weren't able to hurt us. I think Christmas hit a 2-pt jumper for Cuse's first score of the game, and Grant rolled to the rim for a dunk late in the game (which was also a miscommunication by Duke), but in between they didn't do enough. Cleanthony Early will hurt us if we use that strategy. First of all, he's able to pop out and hit a three after setting a pick, so we can't play him the same way. A stretch 4 changes everything. I also think, ball screens aside, he can usually score 1-on-1 against Jabari or Amile.

Yeah, you're right in that we can't run the same exact scheme, but I'm sure it's something Coach K will figure out. And anyway, even if the Shockers' offence boils down to Early taking open-ish 3-point shots all day, it's something I can live with. I'd trade that for Dawkins, Rasheed and Hood taking open-ish 3 point shots on the other end -- and I'd bet we come out on top.


Also, I like Van Fleet a lot but I think Ron Baker is an even better player who can also drive, pass, and score. I think Baker's better than any Duke guard and will be an NBA player. So WSU has two efficient playmakers at guard and that's kinda scary to me in a potential matchup with them.

Yup, Baker is the other player who I can see being in the NBA. He's good.

All that said, the Shockers are a very balanced team offensively with four players averaging double figures. It's possible Baker or Early will go all Bootsy Thornton on us if we ever played them, but most likely it'll be Van Vleet orchestrating a balanced attack. IMO, he's the key.

Atlanta Duke
03-04-2014, 09:13 AM
This from today's Wall Street Journal

We asked the online sports book Bovada to calculate point spreads for matchups between Wichita State and highly ranked teams from top conferences at a neutral site, since that is where they would play such opponents in the NCAA tournament. ..

It turns out the Shockers are still seen as underdogs all these wins later...

No. 4 Duke a 3-point favorite

Las Vegas's view of Wichita State is similar to Ken Pomeroy's advanced efficiency rankings, where the Shockers are now No. 6—their highest position this season.


Link to full article with other matchups (Shockers favored in some, underdogs in others) below.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304585004579417193234782668?mg=ren o64-wsj

Wander
03-04-2014, 09:50 AM
Addressing the "where do you want Duke to be seeded?" issue:

First of all, you should always want a 1 seed over a 2 seed for the easier early round games. No matter what. (I don't think anyone here has explicitly claimed they'd rather have a 2 with Wichita as their 1 than a 1 with Kansas as their 2, but I've heard it elsewhere and it's ridiculous).

Also, a lot of people are making the assumption that Wichita will or should get the strongest 2 seed, and therefore if Duke gets the highest 2 seed, that's where we'll be. That's certainly a realistic possibility, but there's no reason to assume that right now. Wichita is in no way guaranteed the weakest 1 seed if they win out - it depends on what other teams do, and on the subjectivity of the committee. And besides, as Dev11 pointed out, it's not the case that the weakest 1 necessarily gets the strongest 2 anyway.

sagegrouse
03-04-2014, 11:11 AM
Also, a lot of people are making the assumption that Wichita will or should get the strongest 2 seed, and therefore if Duke gets the highest 2 seed, that's where we'll be. That's certainly a realistic possibility, but there's no reason to assume that right now. Wichita is in no way guaranteed the weakest 1 seed if they win out - it depends on what other teams do. And besides, as Dev11 pointed out, it's not the case that the weakest 1 necessarily gets the strongest 2 anyway.

Wander, I couldn't figure out whsat you were trying to say.

BTW, I went off in my cave and did a bunch of calcs, mostly using KenPom and RPI (ESPN est.):


Wichita State is a #2 seed if any weight is given to both measures.

As of today, Duke and Villanova would "duke" it out for the last #1 seed, behind Arizona, Florida and Kansas. Quite frankly, I hadn't thought much of Villanova -- I just remember their getting dismantled twice by Creighton.

#2 seeds, under this ersatz technique, would be Wichita State, either Duke or Nova, Virginia, and either Creighton or Wisconsin.

Wander
03-04-2014, 11:16 AM
Wander, I couldn't figure out whsat you were trying to say.


Sorry, I meant that a lot of people are assuming that a 1-seeded Wichita would be paired with the strongest 2 seed in their quadrant of the bracket.

A sort-of-tangential to the Wichita discussion is: what happens to Stephen F Austin if they don't win their conference's automatic bid?

pfrduke
03-04-2014, 11:40 AM
Sorry, I meant that a lot of people are assuming that a 1-seeded Wichita would be paired with the strongest 2 seed in their quadrant of the bracket.

A sort-of-tangential to the Wichita discussion is: what happens to Stephen F Austin if they don't win their conference's automatic bid?

No bid. But unlike Wichita, they haven't beaten anybody worth talking about. The best win is against Towson and they have 4 wins total against the top 200 teams (using Pomeroy). Heck, they've only even played 1 team that's likely to see any kind of postseason play (Texas; although you could make an argument that Towson might be an NIT team).

flyingdutchdevil
03-04-2014, 11:44 AM
Addressing the "where do you want Duke to be seeded?" issue:

First of all, you should always want a 1 seed over a 2 seed for the easier early round games. No matter what. (I don't think anyone here has explicitly claimed they'd rather have a 2 with Wichita as their 1 than a 1 with Kansas as their 2, but I've heard it elsewhere and it's ridiculous).

Also, a lot of people are making the assumption that Wichita will or should get the strongest 2 seed, and therefore if Duke gets the highest 2 seed, that's where we'll be. That's certainly a realistic possibility, but there's no reason to assume that right now. Wichita is in no way guaranteed the weakest 1 seed if they win out - it depends on what other teams do, and on the subjectivity of the committee. And besides, as Dev11 pointed out, it's not the case that the weakest 1 necessarily gets the strongest 2 anyway.

Why is it ridiculous?

What is Duke's plan this year? I think Coach K knows that his squad is good enough to win it all. But, like any team, the NCAA is all about match-ups. The path to the Elite 8 for a 1 and 2 seed isn't that different. For the most part, getting to the Second Round isn't that hard. From there, you face a 7 or 8 seed. According to Lunardi, that is either facing VCU/Conn or Memphis/Kansas St, respectively. All of those teams have beaten really good competition this year. IMO, the level of competition between a 7 and 8 isn't that different.

In the S16, assuming seeding holds, you face a 3 or 4 seed, equivalent to Creighton/Iowa St/Michigan/Virginia and SDSU/Cincinnati/St Louis/Michigan St. The 3 seeds are all better than the 4 seeds (Michigan St and their plethora of injuries, not withstanding), but Duke would be a favorite against all of those teams (and we've beaten two of those teams already).

And this gets us to the E8 where, if seeding holds, Duke as a 1-seed would face either Kansas, Syracuse, Vilanova, or Wisconsin. As a 2-seed in WSU's bracket, I would rather go through the 7 seeds, face a slightly tougher 3 seed, and face the weakest of the 1/2 seeds in WSU than take an easier route to the E8 and face Kansas, Wisconsin, Vilanova, or Syracuse (okay, I'd like to face Syracuse).

IMO, Wichita St is the weakest of any 1/2/3 seeds. They are well coached, they have some experience (although they lost 3 starters from last year's FF run), but they are less talented and I'd think that a coach of Coach K's caliber isn't going to let this Duke team undermine this WSU team.

So, call me ridiculous, but I'd rather be WSU's 2 seed than Kansas's 1 seed.

Wander
03-04-2014, 12:10 PM
Why is it ridiculous?

So, call me ridiculous, but I'd rather be WSU's 2 seed than Kansas's 1 seed.

We've been a 1 or a 2 seed eight of the last nine years. We've made the Elite 8 two of those nine times. Even if I grant that Kansas is better than Wichita, the benefits of having slightly easier games in each of the three early rounds outweigh the cost of having a slightly harder game in the fourth round.

flyingdutchdevil
03-04-2014, 12:16 PM
We've been a 1 or a 2 seed eight of the last nine years. We've made the Elite 8 two of those nine times. Even if I grant that Kansas is better than Wichita, the benefits of having slightly easier games in each of the three early rounds outweigh the cost of having a slightly harder game in the fourth round.

In your sample, there is a 25% as a 1 seed we get to the E8. There is also a 25% as a 2 seed we get to the E8. In that case, why not opt for WSU over Kansas?

My train of thought is I'd rather have a tougher S16 and easier E8 than an easier S16 and tougher E8. I'd like to think we're on the same page than anything under a FF would be disappointing.

I'm looking at this season as a potential win-it-all for Duke (and much more likely than in previous years).

Wander
03-04-2014, 12:30 PM
My train of thought is I'd rather have a tougher S16 and easier E8 than an easier S16 and tougher E8. I'd like to think we're on the same page than anything under a FF would be disappointing.

I'm looking at this season as a potential win-it-all for Duke (and much more likely than in previous years).

It's not just an easier S16 - it's an easier first and second round too. Duke fans should have a healthy appreciation that 2 seeds are quite realistically capable of being knocked out in the first two rounds. I agree it's a potential win-it-all season for us, an I'm pretty sure crunching the numbers would support the position that the path of a 1 seed with Kansas would be easier than the path of a 2 seed with Wichita. Kenpom would actually favor Wichita over Kansas right now, and Vegas would have Kansas as a 2 point favorite. You don't think the probability of having easier games in THREE rounds outweighs MAYBE facing an opponent in the fourth round that's 2 points better?

flyingdutchdevil
03-04-2014, 12:37 PM
It's not just an easier S16 - it's an easier first and second round too. Duke fans should have a healthy appreciation that 2 seeds are quite realistically capable of being knocked out in the first two rounds. I agree it's a potential win-it-all season for us, an I'm pretty sure crunching the numbers would support the position that the path of a 1 seed with Kansas would be easier than the path of a 2 seed with Wichita. Kenpom would actually favor Wichita over Kansas right now, and Vegas would have Kansas as a 2 point favorite. You don't think the probability of having easier games in THREE rounds outweighs MAYBE facing an opponent in the fourth round that's 2 points better?

Again, based on my analysis, I only see the S16 as a talent gap between seeds. In the 16/15 seed, there is also a talent gap, but let's face it - this isn't the 2010/11 team. Not. At. All. Our offense is too potent and our defense is good enough to prevent that from happening. I may be in the minority and too optimistic, but I just don't see it with this year's team.

And, with the 7/8 seeds, I think that the teams - according to Lunardi - are fairly similar. I don't see much of a talent gap. Of course, this can change come Selection Sunday, where Kentucky could be a devastatingly potent 7 seed and Wake Forest wins the ACC to garner an 8 seed. Anything can happen.

We're going to have to agree to disagree, but I don't think my train of thought is "ridiculous".

Kedsy
03-04-2014, 12:40 PM
IMO, the level of competition between a 7 and 8 isn't that different.

I disagree with much of your logic in this post. I won't go into the excruciating detail, but just as an example, since the NCAAT went to 64 teams in 1985, #2 seeds have beaten #7 seeds 74.6% of the time. #1 seeds have beaten #8 seeds 91.4% of the time. Sure, part of that is because #1 seeds are often better teams than #2 seeds, but there's a huge difference between the success rate against #7s vs. the success rate against #8s.

Troublemaker
03-04-2014, 12:51 PM
Every season, there will be a handful of teams floating around that will be underseeded, relative to computer rankings or relative to talent/coaching. All fans will have their own list of underseeded teams that we don't want Duke to face. I haven't studied it exhaustively, but my list probably starts with Louisville, Ohio State, Kentucky, and SMU.

Then, there are probably another handful of teams that will be seeded properly but that matchup particularly well against Duke. Again, I wouldn't expect most fans to agree on whom these teams would be. For example, I actually think SDSU would be a pain for Duke and I wouldn't want to see them in the Sweet 16. But I suspect not many Duke fans would agree with that assessment.

In any case, with all these underseeded teams floating around and difficult-matchup teams floating around, I really can't see the benefit of being a 1 over a 2. For example, how can we possibly know whether Louisville will be a 3 seed or a 4 seed? Or whether Ohio St will be a 7 or an 8? It's just completely random luck. I think the edge in receiving an easier bracket as a 1 seed over a 2 seed is very small, maybe something like 53% to 47%. As such, I can't really sweat it.

1 seeds get to the Final Four more often than 2 seeds because they tend to be better teams, is all.

Olympic Fan
03-04-2014, 02:35 PM
A year ago, I would have agreed with Wander ... in fact when the 2013 bracket came out, I told friends who were moaning about the fact that we were ion the regional with No. 1 Louisville not to worry about it. The odds, I said of Duke and Louisville meeting in the E8 were long and besides, if we got that far it would be a good tournament.

In hindsight, I was wrong -- as wrong as I think Wander is now.

Last year, had we been in any other regional, I think we would have been a Final Four team. We just happened to face the one team that we couldn't handle.

As many have noted, it's all about matchups -- and you can get that killer matchup anywhere (whether you are a No. 1 or No. 2 seed)

Wander tries to slip one over one us when he pointed out that we've made the E8 just two times in the last nine years (eight of them as a No. 1 or two seed), suggesting that the E8 matchup doesn't matter. What he doesn't say is that one of those two times was as a No. 1 seed (2010) and once as a No. 2 (2013). So maybe the 1-2 question doesn't matter in the early rounds?

Of course, there is an advantage to being a No. 1 over a No. 2. Three of our four national titles have come as a No. 1 (1992, 2001, 2010) ... in 1991 we won as a No. 2. Six of our 11 Final Fours have come as No. 1s and four have come as 2s (we made it as a 3-seed in 1990).

You can never tell where the tough one will come. This year, dangerous teams such as Kentucky or Michigan State could be mid-level seeds. You might get Oklahoma State in the second round.

There is a slight advantage to being a No. 1 seed in terms of the quality of teams you face early. I just don't think it would nearly be as big an advantage as having Wichita State -- and not Florida, Kansas or Arizona -- as the team you must beat to get to the Final Four.

A year ago, I would have loved to be in Gonzaga's bracket. This year, I'm hoping for Wichita State.

Troublemaker
03-04-2014, 03:32 PM
This year, dangerous teams such as Kentucky or Michigan State could be mid-level seeds.

Yes, I forgot to list the Spartans above as a dangerous underseeded team. Perhaps the most dangerous of all if they can recover their chemistry in the next few games after finally getting healthy. Michigan State might be someone's 4 or 5 seed. Yikes!

Wander
03-04-2014, 04:05 PM
A year ago, I would have agreed with Wander ... in fact when the 2013 bracket came out, I told friends who were moaning about the fact that we were ion the regional with No. 1 Louisville not to worry about it. The odds, I said of Duke and Louisville meeting in the E8 were long and besides, if we got that far it would be a good tournament.

In hindsight, I was wrong -- as wrong as I think Wander is now.

Last year, had we been in any other regional, I think we would have been a Final Four team. We just happened to face the one team that we couldn't handle.

A year ago, I would have loved to be in Gonzaga's bracket.


I'm not sure why you think the Louisville-Duke example is inconsistent with anything I've said? Of course, I agree that it would have been preferable to be in Gonzaga's bracket rather than Louisville's bracket last year. But Duke is a 2 seed in both of those scenarios, so that's not an apples-to-apples comparison to the 1 vs 2 seed argument here.

Also, if Duke was in Gonzaga's bracket last year, we would have faced Wichita in the Elite 8 instead of Louisville. We lost to Louisville by 22, and Wichita lost to Louisville by 4. Standard caveat about the transitive property in sports, but making the Final Four would have been far from a sure thing had we been the 2 seed in Gonzaga's bracket.



Wander tries to slip one over one us when he pointed out that we've made the E8 just two times in the last nine years (eight of them as a No. 1 or two seed), suggesting that the E8 matchup doesn't matter. What he doesn't say is that one of those two times was as a No. 1 seed (2010) and once as a No. 2 (2013). So maybe the 1-2 question doesn't matter in the early rounds?


Of course it matters. That's the entire point of having seeds in the first place. The point of the "2 out of 9 years" statistic was simply to caution people about assuming Duke - or any team - is a lock for the Elite 8. And I didn't suggest the E8 matchup doesn't matter. Of course that matters too. What I suggested was that the benefits of a (probably) easier path in the fourth round don't outweigh the benefits of a (probably) easier path in each of the first three rounds.

We're talking about averages. It's of course POSSIBLE that a 16 seed is better than a 15 seed. It's POSSIBLE that a 2 seed gets to play 14th seeded Vermont while the corresponding 1 seed is playing 4th seeded Michigan State. Like you say, "you can never tell where the tough one will come"... but you can tell that it's less likely to come early for a 1 seed than a 2 seed. It's not a guarantee, but on average the path of a 1 seed through the first three rounds is easier than the path of a 2 seed. It's a significant benefit, and Lehigh and West Virginia should make Duke fans especially appreciative of that fact.

Troublemaker
03-04-2014, 04:21 PM
One thing that was incomplete about my analysis above is that obviously if you're a 1 seed, you avoid the other 1 seeds until the Final Four. That's an advantage I can't really scoff at. But as far as the first 3 opponents Duke faces, I really think any advantage being a 1 seed carries over being a 2 seed is negligible.

sagegrouse
03-04-2014, 04:26 PM
I'm not sure why you think the Louisville-Duke example is inconsistent with anything I've said? Of course, I agree that it would have been preferable to be in Gonzaga's bracket rather than Louisville's bracket last year. But Duke is a 2 seed in both of those scenarios, so that's not an apples-to-apples comparison to the 1 vs 2 seed argument here.

Also, if Duke was in Gonzaga's bracket last year, we would have faced Wichita in the Elite 8 instead of Louisville. We lost to Louisville by 22, and Wichita lost to Louisville by 4. Standard caveat about the transitive property in sports, but making the Final Four would have been far from a sure thing had we been the 2 seed in Gonzaga's bracket.



.

Duke as a #2 seed in 2013 was all due to losing to freaking Maryland in the ACC quarters. So, if there is a complaint about our bracket or matchups, let's go back to that monstrous result.

Sage

Kedsy
03-04-2014, 05:04 PM
We're talking about averages. It's of course POSSIBLE that a 16 seed is better than a 15 seed. It's POSSIBLE that a 2 seed gets to play 14th seeded Vermont while the corresponding 1 seed is playing 4th seeded Michigan State. Like you say, "you can never tell where the tough one will come"... but you can tell that it's less likely to come early for a 1 seed than a 2 seed. It's not a guarantee, but on average the path of a 1 seed through the first three rounds is easier than the path of a 2 seed. It's a significant benefit, and Lehigh and West Virginia should make Duke fans especially appreciative of that fact.


One thing that was incomplete about my analysis above is that obviously if you're a 1 seed, you avoid the other 1 seeds until the Final Four. That's an advantage I can't really scoff at. But as far as the first 3 opponents Duke faces, I really think any advantage being a 1 seed carries over being a 2 seed is negligible.

Pomeroy wrote an article last season saying seeding doesn't matter, based on his ratings and a log5 formula for likelihood of winning a particular game. I'm not sure he's right on this one, however, and it's mostly because of perhaps the most interesting anomaly of the NCAA tournament: the domination of #1 seeds over #8 and #9 seeds. Over the 29 tournaments since tourney went to 64 teams, the #1 has beaten the #8/#9 team 93.53% of the time, almost exactly the same as #2 seeds have beaten #15 seeds (93.97%). In large part this is why #1 seeds have reached the Final Four so much more than #2 seeds -- because they appear to have two "free" games instead of just one.

The advantage sort of defies prediction. According to Pomeroy, the average #1 seed over the past five seasons should have beaten their #8 seed 76.2% of the time, while in actual games in those five years, the #1 seed has beaten their #8 seed 91.7% of the time (thanks to Wichita last season and Northern Iowa a few years back, in the five years the #1 beat the #8/#9 a total of 85% of the time, but that's still significantly higher than the 76% prediction).

I don't have pre-tournament Pomeroy numbers further back than 5 years, but if we had those numbers my guess is he'd continue to predict #1 beating #8/#9 around 76% or 77%, while as I said the reality is almost 94%.

Will #1's domination of #8/#9 continue? Who knows. But 116 games is a pretty big sample, so until things demonstrably change, I want to be a #1 seed rather than a #2.


So, call me ridiculous, but I'd rather be WSU's 2 seed than Kansas's 1 seed.

I agree playing Kansas would probably be a more difficult challenge than playing Wichita State (assuming Embiid is OK).

But the other issue is #1 vs. #2 only happens about one-third of the time (33.6% over all 29 years; 30% over the last five years). Not sure I'd choose a more difficult path to the Elite Eight in exchange for a one-third chance at a slightly easier game.

ice-9
03-04-2014, 07:51 PM
Also, if Duke was in Gonzaga's bracket last year, we would have faced Wichita in the Elite 8 instead of Louisville. We lost to Louisville by 22, and Wichita lost to Louisville by 4. Standard caveat about the transitive property in sports, but making the Final Four would have been far from a sure thing had we been the 2 seed in Gonzaga's bracket.

This is the gist of Olympic Fan's post. It's about match-ups. With Kelly and Plumlee in the post against Wichita St and our usual bevy of shooters, we would have matched up particularly well against the Shockers last year.

I would rather face Wichita St than Louisville last year ANY. DAY.

throatybeard
03-08-2014, 02:10 PM
After the third TV timeout, WSU leads Missouri State 19-12. They don't look great, but Missouri State looks worse.

I think the best thing I've ever seen in my life was the [then] SW Missouri State bear mascot in Charlotte in 1999, slapping his own butt to the William Tell overture. Like, maybe even past Darius Rucker and Brooke Burke selling Burger King.

throatybeard
03-08-2014, 03:24 PM
Well apparently, my posting about it lit a fire under their butts. 65-33, WSU.

throatybeard
03-09-2014, 05:19 PM
Indiana State hit four consecutive threes in the final to cut WSU's lead to 8, but then they pulled away after that. 34-0.

brevity
03-09-2014, 06:56 PM
Indiana State hit four consecutive threes in the final to cut WSU's lead to 8, but then they pulled away after that. 34-0.

The much-discussed 1924 North Carolina team was only 26-0, and historical accounts prove that they didn't play anybody either. I will be drafting a memo to the Helms Bakery Foundation to rescind that title and award it to 34-0 Wichita State.

I do not know if my argument will succeed, but I hope to sway them by writing my memo on flatbread.

throatybeard
03-09-2014, 07:03 PM
The much-discussed 1924 North Carolina team was only 26-0, and historical accounts prove that they didn't play anybody either. I will be drafting a memo to the Helms Bakery Foundation to rescind that title and award it to 34-0 Wichita State.

I do not know if my argument will succeed, but I hope to sway them by writing my memo on flatbread.

This reminds me that, as I was watching Maryland's RS valedictory to the ACC today, the TV cameras cast a reverent glance at their 1995 Sweet Sixteen banner.

Newton_14
03-09-2014, 08:57 PM
This is the gist of Olympic Fan's post. It's about match-ups. With Kelly and Plumlee in the post against Wichita St and our usual bevy of shooters, we would have matched up particularly well against the Shockers last year.

I would rather face Wichita St than Louisville last year ANY. DAY.

Well, maybe. I remember vividly sitting in a hotel room at Myrtle Beach last year watching the FF, being damn glad Duke was not the team Wichita St was putting the beat down on. They really should have beaten UL, and I had no doubt in my mind that night they would have beaten us. Just because the name on the shirt read "Wichita St" instead of "Kansas", doesn't mean anything. That team played a great game that night and it took a heck of a lot for UL to come back and pull out that win. To assume Duke would have won, is just not a good assumption to make.

I have not seen this years version enough yet to determine how good or not they are, but the record speaks for itself. Folks can sleep on them at their own peril though. Thing is, like every year, picking the field against one team is baby candy, so should they get upset everyone will run in and say "See I told you they weren't that good". You can say that about 67 out of 68 teams every single year.

The College Hoops landscape has changed drastically from even the early 2000's. To think a mid-major cannot win a title is not wise. The Blue Bloods still have an advantage but it is not nearly as big as it used to be. This season more than any is wide open. Florida may or may not have transformed into somewhat of a dominant team. We will know soon enough.

TexHawk
03-09-2014, 09:39 PM
Well, maybe. I remember vividly sitting in a hotel room at Myrtle Beach last year watching the FF, being damn glad Duke was not the team Wichita St was putting the beat down on. They really should have beaten UL, and I had no doubt in my mind that night they would have beaten us.

1-- The team that played Louisville last April graduated 2 starters.
2-- Syracuse gave Michigan a helluva game last April too, but I haven't heard a soul talking about how tough Syracuse might be. There's a reason for that.
3-- That 9 seed juggernaut last year lost 9 games, including twice to a bad Evansville team, and once to a horrifically bad SIU team.
4-- You have no idea how you would have matched up with them, you have no idea if you would have lost to them. This is especially confusing to me because your team, under different circumstances, also played Louisville well last year, and you actually beat them. I think a large amount of teams could have given Louisville a tough game in the national semis. Unfortunately for them, those teams didn't get there for whatever reason.

WSU absolutely deserves credit for their season, and they have earned a #1 seed without a doubt. They also don't have a player taller than 6'8", and as of this post, there is not a single top 100 Kenpom team in their conference (other than themselves obviously). Last year's team played 12 top 100 games in conference.

It should surprise no one that people would rather face them than Arizona or Florida.

ice-9
03-10-2014, 07:13 PM
Well, maybe. I remember vividly sitting in a hotel room at Myrtle Beach last year watching the FF, being damn glad Duke was not the team Wichita St was putting the beat down on. They really should have beaten UL, and I had no doubt in my mind that night they would have beaten us. Just because the name on the shirt read "Wichita St" instead of "Kansas", doesn't mean anything. That team played a great game that night and it took a heck of a lot for UL to come back and pull out that win. To assume Duke would have won, is just not a good assumption to make.

Agreed, but it's also not a good assumption that Duke would lose. Louisville beat Duke by a comfortable margin, but otherwise we were playing very well in the tournament. A team can look unbeatable in a small sample size -- the Shockers looked great in the tournament -- and as TexHawk pointed out, that was the same Wichita St that lost to some bad teams.


I have not seen this years version enough yet to determine how good or not they are, but the record speaks for itself. Folks can sleep on them at their own peril though. Thing is, like every year, picking the field against one team is baby candy, so should they get upset everyone will run in and say "See I told you they weren't that good". You can say that about 67 out of 68 teams every single year.

The College Hoops landscape has changed drastically from even the early 2000's. To think a mid-major cannot win a title is not wise. The Blue Bloods still have an advantage but it is not nearly as big as it used to be. This season more than any is wide open. Florida may or may not have transformed into somewhat of a dominant team. We will know soon enough.

I think the debate on Wichita St is often characterized as "they're the best" vs. "they suck" but it is a lot more nuanced than that.

Of course Wichita St can win the national championship. All Duke fans remember Butler and how close they came to winning; Dukies should be the last of the "blue bloods" to think a mid-major couldn't do it.

My point before was that Wichita St hadn't earned a top 5 ranking. That they felt more like 6-10, which would imply an Elite Eight type of team. Which is still pretty darn good.

Things have changed a bit since I made the assertion -- namely, other top candidates keep losing, so I guess I now do agree that Wichita St should be a 1-seed and ranked in the top 5.

Still, I wouldn't mind having them in Duke's region.

Henderson
03-10-2014, 08:38 PM
Still, I wouldn't mind having them in Duke's region.

If Duke is a #2 seed and Wichita State is a #1 seed, I hope Duke is in that region. I suspect most fans of potential #2 seeds feel that way. That tells me more than what the AP writers, USA Today Coaches, or the selection committee decides. 34-0 is awfully impressive in terms of consistency, but you have to earn respect by beating people who matter.

I realize this is one half of the cliches floating out there right now about WSU, but put me in the "prove it" camp. They might. But so might, say, Stephen F. Austin. I think there is a lot of patronizing going on with WSU. "Oh, gee, aren't they just so spunky? It's cute. I mean, um, we take them seriously as natty contenders."

You know the TV people love it. It's a story.

Newton_14
03-10-2014, 08:56 PM
Agreed, but it's also not a good assumption that Duke would lose. Louisville beat Duke by a comfortable margin, but otherwise we were playing very well in the tournament. A team can look unbeatable in a small sample size -- the Shockers looked great in the tournament -- and as TexHawk pointed out, that was the same Wichita St that lost to some bad teams.



I think the debate on Wichita St is often characterized as "they're the best" vs. "they suck" but it is a lot more nuanced than that.

Of course Wichita St can win the national championship. All Duke fans remember Butler and how close they came to winning; Dukies should be the last of the "blue bloods" to think a mid-major couldn't do it.

My point before was that Wichita St hadn't earned a top 5 ranking. That they felt more like 6-10, which would imply an Elite Eight type of team. Which is still pretty darn good.

Things have changed a bit since I made the assertion -- namely, other top candidates keep losing, so I guess I now do agree that Wichita St should be a 1-seed and ranked in the top 5.

Still, I wouldn't mind having them in Duke's region.

Yeah thats fair and you make good points. I still don't agree with TexHawk though. When we beat UL last year it was prior to the Kelly injury and we were playing at a really high level and UL was missing their center. After the Miami home game, Kelly was never quite the same again and ended up needing surgery right after the season. Wichita St played UL on the biggest stage, at full strength and like I said, really should have won that game. They looked plenty talented to me and they played one heck of a game. My gut that night told me it would have been great fodder for the Duke haters with Duke losing a FF game to a mid-major named Wichita St.

Like I said I have not seen them yet this year though I look forward to watching them play. I don't often get into the practice of "hoping to get paired with team x" even though last year I did want to be the 2 in Gonzaga's region, but I had seem them play and felt we would beat them.


If Duke is a #2 seed and Wichita State is a #1 seed, I hope Duke is in that region. I suspect most fans of potential #2 seeds feel that way. That tells me more than what the AP writers, USA Today Coaches, or the selection committee decides. 34-0 is awfully impressive in terms of consistency, but you have to earn respect by beating people who matter.

I realize this is one half of the cliches floating out there right now about WSU, but put me in the "prove it" camp. They might. But so might, say, Stephen F. Austin. I think there is a lot of patronizing going on with WSU. "Oh, gee, aren't they just so spunky? It's cute. I mean, um, we take them seriously as natty contenders."

You know the TV people love it. It's a story.

Again, careful what you wish for and are you basing this on, because of the name on the front of their shirts or on having seem them play 5+ times? I mean, maybe Wichita is overrated. Maybe they are not that good and if they had been in a BCS conference would have 6 or 7 losses. My point is, 1. We don't know that to be true and 2. It is darn hard, even with the schedule they played to win 34 games in a row.

If they are overrated, then so be it, but that needs to be based on how good they really are and not on the name of the School.

howardlander
03-10-2014, 10:04 PM
Yeah thats fair and you make good points. I still don't agree with TexHawk though. When we beat UL last year it was prior to the Kelly injury and we were playing at a really high level and UL was missing their center. After the Miami home game, Kelly was never quite the same again and ended up needing surgery right after the season. Wichita St played UL on the biggest stage, at full strength and like I said, really should have won that game.


Wait, are you saying Louisville was at full strength for the Wichita State game? Didn't they lose Kevin Ware to a rather nasty broken leg against Duke? In fact, I thought Ware's injury was why Louisville won the Duke game by so much. They were completely inspired against Duke, then emotionally flat against a Wichita State team they may not have taken as seriously as they should. Remember also that WS had that highly overrated (in my opinion) Gonzaga team as the one seed in their region and, IIRC, a 13 seed in the Sweet 16s. They did beat Ohio State in the 8s, I don't remember much about that game, maybe someone else does. So WS beat everyone on their schedule this year which is impressive considering Duke lost to Wake and Syracuse lost to BC. But WS had a schedule full of games against Wake and BC or worse. As a Duke fan, do I want to be in their region? Yep, though to be fair I don't care that much as long as we avoid Florida. I think Arizona and Villanova are both beatable, but Florida has looked great and has tons of tournament experience.

Howard

Billy Dat
03-11-2014, 01:40 PM
I love the Shockers and count me in the camp that says they are mighty capable of taking the chip. Winning is a skill and a habit. I don't care who they were playing, the last 10-15 games, everyone of those opponents was inspired to make the only national news they could ever make - by ending that streak. They never slipped. If we are talking about inspiration, the Shockers are going to be amped to prove all the naysayers wrong. Plus, Fred Van Vleet is $$$$$. After Duke, I am pulling hardest for these guys.

TexHawk
03-11-2014, 02:32 PM
I love the Shockers and count me in the camp that says they are mighty capable of taking the chip. Winning is a skill and a habit. I don't care who they were playing, the last 10-15 games, everyone of those opponents was inspired to make the only national news they could ever make - by ending that streak. They never slipped. If we are talking about inspiration, the Shockers are going to be amped to prove all the naysayers wrong. Plus, Fred Van Vleet is $$$$$. After Duke, I am pulling hardest for these guys.

Is that all it takes to win a game? Just wanting to win really really bad? Does talent not matter at all? WSU has played their last 21 games against MVC conference opponents. As I said above, not a single one of those teams has cracked the Top 100 of Kenpom. That's really really hard for a semi-respectable conference to pull off.

Of course, I am not saying that WSU is bad, far from it. They deserve kudos for showing up every night and playing hard themselves. I just don't see how anyone can be confident of them at this point, I would love to see them play a good team and prove themselves. If they were to face Duke, Jabari Parker would be far and away the most talented basketball player they have seen in at least a year. How does anyone know how they would respond?

Billy Dat
03-11-2014, 04:48 PM
Is that all it takes to win a game? Just wanting to win really really bad? Does talent not matter at all? WSU has played their last 21 games against MVC conference opponents. As I said above, not a single one of those teams has cracked the Top 100 of Kenpom. That's really really hard for a semi-respectable conference to pull off.

Of course, I am not saying that WSU is bad, far from it. They deserve kudos for showing up every night and playing hard themselves. I just don't see how anyone can be confident of them at this point, I would love to see them play a good team and prove themselves. If they were to face Duke, Jabari Parker would be far and away the most talented basketball player they have seen in at least a year. How does anyone know how they would respond?

Their strength of schedule, according to KenPom, isn't that much worse than Louisville. Vermont faced Jabari Parker at Cameron and almost ended the longest home non con winning streak. These are college kids, not pros. What the heck is talent doing for Kentucky right now? I'd take Wichita State over Kentucky right now.

howardlander
03-11-2014, 06:48 PM
Their strength of schedule, according to KenPom, isn't that much worse than Louisville. Vermont faced Jabari Parker at Cameron and almost ended the longest home non con winning streak. These are college kids, not pros. What the heck is talent doing for Kentucky right now? I'd take Wichita State over Kentucky right now.

Oh yeah, I would take WS over Kentucky too. But at the moment that's not a particularly high bar since Kentucky doesn't seem to be in the top 25 of any of the human polls. I'm not a WS hater, I'm just not sure what to make of them. You are right that their schedule isn't that much worse than Louisville's in BPI or RPI, but it is still 108 in the RPI rankings and 120 in the BPI ranking. They are 3 - 0 against the top 50 which doesn't seem that bad, but Arizona is 10 - 2, Florida is 6 -2 and Kansas is 12 - 7. So we'll see.

Howard

Newton_14
03-11-2014, 08:32 PM
Oh yeah, I would take WS over Kentucky too. But at the moment that's not a particularly high bar since Kentucky doesn't seem to be in the top 25 of any of the human polls. I'm not a WS hater, I'm just not sure what to make of them. You are right that their schedule isn't that much worse than Louisville's in BPI or RPI, but it is still 108 in the RPI rankings and 120 in the BPI ranking. They are 3 - 0 against the top 50 which doesn't seem that bad, but Arizona is 10 - 2, Florida is 6 -2 and Kansas is 12 - 7. So we'll see.

Howard

Howard, I both understand and respect your opinion as well as the other doubters, but I have to ask, have you seen them play several full games this year, and did you watch the entire FF game last year?

My only point posting in this thread is to encourage those that have not seen them play several times to not judge them because of the name on the jersey or the conference they play in. Judge them on their talent and playing abilities as a team, as compared to all the other teams, Top 25 or otherwise, and recognize that going 34-0 is incredibly hard to do in college hoops. The best teams have off nights and lose to lowly teams. Duke certainly has, as had just about every other Top 5 to Top 25 team this year. Yet these guys are supposedly not as good as a 'normal top 5 team' yet they have lost to no one. If they get smoked iin the tourney then so be it. It has been an impressive run.

I just personally feel that the version of them I saw last year was really good, and in the current landscape a mid-major can certainly build a Final Four Caliber team.

yancem
03-11-2014, 09:48 PM
I think that there is one key aspect that is being overlooked and that is the ever mounting pressure brought on by the unbeaten streak. Maybe Wichita State is as good as their record or maybe it is bloated with light weight opponents, I'm undecided but what I know for sure is that every win brings more pressure. Going undefeated for an entire season is very tough. If UNLV in 1991, Duke in 1992 & 1999 and a handful of other teams that are all far superior to Wichita State's team this year couldn't do it, I'm banking on Wichita State not doing it. Now they may make it to the F4 like UNLV did, but I would bet that they loose before then. It could be an early tourney upset or maybe they make it a deep but sooner or later either they succumb to the pressure or they simply have an off night.

TexHawk
03-11-2014, 10:43 PM
Their strength of schedule, according to KenPom, isn't that much worse than Louisville. Vermont faced Jabari Parker at Cameron and almost ended the longest home non con winning streak. These are college kids, not pros. What the heck is talent doing for Kentucky right now? I'd take Wichita State over Kentucky right now.

I would too. But that wasn't the point. The original post stated that nobody should care who WSU has played, they faced tough tests against teams that really really wanted to win and make Sportscenter. I find that to be an odd stance to take, there is virtually no talent at all in the MVC this year (outside of the Shockers, of course). "Wanting to win really bad" shouldn't be ignored, but that has to be paired with a minimal amount of basketball skill to win games.

Yea, Kenpom's schedule rankings have them about even with Louisville. But Louisville has played several tournament teams in the last couple of months. Their awful noncon SOS drags it down. WSU's KP schedule ranking is about even to what they played in 2013, except there were 6 other Top 100 teams in the MVC last year.

g-money
03-12-2014, 12:41 AM
Is that all it takes to win a game? Just wanting to win really really bad? Does talent not matter at all? WSU has played their last 21 games against MVC conference opponents. As I said above, not a single one of those teams has cracked the Top 100 of Kenpom. That's really really hard for a semi-respectable conference to pull off.

Of course, I am not saying that WSU is bad, far from it. They deserve kudos for showing up every night and playing hard themselves. I just don't see how anyone can be confident of them at this point, I would love to see them play a good team and prove themselves. If they were to face Duke, Jabari Parker would be far and away the most talented basketball player they have seen in at least a year. How does anyone know how they would respond?

Based on CBS's ratings, Butler's 2009-2010 SOS was 96...

Billy Dat
03-12-2014, 08:15 AM
I would too. But that wasn't the point. The original post stated that nobody should care who WSU has played, they faced tough tests against teams that really really wanted to win and make Sportscenter. I find that to be an odd stance to take, there is virtually no talent at all in the MVC this year (outside of the Shockers, of course). "Wanting to win really bad" shouldn't be ignored, but that has to be paired with a minimal amount of basketball skill to win games.

Yea, Kenpom's schedule rankings have them about even with Louisville. But Louisville has played several tournament teams in the last couple of months. Their awful noncon SOS drags it down. WSU's KP schedule ranking is about even to what they played in 2013, except there were 6 other Top 100 teams in the MVC last year.

Fair enough. They'll have to make at least an Elite Eight run to substantiate the supporters and subdue the skeptics. I guess I really buy into the idea that there is a huge difference between one loss and no losses....kind of like having no children or any children!

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-12-2014, 09:35 AM
Fair enough. They'll have to make at least an Elite Eight run to substantiate the supporters and subdue the skeptics. I guess I really buy into the idea that there is a huge difference between one loss and no losses....kind of like having no children or any children!

I guarantee you that if they finish the season with no losses, then people will be more than paying attention.

Billy Dat
03-12-2014, 09:51 AM
I guarantee you that if they finish the season with no losses, then people will be more than paying attention.

It's funny, in reaction to Callipari's recent-ish statement that this year's Kentucky team was the most analyzed in all of sports, not just college basketball, Gary Parrish of CBS Sports.com said that he was wrong as Wichita State is by far the most talked about in College Basketball....so I think people are already paying attention, they just don't believe. They'd be a good team to invite to the annual Duke pre-conference NYC area party. Dana Altman has a really hard time scheduling good teams. The game everyone wants is a Kansas series, but Bill Self has absolutely nothing to gain there.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-12-2014, 09:55 AM
It's funny, in reaction to Callipari's recent-ish statement that this year's Kentucky team was the most analyzed in all of sports, not just college basketball, Gary Parrish of CBS Sports.com said that he was wrong as Wichita State is by far the most talked about in College Basketball....so I think people are already paying attention, they just don't believe. They'd be a good team to invite to the annual Duke pre-conference NYC area party. Dana Altman has a really hard time scheduling good teams. The game everyone wants is a Kansas series, but Bill Self has absolutely nothing to gain there.

I think Calipari might have a little bit of a persecution complex there. Honestly, I haven't given a rip about them or even read that many articles about them since they fell off the damn radar.

Regardless, I think you are right about Wichita State. Everyone I know has passionate feelings that either they are amazing and underrated and get no respect or... are a paper tiger doomed to be the first 16 seed upset victim. Extremely polarizing, for a team that most people haven't watched.

Billy Dat
03-12-2014, 10:01 AM
I think Calipari might have a little bit of a persecution complex there. Honestly, I haven't given a rip about them or even read that many articles about them since they fell off the damn radar.

Regardless, I think you are right about Wichita State. Everyone I know has passionate feelings that either they are amazing and underrated and get no respect or... are a paper tiger doomed to be the first 16 seed upset victim. Extremely polarizing, for a team that most people haven't watched.

A team that is only now getting talked about because its 1 seed talk time - 3 loss Villanova, with the only losses to McBuckets (2x) and Syracuse. Kind of amazing because their SoS is actually very highly rated...but I digress. Go Shockers!

Wander
03-12-2014, 10:12 AM
The game everyone wants is a Kansas series, but Bill Self has absolutely nothing to gain there.

You're not wrong in that's what the perception is, but I'm getting a little bit tired of this sentiment (from coaches, not you). If Iowa and Nebraska can have regular series with MVC schools, I don't see why Kansas can't. Clearly Bill Self is willing to schedule tough games, more so than most coaches, and I appreciate that. Kansas played an away game at Colorado this year - why does that offer more to gain than Wichita? If some dumb casual fan thinks Colorado is better than Wichita this year, fine, but the "thing to gain" is the same as any other tough non-conference game - win it, and it looks really good on your tournament resume.

And before the obvious counter gets brought up, yes, I wish Coach K would have more home-and-away series too.

TexHawk
03-12-2014, 10:45 AM
You're not wrong in that's what the perception is, but I'm getting a little bit tired of this sentiment (from coaches, not you). If Iowa and Nebraska can have regular series with MVC schools, I don't see why Kansas can't. Clearly Bill Self is willing to schedule tough games, more so than most coaches, and I appreciate that. Kansas played an away game at Colorado this year - why does that offer more to gain than Wichita? If some dumb casual fan thinks Colorado is better than Wichita this year, fine, but the "thing to gain" is the same as any other tough non-conference game - win it, and it looks really good on your tournament resume.

I could talk for days here. Bill Self has gone on the record (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24380913/bill-self-will-not-be-scheduling-games-against-wichita-state) several (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10527568/bill-self-kansas-jayhawks-thinks-wichita-state-shockers-get-no-1-seed) times (http://www.kansascity.com/2013/12/17/4699875/self-has-no-plans-for-jayhawks.html) about this.

There are two very large reasons why KU won't play Wichita State:
1-- As discussed before on here, while KU is a blue-blood that generates a ton of money, it also bank-rolls most of the athletic department. (How else can KU afford paying ex-football coach Turner Gill $2 million per year to not coach anymore?) Almost every KU hoops game has to make money, and a lot of it. So, home games and more home games. Hopefully a few with national appeal. The road games that don't make money are in recruiting hotbeds, are part of the SEC-Big12 challenge, or the rare exception like Colorado (will get back to them in a minute). Throw in a holiday tournament here and there, and the schedule is full. Wichita State checks off none of those boxes (and frankly, nobody else in the MVC does either). Zero. KU owns Wichita recruiting as it is. KU has offered WSU and other MVC teams the same package that most other noncon opponents get: Play us in Lawrence or maybe Kansas City, we are not going to your house because it doesn't benefit us. (This is also why KU won't play Missouri, but that's slightly different.)

Colorado is unique because of two reasons, (1) it's a road game in name only. There are a ton of diehard KU fans in Western Kansas and Eastern Colorado. Losing that game when the Buffs bolted to the Pac12 cost KU some donations from the Denver area. KU doesn't get the ticket revenue obviously, but this is a way to keep in touch with donors. (2) Tad Boyle is a former KU player, and is generally loved across the state. He's about the complete opposite of Gregg Marshall, who, being as nice as I can here... is not.

2-- I know it's easy to see WSU as a national power today, undefeated + F4, but this needs to be repeated: They have played in 3 of the last 25 NCAA tournaments. 3 out of 25. There's a reason nobody nationally criticized KU for not playing them 8-10 years ago... They were awful. In fact, they DID play each other up until the early 90s, when, in back-to-back years, Roy's teams de-pantsed them by 45 in AFH, then again by 30 in Wichita the next year. WSU cancelled the series after that to save some face.

Bottom line... If Bill Self were to relent and start a series with WSU next fall, it might get decent local ratings, but probably wouldn't generate much of anything nationally. And 5 years from now, when Marshall is coaching at Oklahoma State or Maryland, history shows us that WSU is not guaranteed to be good at all. And then the media and you guys would be all over KU for playing a poor noncon. There is no way for KU to win here.

CDu
03-12-2014, 12:11 PM
I could talk for days here. Bill Self has gone on the record (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24380913/bill-self-will-not-be-scheduling-games-against-wichita-state) several (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10527568/bill-self-kansas-jayhawks-thinks-wichita-state-shockers-get-no-1-seed) times (http://www.kansascity.com/2013/12/17/4699875/self-has-no-plans-for-jayhawks.html) about this.

There are two very large reasons why KU won't play Wichita State:
1-- As discussed before on here, while KU is a blue-blood that generates a ton of money, it also bank-rolls most of the athletic department. (How else can KU afford paying ex-football coach Turner Gill $2 million per year to not coach anymore?) Almost every KU hoops game has to make money, and a lot of it. So, home games and more home games. Hopefully a few with national appeal. The road games that don't make money are in recruiting hotbeds, are part of the SEC-Big12 challenge, or the rare exception like Colorado (will get back to them in a minute). Throw in a holiday tournament here and there, and the schedule is full. Wichita State checks off none of those boxes (and frankly, nobody else in the MVC does either). Zero. KU owns Wichita recruiting as it is. KU has offered WSU and other MVC teams the same package that most other noncon opponents get: Play us in Lawrence or maybe Kansas City, we are not going to your house because it doesn't benefit us. (This is also why KU won't play Missouri, but that's slightly different.)

Colorado is unique because of two reasons, (1) it's a road game in name only. There are a ton of diehard KU fans in Western Kansas and Eastern Colorado. Losing that game when the Buffs bolted to the Pac12 cost KU some donations from the Denver area. KU doesn't get the ticket revenue obviously, but this is a way to keep in touch with donors. (2) Tad Boyle is a former KU player, and is generally loved across the state. He's about the complete opposite of Gregg Marshall, who, being as nice as I can here... is not.

2-- I know it's easy to see WSU as a national power today, undefeated + F4, but this needs to be repeated: They have played in 3 of the last 25 NCAA tournaments. 3 out of 25. There's a reason nobody nationally criticized KU for not playing them 8-10 years ago... They were awful. In fact, they DID play each other up until the early 90s, when, in back-to-back years, Roy's teams de-pantsed them by 45 in AFH, then again by 30 in Wichita the next year. WSU cancelled the series after that to save some face.

Bottom line... If Bill Self were to relent and start a series with WSU next fall, it might get decent local ratings, but probably wouldn't generate much of anything nationally. And 5 years from now, when Marshall is coaching at Oklahoma State or Maryland, history shows us that WSU is not guaranteed to be good at all. And then the media and you guys would be all over KU for playing a poor noncon. There is no way for KU to win here.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Wichita State is a mid-major team. They have been a very good mid-major team the last couple of years, but they are still a mid-major team. When you're a mid-major team, you simply can't expect the blue-blood, perennial top-10 programs to come to your place. The same as Duke: we aren't in the habit of scheduling true home-and-homes with mid-majors, either.

That's just the way the system works. Marshall had the opportunity to prove his team's worth by accepting road games against the big boys. He declined that opportunity. If Wichita State continues to be a top-10 team AND Marshall stays long-term, then I imagine they'll eventually get some good home-and-home opportunities with elite teams. But until that happens (and frankly, I suspect it won't happen), they're going to have to follow the "rules" of the game.

Billy Dat
03-12-2014, 12:11 PM
Jeff Borzello tackles this topic du jour
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24479405/wichita-watch-shockers-wait-for-selection-sunday

Wander
03-12-2014, 12:24 PM
stuff

Yeah yeah, I get all that and it's not unreasonable. And obviously this isn't unique to Kansas. But it's still lame to have a state with only three Division 1 programs that don't play each other.

TexHawk
03-12-2014, 12:54 PM
Yeah yeah, I get all that and it's not unreasonable. And obviously this isn't unique to Kansas. But it's still lame to have a state with only three Division 1 programs that don't play each other.

Well, you posted that you were "tired of it", and now you say it's reasonable. Unless you have a magic wand that can reverse conference realignment, redo Turner Gill's contract and devastation of our football program, and flip the college football love in this country to basketball so it generates equal money... Sorry, you can't blame Kansas (or Kansas State, for that matter) for looking out for their own interests. The universities (and state) aren't exactly printing money.

CDu
03-12-2014, 12:56 PM
Yeah yeah, I get all that and it's not unreasonable. And obviously this isn't unique to Kansas. But it's still lame to have a state with only three Division 1 programs that don't play each other.

Oh, it's definitely lame. But that lameness is largely the "fault" of Marshall. He is demanding that elite teams agree to home-and-homes with him as though his program was an established elite program. That's just not the way it works. Prove yourself to be elite for a decent duration of time (they were just a bubble-caliber team last year, remember), and THEN maybe the big boys will discuss home-and-home games. Don't expect the blue bloods to put you on equal status based on the heels of one or two good seasons.

Let's look at our blue bloods here in NC. Davidson has had more sustained success as a program than Wichita State, but Duke and UNC don't go play at Davidson's home gym. They'll schedule a game in Charlotte or they'll schedule it at home. Same with the other mid/low-majors within the state.

Wander
03-12-2014, 01:15 PM
Well, you posted that you were "tired of it", and now you say it's reasonable.

Well, allow me to be a little more nuanced. I think the stuff you posted is reasonable. What I'm tired of is the popular sentiment about there being nothing to gain from a pure basketball perspective - the idea that "if you beat Wichita, no one's going to care, but if you lose to them it's super embarrassing."



Let's look at our blue bloods here in NC. Davidson has had more sustained success as a program than Wichita State, but Duke and UNC don't go play at Davidson's home gym. They'll schedule a game in Charlotte or they'll schedule it at home. Same with the other mid/low-majors within the state.


UNC has played recent away games at UNC-Asheville, UAB, Long Beach State, UNLV, Evansville, College of Charleston, UC Santa Barbara, Nevada, UPenn, and then I got bored of looking back through the schedules. In addition to BCS schools Texas, Kentucky, and Rutgers. Probably the only thing I admire about their program. Iowa plays at Northern Iowa. It may not be the norm, but it's hardly impossible, and I think it's good for the sport.