Wichita State Vs Illinois State

[Cdizzle]

And the massey argument I won. Hurley knows it, and so do you. Please, PLEASE tell me where that went south for me...

You used a rating system to try to show that ISU was the better team.

But then forgot to mention that said rating system said ISU was not the better team.

I do not hold that Massey is right or wrong, but your logic was circular. You just quit drawing the circle when it fit your narrative.

[Redbirds4Life]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/team-comparison/WICHST/ILLST

Both teams are screwed. Illinois State's resume is better because of their win at Wichita State...after that its 2 shades of crap. If the Birds lose and you say, their at-large chances are gone, then the same for Wichita State already. Personally, I think its a 1-bid league with one of the two or both in the first 8 or so out.

Right now, Illinois State has the better resume, if Wichita pays the favor back, then they are going to be about even. That's the truth. Wichita will have 1 top 50 win....Illinois State will then have 1 top 50 win. Like someone said earlier, its not about how many wins you have and or how many bad losses, it's about who you beat. It has been like that for the last couple years. If something doesn't drastically change, NIT for one of the two, if not both....

[Stickboy46]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/team-comparison/WICHST/ILLST

Both teams are screwed. Illinois State's resume is better because of their win at Wichita State...after that its 2 shades of crap. If the Birds lose and you say, their at-large chances are gone, then the same for Wichita State already. Personally, I think its a 1-bid league with one of the two or both in the first 8 or so out.

Right now, Illinois State has the better resume, if Wichita pays the favor back, then they are going to be about even. That's the truth. Wichita will have 1 top 50 win....Illinois State will then have 1 top 50 win. Like someone said earlier, its not about how many wins you have and or how many bad losses, it's about who you beat. It has been like that for the last couple years. If something doesn't drastically change, NIT for one of the two, if not both....

Right or wrong, the edge that WSU has is 2 things. 1. Name Recognition, 2. Analytical rankings. Neither are official criteria, but both are used.

[Cdizzle]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/team-comparison/WICHST/ILLST

Both teams are screwed. Illinois State's resume is better because of their win at Wichita State...after that its 2 shades of crap. If the Birds lose and you say, their at-large chances are gone, then the same for Wichita State already. Personally, I think its a 1-bid league with one of the two or both in the first 8 or so out.

Right now, Illinois State has the better resume, if Wichita pays the favor back, then they are going to be about even. That's the truth. Wichita will have 1 top 50 win....Illinois State will then have 1 top 50 win. Like someone said earlier, its not about how many wins you have and or how many bad losses, it's about who you beat. It has been like that for the last couple years. If something doesn't drastically change, NIT for one of the two, if not both....

If WSU wins tomorrow, the side-by-side resume starts to very heavily favor WSU. Not losing to a team like Murray St. matters, especially when neither team has good wins on which to hang their hats. Record matters, especially when neither team has a good win to hang their hat on. A guady record with no bad losses has a chance, however slight. A less-gaudy record with 1 bad loss and some 'meh' losses doesn't have as good of a chance.

As I pointed out earlier, I think the loser tomorrow is out of realistic at-large chances. The winner will still have 8 more chances to kill what's left of their at-large chances.

[TheObserver]

And the massey argument I won. Hurley knows it, and so do you. Please, PLEASE tell me where that went south for me...

You used a rating system to try to show that ISU was the better team.

But then forgot to mention that said rating system said ISU was not the better team.

I do not hold that Massey is right or wrong, but your logic was circular. You just quit drawing the circle when it fit your narrative.

The script rights itself. My team is better than yours because the rating system I'm using says we have better wins. But said rating system has opponent ranked significantly higher than my own.

Absolutely hilarious!!. Hurley with the SHUTDOWN.

[TheObserver]

how many bad losses

On what planet would that not matter? Because Illinois State has bad losses?

Bad losses do a couple things:
1.) They drop your RPI/rating/whatever.
2.) Well, it basically says it itself.. it's a BAD.. LOSS.

That would definitely be a reason a committee member could use to excuse Illinois State from an at-large, nevermind the zero Top 50 wins.

[Cdizzle]

For the record, I think this crappy argument gets used all the time, even among basketball 'analysts', talking heads, and supposed bracketology gurus. So many of them, the only thing they want to talk about is record vs. RPI Top 50. Which I've ranted on as asinine in nature before. If the only metric one is going to use (and you'll see this on TV a lot), is record vs. RPI Top 50 (which is a completely arbitrary distinction btw, as if beating RPI 51 on the road is better than beating RPI 50 at home), then it is ridiculous to not just use the RPI rankings themselves as your rating system.

[Stickboy46]

how many bad losses

On what planet would that not matter? Because Illinois State has bad losses?

Bad losses do a couple things:
1.) They drop your RPI/rating/whatever.
2.) Well, it basically says it itself.. it's a BAD.. LOSS.

That would definitely be a reason a committee member could use to excuse Illinois State from an at-large, nevermind the zero Top 50 wins.

Bad losses are easily overwritten with good wins. Often times 1 good win can wipe out multiple bad losses. That said, Neither team has a good win.

[Stickboy46]

For the record, I think this crappy argument gets used all the time, even among basketball 'analysts', talking heads, and supposed bracketology gurus. So many of them, the only thing they want to talk about is record vs. RPI Top 50. Which I've ranted on as asinine in nature before. If the only metric one is going to use (and you'll see this on TV a lot), is record vs. RPI Top 50 (which is a completely arbitrary distinction btw, as if beating RPI 51 on the road is better than beating RPI 50 at home), then it is ridiculous to not just use the RPI rankings themselves as your rating system.

I agree. They use it because its the most slanted way to help out the power conferences. They have the most opportunities to get "good" wins. It makes it self fulfilling.

[TheObserver]

For the record, I think this crappy argument gets used all the time, even among basketball 'analysts', talking heads, and supposed bracketology gurus. So many of them, the only thing they want to talk about is record vs. RPI Top 50. Which I've ranted on as asinine in nature before. If the only metric one is going to use (and you'll see this on TV a lot), is record vs. RPI Top 50 (which is a completely arbitrary distinction btw, as if beating RPI 51 on the road is better than beating RPI 50 at home), then it is ridiculous to not just use the RPI rankings themselves as your rating system.

I agree. They use it because its the most slanted way to help out the power conferences. They have the most opportunities to get "good" wins. It makes it self fulfilling.

Which ultimately means bad losses should be held equally accountable. If some scrub team like Clemson wins a couple Top 50 games and then has a few 200+ bombs on their resume, the focus shouldn't just be on the Top 50 wins. Losses count too. And yes, it's a P5/ESPN slant. Big time.

Back to cdizzle's point, when said team like Clemson goes something like 2-9 against the top 50 and a mid team goes 1-0 against the Top 50, but then Clemson is looked more favorably because they have more Top 50 wins than said mid-team, that's absolute P5 slant at its worst. Clemson got 10 more chances at Top 50 wins (with a fair amount likely at home) and they get more praise than a middy who can't play Top 50 teams without getting bought out on the road but cashed in on its 1 opportunity made available to them. And that's supposed to be fair? Gross logic used by the NCAA, ESPN, and other talking heads who are always slanting things towards the $$$$.