2013-2014 Bracketology thread

[rlh04d]

There is still some name recognition. Valley schools are midwestern schools that are predominately basketball first institutions.

Will that still be the case long term with the importance placed on FCS football? It seems like the overall decline in many MVc teams has coincided with football.

WSU is still pointed up.
Drake appears to have hired a monster!
MSU and Illinois State have some talent.
UNI and Indiana State should continue to be solid programs for the foreseeable future, and are capable of having fantastic years not too infrequently.
Bradley and LUC have the resources to right the ship.
Disappointed in Evansville and SIU.

WSU is still pointed up, but I still think WSU will be out of the conference in the next five years if Marshall isn't lured away first.

Drake does look like they've made a great hire. But I have little confidence in Drake keeping him long term.

If Indiana State can't have a fantastic year this season, I doubt they can under this staff. Senior heavy roster, returned nearly everyone from a solid team last year, all conference point guard... And still not being supported by the fans on top of it.

Loyola has the potential to right the ship. Not sure about resources. They have a donation heavy booster base right now that might lose enthusiasm very quickly if they're looking at a bottom feeder every year.

What needs to happen:

WSU and Drake need to maintain their HCs.
MSU and Illinois State need to turn talent into RPIs between 50 and 100.
One of UNI or Indiana State needs to take the next step up to being in or on the verge of being in the top 25 throughout the year.
The other four need to be competitive in the non-con AND suck in the Valley. I'm not relegating these four teams to be bottom feeders, but that's how you build a strong conference; by separating the top from the bottom. Hopefully UE, SIU, LUC, and Bradley all get it going so that the separation isn't as important, but until they are top 150 RPI, I'm rooting against them every game in League play.

Will MSU ever try to improve their SOS? At this point, a 200+ SOS just looks to be what they want to have. And that is never going to build a good RPI.

I just don't see any long term promise for Indiana State. They look like a Thursday night team to me next season and possibly long term. I don't see them having the stars align as they have this year again any time soon. UNI I can see. They're young still and might be good the next few years.

I see a lot of teams that might be able to get hot and win St Louis in the next few years, but only one or two that might even be able to compete for an at large bid. If we're going to be a conference with three teams in the top 100 RPI and three below 250, we're not doing much here.

[TheAsianSensation]

As for the Asian sensation's point: I don't really see any evidence that the Valley is doing anything but declining long term. While the overall conference numbers have stayed up in the last few years, that seems to primarily be due to two factors: Doug McDermott and Gregg Marshall. I just don't see much to be optimistic about with the conference ... Talent, coaching, recruiting, attendance, revenue, winning, schedule strength, etc. Take WSU out this year and the Valley is barely in the top 15. Drake and Missouri State are the only reasons I have to be even slightly optimistic about the conference, and MoSt is the only team I can see competing for an at large spot in the next two years. Maybe Illinois State if things click. I just don't see the structure around to improve things.

Decline, or down cycle? I do think Missouri St is on the upswing with Lusk, I wouldn't be surprised if they were a year away. I'm not as sold on Drake, they're kind of paper tigers with their profile right now.

Up until a month ago I was sold on the Ford era at Bradley. The good news is they have money to throw around, but the clock is ticking. The league needs the #2 spender to act like a #2 team. And to schedule like one. I'm about one more bad non-con schedule away from throwing an actual real riot about ours.

I do trust UNI longterm, that's a program with a track record of at least being relevant.

Everyone else seems to be in various stages of building. We need a couple to hit, including Loyola, who needs to use their money wisely.

The biggest problem might be that we made ourselves too big a target. We games the RPI perfectly 5-10 years ago, and everyone else wised up to it. Now it's not as easy to schedule as well. Everyone can still get a couple quality games, but it's so much more difficult to get true home games that are quality. We need to get more aggressive and schedule 2-for-1s. It's not desirable, but we need quality home games. And we so desperately need a replacement challenge for the MWC. If everyone gives up one cupcake for a new challenge and another to start a 2-for-1, that solves a lot of the computer-based problems.

Also, one word about MTTs: Some of them are poison. Just because it's a MTT doesn't make it golden. Bradley had to absorb 4 cupcakes to get Illinois. In the end, not worth it. Some of the lesser MTTs are a trap. We need to be careful. Some get you quality win chances, but others aren't worth it.

[TheAsianSensation]

Meanwhile, the more I think about Wichita's seed situation, the more I think it's out of their control completely.

Meaning it will matter more what the opposition does than they do. WSU will be in scoreboard watching mode most of the season. This goes for polls and other rankings too. Wichita will be ranked as high or as low as the other teams will allow them.

For example, if a dominant MWC team emerges, they'll pass Wichita. Otherwise, no. Same with UMass in the A-10. Obviously some of the major conference champs will be above Wichita, but if the 2nd place B1G team is 14-4, they're ahead of Wichita. At 12-6, probably not.

Most teams are allowed a bad loss or two. Not much different for Wichita between 27-3 and 30-0. This is going to be a weird, weird February. It's going to matter so much more what everyone else does.

And it's important to understand that there will be days and weeks where you fall a seed line or two, or 4 or 5 poll spots, and it's going to be completely because of the teams around you, not you yourself.

[rlh04d]

Decline, or down cycle?

That's a good question. How long should a cycle last for it to be considered a long term trend rather than something you can realistically expect to cycle back?

Looking back since the year we sent so many teams in 2006, how many teams other than WSU and Creighton have put together a legitimate at-large resume? SIU in 2007. Drake in 2008. Illinois State in 2009, maybe. UNI in 2010. Missouri State in 2011. That's all I can think of. In our eighth season since that big year, I can only think of five times the 2-10 MVC teams were even capable of being considered for an at-large spot, and it likely won't change this year. Eight years is a long time to have 90% of our conference only having five legitimately good years. And the fact that every team I could come up with is different is also concerning -- not one program has been able to put together two at-large argument years in an eight year period.

I do think Missouri St is on the upswing with Lusk, I wouldn't be surprised if they were a year away. I'm not as sold on Drake, they're kind of paper tigers with their profile right now.

How are you distinguishing Drake as a paper tiger from Missouri State? They've beat the same number of teams with winning records (2), Drake's SOS is about 100 ranks higher, Drake's RPI is higher, etc. MoSt looks like just as much of a paper tiger right now.

I do think MoSt could compete for an at-large bid next year, IF they schedule better and finally stop throwing 200+ SOS's out there, but I'm not sure how they're not a paper tiger in that idea. They were terrible against terrible competition last year -- they've been good against terrible competition this year. Otherwise we still don't know a lot about them to this point. MoSt has also been obliterated by the only good teams they've played -- the only two teams they've played that I expect to be in the RPI top 100 at the end of the year have beaten them by 20 and 30.

The only difference between Drake and MoSt to me at this point is that Drake wasn't supposed to be doing this, and MoSt was. I don't know how good either is.

Up until a month ago I was sold on the Ford era at Bradley. The good news is they have money to throw around, but the clock is ticking. The league needs the #2 spender to act like a #2 team. And to schedule like one. I'm about one more bad non-con schedule away from throwing an actual real riot about ours.

I was very optimistic about Bradley coming into this season, but ... yikes. This poor of a performance in year three with his own players is terrible and he has to be to blame for it. I'm still convinced that Bradley is the only team in the conference with the resources to compete with WSU long-term, but not like this. And the Valley's only hope of ever being a top 10 conference again lies with Bradley.

I do trust UNI longterm, that's a program with a track record of at least being relevant.

I trust UNI to be very good every three or four years, and at least decent in between. Solid but unspectacular. Again, one legitimate argument for an at-large bid in the last eight years. And they've been at least solid for those eight years.

Everyone else seems to be in various stages of building. We need a couple to hit, including Loyola, who needs to use their money wisely.

Everyone other than WSU, Creighton, and UNI have been in various stages of building for years now. And UNI is in a permanent cycle pattern.

[Play Angry]

rlh04d is one logical dude.

I enjoy his posts on here very much.

[TheAsianSensation]

Decline, or down cycle?

That's a good question. How long should a cycle last for it to be considered a long term trend rather than something you can realistically expect to cycle back?

Looking back since the year we sent so many teams in 2006, how many teams other than WSU and Creighton have put together a legitimate at-large resume? SIU in 2007. Drake in 2008. Illinois State in 2009, maybe. UNI in 2010. Missouri State in 2011. That's all I can think of. In our eighth season since that big year, I can only think of five times the 2-10 MVC teams were even capable of being considered for an at-large spot, and it likely won't change this year. Eight years is a long time to have 90% of our conference only having five legitimately good years. And the fact that every team I could come up with is different is also concerning -- not one program has been able to put together two at-large argument years in an eight year period.

The problem is that, based on on-court product, Illinois St was supposed to have a 2-3 year stretch where they would represent the at-large hope, but Jank scheduled so horribly. The thing about being in a cycle is that you take turns at the top. When ISU's turn came up, they ruined it with their SoS. So even though the Valley got 1 bid those years, I don't think that was as reflective of the actual state of the Valley as a whole (of course, the end result of at-large bids is the measuring stick).

To answer the question more literally, to add more teams...I think 2007 Bradley and MSU were close enough, definitely 2009 UNI. So 7 in 8 years, and figuring CU and WSU mostly in contention....averaging around 2.5 to 2.75 teams per year in at least the bubble discussion is about average compared to the 2000-2005 era (obviously 2006 is the outlier to end all outliers).

I do think the SoS issues (MSU a bit, ISU a lot) mask some of the down cycle as a permanent trend.

How are you distinguishing Drake as a paper tiger from Missouri State? They've beat the same number of teams with winning records (2), Drake's SOS is about 100 ranks higher, Drake's RPI is higher, etc. MoSt looks like just as much of a paper tiger right now.

I do think MoSt could compete for an at-large bid next year, IF they schedule better and finally stop throwing 200+ SOS's out there, but I'm not sure how they're not a paper tiger in that idea. They were terrible against terrible competition last year -- they've been good against terrible competition this year. Otherwise we still don't know a lot about them to this point. MoSt has also been obliterated by the only good teams they've played -- the only two teams they've played that I expect to be in the RPI top 100 at the end of the year have beaten them by 20 and 30.

The only difference between Drake and MoSt to me at this point is that Drake wasn't supposed to be doing this, and MoSt was. I don't know how good either is.

I admit I was doing a bit of projecting forward with that one. Numbers right now say Drake is better but I expect Drake and MSU to have similar non-con SoSs (rpiforecast suggests it's close, and so does my eye test). For example, I think @Oral Bob is a win MSU has that Drake can't come close to. And N-A&M is the 2nd best win between the two. And I honestly don't think Fresno or Omaha are good teams (who represent Drake's best wins right now I believe).

But that argument can be ceded until February since it's projection in nature.

I was very optimistic about Bradley coming into this season, but ... yikes. This poor of a performance in year three with his own players is terrible and he has to be to blame for it. I'm still convinced that Bradley is the only team in the conference with the resources to compete with WSU long-term, but not like this. And the Valley's only hope of ever being a top 10 conference again lies with Bradley.

The big problem with Bradley is the play of Lemon. Sometimes the complaints make it seem like he's the singular problem when it's not, but let's just say there's a lot of discontent. And Lemon is one of the few guys on the roster Ford inherited, and he didn't have much choice. The cupboard was so barren we had to keep him to be respectable. But now when we're supposed to be making The Leap, we're stuck with a Lemon who refuses to progress.

I think this is an addition by subtraction situation next year. Clear Lemon off the decks and another year of recruits and we'll be much better.

I trust UNI to be very good every three or four years, and at least decent in between. Solid but unspectacular. Again, one legitimate argument for an at-large bid in the last eight years. And they've been at least solid for those eight years.

And most importantly, they schedule up. Others need to learn from them.



Make no mistake, the Valley is down bigtime, but this feels like the floor, and I don't think we're on this level to stay. Wichita still earns the right to complain because it's happening during their apex.

[iSASO]

One of my greatest memories is 1991, when Creighton joined WSU in the College World Series. WSU can only hope for that kind of competition and companionship in the national limelight. Who will step up in basketball now that Creighton is gone?

[rlh04d]

The problem is that, based on on-court product, Illinois St was supposed to have a 2-3 year stretch where they would represent the at-large hope, but Jank scheduled so horribly. The thing about being in a cycle is that you take turns at the top. When ISU's turn came up, they ruined it with their SoS. So even though the Valley got 1 bid those years, I don't think that was as reflective of the actual state of the Valley as a whole (of course, the end result of at-large bids is the measuring stick).

To answer the question more literally, to add more teams...I think 2007 Bradley and MSU were close enough, definitely 2009 UNI. So 7 in 8 years, and figuring CU and WSU mostly in contention....averaging around 2.5 to 2.75 teams per year in at least the bubble discussion is about average compared to the 2000-2005 era (obviously 2006 is the outlier to end all outliers).

I do think the SoS issues (MSU a bit, ISU a lot) mask some of the down cycle as a permanent trend.

I'm not even using at-large bids as a measuring stick. I'm using just the ability to even make an argument for an at-large bid as a measuring stick. Not even "first four out," just "they deserve to be in the conversation."

Bradley and MoSt in 2007 you're right on -- maybe I should have started with 2008. I'd also add Illinois State in 2008. UNI in 2009 would have been pretty iffy with their 59 RPI and a 12 seed as an AQ, but they do qualify for the argument of one. So if we start in 2008, that's six teams that have had an at-large argument in the last seven years. I'm not counting Creighton with them gone -- the ten members now a part of the MVC have had eleven teams that could have received an at-large bid (five for WSU, six for the rest of the conference, counting this year). That's 1.57 teams a year, as the MVC is built now. Obviously most of that is swapping Creighton for Loyola, but that's what happens when a mid-major is entirely top-heavy.

And you can make the argument that SOS have hurt MoSt and Illinois State in putting up resumes, but they were also helped by those weak SOS years. IlSU for example, that 2009-2010 year almost certainly would have had under 20 wins with a higher SOS.

I admit I was doing a bit of projecting forward with that one. Numbers right now say Drake is better but I expect Drake and MSU to have similar non-con SoSs (rpiforecast suggests it's close, and so does my eye test). For example, I think @Oral Bob is a win MSU has that Drake can't come close to. And N-A&M is the 2nd best win between the two. And I honestly don't think Fresno or Omaha are good teams (who represent Drake's best wins right now I believe).

Good point. I hadn't looked at MoSt's projected SOS. Didn't realize it was expected to improve that much. Still, they're very similar.

The big problem with Bradley is the play of Lemon. Sometimes the complaints make it seem like he's the singular problem when it's not, but let's just say there's a lot of discontent. And Lemon is one of the few guys on the roster Ford inherited, and he didn't have much choice. The cupboard was so barren we had to keep him to be respectable. But now when we're supposed to be making The Leap, we're stuck with a Lemon who refuses to progress.

I think this is an addition by subtraction situation next year. Clear Lemon off the decks and another year of recruits and we'll be much better.

You're a lot more optimistic there than I am. I can't imagine the difference between Bradley being terrible and respectable is Lemon.

[TheAsianSensation]

And you can make the argument that SOS have hurt MoSt and Illinois State in putting up resumes, but they were also helped by those weak SOS years. IlSU for example, that 2009-2010 year almost certainly would have had under 20 wins with a higher SOS.

Probably right, and I am entering hypothetical land by doing so, but I'm of the mind that even a marginally better SoS would've been a big difference. As in, isu could've had a non-con SoS closer to 225 than 300 that year, had the same W-L record , and been much closer to the bubble.

Plus, there's a big difference spreading a 300 SoS (I'm looking at you, Bradley and Loyola and kinda SIU) and a 200 SoS. You'll do about the same, record-wise, against either, but one hurts the conference a lot less...

You're a lot more optimistic there than I am. I can't imagine the difference between Bradley being terrible and respectable is Lemon.

I think BU is a 7-11 or 8-10 team with Lemon. Take Lemon away, and I think BU is a 7-11 or 8-10 team. I think the presence of Lemon is actually actively hurting development of our younger players. But that's veering into a distinctly non-bracketology discussion

[bleach]

How much of the SOS problem is out of teams control? It's always been hard to get a game with a name team but seems like it's harder to get a mid like St Louis, Xavier, etc. than it used to be.