Wichita State

[sportsnut2]

Are they getting any consideration at all for the NCAA tourney? To me, and I know I am biased, but I don't see how Illinois can be considered before Wichita. I know they base it all on numbers, like SOS, RPI, etc. But come on, WSU has had a great season, and their record should speak for itself.

Just my thoughts. Would be curious to see how you feel about this.

[SaintLouBrave22]

There's minor consideration, but Seton Hall and South Florida winning yesterday and a win by Rhode Island and Dayton in their respective tourneys didn't help their cause...


They'll be on the out looking in unfortunately because of the poor scheduling (as cited) in the Valley this year by most teams...


They should get a decent NIT seed though as they are undefeated at home AND they sellout every game, a real strong draw for the committee.

[LittleBrave]

Even with a win at Bradley, I don't think they'd make it.
They lost at Utah St. - not really even close, and lost by double-digits to UNI.
I'm thinking a #2 or #3 seed in the NIT.

[MacabreMob]

I'm thinking a #3 seed in the NIT (at best - maybe a 4).

[Future Walk-On]

Gottlieb mentioned them on ESPN yesterday as out for the reasons stated in like the 1st reply to this thread.

He called them the "wheat shockers"

Did they officially remove the "wheat" from their name? I still call them the wheat shockers it is an interesting, unique name.....

[KillerB]

Both Illinois and Wichita are considered bubble teams. If Illinois makes a run in the Big 10 tournament they might make it. Otherwise they'll be looking at the NIT.

WSU.. as posted on several other threads.. has an excellent record but suffers from an bad scheduling. Their SOS is weak and that works against them. Doug Elgin thinks they probably will not make the cut and are NIT bound.

[houstontxbrave]

Illinois stays in the conversations because they are in the Big Ten?

Because other then that, I can not see any real reason why, a team who has lost 5 of their last 6 and 3 of those losses were by 19, 16 and 15 and 3 of those 5 losses were at home, they have no true value as an NCAA team.

If Illinois were named Wichita State they would never be given any consideration.

And I love this quote from the following article:

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/ncb/columns/story?columnist=greenberg_jon&id=4978187

"It's not as if the Illini have been playing the Summit League, but playing against the best is why major conference schools get first crack at prized at-large bids with 19 or 20 wins. The so-called high-major programs get a little extra rope, but it's starting to get taut like a tight orange necktie."

I could have sworn conference affliation had nothing to do with selection. So per this writer, if you play in a BCS conference, regardless of how bad you dont pass any "eye test" you get more consideration... well just because.

[MacabreMob]

Illinois stays in the conversations because they are in the Big Ten?

Because other then that, I can not see any real reason why, a team who has lost 5 of their last 6 and 3 of those losses were by 19, 16 and 15 and 3 of those 5 losses were at home, they have no true value as an NCAA team.

If Illinois were named Wichita State they would never be given any consideration.

And I love this quote from the following article:

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/ncb/columns/story?columnist=greenberg_jon&id=4978187

"It's not as if the Illini have been playing the Summit League, but playing against the best is why major conference schools get first crack at prized at-large bids with 19 or 20 wins. The so-called high-major programs get a little extra rope, but it's starting to get taut like a tight orange necktie."

I could have sworn conference affliation had nothing to do with selection. So per this writer, if you play in a BCS conference, regardless of how bad you dont pass any "eye test" you get more consideration... well just because.

I agree with you.

I just want to add that the Illini remain in the discussion cause they have 4 Top 27 RPI wins. 2 of them on the road.

Also - the committee isn't to be looking at how teams do down the stretch. Used to be a "factor" considered... how a team did in last 10 or 12. But not this year - the whole season is to be looked at completely. Games in November are to be just as important. (however, each committee member may weigh something heavier on their own)

Plus - injuries aren't to be considered a (major) factor. This benefits the Illini as well, beating Mich St without Lucas and winning at Wisky without Leuer.

[TheAsianSensation]

Only 3 teams in the entire country have more RPI Top 25 wins than Illinois.

That's what's saving their bacon.

Wichita St is closer to the cutline than you think. They're in play. However, why is no one talking about them? They're done. Everyone else below them can still play their way in. WSU can't. Therefore, why waste time talking about a team that can't play their way in?

[TheAsianSensation]

p.s. Talking about all this just reminds you how the committee wants to change the rules regarding team evaluation. Year after year, some tweaks. PICK A GOD**** SYSTEM OF PICKING TEAMS, PICK THE GOD**** STATS, RECORDS, AND RANKINGS YOU WANT TO USE, AND GO WITH IT AND STOP CHANGING YOUR STUPID IMBECILE MINDS EVERY FREAKING YEAR. I mean, c'mon.

[houstontxbrave]

I agree with you.

I just want to add that the Illini remain in the discussion cause they have 4 Top 27 RPI wins. 2 of them on the road.

Also - the committee isn't to be looking at how teams do down the stretch. Used to be a "factor" considered... how a team did in last 10 or 12. But not this year - the whole season is to be looked at completely. Games in November are to be just as important. (however, each committee member may weigh something heavier on their own)

Plus - injuries aren't to be considered a (major) factor. This benefits the Illini as well, beating Mich St without Lucas and winning at Wisky without Leuer.

I understand the credit for the 4 good wins, but arent those a little out of date, so to speak, when you look at the loses to Georgia, Bradley, Minnesota, Utah and Northwestern?

It just looks like they are getting lots of "rope" for the wins but not as much negativity for the poor losses.

And their RPI winning opportunites are glorified just simply because of who they are in the same conference with, same thing goes for all BCS's.

The whole thing is a crock of BS. Schools get credit for RPI good wins, even though they get more opportunites to play RPI good teams. It makes zero sense for RPI to be a factor, when all schools are not given the same scheduling opportuinites.

[Bravesfan]

p.s. Talking about all this just reminds you how the committee wants to change the rules regarding team evaluation. Year after year, some tweaks. PICK A GOD**** SYSTEM OF PICKING TEAMS, PICK THE GOD**** STATS, RECORDS, AND RANKINGS YOU WANT TO USE, AND GO WITH IT AND STOP CHANGING YOUR STUPID IMBECILE MINDS EVERY FREAKING YEAR. I mean, c'mon.

Very well put TAS! Every year they tweak the selection criteria when some mid-major team and/or conference "beats the system". Just go with one way of figuring this all out and stick with it.

As far as Illinois is concerned, they have some darn good wins, far better than anything WSU did outside of their win over UNI during the regular season. And when things really counted, they could not hold a candle against them.

My problem with the Illini is that they have been playing like rubbish lately and don't have the look of an NCAA team (I'm basing that on stats, btw, NOT the "eye test"! ). But they definitely should be considered ahead of WSU because of their great wins. That writer from Chicago that was mentioned above obviously has no clue how the selection committee is supposed to pick the teams.

I also agree that WSU may not be as far off the bubble as some think. They have to see how the other conference tournaments play out, but fewer upsets keeps them around at least for awhile.

[Indy_BB]

WSU eliminated themselves sometime before the season when they decided that playing that non-conference schedule was a good idea. Unless you are in the Big East or ACC, you aren't getting an at-large bid playing one of the weakest OOC schedules in the country.

[Bravesfan]

I understand the credit for the 4 good wins, but arent those a little out of date, so to speak, when you look at the loses to Georgia, Bradley, Minnesota, Utah and Northwestern?

It just looks like they are getting lots of "rope" for the wins but not as much negativity for the poor losses.

And their RPI winning opportunites are glorified just simply because of who they are in the same conference with, same thing goes for all BCS's.

The whole thing is a crock of BS. Schools get credit for RPI good wins, even though they get more opportunites to play RPI good teams. It makes zero sense for RPI to be a factor, when all schools are not given the same scheduling opportuinites.

Well in all fairness to Illinois and the BCS, if you are lucky enough to play in one of those conferences, of course these teams will get far more opportunities to make an impact.

That's exactly why the Valley teams need to strengthen their schedules and win games against the BCS. Then we can repeat what we accomplished in 2006 when conference wins actually weighed as much as BCS wins.

[Bravesfan]

WSU eliminated themselves sometime before the season when they decided that playing that non-conference schedule was a good idea. Unless you are in the Big East or ACC, you aren't getting an at-large bid playing one of the weakest OOC schedules in the country.

Well, unless they won 17 or 18 games in the Valley. Then the winning percentage would have probably been enough to overcome a bad OOC schedule.