GW Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Kansas is ranked 5th and duke 6th and each have 6 losses. Kansas RPI and strength of schedule is #1, Duke's RPI is 6 with sos of 5. Both teams are very good no doubt, but 5th and 6th? The next highest ranked team with 6 or more losses is Michigan at 16th. I'm aware that both teams played strong schedules and have good wins. I believe two factors are at play here- name recognition and over emphasis on rpi/sos. If SLU played the same schedule and had the same record as either of these two teams would SLU be ranked 5th or 6th? Even within their specific conferences- if TCU played Kansas's schedule or virgina tech played Duke's schedule and had 6 losses would they be ranked this high? I say probably not. Having an elite name with a given record seems to have a positive effect upon one's ranking... The defense of the high ranking will probably come down to RPI and SOS- they deserve the ranking it will be claimed, even with 6 losses, based upon the quality of the schedule. I don't think anyone would argue that a team playing a stronger schedule doesn't deserve some loss leeway, but how far does that go? One interesting thing to compare would be how would SLU fair playing Kansas/Duke's schedule and vice versa. To be ranked 10th like SLU, Kansas or Duke would need to have 7 (or more??) losses. Would SLU only have 7 losses with a Kansas/Duke schedule? Who knows, but it would be interesting to see us have that type of opportunity though... What if they played our schedule? Being ranked 5/6 is probably where SLU would be if they had suffered only 1 loss. So the question is could they play our schedule and have only 1 loss? I say probably not. Playing Wisconsin and wichita state, I would expect either of them to go 1 and 1, on average. There is their one loss. They now have to play the rest of the schedule perfect and undefeated- no bad shooting nights, no hot shooting teams, everything has to fall right. Again, it probably doesn't happen....they probably play our schedule and net 2 or 3 losses on average. OK, their schedule is tough, fine. Let's do a hypothetical to maximize the tough schedule idea and see what happens. They are each 22-6, so have played 28 games. Let's say that instead of their "tough schedule" they instead play the toughest one possible( without playing an opponent multiple times)- the 28 games they play will be against the top 29 teams in the country. Now, let's suppose that somehow they manage to have the same 22-6 record playing the top 29. Where would they be ranked in this 29 team field? Let's say that all you have to determine rankings is the result of each of the top 29 vs Kansas/Duke- no other information but this outcome is available. I assume most would rank the teams in a logical order of the 6 teams that beat them being ranked 1-6 with probably #1 being the team with the largest victory margin and team #6 being the one with the smallest victory margin. You would then rank Kansas/Duke 7th. Teams 8 through 29 would be those who lost the game, again ranked according to loss margin. Sound about right? Well notice that even with schedule maximization they would STILL BE OVER- RANKED!! Schedule maximization yields a rank of 7 and they are ranked 5 and 6. Obviously, the schedules they have played, while strong, pale in comparison to schedule maximization... But still, you may say, disregarding the schedule, their rpi's justify their rank. Heck they may be under-ranked according to rpi since Kansas is #1 rpi with duke at 6. My opinion is RPI is fundamentally flawed and the main usefulness of it is simply that its a tool that the selection committee uses. RPI has 2 issues. One it does not consider victory margin- whether you win or lose by 50 or 1 is not important- the result is all that matters. Secondly, it vastly over-emphasizes your schedule versus your results. Only 25% of the RPI calculation is based on your performance- 75% is based on who you have played (50% being your opponents record and 25% being opponents opponents record). Let's do a hypothetical again. Let's say I grab 5 random people off the street and form a basketball team out of them. I then take this "team" and play Syracuse 28 times last week when they were still undefeated. The outcome is as expected zero wins 28 losses- heck they don't even score a single point they are so overmatched. This is the worst team in history, but what is their RPI rank? Well, let's see. 25% is the result of performance so with zero wins they receive 0 points. 50% is the result of opponents record and since Syracuse at the time is undefeated they receive a full 50 RPI points. 25% is the result of opponents opponents record and since its an ACC team I'll guestimate a 60% win/loss record collectively so that gives another 15 RPI points for a total of 65 RPI points. As of today 65 RPI would be ranked #7 in the country!! SOS would be #1. I suppose this winless hapless team should expect a tournament invite and a high seed with those strong numbers... (just kidding of course but the point remains that a ranking system that could rank the worst possible team #7 is flawed to the point of uselessness... Oh and if the above example used Wichita state to be more current it would yield a rpi of about 62.5 (figuring the opponents oppontents at 50% win/loss) which would be ranked #17 today and sos still #1...). Since we do not have the ability to produce a Kansas/duke type schedule and thus reap the above rewards, I'm wondering if the way to go may be a complete crap schedule. For instance, let's say SLU instead of playing Wisconsin and Wichita state and losing instead threw in 2 extra cupcakes and are now undefeated. Granted our schedule strength takes a hit, but an undefeated SLU would certainly be ranked higher than a 2 loss SLU- probably along the lines of Wichita state maybe even #1 since the A10 is much stronger than the valley. So perhaps the way to go is either play a weak schedule where you have a chance of being undefeated (and thus remain a mystery and be given the benefit of the doubt...) or play a strong Kansas/duke type schedule where you can lose a lot, allowing a high margin for error, and still be ranked high. Anything else in the middle appears not to be the ideal.... Oh well, there's nothing we can do about it. I just wanted to complain and I feel better now. Whether anyone agrees or disagrees I will have no follow up posts. Thanks for reading... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NextYearBill Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I got through the first 2 sentences. wow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MUDKAT Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 The missing link in the argument is that KU played a brutal OOC schedule and is 17-3 against tough competiton the last 20 games. They also took out Duke. I would argue that either of our teams would not have 22 wins against that schedule. As for Duke, I have no idea. They just get the love no matter what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 My personal inclinations/biases are that bad losses should hurt more than they typically do in the rankings (especially for the big name programs), and margin of victory/defeat should matter less than it typically does in the computer models. Duke has two bad losses (Notre Dame, Clemson). Given those two games, I do think it's overrating Duke to put them in the top 6 at this point. Kansas has shown signs of being beatable but so far they haven't stumbled in any of their close games to give them a truly bad loss. They're a little like us in that respect, actually. I do think their record against the super-elite teams tends to get exaggerated slightly, considering they're only 1-2 against the RPI top 10, 4-3 against the top 20, 7-5 against the top 30, and 12-6 against the top 50. But I think their current ranking is about right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlarry Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I got through the first 2 sentences. wow I beat ya, I got to the 4th sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MUDKAT Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 My personal inclinations/biases are that bad losses should hurt more than they typically do in the rankings (especially for the big name programs), and margin of victory/defeat should matter less than it typically does in the computer models. Duke has two bad losses (Notre Dame, Clemson). Given those two games, I do think it's overrating Duke to put them in the top 5 at this point. Kansas has shown signs of being beatable but so far they haven't stumbled in any of their close games to give them a truly bad loss. They're a little like us in that respect, actually. I do think their record against the super-elite teams tends to get exaggerated slightly, considering they're only 1-2 against the RPI top 10, 4-3 against the top 20, 7-5 against the top 30, and 12-6 against the top 50. But I think their current ranking is about right. Duck Sucks. Hate the Duck. UNC or UVA will eliminate them from the ACC tourney. They are overrated. It's a media love thing. Best night of my CBB life was when Maynor shaked and baked and canned that 18 footer to dump them in the first round. I can put up the video (which is awesome), but it prolly will get me hammered here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 No, not overrated. Really good teams that have played against the best in the country and have dropped some games, but are probably better prepared than most to play in the tourney. If I'm either team, I like my chances a lot against any team in the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Not overrated at all. You have to remember both teams dropped games early while having freshmen play a significant role. I would argue that Kentucky is underrated at 17 for the same reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 No, not overrated. Really good teams that have played against the best in the country and have dropped some games, but are probably better prepared than most to play in the tourney. If I'm either team, I like my chances a lot against any team in the country. Any team except Notre Dame and Clemson. Duke's losses haven't all been to the best in the country. Not even close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 No, not overrated. Really good teams that have played against the best in the country and have dropped some games, but are probably better prepared than most to play in the tourney. If I'm either team, I like my chances a lot against any team in the country. +1....I have Duke at #3 & KU #5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Not overrated at all. You have to remember both teams dropped games early while having freshmen play a significant role. I would argue that Kentucky is underrated at 17 for the same reasons. I have Ky at #13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Any team except Notre Dame and Clemson. Duke's losses haven't all been to the best in the country. Not even close. Not saying all their losses are against the best, but Duke has played Syracuse, Arizona and Kansas as well as some other teams in the 20-40 ranked area (Pitt, mich, UNC). I'm no Duke homer, but they've played some of the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVBilliken Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Duke - yes for sure. Kansas - #1 Team, or should be! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMDG Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Kansas is ranked 5th and duke 6th and each have 6 losses. Kansas RPI and strength of schedule is #1, Duke's RPI is 6 with sos of 5. Both teams are very good no doubt, but 5th and 6th? The next highest ranked team with 6 or more losses is Michigan at 16th. I'm aware that both teams played strong schedules and have good wins. I believe two factors are at play here- name recognition and over emphasis on rpi/sos. If SLU played the same schedule and had the same record as either of these two teams would SLU be ranked 5th or 6th? Even within their specific conferences- if TCU played Kansas's schedule or virgina tech played Duke's schedule and had 6 losses would they be ranked this high? I say probably not. Having an elite name with a given record seems to have a positive effect upon one's ranking... The defense of the high ranking will probably come down to RPI and SOS- they deserve the ranking it will be claimed, even with 6 losses, based upon the quality of the schedule. I don't think anyone would argue that a team playing a stronger schedule doesn't deserve some loss leeway, but how far does that go? One interesting thing to compare would be how would SLU fair playing Kansas/Duke's schedule and vice versa. To be ranked 10th like SLU, Kansas or Duke would need to have 7 (or more??) losses. Would SLU only have 7 losses with a Kansas/Duke schedule? Who knows, but it would be interesting to see us have that type of opportunity though... What if they played our schedule? Being ranked 5/6 is probably where SLU would be if they had suffered only 1 loss. So the question is could they play our schedule and have only 1 loss? I say probably not. Playing Wisconsin and wichita state, I would expect either of them to go 1 and 1, on average. There is their one loss. They now have to play the rest of the schedule perfect and undefeated- no bad shooting nights, no hot shooting teams, everything has to fall right. Again, it probably doesn't happen....they probably play our schedule and net 2 or 3 losses on average. OK, their schedule is tough, fine. Let's do a hypothetical to maximize the tough schedule idea and see what happens. They are each 22-6, so have played 28 games. Let's say that instead of their "tough schedule" they instead play the toughest one possible( without playing an opponent multiple times)- the 28 games they play will be against the top 29 teams in the country. Now, let's suppose that somehow they manage to have the same 22-6 record playing the top 29. Where would they be ranked in this 29 team field? Let's say that all you have to determine rankings is the result of each of the top 29 vs Kansas/Duke- no other information but this outcome is available. I assume most would rank the teams in a logical order of the 6 teams that beat them being ranked 1-6 with probably #1 being the team with the largest victory margin and team #6 being the one with the smallest victory margin. You would then rank Kansas/Duke 7th. Teams 8 through 29 would be those who lost the game, again ranked according to loss margin. Sound about right? Well notice that even with schedule maximization they would STILL BE OVER- RANKED!! Schedule maximization yields a rank of 7 and they are ranked 5 and 6. Obviously, the schedules they have played, while strong, pale in comparison to schedule maximization... But still, you may say, disregarding the schedule, their rpi's justify their rank. Heck they may be under-ranked according to rpi since Kansas is #1 rpi with duke at 6. My opinion is RPI is fundamentally flawed and the main usefulness of it is simply that its a tool that the selection committee uses. RPI has 2 issues. One it does not consider victory margin- whether you win or lose by 50 or 1 is not important- the result is all that matters. Secondly, it vastly over-emphasizes your schedule versus your results. Only 25% of the RPI calculation is based on your performance- 75% is based on who you have played (50% being your opponents record and 25% being opponents opponents record). Let's do a hypothetical again. Let's say I grab 5 random people off the street and form a basketball team out of them. I then take this "team" and play Syracuse 28 times last week when they were still undefeated. The outcome is as expected zero wins 28 losses- heck they don't even score a single point they are so overmatched. This is the worst team in history, but what is their RPI rank? Well, let's see. 25% is the result of performance so with zero wins they receive 0 points. 50% is the result of opponents record and since Syracuse at the time is undefeated they receive a full 50 RPI points. 25% is the result of opponents opponents record and since its an ACC team I'll guestimate a 60% win/loss record collectively so that gives another 15 RPI points for a total of 65 RPI points. As of today 65 RPI would be ranked #7 in the country!! SOS would be #1. I suppose this winless hapless team should expect a tournament invite and a high seed with those strong numbers... (just kidding of course but the point remains that a ranking system that could rank the worst possible team #7 is flawed to the point of uselessness... Oh and if the above example used Wichita state to be more current it would yield a rpi of about 62.5 (figuring the opponents oppontents at 50% win/loss) which would be ranked #17 today and sos still #1...). Since we do not have the ability to produce a Kansas/duke type schedule and thus reap the above rewards, I'm wondering if the way to go may be a complete crap schedule. For instance, let's say SLU instead of playing Wisconsin and Wichita state and losing instead threw in 2 extra cupcakes and are now undefeated. Granted our schedule strength takes a hit, but an undefeated SLU would certainly be ranked higher than a 2 loss SLU- probably along the lines of Wichita state maybe even #1 since the A10 is much stronger than the valley. So perhaps the way to go is either play a weak schedule where you have a chance of being undefeated (and thus remain a mystery and be given the benefit of the doubt...) or play a strong Kansas/duke type schedule where you can lose a lot, allowing a high margin for error, and still be ranked high. Anything else in the middle appears not to be the ideal.... Oh well, there's nothing we can do about it. I just wanted to complain and I feel better now. Whether anyone agrees or disagrees I will have no follow up posts. Thanks for reading... You aren't into the whole brevity thing, are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franchise_08 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Speaking of Duke, even their crappy games are on the four letter network. Duke vs Va Tech on ESPNU. Do they leave their cameras their after the games? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Pelican Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 GW, are you a law student or lawyer? Lordy. Or maybe thinking of a career in politics? At least you used some paragraphs and I thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almaman Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 whole problem could be solved if NCAA wasn't so useless. within the the leagues there should be some mandated parity of OOC schedule strength. I'd rather have MLB pct winners than this elite teams all beating up at 800%+ clip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68Alum Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Watched a ton of games this year, coast to coast. This late in the season there is plenty of tape on every team and in-conference familiarity. I think the road record is critical evidence, and any one of the top 50 teams can beat another depending on the match-up dynamics on a given night, particularly on a neutral court. The only other important variable is the degree of bias by the refs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Kansas is ranked 5th and duke 6th and each have 6 losses. Kansas RPI and strength of schedule is #1, Duke's RPI is 6 with sos of 5. Both teams are very good no doubt, but 5th and 6th? The next highest ranked team with 6 or more losses is Michigan at 16th. I'm aware that both teams played strong schedules and have good wins. I believe two factors are at play here- name recognition and over emphasis on rpi/sos. If SLU played the same schedule and had the same record as either of these two teams would SLU be ranked 5th or 6th? Even within their specific conferences- if TCU played Kansas's schedule or virgina tech played Duke's schedule and had 6 losses would they be ranked this high? I say probably not. Having an elite name with a given record seems to have a positive effect upon one's ranking... The defense of the high ranking will probably come down to RPI and SOS- they deserve the ranking it will be claimed, even with 6 losses, based upon the quality of the schedule. I don't think anyone would argue that a team playing a stronger schedule doesn't deserve some loss leeway, but how far does that go? One interesting thing to compare would be how would SLU fair playing Kansas/Duke's schedule and vice versa. To be ranked 10th like SLU, Kansas or Duke would need to have 7 (or more??) losses. Would SLU only have 7 losses with a Kansas/Duke schedule? Who knows, but it would be interesting to see us have that type of opportunity though... What if they played our schedule? Being ranked 5/6 is probably where SLU would be if they had suffered only 1 loss. So the question is could they play our schedule and have only 1 loss? I say probably not. Playing Wisconsin and wichita state, I would expect either of them to go 1 and 1, on average. There is their one loss. They now have to play the rest of the schedule perfect and undefeated- no bad shooting nights, no hot shooting teams, everything has to fall right. Again, it probably doesn't happen....they probably play our schedule and net 2 or 3 losses on average. OK, their schedule is tough, fine. Let's do a hypothetical to maximize the tough schedule idea and see what happens. They are each 22-6, so have played 28 games. Let's say that instead of their "tough schedule" they instead play the toughest one possible( without playing an opponent multiple times)- the 28 games they play will be against the top 29 teams in the country. Now, let's suppose that somehow they manage to have the same 22-6 record playing the top 29. Where would they be ranked in this 29 team field? Let's say that all you have to determine rankings is the result of each of the top 29 vs Kansas/Duke- no other information but this outcome is available. I assume most would rank the teams in a logical order of the 6 teams that beat them being ranked 1-6 with probably #1 being the team with the largest victory margin and team #6 being the one with the smallest victory margin. You would then rank Kansas/Duke 7th. Teams 8 through 29 would be those who lost the game, again ranked according to loss margin. Sound about right? Well notice that even with schedule maximization they would STILL BE OVER- RANKED!! Schedule maximization yields a rank of 7 and they are ranked 5 and 6. Obviously, the schedules they have played, while strong, pale in comparison to schedule maximization... But still, you may say, disregarding the schedule, their rpi's justify their rank. Heck they may be under-ranked according to rpi since Kansas is #1 rpi with duke at 6. My opinion is RPI is fundamentally flawed and the main usefulness of it is simply that its a tool that the selection committee uses. RPI has 2 issues. One it does not consider victory margin- whether you win or lose by 50 or 1 is not important- the result is all that matters. Secondly, it vastly over-emphasizes your schedule versus your results. Only 25% of the RPI calculation is based on your performance- 75% is based on who you have played (50% being your opponents record and 25% being opponents opponents record). Let's do a hypothetical again. Let's say I grab 5 random people off the street and form a basketball team out of them. I then take this "team" and play Syracuse 28 times last week when they were still undefeated. The outcome is as expected zero wins 28 losses- heck they don't even score a single point they are so overmatched. This is the worst team in history, but what is their RPI rank? Well, let's see. 25% is the result of performance so with zero wins they receive 0 points. 50% is the result of opponents record and since Syracuse at the time is undefeated they receive a full 50 RPI points. 25% is the result of opponents opponents record and since its an ACC team I'll guestimate a 60% win/loss record collectively so that gives another 15 RPI points for a total of 65 RPI points. As of today 65 RPI would be ranked #7 in the country!! SOS would be #1. I suppose this winless hapless team should expect a tournament invite and a high seed with those strong numbers... (just kidding of course but the point remains that a ranking system that could rank the worst possible team #7 is flawed to the point of uselessness... Oh and if the above example used Wichita state to be more current it would yield a rpi of about 62.5 (figuring the opponents oppontents at 50% win/loss) which would be ranked #17 today and sos still #1...). Since we do not have the ability to produce a Kansas/duke type schedule and thus reap the above rewards, I'm wondering if the way to go may be a complete crap schedule. For instance, let's say SLU instead of playing Wisconsin and Wichita state and losing instead threw in 2 extra cupcakes and are now undefeated. Granted our schedule strength takes a hit, but an undefeated SLU would certainly be ranked higher than a 2 loss SLU- probably along the lines of Wichita state maybe even #1 since the A10 is much stronger than the valley. So perhaps the way to go is either play a weak schedule where you have a chance of being undefeated (and thus remain a mystery and be given the benefit of the doubt...) or play a strong Kansas/duke type schedule where you can lose a lot, allowing a high margin for error, and still be ranked high. Anything else in the middle appears not to be the ideal.... Oh well, there's nothing we can do about it. I just wanted to complain and I feel better now. Whether anyone agrees or disagrees I will have no follow up posts. Thanks for reading... What? KU and Duke are top notch teams and play big time schedules both in and out of conference. You have to admire that approach. Both are very capable of reaching The Final Four, IMO KU much more than Duke. Duke is not big and physical enough up front, especially considering NCAA Tournament style officiating. I think KU can win it all, Duke can possibly get to The Final Four if they shoot "lights out" but also could fail in the 2nd or 3rd round against a tough matchup against a quality physical team. To boot, both have young teams that needed time to jell and figure out their roles and are playing better of late. You (and smith) do not understand the dynamics of teams that play top notch grueling schedules throughout the year, game after game, with almost no breaks. Hey, the goddam Wiz has Duke # 3, KU # 5. My Vegas reference has KU # 2, three way tied with Duke and Florida. There will be losses and even a letdown loss or two to lesser teams after getting fired up for top notch teams game after game. 6 losses with those schedules = out fouckingstanding, you have to ask yourself, would Wichita State be undefeated playing that schedule? 30-0? Please answer, what do you think their record would be, and why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigboybeard Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 All this talk, whats lost in the mix is Duke has a top 3 ranked offense this year. According to kenpom, it is the #2 offense in the country. With something like that to back you, you could beat anyone in the country. Duke isn't overrated, just hated. Same goes with Kansas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgstl Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Duke - yes for sure. Kansas - #1 Team, or should be! No.. they lost at home to a team who will be out of top 25 very soon. And they beat duke well before duke improved, a rematch would probably be duke by 11. So many teams take ku to the ropes. Colorado isnt even good.. nova got murdered twice by creighton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MUDKAT Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Duke has 13 games so far against teams outside the 100 RPI. Lost 1 of them. So, 13 of their 23 wins are sub 100. Compare that to Kansas has 4 and has won 12 against the top 50. All of their losses are vs top 50 teams. The numbers kinda favor Kansas. Oh and Wichita State has 24 outside the top 100, just for informational purposes. 2 vs top 50. They'll be gone in the round of 32. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MUDKAT Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 If anyone cares MIzzou pretty much sent themselves to the NIT with their loss to GA last night unless they do a number in their tourney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taj79 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 What's a Mizzou? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir boxington Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I think you have to look at the voters. Sports writers and coaches. The writers are generally lazy and don't want to go through the process of actually rating teams. They vote for names early in the season and just move them around as they win or lose. They have the blue bloods etched in their minds. If Wichita had not made the Final 4 last year, they would be just above SLU at 9. As for the coaches, most of them seem to vote based on who they played this year or plan to play in the future. They will do whatever they can to help promote their own team. Their bonuses are affected by that. Conversely, the blue bloods all know who votes. It's not hard for Self, K, Petino etc. to keep telling the voters' teams that "we'll keep you on our short list for OCC games next year." (or their SID's or AD's) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.