So we are tied with USF for third. Assuming we win two next week (Portland will not be an easy one ) we would be third alone with USF losing to Zags . Does that mean we are third seed ? Avoiding zags until Tuesday final would be great
No, because of the unbalanced schedule the seeding will be determined by a special KenPom algo… (God, I hate all this algo stuff) and not league record. My only hope is that SCU doesn’t get screwed into a 5th place finish behind BYU after the computer crunches numbers. I think you can pretty much pencil in Zags, SMC, USF as 1,2,3 right now.
My hope is that the KenPom algo is merely for tie-breaking purposes if all the teams have played either 15 or 16 games. Well, the Zags will only have played 14, but they’re a special case. If all goes as expected, SCU should be in third and USF in fourth. If SCU hadn’t backed out of the Portland game, there would be a bit more moral authority to raise hell if the WCC did anything different. But I’d still be pretty furious if USF were able to take 3rd with 6 losses over our (presumptive) 5.
I think it’s all going to be about the algo, and since USF beat SCU twice they’ll get 3rd. But, yes, that does tick me off. I just hope it doesn’t bump BYU in front of SCU too.
What would be interesting is if the league has conceded the 4th tourney bound team, and is trying to setup a 4-5 matchup between Usf and byu. Winner gets an NCAA ticket because of the extra quad 1 win. Takes us potentially upsetting one of them in the quarters out of it.
Just a random conspiracy theory
Let’s take care of the last two games of the season before we get ahead of ourselves on the tournament. If we win both games, then I think we would have a very good claim to fourth place since we would have a better record than BYU and would have beaten them in the only head to head meeting. Since USF beat us twice they would get third and we would be fourth if there is only a one game difference in the standings using ken prom metrics.
4th would likely have us playing BYU as 5th place and 3rd place would play whomever makes it through the initial rounds.
Pleased with showing versus Gonzaga and will need another solid performance to beat Portland who is very hot right now though Pepperdine played them tough so even Pepperdine is a challenge we can’t afford to overlook.
Personally and objectively, we would be deserving of the #4 seed if Broncos beat Pepp & UP this week. Assuming the Dons win 2 of 3 this week and finish a half game back, they deserve #3 seed as they swept us, and our decision not to play UP in Portland. That decision could cost us the #3 seed.
I know many of you have stated that conference standings won’t necessarily determine seeding, but there would be a valid complaint if SCU wins the next two and finishes #5 beneath BYU.
Conference record and head to head need to matter IMOP.
If we use the logic that USF would deserve #3 seed because they beat us twice, then that same logic should apply when comparing us to BYU. No way BYU deserves to leapfrog SCU in the seedings if they finish behind us in the standings.
I agree as it relates to BYU, but our refusal to play Portland up there results in 15 games, versus USF playing 16 games (assuming USF wins 2 of 3).
Now, if we were to beat Pepperdine and UP twice, your record is your record and it’s better than USF, and we deserve the #3 seed. Otherwise, USF has a legitimate gripe.
wholeheartedly agree, which is why I hope that USF stumbles in one of the three games this week.
also, I hope that the WCC doesn’t do BYU any favors, given that BYU is ditching our conference.
My understanding from how they used KenPom last year is that KenPom ratings only mattered for determining the quality of Wins/Losses within the conference. So what you did in non-conference only matters to your opponents (because it would help determine the quality of the W/L they got from playing you.) And I am not sure if there can be any pure ties in the standings that merit using a “tie-breaker” if they go with the adjusted KenPom model.
“The WCC partnered with Ken Pomeroy to develop a model that uses a proprietary algorithm that best reflects conference games completed and yields an adjusted conference winning percentage for each men’s and women’s basketball team. The adjusted conference winning percentage accounts for the strength of the opponent and the location (home/away) of the game played. The offensive and defensive efficiency metric is not utilized in the algorithm to determine a team’s adjusted conference winning percentage.“
To add another wrinkle …
wouldn’t it be a real kick to the crotch if SCU were to finish 3rd in the conference, yet the 1,2,4,5 seeds end up in the big dance, with SCU scratching and clawing to just maybe get a NIT bid?
Those late November and December losses will haunt us.
At least we don’t have any QUAD 4 losses.
Thanks for posting Bob.
I hope this is where it lands, advantageous to us, just 1 win this week will insure 4th place ahead of BYU, with a chance for 3rd if we win both.
And just makes sense…the delta in # of games isn’t that significant and even a full league schedule is inherently unbalanced given everyone doesn’t play everyone twice.
KenPom made sense last year as there was a huge disparity in # of games played and schedule difficulty…3 teams played only 9 or 10 games while 5 teams played 13 games or more.
another way to look at it from the conference leadership perspective: perhaps it is in the conference’s interest to have SCU finish #3. USF appears to be a lock for the big dance already (barring a really horrible meltdown); the Gaels are in and are playing quite well (I watched the game against BYU since I couldn’t watch our Zaga game, they are a bona fide tourney team with a great defense); Gonzaga needs no mention; and BYU just doesn’t really look good right now. If SCU seeds in the 3rd spot, gets through to the semis, the Broncos have already proven they can beat the Gaels. Would a finals appearance against the big Dogs be enough to squeak into the NCAA tourney?
The most likely outcome, of course, is that Gonzaga, SMC, and USF end up in the big dance, and BYU and SCU settle for the NIT. But hey, we can dream for more.
I like your optimism but I don’t see a viable path to an at-large NCAA bid. Needed another league win vs. SMC or USF plus at least 1, maybe 2 more non-con wins. Cal, Irvine, LA Tech…all winnable games with or w/o Vrankic, and Boise St. was in reach as well… missed opportunities.
If you like/believe Torvik, his probability of at-large bids are:
Without Spokane Duke, I could talk myself into a WCC tourney run and us stealing a bid, NIT is still in play.
yeah, I know it’s a pipe dream, but I tell you, I miss those trips to the Big Dance in the Nash years. Couldn’t make it to the March 1993 game (win vs. AZ), but I was in Boise (loss to Miss. State) in 1995, and in Tempe (beat Maryland, then crushed by Kansas) in 1996. Those trips made me hungry for more…and I’ve been starving ever since!
Completely agree; if SCU and BYU end up with identical records, SCU deserves the higher seed by winning the head to head matchup. And as you noted, BYU is bolting the WCC for greener pastures, so placating their program should no longer be a concern for the league.
I hear you, I miss the NCAA trips as well.
And we had seasons post-Nash where winning the league tourney and auto-bid were very real possibilities.
If it makes you feel any better, Torvik gives us a 2.4% chance of winning the WCC tourney: …so there’s that. Better than no chance, right??? A hair better than BYU’s chances and the bottom half of the WCC is 0%.