GatewayRedbirds.com

Hungary Jack wrote:Ack. Another [expletive] loss for the Wildcats.

vinsanity wrote:

Hungary Jack wrote:Ack. Another [expletive] loss for the Wildcats.

Wewt.

Hungary Jack wrote:But year, they scored 51 points in the 2nd half and still lost by 10. Purdue just could not miss.

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:I'm pretty sure they are barred from playing in the St. Louis regional because they are the host school.

As far as seeding, there's some pretty disparate opinions, but the current consensus is about a 10 seed. If they win out, they might be able to get to 6-7 depending on how the rest of the country shakes out. Not much margin for error though, they're only 1-2 against the RPI top 50(and the 1 is against #50) and anything preventing a shiny win streak to close the season probably kills their chances of getting favored/top 8 seed.

I have discovered a funny and unique twist in the saga of computer rankings (and about their sourcing of information).

I was looking at Ken Massey's grid of all the rankings [ http://www.masseyrat.../cb/compare.htm ] and was looking at the spread of rankings. Ken Pom (as discussed often here and by Timmerman] has SLU at 10. But what about those rankings that have SLU high? Sport Theory has SLU at 51, Jeff Self has SLU at 47, Jeff Bihl has SLU at 46, and Rothman/Wolfe has SLU at 47. So I was curious, what is it about SLU that makes them look worse in those rankings than in other rankings? We know SLU does well in systems that use MOV and Efficiency but they are also racking up a lot of wins so in pure win rankings (like RPI) they are doing well too.

Well, to make a long story short the 4 ranking systems that have SLU above 40 all include exhibition games! The 2 Carleton game losses, Stritch win, and UIS games are in (the other canada games are not used so it is not even accurate in including exhibitions). I think the Stritch win might hurt us more than Carleton losses because of SOS in some systems. This is because the source of their game information is Ken Massey who includes all game information but nearly all the rankers/analysts have the good sense to program their systems to exclude non-DI or exhibitions (because there are fields in the data to do this). So SLU is ranked poorly by bad programmers as well as certain selective "eye tests".

Last week, I joked that the Carleton losses hurt us in our Massey rankings (which they do in his all basketball divisions rankings but not in his NCAA-DI rankings) and it turns out it is not a joke.

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:The Mock Selection committee of reporters that went to NCAA headquarters just released their bracket. http://blogs.courier-journal.com/ericcr ... -56-47-pm/

Of note:

Mizzou a 1 in St. Louis
SLU a 9
Mo State a 13