The Wichita State conundrum and a proposed solution

The Selection Committee got it wrong again.

Just one year after seeding the Wichita State Shockers as a No. 11 and sending them to the First Four in Dayton, the Committee once again under-seeded the mid-major powerhouse.

For those of you who may have missed it, Wichita State is a No. 10 seed after amassing a 30-4 record, sharing the Missouri Valley Conference regular season title and winning the league’s postseason tournament.

Yes, the Missouri Valley is a weak conference. Outside of the Illinois State Redbirds, no other team in the league had an argument to even be in the bubble discussion ahead of Selection Sunday, but that’s why smart people have created statistics to help adjust for college basketball’s unbalanced schedules and the quality of opposition.

Every single one of those metrics tells us that the Shockers should be seeded higher. Wichita State is the eighth best team in the country according to KenPom’s adjusted efficiency margin. It is 11th in the Sagarin Ratings, 14th over at Team Rankings and 15th in ESPN’s BPI. In every single one of those performance-based metrics, the Shockers rank higher than No. 2 seeded Arizona, No. 3 seeded Baylor and No. 3 seeded Florida State.

Need more evidence that Wichita State is good? The Shockers opened as a 6.5-point favorite over the No. 7 seeded Dayton Flyers for their opening round game and the likelihood that they beat Dayton is higher than the probability of No. 6 Cincinnati beating either No. 11 Kansas State or Wake Forest in their first round matchup, according to FiveThirtyEight.

The current process for seeding and selection, which focuses heavily on RPI top 50 wins and overall strength of schedule, is massively disadvantageous for mid-major programs like Wichita State who don’t have the opportunity to pick up RPI top 50 wins in conference play. For example, several national analysts suggested that Syracuse was snubbed from the tournament because they had six RPI top 50 wins, but five of those victories came during ACC play and the one that didn’t came against a team, Monmouth, that was ranked 50th in the metric. The Shockers didn’t have the opportunity to play the same schedule that the Orange did.

RELATED: Updated 2017 NCAA Tournament Bracket

This process not only forces mid-majors into a tough spot with regards to seeding, it’s also unfair to the teams that they have to play in the opening rounds. Just ask last year’s Arizona team. Wichita State beat them by 10 points after trouncing Vanderbilt in the First Four. It can also keep teams out of the tournament like Saint Mary’s in 2016. The Gaels finished the season ranked No. 34 in KenPom, but they were excluded on Selection Sunday because they didn’t play a tough enough non-conference schedule.

The obvious response to this rant is that mid-major teams should simply schedule more difficult non-conference games. On its face, that solution is inequitable because it forces one set of teams to play by a different set of rules and for something they can’t really control (the quality of their conference). Plus, sometimes scheduling high major opponents well in advance doesn’t work out. It’s not Wichita State’s fault that both LSU and Oklahoma experienced rebuilding years in 2016-17. And sometimes, those high major opponents simply won’t schedule you.

Finally, weighting a significant portion of a team’s NCAA Tournament chances on games that take place in November and December is nonsensical. It’s an accepted fact that teams improve over time. That’s why we always talk about how well Tom Izzo’s teams do in March or how much Kentucky’s young roster improves over the course of the season.

Why should the standard be different for Wichita State and other mid-majors?

The Shockers had to replace three starters, two of whom — Ron Baker and Fred VanVleet — are now on NBA contracts. Much like the Duke Blue Devils, they needed time to make all the new pieces fit. And yet, we’ve already forgotten about Duke’s home loss to North Carolina State in late January and its three losses in four games to close out the regular season. Why? Because the Blue Devils had an opportunity to prove themselves against quality opposition in Brooklyn last weekend. Wichita State shouldn’t have to be held back by losses that occurred earlier in the season if others won’t be.

So, what’s the solution?

The Selection Committee has to change the way that it selects and seeds teams for the field of 68. The process must involve more nuance that simply looking at strength of schedule and quality of wins. Incorporating margin of victory — like the performance-based metrics cited above do — is a must.

We also can’t totally abandon wins. Results matter, after all. I will concede that it wouldn’t make sense for an 0-28 team that ranks fifth in adjusted efficiency margin because it lost a bunch of close games to good teams to make the field over an 27-1 team that ranks sixth in the same statistic, but you can also only beat the teams in front of you.

Perhaps the solution is to set a baseline number of wins for at-large teams, whatever that number might be. It would give the Committee a cut-off to help determine which teams should make up the pool for debate and also ensure that a candidate has actually accomplished something on the court.  Maybe it should be 19 given that four at-large teams got into the field with that many wins this year. The specific number can be up for debate, though.

After that, the Committee can use performance-based metrics like KenPom and BPI to make selection and seeding decisions. Based solely on KenPom and the 19-win benchmark, that would change this year’s field in terms of selection as follows:

• Out: Providence, Seton Hall, USC and VCU
• In: Illinois State, Houston, Texas Tech and Utah

That would at least add one additional mid-major program to the field. There would likely be significant seeding changes made as well.

Next: 5 takeaways from championship week

This solution likely isn’t perfect and I’m open to other possible panaceas, but the status quo simply isn’t getting the job done for anybody. It’s unfair to mid-major programs who don’t have the same scheduling opportunities that high-major programs do and it’s unfair to the teams those under-seeded mid-major programs face in the NCAA Tournament’s first round.

The Selection Committee doesn’t have to keep getting it wrong with teams like Wichita State. They can make changes to the way things are done that create a more equitable NCAA Tournament. It’s in the best interest of everyone involved.