For the math/wcbb people

[Adesmar123]

Every year at tournament time, there is usually a brouhaha about the male coaches being put into the same regional to cancel each other out and assure a well represented female final four. Much like most suppositions, this should be very quantifiable. For example, within some level of standard deviation, the regionals should include a cross section of the lower and higher ranked teams. Has there been a higher concentration of higher ranked teams with male coaches in some regionals in the last few years?

 

[DobbsRover2]

Um, sure. The Albany-East regional had a few more "male-coached" teams for all the Conspiracy Kitty wailers to complain about, but as posted many times back in March, since 60+% of the teams in the Tournament are coached by men, there is some likelihood that more than half of the teams in the regional will indeed be coached by men. If a regional has 68% of it with teams coached by men and you want to make a big "old girls" conspiracy theory out of it, that's an option to go with, though not really a great one. Personally, though not always a fan of the committee's decision, I would think it a big bit silly to think they form some sort of witches coven to ensure that male-coached teams get eliminated, but you're free to try to play the numbers and come up with a conspiracy. I checked back for 5 years and didn't see a sign of such a thing, and I'm feeling that Geno could care less about these theories, but again, dig away.

In the Elite 8 last year, the two remaining teams from the male-majority-coached club were indeed in the Albany regional, UConn and Dayton, which I guess could be twisted around to fit some type of theory. But with UConn coached not only be Geno but by CD, Marissa and Shea, I kind of see UConn as a trans-coached team not necessarily pumped up with just testosterone but maybe also including some female contributions, including 100% of the scoring on the players' side, who also get 100% of the minutes rather than their coaches. But we can all see things in different ways and find the math to prove it.

 

[UcMiami]

I think the conspiracy theory folks point to the placing of male coached 2 and 3 seeds into male coached 1 seed regions - but I am too lazy to do the research. The idea is that the committee wants to be sure that the most likely teams to reach FF berths will not be all male coached. With Muffet, Kim, Tara, and Geno dominating most of the last 10 years, that hasn't really been a problem.

 

[trisailin]

To me the much bigger NCAA travesty has been the seeding of the non-P5 teams. Clearly Princeton this last year was much better than an 8 Seed (probably SHOULD have been a 2 or 3), Dayton better than a 7 seed (probably should have been a 3 or 4). Just to name two. It's just "not fair" that Princeton had to play a #1 seed in the second round. Talk about the committee protecting the P5.
If you look at any of the mathmatical models (which "project" winners and losers - Massey, Sagarin..) they had those two teams much better rated than their seedings. And in the case of both of the mentioned teams, they even passed the "eye test" - they were pretty good and would have beaten many of the teams with better seedings.

 

[Adesmar123]

I think its quite a leap from discussing a mathematical analysis of tournament placement to formation of some "witches coven". But if that is your definition of mathematical analysis - then so be it.

At least UcMiami admitted to not wanting to do the math. As far as women disliking the number of men coaching wcbb, I think that is out in the open and not some conspiracy theory. You must also believe the "gentlemen's agreement" discrimination against Jews in the mid 1900's was a part of a some warlock agreement and not real. There was no proof there either. Jews just didn't get hired.

I still think there can be a mathematical analysis. If there are 64 teams in the tournament and x are placed in the top 8 spots for example. How many of those male coached teams are placed in the same region, or is one region heavy with male coaches?

I like UcMiami's comment about Geno, Muffett, Kim and Tara. Hmmmm three out of those four are women. Do the male coaches eliminate each other out of proportion to their numbers? I think it can be mathematically analyzed so we don't have to resort to throwing accusations around willy nilly.

By the way, I did some research and haven't found the term "witches coven" used in any mathematical discussions.

 

[Adesmar123]

Trisailin - What coven do you belong to? Sorry for that..just couldn't resist. Think it was a witches' spell?

 

[trisailin]

As for which coven: I'm not aware of ever gathering with a bunch of witches - except when going to the DMV (sarcasm for those challenged in such matters)

On average, the best team is the last one standing. What I was speaking to was at which point a team gets eliminated. It's quite easy for the committee to (on average) seed things such that non-P5 teams are eliminated earlier than they otherwise would/should be.

 

[Adesmar123]

agreed

 

[UcMiami]

To me the much bigger NCAA travesty has been the seeding of the non-P5 teams. Clearly Princeton this last year was much better than an 8 Seed (probably SHOULD have been a 2 or 3), Dayton better than a 7 seed (probably should have been a 3 or 4). Just to name two. It's just "not fair" that Princeton had to play a #1 seed in the second round. Talk about the committee protecting the P5.
If you look at any of the mathmatical models (which "project" winners and losers - Massey, Sagarin..) they had those two teams much better rated than their seedings. And in the case of both of the mentioned teams, they even passed the "eye test" - they were pretty good and would have beaten many of the teams with better seedings.

I would agree that the seeding of non-P5 teams tends to be questionable and was really bad last year. And I think it comes down to two flawed considerations - RPI which greatly over-rewards P5 conferences and 'good wins' which over-rewards mediocre teams for beating slightly better mediocre teams.
If you look at any professional league (where all teams play against each other) you see that terrible teams pull out shocking wins every year when the stars align - 0-16 seasons in the NFL are rare, the worst NBA teams average around 15 wins each season, and the best teams around 15 losses

 

[meyers7]

By the way, I did some research and haven't found the term "witches coven" used in any mathematical discussions.

Gotta do more research.

http://poetrywithmathematics.blogspot.com/2011/12/mathematics-works-with-witchcraft.html

 

[Adesmar123]

Gotta do more research.

http://poetrywithmathematics.blogspot.com/2011/12/mathematics-works-with-witchcraft.html

Certainly there are witches out there is all professions. Some even say the devil herself is involved in many. But there is little research indicating that covens themselves are involved.

 

[arty155]

...formation of some "witches coven"... haven't found the term "witches coven" used in any mathematical discussions.

...What coven do you belong to?....

...covens themselves are involved.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Seeding of non P5 teams is difficult because of the criteria the committee uses, and I think is also impacted by the difficulty in comparing P5 type teams to non-P5 teams (at least in the committee's mind).

I agree 100% that Princeton got a raw deal, OTH, I'm not convinced about Dayton. Under-seeded, yes, probably, but I don't think necessarily. IIRC, they were well thought of early and had some early losses in the season; thereafter, all the difficulties of comparison come into it.

A lot of games are about match-ups, at Dayton matched up well with UConn, except that they had nowhere near the talent level.

 

[meyers7]

Certainly there are witches out there is all professions. Some even say the devil herself is involved in many. But there is little research indicating that covens themselves are involved.

Now, there's something that's interesting. And pertinent. Which WCBB coach is a witch?

 

[Adesmar123]

Me thinks the obvious

I also think this thread got lost. I was advocating for a math solution. Robber over brought the occult into the discusssion. But when did facts ever bother aBoneyarder?