Monday's Bracketology and Explanation

[Zorro]

Now, if we DO play L'ville in the Regional Final, and if we DO beat them, for what will hopefully be the fourth time this season, we won't have to play them again this year, will we? No way the committee could. like, give them a special pass into the finals or anything like that? Five times would be a bit much.

 

[Vowelguy]

And wasn't the game against LA Tech?

Yes.

 

[Phil]

They updated them for 2012-13 and the changes, if I recall correctly, were minor tweaks compared to the changes between last year and this year.

In fact, they cannot literally use the latest published rules, because those rules would send UConn to Notre Dame.

While they could use the old rules, and say the promises that host teams get to play in host locations trumps the rules, I haven't seen anything that says the promises include anything about seeding.

Which would mean, if they follow the 2012-13 rules, except to the extent that subsequent agreements trump those rules, they would send UConn to Notre Dame, and Notre Dame would have to be bumped down to a two seed.

Wouldn't that raise some ruckus!

 

[Vowelguy]

I too hope it's the latter, but I find the former more plausible. I find it difficult to believe that the committee would change its principles and procedures and not announce those changes before the season begins. That's exactly what the men's committee did and it's the only way to avoid the appearance that the changes are result-oriented.

I think Creme overstates the case though.
He was upset in 2012 when TAMU was sent to Raleigh and not Des Moines to face Baylor. College Station is indeed closer to DM than Rale (13 hrs vs 18 hrs), but did that really violate the spirit of the rule? I don't think so.

I do think UConn ends up in Louisville, but partially because Lou's resume is not as strong as some claim.

 

[Phil]

And wasn't the game against LA Tech?

Yes, Georgia was in the FF in 95 but not 94

 

[DobbsRover2]

Charlie confirmed that with me recently.

If the committee has not updated the Principles and Procedures to reflect the substantial changes, they are guilty of malpractice.

If they have updated them, and refused to share them with the public or even insiders, they are guilty of a lack of transparency. I fervently hope it is the latter.

But again, this is official statement from the NCAA site:

• Are selection, seeding and bracketing the same for the men and women?
  There are a few minor differences in the principles and procedures. The most obvious difference is the men’s championship features 68 teams compared to 64 on the women’s side.

Clearly there are differences beyond that statement that the NCAA could attribute to the few other minor differences, but couldn't they say that the women's rules basically follow the men's rules published last August? Those rules would indicate that UConn and Louisville cannot be together, or MD and UNC for that matter either.

 

[Phil]

I think Creme overstates the case though.
He was upset in 2012 when TAMU was sent to Raleigh and not Des Moines to face Baylor. College Station is indeed closer to DM than Rale (13 hrs vs 18 hrs), but did that really violate the spirit of the rule? I don't think so.

I do think UConn ends up in Louisville, but partially because Lou's resume is not as strong as some claim.

I'm not following your point about Louisville's resume. If it was weak enough to deserve a 3 seed, then UConn cannot go there, but that's clearly not your point.

If they were strong enough to be a one seed, UConn would go there, but they are not and that's not your point.

Are you arguing that it matters whether Louisville is a weak or strong 2 seed? If so, why?

 

[UConnCat]

I think Creme overstates the case though.
He was upset in 2012 when TAMU was sent to Raleigh and not Des Moines to face Baylor. College Station is indeed closer to DM than Rale (13 hrs vs 18 hrs), but did that really violate the spirit of the rule? I don't think so.

I do think UConn ends up in Louisville, but partially because Lou's resume is not as strong as some claim.

I don't understand your post. What case is Creme overstating? Feinberg's post said it would be wrong to put UConn and L'Ville in the same region and Creme says the committee has done it before, giving UConn-RU and A&M-Baylor as two examples.

 

[Vowelguy]

If it was weak enough to deserve a 3 seed, then UConn cannot go there.

Huh?

Are you arguing that it matters whether Louisville is a weak or strong 2 seed? If so, why?

I'm guessing there will be some debate in the room about whether it's fair to send UConn to Louisville. If Lou were #5 in the committee rankings, then the debate intensifies. And it also makes that regional quite strong, which is something the committee tries to avoid.
But I think Baylor is better than Louisville, so I'm not sure that sending UConn to Omaha to face them is any "fairer" to the Huskies.

 

[Vowelguy]

I don't understand your post. What case is Creme overstating?

Charlie Creme ‏@CharlieCreme Mar 3
@DougFeinberg I agree that's as it should be,Doug, but it would go completely against the principles application for the last few yrs.

 

[Phil]

But again, this is official statement from the NCAA site:

• 
  [ ]Are selection, seeding and bracketing the same for the men and women?
  There are a few minor differences in the principles and procedures. The most obvious difference is the men’s championship features 68 teams compared to 64 on the women’s side.

Clearly there are differences beyond that statement that the NCAA could attribute to the few other minor differences, but couldn't they say that the women's rules basically follow the men's rules published last August? Those rules would indicate that UConn and Louisville cannot be together, or MD and UNC for that matter either.

That's an intriguing possibility, that the women's selection committee failed to update their P&P because they intended to use the men's P&P

However, that seems untenable.

For example this rule, which is in bold:

A team will not be permitted to play in any facility in which it has played more than three games during its season, not including conference post-season tournaments.​

doesn't work.

Nor this one (also in bold):

A host institution’s team shall not be permitted to play at the site where the institution is hosting.​

I don't catch why you say UConn and Louisville couldn't be together.

Their new rules:

Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional final if they played each other three or more times during the regular season and conference tournament.
Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional semifinals if they played each other twice during the regular season and conference tournament.
Teams from the same conference may play each other as early as the third round if they played no more than once during the regular season and conference tournament.​

Specifically allow UConn and Louisville as long as they are the one and two seeds.

 

[Phil]

Huh?



I'm guessing there will be some debate in the room about whether it's fair to send UConn to Louisville. If Lou were #5 in the committee rankings, then the debate intensifies. And it also makes that regional quite strong, which is something the committee tries to avoid.

OK. I think that balance is way down the list, and other issues will dominate, but I suppose someone might bring up balance.

 

[toadfoot]

At the risk of being accused of flogging a dead horse... Charlie Creme's bracket is based on the current RPI, which is a horribly flawed measurement. You'd think that SOMEONE at the NCAA would be comparing the RPI against actual game results and a simple "eye test" and be asking some serious questions about the validity of the RPI formula.

Case in point, LSU has an RPI of 13 and SOS of 1, yet their only victory over a top 25 team was against Tennessee in January. Overall they're 1-8 versus top 25 teams and they have an RPI of 13!!! Seriously! This is a perfect illustration of the flaw of schedule strength. You just have to PLAY a strong schedule, but you don't actually have to WIN. Some teams have figured out how to create what I call "designer schedules", which is an OOC schedule which limits really low RPI teams (200+), but has many 50-150 teams. The chances of a top 25 team losing to the 50-150 group is extremely small, likely no more probable than losing to a 300 team, but their SOS doesn't suffer as much. In other words, some schools are learning to "game" the system. The sooner the NCAA wises up the better. At least part of the SOS component should include actually winning sometime.

 

[Vowelguy]

At the risk of being accused of flogging a dead horse... Charlie Creme's bracket is based on the current RPI

Creme's bracket is based on many factors.

 

[Alydar]

One possible scenario would be UConn going to Louisville and Louisville getting a 3 seed. That would allow the committee to make Tenn the top 2 (which is what they are) and send them to face Louisville in the S16. The hoopla over a possible CT UT game would drown out any complaining about the home court advantage. Except for Tenn fans who will scream bloody murder.

A question on another issue. Why is S Carolina dismissed for losing in their tournament while Stanford is still being given a 1 seed? I agree that SC had a weak OOC schedule but Stanford's OOC only has a home win against Tenn to brag about, and IMO an even weaker conference schedule. In 2001, the committee chairwoman clearly stated that the committee values winning a regular season title over the conference tournament. (ND - CT)

ESPN is going to promote Tenn over SC all day long, not because of BB superiority, but because of ratings.

I still say that the B12T winner, being a dual conference champion, will get a 1 seed. Maybe even over Stanford but definitely over Tenn.

 

[easttexastrash]

To have Stanford still a 1 seed after losing in their tournament before the final game is beyond believe. South Carolina dropped as they should to a 2 seed, but at least lost to a ranked team. His really dumb move was West Virginia, who closed season fast , and is in the Big 12 championship game trending down to a 3 seed. Apparently he threw darts at a board, and came out wrong, his logic is terrible, and can't be explained. He had an original matrix, and doesn't want to deviate from it. Lunardi tears his original brackets apart by this time, with all the changes he makes.

To have WVU drop to a 3 makes absolutley zero sense at all. Maybe if they win tonight they will drop to a 4 seed.

 

[Paul1969]

I'd rather see UConn in Nebraska (especially after playing Louisville 3X already)

 

[UConnCat]

In 2001, the committee chairwoman clearly stated that the committee values winning a regular season title over the conference tournament. (ND - CT)
.

That's especially true when one of the two teams didn't actually win the regular season title; ND and UConn tied for that title in 2001.

 

[Alydar]

Their new rules:

Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional final if they played each other three or more times during the regular season and conference tournament.
Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional semifinals if they played each other twice during the regular season and conference tournament.
Teams from the same conference may play each other as early as the third round if they played no more than once during the regular season and conference tournament.​

Specifically allow UConn and Louisville as long as they are the one and two seeds.

The above rule applies to "REGIONAL SITES". The entire geography argument rests on there being regional sites. There are no regional sites this year. And that is the whole point.

 

[Alydar]

That's especially true when one of the two teams didn't actually win the regular season title; ND and UConn teams tied for that title in 2001.

Yes, but as crazy as it sounds the committee was ignorant of that fact, as the post bracket show interview revealed.

 

[easttexastrash]

I am cool with Stanford keeping their 1 seeding. Creme makes a good point that they have 10 top-50 wins and they have the number 3 RPI.

 

[Fightin Choke]

As I've stated several times before this will be the most athletic talented team that NEVER reaches a Final 4! Sylvia Hatchell ("I don't care if we have 100 turnovers as long as we play fast!") will make this team underachieves! If it wasn't for Sylvia Crawley's 3 pointer with 1 sec. left vs GA Hatchell would have no NC! She is among the worst game coaches in the USA! Even though she's on the sidelines her staff thru her will screw it up! UCONN with the best defense in Div. I would beat NoCar. by 20+ pts.

A week or so ago you said that UConn would beat Notre Dame by 30, so why do you think that UNC is roughly 10 points better than the Irish? Or is it just that you think UConn matches up very well against Notre Dame but UNC would give them more difficulty?

 

[doggydaddy]

A week or so ago you said that UConn would beat Notre Dame by 30, so why do you think that UNC is roughly 10 points better than the Irish? Or is it just that you think UConn matches up very well against Notre Dame but UNC would give them more difficulty?

Well, golly gee, you got him.

Good job.

 

[easttexastrash]

I do not understand why anyone from UCONN would prefer to go to Lincoln and face the the unknown when you know what Louisville offers and you know that you can beat them. If the games had been close I could see you not wanting to play them again, but if Baylor beat a team three times by an average of 20 points, I would be praying to be sent to play them again.

Watch what you wish for because there are several teams that are better than UL (SCar, WVU, Baylor, Kentucky) that you might have to play. If I were UCONN, I would MUCH rather play UL again than meet up with S. Carolina!

 

[DobbsRover2]

That's an intriguing possibility, that the women's selection committee failed to update their P&P because they intended to use the men's P&P

However, that seems untenable.

For example this rule, which is in bold:

A team will not be permitted to play in any facility in which it has played more than three games during its season, not including conference post-season tournaments.​

doesn't work.

Nor this one (also in bold):

A host institution’s team shall not be permitted to play at the site where the institution is hosting.​

I don't catch why you say UConn and Louisville couldn't be together.

Their new rules:

Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional final if they played each other three or more times during the regular season and conference tournament.
Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional semifinals if they played each other twice during the regular season and conference tournament.
Teams from the same conference may play each other as early as the third round if they played no more than once during the regular season and conference tournament.​

Specifically allow UConn and Louisville as long as they are the one and two seeds.

Okay, one more time with the FIRST statement that everyone keeps skipping over.

• Each of the first four teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded on the first four lines.

UConn and Louisville ARE seeded on the first four lines, or is someone thinking they will fall to a #5 seed?

All of the other stuff you point to could all be considered some of the "few other differences" of the men's and women's rules. Clearly the item about not playing on your home court gets tossed for the women, so of course the venue stuff does not apply. But I'm talking about SEEDING questions, not the inherent differences in the men's and women's tourneys that are a given.