A Boneyard Special Pre-Committee Reveal Poll: The Super 16

[dabears17]

I think UCLA has 5 wins: UConn, Ohio State, Colorado, USC, Oregon State.

Wow, I missed that the original USC was the 5th PAC-12 team as a 3 seed. Guess the PAC-12 might as well go out in style.

 

[Plebe]

Wow, I missed that the original USC was the 5th PAC-12 team as a 3 seed. Guess the PAC-12 might as well go out in style.

Oregon State was the 5th. USC was #9 overall, Oregon State #11.

Utah has a shot at being the 6th with huge resume enhancement opportunities coming up against Colorado, UCLA and USC.

 

[TheFarmFan]

Wow, I missed that the original USC was the 5th PAC-12 team as a 3 seed. Guess the PAC-12 might as well go out in style.

With the exception of Stanford’s loss to the Zags, the top half of the PAC basically ran the tables against good OOC teams, and the committee seems to be giving recognition to that even as we all beat up on each other in conference play.

 

[LETTERL]

the top half of the PAC basically ran the tables against good OOC teams, and the committee seems to be giving recognition to that even as we all beat up on each other in conference play.

 

[jake0414]

Look at their record against the other top 15

Colorado lost to Oregon state twice and to UCLA at home. I presume home losses hurt more than road losses and road wins count more than home wins. So I don’t get Colorado as a #1 seed. UCLA beat #1 Ohio State in Columbus and #1 Colorado in Boulder, not to mention defeating UConn at a neutral site. UCLA’s “bad losses” were at home to WSU without Lauren Betts and at #1 Stanford also without Betts so a 2 seed seems reasonable based on records to date. But I think Colorado should sit below UCLA as a 2 seed. It will all change anyway but it seems to me Iowa, NC State or Texas should have gotten a #1 seed.

 

[visitingcock]

I'm not saying SCar doesn't deserve to be the overall #1 seed, but it's striking that they've played fewer top teams than literally every other top 15 team, and in some cases a mere third as many...

Thanks for canceling our game this year Tree.

 

[visitingcock]

Wow, I missed that the original USC was the 5th PAC-12 team as a 3 seed. Guess the PAC-12 might as well go out in style.

Are you talking about the original one founded in 1801 or the one located in a State owned by Spain at that time?

 

[bbsamjj]

I'm not saying SCar doesn't deserve to be the overall #1 seed, but it's striking that they've played fewer top teams than literally every other top 15 team, and in some cases a mere third as many...

The fact that SC and LSU only play once in the regular season is a scandal, but if you look at the season's preseason rankings [from November] their schedule looked a whole lot tougher:

#1 LSU
#2 UConn
#5 Utah
#10 ND
#11 Tenn
#12 Ole Miss
#14 MD
#16 UNC
#25 Miss St

In an indication of how unpredictable this season has been, three of the teams in the committee's top 16 reveal (Kansas St, Oregon St, Nc State) weren't even in the preseason top 25.

 

[BRS24]

South Carolina top seed in NCAA women's basketball reveal

The undefeated South Carolina Gamecocks are the No. 1 overall seed in the first top-16 reveal ahead of the 2024 NCAA women's college basketball tournament, the NCAA announced Thursday night.

www.espn.com

Beginning this year, the No. 1 overall seed will be assigned to the regional pod with game days Friday and Sunday.

What the hell does this mean? I thought proximity was the primary criteria where the #1 overall seed was placed.

Because 2 regionals are in the same city , one is Fri/sun and the other is Sat/mon.
The 1 seed is now guaranteed to get the Fri/sun slot.

There was a "complaint" about the #1 top seed not getting an extra day of rest, assuming they would make it all the way to the final game. Thinking whoever was the top seed last year played Fri/Sun and then in a following week, a Thurs/Sat, which would give them one less day.

 

[BRS24]

Here’s a fun exercise — examine the correlation between the committee 16 and the NET. Then with the AP.
I bet AP is higher.

Here you go:

Table on right shows teams that are not in all three categories, and where, if applicable. No idea if conference NET is applied, however Gonzaga might be the only team that makes the NCAAT if it runs the table in WCC. Utah's NET perhaps due to the conference NET, although its two losses in last 5 games were both to Oregon St.

Comparing NET to Reveal, as we know that the AP poll can be somewhat wonky, Colorado and OSU fared the best, and UConn, LSU, and Texas the worst, from a movement standpoint.

 

[visitingcock]

Well, the Boneyard Poll hit damned close to what the Committee Revealed. Of the 16 teams, both groups chose 15 of the same teams. The difference was the 16th selection with the Boneyarders choosing underdog Gonzaga and the committee choosing P-5 Louisville.
Half (8) of the selections were exact.

Also interesting how both sets of selectors deviated from the NET. Exact same deviation on UConn but big disparity on Colorado. Neither took the NET bait on Utah which made neither list. Notre dame received votes in the BY poll but did not make the Top 16.

Committee------------Boneyard Poll-----------NET---------------AP Poll

1 SCar-----------------SCar---------------------SCar--------------SCar
2 Stan-----------------Stanford----------------Stanford----------Ohio State
3 Ohio State-------- Ohio State-------------- UConn------------Stanford
4 Colorado-----------Iowa---------------------- Texas--------------Iowa
5. Iowa----------------Texas--------------------- Iowa---------------Texas
6 NCSt---------------- NC State----------------Utah*---------------NC State
7 ucla----------------- UCLA------------------- UCLA--------------K-State
8 Texas ----------------Colorado----------------Ohio State---------- Colorado
9 Southern Cal-------- LSU----------------------LSU----------------- UCLA
10 VaTech--------------Indiana------------------ NC State----------- Southern Cal
11 Oregon st--------- Oregon State----------- Gonzaga----------- Oregon State
12 UConn-------------UConn------------------- Indiana--------------VaTech
13 K-State-------------K-State------------------Notre Dame*--------LSU
14 LSU --------------- VaTech-------------------- K-State--------------Indiana
15 Indiana------------ Southern Cal-------------- Colorado-----------UConn

16 Louisville-----------Gonzaga------------------Southern Cal--------Notre Dame

I enjoyed it. See you again for the next Pre-Reveal!

 

[bbsamjj]

Here you go:

Table on right shows teams that are not in all three categories, and where, if applicable. No idea if conference NET is applied, however Gonzaga might be the only team that makes the NCAAT if it runs the table in WCC. Utah's NET perhaps due to the conference NET, although its two losses in last 5 games were both to Oregon St.
View attachment 96507
Comparing NET to Reveal, as we know that the AP poll can be somewhat wonky, Colorado and OSU fared the best, and UConn, LSU, and Texas the worst, from a movement standpoint.

I would say the NET has been wonkier than the AP this year, imo. UConn at 4, Utah as the second highest rated team in Pac 12, Indiana ahead of Kansas St, Nc State, CO, USC despite having ZERO good wins.

 

[BRS24]

I would say the NET has been wonkier than the AP this year, imo. UConn at 4, Utah as the second highest rated team in Pac 12, Indiana ahead of Kansas St, Nc State, CO, USC despite having ZERO good wins.

Fair observation. I was just comparing a subjective human to a supposed objective algorithmic NET.

 

[Vowelguy]

Here you go:

Table on right shows teams that are not in all three categories, and where, if applicable. No idea if conference NET is applied, however Gonzaga might be the only team that makes the NCAAT if it runs the table in WCC. Utah's NET perhaps due to the conference NET, although its two losses in last 5 games were both to Oregon St.
View attachment 96507
Comparing NET to Reveal, as we know that the AP poll can be somewhat wonky, Colorado and OSU fared the best, and UConn, LSU, and Texas the worst, from a movement standpoint.

Thanks, tho I was referring to an actual correlation coefficient.

For the record it's 88% between the committee and AP, and 54% between the committee and NET.
Yet again proving that the NET is nowhere near the be-all, end-all.

 

[visitingcock]

Thanks, tho I was referring to an actual correlation coefficient.

For the record it's 88% between the committee and AP, and 54% between the committee and NET.
Yet again proving that the NET is nowhere near the be-all, end-all.

Does the NET algorithm over-value good losses. Look at UConn and Utah in particular

Both are good teams that have had close losses against very good schedules. And yet, yo have to ask: "where are the good wins?" I note that both the committee and our voters here on the BY Poll weren't buying into the lofty NET rankings.

Calling @Plebe

 

[Vowelguy]

Does the NET algorithm over-value good losses. Look at UConn and Utah in particular

Both are good teams that have had close losses against very good schedules. And yet, yo have to ask: "where are the good wins?" I note that both the committee and our voters here on the BY Poll weren't buying into the lofty NET rankings.

Calling @Plebe

My theory has always been the RPI or the NET are useful for the fat part of the distribution where the teams anre bunched very tightly and you are comparing very disparate teams about who should get in and where they are seeded.
The tails of the distribution are always harder to measure empirically and they are needed less, because we have ample head to head and comparison data.

 

[Vowelguy]

My theory has always been the RPI or the NET are useful for the fat part of the distribution where the teams anre bunched very tightly and you are comparing very disparate teams about who should get in and where they are seeded.
The tails of the distribution are always harder to measure empirically and they are needed less, because we have ample head to head and comparison data.

And I will add that I think the committee finds greater value in things like “record top 50” etc. On the men’s side you hear a lot more discussion about quad 1 wins than you do about actual NET ranks.
The NET just serves as an initial way to sort the teams, which then allows the committee to look at who did well vs good teams, what’s a bad loss, etc