AP Final Top 25 poll

[PacoBlaze]

Not sure if this was posted but I didn't see it.
Kinda interesting that these voters have UConn still at #2 and well, the Committee...

2018-19 Women's College Basketball Rankings for Final Rankings | ESPN

 

[LoTrader]

The AP & Coaches polls agree on the top 13. That is pretty amazing!

 

[Fairfield Fan]

So UConn played five games against Top 25 teams this year? Do I have that right?

And we were 3-2 against them?

 

[PacoBlaze]

And no TN, didn't even receive a vote yet the Committee selected them because they somehow met their "criteria". But so did other teams (with no "Legacy") that were not selected.

 

[mbr33ct]

Not sure if this was posted but I didn't see it.
Kinda interesting that these voters have UConn still at #2 and well, the Committee...

2018-19 Women's College Basketball Rankings for Final Rankings | ESPN

Yeah, but what do these voters really know? If the NCAA committee were to have a weekly poll, for sure you could bet Tenn would be in the top 15.

 

[ShmiCO]

If the NCAA committee were to have a weekly poll, for sure you could bet Tenn would be in the top 15.

That's it! The solution to a pair of problems. Make the NCAA committee the next HC of Tennessee. Then see if we get seedings next year that reflect some of that up close and personal experience.

 

[Jmsdawg]

I agree with these polls much more than the committee seeding! Wonder what credentials the committee members have for WBB expertise?

 

[Plebe]

And no TN, didn't even receive a vote yet the Committee selected them because they somehow met their "criteria". But so did other teams (with no "Legacy") that were not selected.

Plenty of "unranked" teams get at-large bids; that's just the math of it. There are 32 at-large bids, and several of the ranked teams got automatic bids. So more than a dozen unranked teams have to get bids just to fill out the bracket.

 

[Vowelguy]

And no TN, didn't even receive a vote yet the Committee selected them because they somehow met their "criteria". But so did other teams (with no "Legacy") that were not selected.

Uhh, every team that received a single AP vote is in the bracket.

 

[Vowelguy]

At large teams in the bracket not in the AP poll:

• Cal #8
• UNC #9
• Clemson #9
• Indiana #10
• Michigan #8
• Tenn #11
• Rutgers #7
• Auburn #10
• C Michigan #8
• Michigan St #9

If you believe the AP poll is sacrosanct, why are you not upset that Rutgers is all the way up as a #7 seed?

 

[Fairfield Fan]

So just how badly did Charlie Creme blow it? He had UConn as a #1 seed throughout, which was wrong.

What else did he mess up?

 

[PacoBlaze]

Uhh, every team that received a single AP vote is in the bracket.

And at least one that didn't...

 

[PacoBlaze]

So just how badly did Charlie Creme blow it? He had UConn as a #1 seed throughout, which was wrong.

What else did he mess up?

There is a thread on it

Creme report card

 

[PacoBlaze]

At large teams in the bracket not in the AP poll:

• Cal #8
• UNC #9
• Clemson #9
• Indiana #10
• Michigan #8
• Tenn #11
• Rutgers #7
• Auburn #10
• C Michigan #8
• Michigan St #9

If you believe the AP poll is sacrosanct, why are you not upset that Rutgers is all the way up as a #7 seed?

Good info yet all but 1 are from the P5 conferences...yup, that's fair

 

[Vowelguy]

And at least one that didn't...

Uhh, part 2: There were 10.

 

[PacoBlaze]

Uhh, every team that received a single AP vote is in the bracket.

I was referring to other teams that met the Committee's criteria but are not in the brackets.

 

[Vowelguy]

Good info yet all but 1 are from the P5 conferences...yup, that's fair

I see. So first, the argument is that Tenn didn't deserve to get in because they didn't get any votes in the AP poll. Oh wait, there are 10 of those. Oh but but but, 9 of the 10 are from P5 conferences so that ... has nothing to do with your original claim.

I get it. You dont want Tenn in, and are going to keep making up reasons even as they keep getting disproven. Understood. I wont clutter this thread with facts anymore.

 

[PacoBlaze]

Uhh, part 2: There were 10.

I will stop now. You obviously are someone who analyzes a lot of stuff concerning the rankings, selections and brackets. I am a casual visitor here but have thought all season long that the Committee would do everything possible to select TN, no matter how their season ended up. And it has come true.

 

[Plebe]

I am a casual visitor here but have thought all season long that the Committee would do everything possible to select TN, no matter how their season ended up. And it has come true.

And I thought all last year that Santa and his elves would do everything possible to make gifts appear under my tree, no matter how badly I behaved. And it came true.

 

[willtalk]

I see. So first, the argument is that Tenn didn't deserve to get in because they didn't get any votes in the AP poll. Oh wait, there are 10 of those. Oh but but but, 9 of the 10 are from P5 conferences so that ... has nothing to do with your original claim.

I get it. You dont want Tenn in, and are going to keep making up reasons even as they keep getting disproven. Understood. I wont clutter this thread with facts anymore.

Let me make myself clear. Whether Tenn got in is less important than the flawed system that was used to justify them getting in. My issue is less with the teams that get or do not get picked, rather the use of the RPI in determining their strength of schedule.

Both you and Plebe's defense of the committee and Creme seems based on their use of the RPI and less on their actual choices. That leads us to the heart of the matter in respect to confusing stats with facts.

Now a stat might be considered a fact within the closed box system that generated it. The stats created by any system would only be a fact exclusively within that system. When, however, it is used outside of that system it is logically just a stat. For example--- It is a fact that UCF is #15 based on their RPI rating. Yet it is not a fact that UCF is the #15th rated team in the country. Fact in context with the RPI system, but it loses that status out of it.

It seems to me that more and more we are losing our perspective as to what is truly a fact and what is a stat or opinion. One example is the term "scientific fact". In the true sense " facts" are something that are indisputable. So if we label our belief a fact we avoid accountability.

 

[PacoBlaze]

Another point that I was trying to make but wasn't sure if I could is what determines the initial ratings or rankings or whatever else you want to call them that eventually goes into the selection "formula".
When the season starts, every team and every conference, theoretically, starts off at the same point, 0-0. So I would assume every team's RPI, SOS, etc. would be the same value. Then after teams start playing OOC games, these numbers appear to change and then they further change with conference play. What I am missing is who or what determines that the teams in the SEC or ACC are stronger than the teams playing in the MAC or AAC? Why would a team in the ACC that is 15-1 be rated better than a team in the MAC that is also 15-1?
The "strength" of the conference has to come from some place because as I said before, everyone started the season 0-0.

Or, just nevermind...

 

[Bear11]

Another point that I was trying to make but wasn't sure if I could is what determines the initial ratings or rankings or whatever else you want to call them that eventually goes into the selection "formula".
When the season starts, every team and every conference, theoretically, starts off at the same point, 0-0. So I would assume every team's RPI, SOS, etc. would be the same value. Then after teams start playing OOC games, these numbers appear to change and then they further change with conference play. What I am missing is who or what determines that the teams in the SEC or ACC are stronger than the teams playing in the MAC or AAC? Why would a team in the ACC that is 15-1 be rated better than a team in the MAC that is also 15-1?
The "strength" of the conference has to come from some place because as I said before, everyone started the season 0-0.

Or, just nevermind...

Teams in power conferences tend to win more non-conference games than teams in other conferences. Therefore power conference teams tend to have better overall records. Since conference games make up a majority of the schedule, power conference teams then tend to have a better strengths of schedule. 50% of the RPI formula is opponent's record, so being in a conference that wins the majority of its non-conference games is a significant advantage.

The RPI has no idea what conference teams are in. All it knows is your record, the record of the teams you played and the record of the teams they played. It is possible for a team to use this knowledge to "game" the RPI, and this has been done. Theoretically, an entire conference could collaborate to improve their RPI by carefully choosing their non-conference opponents, but that would take a significant show of solidarity.

 

[Plebe]

Another point that I was trying to make but wasn't sure if I could is what determines the initial ratings or rankings or whatever else you want to call them that eventually goes into the selection "formula".
When the season starts, every team and every conference, theoretically, starts off at the same point, 0-0. So I would assume every team's RPI, SOS, etc. would be the same value. Then after teams start playing OOC games, these numbers appear to change and then they further change with conference play. What I am missing is who or what determines that the teams in the SEC or ACC are stronger than the teams playing in the MAC or AAC? Why would a team in the ACC that is 15-1 be rated better than a team in the MAC that is also 15-1?
The "strength" of the conference has to come from some place because as I said before, everyone started the season 0-0.

Or, just nevermind...

I already explained to you that a team from the MAC can certainly have a higher RPI than an SEC team with an identical record. There are plenty of non-P5 teams that have a higher SOS than many P5 teams.

But clearly you’re not interested in hearing facts. You’d rather restate your pet talking points ad nauseum even if they’ve already been refuted.

 

[PacoBlaze]

I already explained to you that a team from the MAC can certainly have a higher RPI than an SEC team with an identical record. There are plenty of non-P5 teams that have a higher SOS than many P5 teams.

But clearly you’re not interested in hearing facts. You’d rather restate your pet talking points ad nauseum even if they’ve already been refuted.

I am not interested in hearing from you and your "facts".

 

[Plebe]

I am not interested in hearing from you and your "facts".

You don't have to take my word for it.

Go compare Georgia and Kent State.