- Aug 26, 2011
...earned it by beating exactly zero top 10 teams, and the fewest top 25, while playing nearly the weakest schedule among the contenders? Hmm...No offense to Debbie but the battle is over. For Baylor, ND & UConn. The last #1 could change but I think Ms st has earned that.
The committee doesn't go strictly by RPI anyway. That has never been the be-all end-all. UCF with an RPI of #15 is not going to be a 4 seed. Just to cite one example.This is another example of picking a metric you like to prove the conclusion you want. I guess she didn’t notice that UConn trounced her top team and the only blemishes on the record are to the second and third teams on the list. But don’t let thought get in the way of metrics.
The NCAA has acknowledged RPI to be a flawed metric and created the NET metric on the men’s side. Why have they not incorporated this on the women’s side?
Unfortunately, there is no unbiased metric, and never will be so we can only hope that the committee is capable of looking at actual results and making intelligent decisions. The results will always be flawed but limiting the flaws should be the goal.
yeah... I think we're good. I believe the chart is Debbie's statistical analysis...for what it's worth. It means nothing as far as the committee is concerned. UCONN will be in Albany...as a 1 or 2... but in the last reveal of the Committee's thinking UCONN was a #1... and UCONN did nothing to cause that to change, while some other teams lost games during conference tournaments to cause them to have less claim to a 1 seed. We'll all know the seeds come Monday..I was hoping to get a 1 seed in Albany, but according to this chart, we're going to be the 6th overall seed and who knows where we end up now.
They played last year (I think it was the first game for UConn). However, since their OT win at home in 2015, Stanford has not played UConn outside of last year. Not sure if it was a scheduling conflict or another team that was avoiding Goliath, but either way I’m not going to speculate. Hopefully they’ll play again in the near future.Help me here, but isn’t Stanford the team that has refused to play UCONN the last few years?
I guess they could have built their strength of schedule?
Don't you think it had something to do with avoiding Samuelson v. Samuelson drama? If so, that factor will soon be gone.They played last year (I think it was the first game for UConn). However, since their OT win at home in 2015, Stanford has not played UConn outside of last year. Not sure if it was a scheduling conflict or another team that was avoiding Goliath, but either way I’m not going to speculate. Hopefully they’ll play again in the near future.
Lets not get carried away here. I won't claim that the Big 12 the best conference in the land, but it is no cakewalk. By both Massey and RPI, the Big 12 is the 3rd best conference, better than both the Big 10 and the SEC. The AAC is 7th by Massey and 9th by RPI. On an individual basis, Baylor has a more difficult schedule than UConn by both Massey and RPI. Baylor doesn't get a "pass", it has earned its ranking. Parity has arrived in WCBB, at least for this year, but it hasn't made its way to the AAC.Well. She's wrong on many points. But if you're going to punish UConn for their conference why would Baylor get a pass? The Big 12 isn't exactly a murderer's row either. But once NCAAWB/ESPN (Yes. They are one in the same) saw a chance to push the parity narrative that was it.