Bracket first impressions | Page 2 | The Boneyard
.

Bracket first impressions

I don't understand how North Carolina is ahead of Notre Dame if we are assuming an S-curve was used.

NET ranking has ND at #5 and NC at #20. But, in NET Q1 wins, ND is 6-5 and NC- 7-5. ND beat NC in Chapel Hill. And, NC with a terrible home loss to RPI #111 Virginia.

Sure seems like Q1 wins were important, but not in UConn's case who was 5-3, and Baylor who was 3-6.


The NET Nitty Gritty Report for NCAA Women's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com

The NET Nitty Gritty Report for 2025 NCAA Women's College Basketball. This Is a Duplication of the Report Used by the Tournament Selection Committee to Determine At-Large Teams with Quadrants
www.warrennolan.com www.warrennolan.com
 
Last edited:
Baylor's Q1 record of 3-6 but getting to host a sub-regional over teams like Ole Miss (Q1 record of 6-9), Tennessee (Q1 record of 6-8) and Alabama (Q1 record of 5-7) is a real head-scratcher.
 
KnightBridgeAZ said:
As someone pointed out, you have the brackets mixed. Its South Carolina / Texas and USC / UCLA if all the number 1 seeds advance. It was not a factor in the committee's reasoning, according to the chairwoman.
Expand ...
I have the brackets correct.

I’m saying it should have been a factor in the committee’s reasoning to avoid those matchups.
 
southie said:
Baylor's Q1 record of 3-6 but getting to host a sub-regional over teams like Ole Miss (Q1 record of 6-9), Tennessee (Q1 record of 6-8) and Alabama (Q1 record of 5-7) is a real head-scratcher.
Expand ...
Head scratchers abound this year, but this can't be any different or worse than what we saw on the men's side with UNC making it in over West Virginia and Indiana who had been Q1 records.
 
ISUnorth said:
Expand ...

Incredible stuff. I don’t understand the hate for this man. He simply predicts how the committee will view each team and provides us with so much insight and discussion throughout the season. And he’s really really good with his predictions but some are convinced he hates certain teams/programs which is never the case
 
bballnut90 said:
Incredible stuff. I don’t understand the hate for this man. He simply predicts how the committee will view each team and provides us with so much insight and discussion throughout the season. And he’s really really good with his predictions but some are convinced he hates certain teams/programs which is never the case
Expand ...
Fans are always going to have an axe to grind with the media "experts". I still remember Mel Kiper getting blasted by NFL GMs during one draft back in the 80s. It only enhanced his brand and helped to spawn this "expert" industry. If Creme wasn't getting some form of hate, he wouldn't be doing his job well enough. ;):D
 
The more I think about it, the anger builds up more. Michigan State should have been the #7 seed in our bracket as opposed to Vanderbilt. We owe the Spartans a good ol fashioned butt whipping for that debacle in 2009. :mad:.
 
triaddukefan said:
The more I think about it, the anger builds up more. Michigan State should have been the #7 seed in our bracket as opposed to Vanderbilt. We owe the Spartans a good ol fashioned butt whipping for that debacle in 2009. :mad:.
Expand ...
We owe them for allowing that individual who will not be named to leave their school in 2007.

I also don't like the potential R32 match-up with Vanderbilt. Shades of 2023.
 
12au said:
I hope Jeff Walz doesn't fail us this year. We need the Hailey Van Lith vs Louisville matchup.
Expand ...
In my head before yesterday I had a feeling they would create a scenario for this matchup. Lol. I don't love it for Hailey Van Lith as Walz is a great coach and they have a bunch of guards to throw at her. I also want her to continue to increase her draft stock.

Overall I thought the committee did well. I've said it elsewhere, I just think South Carolina got by far the easiest road to the final 4 and really to the championship. I think if you look at the other number 1s , even the 4 5 teams could possibly be a threat . Tennessee, Ole Miss, a healthy Kansas State, even Kentucky with Amoore. Atleast I can talk myself into some of these teams. I like Alabama a lot, they just have been no threat to SC in recent years. Maryland....I just don't see it. Even some 1 8 matchups can be intriguing. Georgia Tech started the year so well and still has a lot of talent. Illinois played USC and UCLA tough. But Utah and Indiana.... I could go on. And I respect the SC program a lot, just feel like we aren't going to get a lot of fun matchups with them. No disrespect to Duke. Honestly even though I don't think they are the best team, because of their path unless there are some major upsets I think SC will repeat.
 
southie said:
Baylor's Q1 record of 3-6 but getting to host a sub-regional over teams like Ole Miss (Q1 record of 6-9), Tennessee (Q1 record of 6-8) and Alabama (Q1 record of 5-7) is a real head-scratcher.
Expand ...
It's rarely just about the Q1 record, especially when it's a close call. Gotta look at their worst losses as well, for example. (In fact I'm certain it was this “bad loss” criterion that put USC below Texas due to their loss to Iowa.)

Baylor's only non-Q1 loss was to Oklahoma St.
Ole Miss had a Q3 loss to TAMU.
Tennessee had a Q4 loss to Georgia.
Alabama's worst loss was Q2 but it was to a non-tournament team (Florida).

You also have to look under the hood at the Q1 record because not all those opponents are made equal . Four of Baylor's 6 Q1 losses were to UCLA and TCU.
 
bballnut90 said:
Incredible stuff. I don’t understand the hate for this man. He simply predicts how the committee will view each team and provides us with so much insight and discussion throughout the season. And he’s really really good with his predictions but some are convinced he hates certain teams/programs which is never the case
Expand ...
Has all your time on the Boneyard taught you nothing?!

Creme's little bracketology racket is clearly just an elaborate hoax to provide cover for the committee's blatant bias!

It's obvious that the blatantly biased NCAA joined forces with the blatantly biased ESPN to hire the useful minion Creme to trick us all into thinking that the committee's decisions are justified!

You see, it all makes sense if you just put on your “deep state” detection goggles /s

:p
 
JstVisiting said:
This isn’t rocket surgery.
Expand ...
Adorable missed mixed megaphone metaphor. Is that like cutting an elongated muskrat's space vehicle?


IMG_2704.jpeg
 
JstVisiting said:
I have the brackets correct.

I’m saying it should have been a factor in the committee’s reasoning to avoid those matchups.
Expand ...
Sorry, I thought you said Texas was #4, they were #3. You did have the matchups correct. #2 South Carolina vs. #3 Texas and #1 UCLA vs. #4USC if the #1's all win out. It was late and I wasn't paying attention.
 
Plebe said:
It's rarely just about the Q1 record, especially when it's a close call. Gotta look at their worst losses as well, for example. (In fact I'm certain it was this “bad loss” criterion that put USC below Texas due to their loss to Iowa.)

Baylor's only non-Q1 loss was to Oklahoma St.
Ole Miss had a Q3 loss to TAMU.
Tennessee had a Q4 loss to Georgia.
Alabama's worst loss was Q2 but it was to a non-tournament team (Florida).

You also have to look under the hood at the Q1 record because not all those opponents are made equal . Four of Baylor's 6 Q1 losses were to UCLA and TCU.
Expand ...

I mean, you don't start looking at the other quads until you first review Q1 records. For me, the wins should be given more credit than penalties for losses.

Out of Baylor's 27 wins, 13 were Q4 wins; that's nearly half of their total wins.
 
I don't worry about fairness too much. But, I did look at the USC/UConn corner of the bracket and wince. Besides the overall 4/5 matchup/rematch in the elite 8, there's a very dangerous Iowa team lurking in there, too.
 
bballnut90 said:
Incredible stuff. I don’t understand the hate for this man. He simply predicts how the committee will view each team and provides us with so much insight and discussion throughout the season. And he’s really really good with his predictions but some are convinced he hates certain teams/programs which is never the case
Expand ...
I have nothin against him, I just think his November projections are bs. Long about mid- february they start lining up
 
A lot of moving parts in the season, from the beginning (less competitive games), to conference games, to conference tourney. Here's a look at his way to early predictions (2), to first week of season, two NCAA reveals, his final, and the final final bracket.

1742246144619.jpeg


I also have a compilation of CC, HHS, TheAthletic, reveals, however it's huge, so perhaps it will be a look back after the tourney is over. It might give us a topic to debate over the looooonnnggg summer. ;)
 
Apparently there is no set way of selecting teams. Saying that an S curve was used. Really! I’m not a Notre Dame fan but they deserved better. By pitting two sets of #1 seeds in the Final Four makes it so you have two different conferences making it to the finals. Is that good or bad? Then what happened to teams from the same conference not facing each other. Here I am for the past two weeks moving teams around because I thought that this was one requirement. Again as it turns out not true.
 
ConnMotors said:
Apparently there is no set way of selecting teams. Saying that an S curve was used. Really! I’m not a Notre Dame fan but they deserved better. By pitting two sets of #1 seeds in the Final Four makes it so you have two different conferences making it to the finals. Is that good or bad? Then what happened to teams from the same conference not facing each other. Here I am for the past two weeks moving teams around because I thought that this was one requirement. Again as it turns out not true.
Expand ...
I don’t think separating conferences for Final Four matchups was necessary considering it’s rare all 4 number 1 seeds get there. And I know it’s subjective but I thought the seedings were relatively clear based on resumes that we’d see UCLA at 1, South Carolina at 2, Texas 3 and USC 4
 

Online statistics

Members online
120
Guests online
2,019
Total visitors
2,139
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
164,432
Messages
4,396,105
Members
10,209
Latest member
gemini*trvl


.
..
Top Bottom