Bracket first impressions

[Plebe]

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.

It's only certain scenarios where they try to avoid (or are supposed to try to avoid) having conference rivals face off. When it comes to the #1 seeds they have always just stuck to the true order regardless of conference. Recall 2013 when Notre Dame and UConn were overall #2 and #3 and they didn't try to prevent a national semifinal meeting between us.

 

[FanInNC]

Notre Dame was a surprise as a 3 to me. UNC was a surprise as a 3 as well. I figured they were a 4.

I get that Vandy could be a tricky second round game for Duke but to me they got the easiest 3 possible. The Vandy game is at home, gotta take care of business and then you get the benefit of the weakest 3 in the field. Don’t hate that path for Duke.

For State, I haven’t watched Michigan State so I don’t have a strong feeling on that potential match up. The idea of playing LSU is scary to me. I know everyone doubts them, but they are talented and physical. State struggled when they can’t control the boards, I don’t love that match up. Hoping FSU can knock them off personally.

I am glad State avoided USC and SC, if the Pack can make it to the elite 8 I’d rather see UCLA than either of those 2.

 

[Plebe]

ND got a raw deal. They beat 3,4 and 5, 10. Split with 7

I've certainly seen the committee penalize teams in recent years for the “late season fade” but I thought #9 was the lowest ND would land. No way should they be behind LSU and UNC. But then again they got matched with what I consider the most favorable 2 seed ... so that's a tradeoff I would take in the unthinkable scenario of being a ND fan

 

[Alydar]

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.

I thought I was the only one that missed the thread about the change in keeping conference foes apart. I used to read all the new policy/procedure rules but it's a big dog and pony show now. Why not just let Charlie do it. Charlie admitted several years ago, (after failing badly on his own) that he attended the Committee's early meetings and mock seeding sessions and kept in touch. It's a win-win. He gets clicks and the NCAA's seedings agree with Charlie in the end so they MUST be reliable.
I think what annoys me the most is when people ask the NCAA "why this team and not that team"? There is always a plausible response but each one is unique to that matchup and they end up contradicting each other. In one case it's NET, in another it's bad losses and in a third it's quad 1 wins.

"I never knew a man could tell so many lies, he had a different story for every pair of eyes."*

The top 16 are the only ones with a chance. The rest are there for the party. And I'm talking about the school admins. If the idea is to show wcbb at it's best then have a double elimination tournament with 16 teams. The TV revenues would be much more lucrative and lots of expense would be avoided.

* - Neil Young

 

[WBBTakeover]

Notre Dame was a surprise as a 3 to me. UNC was a surprise as a 3 as well. I figured they were a 4.

I get that Vandy could be a tricky second round game for Duke but to me they got the easiest 3 possible. The Vandy game is at home, gotta take care of business and then you get the benefit of the weakest 3 in the field. Don’t hate that path for Duke.

For State, I haven’t watched Michigan State so I don’t have a strong feeling on that potential match up. The idea of playing LSU is scary to me. I know everyone doubts them, but they are talented and physical. State struggled when they can’t control the boards, I don’t love that match up. Hoping FSU can knock them off personally.

I am glad State avoided USC and SC, if the Pack can make it to the elite 8 I’d rather see UCLA than either of those 2.

 

[southie]

I've certainly seen the committee penalize teams in recent years for the “late season fade” but I thought #9 was the lowest ND would land. No way should they be behind LSU and UNC. But then again they got matched with what I consider the most favorable 2 seed ... so that's a tradeoff I would take in the unthinkable scenario of being a ND fan

I mean, LSU (SEC) could not be seeded in South Carolina's or Texas' regions. So, it was UCLA's or USC's regions. And, with Oklahoma (SEC) also on the 3-line, I get why LSU is where they are. But, as we've both stated, no way Notre Dame should have been behind North Carolina.

 

[TheFarmFan]

ND got a raw deal. They beat 3,4 and 5, 10. Split with 7

It's only certain scenarios where they try to avoid (or are supposed to try to avoid) having conference rivals face off. When it comes to the #1 seeds they have always just stuck to the true order regardless of conference. Recall 2013 when Notre Dame and UConn were overall #2 and #3 and they didn't try to prevent a national semifinal meeting between us.

The problem I have with the committee's rationale, "we just follow the S curve," is that they set the S curve. They're not blind to the consequences when they're ranking teams, and it's clearly a subjective art, not an objective science. It'd be one thing if they used BCS-style computer rankings to determine seeds, but when they're slotting in every team, acting like they're blind about what that means is a little too "lady doth protest too much" for me.

I mean, LSU (SEC) could not be seeded in South Carolina's or Texas' regions. So, it was UCLA's or USC's regions. And, with Oklahoma (SEC) also on the 3-line, I get why LSU is where they are. But, as we've both stated, no way Notre Dame should have been behind North Carolina.

 

[BRS24]

I'm probably late to the game, but just realized that if either UCLA/SC or Texas/USC were swapped, we'd have the possibility, on chalk, that the finals could have been either all B10 or all SEC.

If coaches decide to go public with their displeasure, it impacts the team, becomes the media circus topic, etc etc. IMO that's why Geno has said in public, we go where we're told to go. Many years ago, he was irate at seeding, probably the infamous #2 seed in 1998 when Stanford got the #1 seed, and he's also called out the committee a few other times.

 

[Plebe]

The problem I have with the committee's rationale, "we just follow the S curve," is that they set the S curve. They're not blind to the consequences when they're ranking teams, and it's clearly a subjective art, not an objective science. It'd be one thing if they used BCS-style computer rankings to determine seeds, but when they're slotting in every team, acting like they're blind about what that means is a little too "lady doth protest too much" for me.

What strikes me as funny about this situation is that normally folks are accusing the committee of rigging the seeding/bracketing in order to create or avoid certain matchups. But here it seems folks are upset at them for not doing so.

 

[Plebe]

I mean, LSU (SEC) could not be seeded in South Carolina's or Texas' regions. So, it was UCLA's or USC's regions. And, with Oklahoma (SEC) also on the 3-line, I get why LSU is where they are. But, as we've both stated, no way Notre Dame should have been behind North Carolina.

We're talking about the "true" seed list, not any bracketing adjustments made for conference conflicts.

However they for some reason didn't mind putting Duke and UNC in the same reigonal even though they were both among the first 4 teams selected from the same conference.

 

[southie]

We're talking about the "true" seed list, not any bracketing adjustments made for conference conflicts.

However they for some reason didn't mind putting Duke and UNC in the same regional even though they were both among the first 4 teams selected from the same conference.

There was no way to avoid it that I could see. I believe the rule is that they try to avoid placing teams from same conference in same region, but they start with that principle for the 1-line teams first.

I guess they could have swapped UConn and Duke, but that's trying to work things for the 3-line teams. Or, swap ND/NC with Oklahoma, but then OU would have been in a region with another SEC team.


UCLA--------SCarolina----Texas---------USC
NC State----Duke--------TCU-----------UConn
LSU----------NC-----------ND-----------Oklahoma
Baylor-------Maryland-----Ohio State---Kentucky


Two ACC teams on the 2-line. Two ACC teams on the 3-line. Two SEC teams on the 2-line and 1-line.