Bracketology 12/12

[CL82]

Manhattan and then Albany? This is acceptable to me. I wouldn't mind another crack at NC State either.

 

[Centerstream]

Interesting that Charlie dropped the Lady Vols from his brackets. (Not that they deserve to be included but still, it's Tennessee. )

 

[Centerstream]

View attachment 93998
Manhattan and then Albany? This is acceptable to me. I wouldn't mind another crack at NC State either.

And the Wolfpack fans can freak out again if they have to face a lower seeded UConn in another "Home" game.

 

[visitingcock]

Interesting that Charlie dropped the Lady Vols from his brackets. (Not that they deserve to be included but still, it's Tennessee. )

With NET as their "guide" Tennessee is ranked 96. That ain't equal to 68 minus AQs even if all the AQs are top 68 anyway.

 

[JoePgh]

View attachment 93998
Manhattan and then Albany? This is acceptable to me. I wouldn't mind another crack at NC State either.

I assume you realize that this refers to Manhattan, Kansas, home to Kansas State. That would definitely be a road game for UConn.

 

[Bone Dog]

NET is not very accurate early in the season because it doesn't have a good SoS factor. As a result, it overrates blowouts over creampuffs, which abound at this time of year. But by February, it is much more accurate, in my opinion. So, Charlie has a dilemma: either 1) he puts on his seer's turban and brackets according to what is likely to happen over the next couple months and suffers all sorts of ignominy from one set of fans, or 2) he follows NET even though he knows how unreliable it is now.

 

[HopJim]

Would like this bracket to become reality. Nothing is a given, but today's UConn team would have a fighting chance to go far. Suspect the Huskie team entering the NCAA's to be measurably better.

 

[Bone Dog]

Yup, and that development is almost impossible to predict. They could turn out way better than anyone imagines or simply turn out exactly as everyone expects. The expectations are low for Ice right now, but I think she could really turn it on in January. Why? Because Geno said he thought she could really help the team before her injury. Whatever he saw then will gradually come back to her.

 

[visitingcock]

NET is not very accurate early in the season because it doesn't have a good SoS factor. As a result, it overrates blowouts over creampuffs, which abound at this time of year. But by February, it is much more accurate, in my opinion. So, Charlie has a dilemma: either 1) he puts on his seer's turban and brackets according to what is likely to happen over the next couple months and suffers all sorts of ignominy from one set of fans, or 2) he follows NET even though he knows how unreliable it is now.

Well, he can’t use NET in the first month because it is not even released until about a month into the season. So, he basically uses his own opinion perhaps tempered by the preseason polls.

But let’s remember that the Committee doesn’t even strictly follow NET,

 

[Huskee11]

There will be games at Gampel in mid to late March. UConn will play well enough to deserve it and the Committee will not be looking to ship them elsewhere.

They will end up in Albany as well.

 

[Bone Dog]

But let’s remember that the Committee doesn’t even strictly follow NET

Of course they can’t strictly follow it. But it’s their starting point and departures from it are primarily to manage logistics. They know they’ll get flak from coaches and fans for any departure they can’t justify. The path of least resistance is always to stick as close to it as is feasible.

 

[bballnut90]

There will be games at Gampel in mid to late March. UConn will play well enough to deserve it and the Committee will not be looking to ship them elsewhere.

They will end up in Albany as well.

Agreed. There’s no way the committee doesn’t put UCONN in the Albany Regional. If UCONN can nab a top 4 seed, they’ll have a home court atmosphere until the Final Four

 

[Plebe]

Of course they can’t strictly follow it. But it’s their starting point and departures from it are primarily to manage logistics. They know they’ll get flak from coaches and fans for any departure they can’t justify. The path of least resistance is always to stick as close to it as is feasible.

This is not really accurate. The committee creates its own ranking of teams 1-68, separate and distinct from the NET, long before any "logistical" adjustments are made to the S-curve for bracket placement. The NET is but one factor among many that the committee considers in ranking the teams.

 

[Bone Dog]

This is not really accurate. The committee creates its own ranking of teams 1-68, separate and distinct from the NET, long before any "logistical" adjustments are made to the S-curve for bracket placement. The NET is but one factor among many that the committee considers in ranking the teams.

You may be right. What are the other, non-logistical factors they consider in putting their ranking together?

 

[Plebe]

The ranking I am referring to occurs after all 68 teams are selected. The committee follows a 3-step process:

1. select the at-large teams who will join the automatic qualifiers to form the field of 68;
2. rank the teams 1-68;
3. place the teams in the bracket.

It's not a "re-ranking" because the committee doesn't rank the teams before selecting the field.

 

[Plebe]

You may be right. What are the other, non-logistical factors they consider in putting their ranking together?

From the NCAA's FAQ site on the NET:

How does the NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Committee use NET during the selection process, and will the NET ranking be weighed more heavily than the other criteria in the selection process?​

​

The NET is one of many criteria used by the Division I Women's Basketball Committee in the selection of the 36 at-large teams and seeding of the 68 teams which make up the bracket for the Division I Women's Basketball Championship.​

Criteria used by the Division I Women's Basketball Committee to evaluate a team includes (alphabetically):​

● Bad losses​

● Common opponents​

● Competitive in losses​

● Conference record​

● Early performance versus late performance​

● Head-to-head​

● NET ranking​

● Non-conference record​

● Observable component​

● Overall record​

● Regional rankings​

● Significant wins​

● Strength of schedule​

​

During selection weekend, the committee members independently evaluate a vast pool of information. It is these subjective opinions, developed after watching hundreds of games, investing many hours of personal team (or game) observations, review and comparison of objective data, plus discussions with coaches and campus/conference representatives, that dictate how each committee member ultimately votes on the selection of the 36 at-large teams, seeding and bracketing of the teams that make up the 68-team championship bracket each year.​

 

[Bone Dog]

The ranking I am referring to occurs after all 68 teams are selected. The committee follows a 3-step process:

1. select the at-large teams who will join the automatic qualifiers to form the field of 68;
2. rank the teams 1-68;
3. place the teams in the bracket.

It's not a "re-ranking" because the committee doesn't rank the teams before selecting the field.

I see what you mean. Sorting for AQs is one of the things I was lumping into the logistics category. I should have spoken more precisely.

My overall point, poorly articulated as it was, is that the committee gets some cover from criticism for their choices if they don’t stray very far from the NET, because the NET is the main ranking system in the public eye. I wouldn’t say they’re simply following the NET. But I suspect they have an eye on it at various points in their work.

 

[Plebe]

I see what you mean. Sorting for AQs is one of the things I was lumping into the logistics category. I should have spoken more precisely.

My overall point, poorly articulated as it was, is that the committee gets some cover from criticism for their choices if they don’t stray very far from the NET, because the NET is the main ranking system in the public eye. I wouldn’t say they’re simply following the NET. But I suspect they have an eye on it at various points in their work.

That hypothesis holds a certain allure, but the committee's track record doesn't bear it out. Every year it departs in all sorts of ways from the NET (or, previously, the RPI).

Last year, for example, Oregon (#19 in the NET) and Kansas (#37) didn't get selected, while West Virginia (#60) and St. John's (#55) did. Oklahoma (#38) was given a 5-seed, while Alabama (#29) was a 10. Clearly the committee shows little fear of departing from the NET even as they do have their eye on it.

When the committee chairs are questioned about specific selections or seedings, they never simply hide behind the NET/RPI, but rather cite data points such as significant wins or bad losses, strong or weak records against top teams, strong or weak strength of schedule, etc.

 

[MSGRET]

I'm glad that ESPN isn't in charge of the selection. Currently they are fawning all over the LSU drubbing of McNeese State 133 - 44, what they don't tell you that Massey has McNeese State rated #352 out of the 360 Div 1 basketball teams.

 

[Cornell Lt]

In a Kansas St UConn matchup. Ayoka Lee would probably go off with 40 pts and 20 rebounds as UConn would have no answer for her.

 

[Barkin Out]

In a Kansas St UConn matchup. Ayoka Lee would probably go off with 40 pts and 20 rebounds as UConn would have no answer for her.

Funny things happen in the NCAA. Sometimes the matchups we expect don’t happen for long before some non-player exerts their will over the the game

 

[Centerstream]

Funny things happen in the NCAA. Sometimes the matchups we expect don’t happen for long before some non-player exerts their will over the the game

Good point and your sample is spot on, IMO.