Bracketology 12/12 | The Boneyard

Bracketology 12/12

CL82

CL82

James Breeding sucks
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
63,983
Reaction Score
251,558
IMG_1111.jpeg

Manhattan and then Albany? This is acceptable to me. I wouldn't mind another crack at NC State either.
 
Interesting that Charlie dropped the Lady Vols from his brackets. (Not that they deserve to be included but still, it's Tennessee. :eek:)
 
Centerstream said:
Interesting that Charlie dropped the Lady Vols from his brackets. (Not that they deserve to be included but still, it's Tennessee. :eek:)
Expand ...
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.
 
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.
 
.-.
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 said:
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.
Expand ...
or 3) wait until January /February before doing any of this "Bracketology"
 
CajunHusky said:
Just how good UConn can become, or how far they can go depends almost completely on the Development of Ashlynn, KK, Q and Ice over the 20 games or so left this year.
Expand ...
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.
 
Bone Dog said:
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.
Expand ...
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,
 
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.
 
.-.
visitingcock said:
But let’s remember that the Committee doesn’t even strictly follow NET
Expand ...
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.
 
Huskee11 said:
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.
Expand ...
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
 
Bone Dog said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
Plebe said:
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.
Expand ...
You may be right. What are the other, non-logistical factors they consider in putting their ranking together?
 
Plebe said:
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.
Expand ...
After the tourney field is set then they are all re-ranked 1 - 68 .... keep in mind that many of the teams that make it to the NCAA are auto-qualifers and not necessarily top 68 or even top 100. If my team was ranked 50 and we didn't aq, I would be worried.
 
CajunHusky said:
After the tourney field is set then they are all re-ranked 1 - 68 .... keep in mind that many of the teams that make it to the NCAA are auto-qualifers and not necessarily top 68 or even top 100. If my team was ranked 50 and we didn't aq, I would be worried.
Expand ...
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.
 
.-.
Bone Dog said:
You may be right. What are the other, non-logistical factors they consider in putting their ranking together?
Expand ...
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.​
 
Plebe said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
Bone Dog said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
.-.
MSGRET said:
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.
Expand ...
I actually watched that game -- I must have had nothing else to do. It was a laugher, in part because McNeese St. has almost no defensive scheme other than a zone and a non-switching man-to-man and they were too slow to make either one work. So, just your basic Mulkey Cupcake Stomping. The plus side for LSU is that Rosario got to play 20 mins and scored 27 on 10-14. that's got to help her confidence, though shooting 7-14 on FTs wasn't very encouraging. All of her scoring was on lobs into the paint and all her defenders could do was foul her.

Cornell Lt said:
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.
Expand ...
To quote Meghan Culmo, in games against teams like K St, "You just have to make it a track meet." Lee is quite slow of foot these days, which is perfectly understandable given her recuperation. So, unless she shows marked improvement in foot speed by March, they won't go far in the tournament, and Paige and Aaliyah and the freshmen should run away with it in such a matchup. K St. would have absolutely no answer for Paige. Who does, after all?

You expect Lee to score 20 or so, and you shut down the rest of the team. I'd have Aubrey on her playing deny defense on the lobs into the post and don't waste time and energy trying to muscle Lee out of there. Let Aaliyah and Paige and the freshmen shut down everything else. This is what was so peculiar about their win over Iowa, who should have just run away with it. But Caitlin & Co had not really coalesced at that point.
 
What I don't understand is how Texas and NC State have been given so much credit for quality wins against us, but we've dropped as far as we have? Like, if we aren't that good, how can NC State and Texas vaulted up so far in the polls with our win being the best one on their resume?
 
ucbart said:
What I don't understand is how Texas and NC State have been given so much credit for quality wins against us, but we've dropped as far as we have? Like, if we aren't that good, how can NC State and Texas vaulted up so far in the polls with our win being the best one on their resume?
Expand ...
NC State also has a win over Colorado; only a handful of teams have multiple wins over ranked teams. But, I see what you're saying.
 
ucbart said:
What I don't understand is how Texas and NC State have been given so much credit for quality wins against us, but we've dropped as far as we have? Like, if we aren't that good, how can NC State and Texas vaulted up so far in the polls with our win being the best one on their resume?
Expand ...
So where should they be ranked? Which teams currently ranked below them have shown they deserve to be ranked ahead of them?

Also, the poll voters likely noticed that those teams didn't just beat UConn, but they did so convincingly.
 
ucbart said:
What I don't understand is how Texas and NC State have been given so much credit for quality wins against us, but we've dropped as far as we have? Like, if we aren't that good, how can NC State and Texas vaulted up so far in the polls with our win being the best one on their resume?
Expand ...
Because once a team beats UConn, it's hard to prove that it was a fluke.
After 3 teams beat UConn it's even harder to prove that they were all flukes.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,549
Messages
4,582,026
Members
10,491
Latest member
7774Forever


Top Bottom