Bracketology 3/5/23

[SJF]

Charlie is now good for a laugh or two.

Yet ESPN just keeps throwing him out there.

 

[SLY63]

As much as I think Charlie is smoking something, the teams that scare me are SC, Stanford and Indiana, and I would take his bracket (Va Tech 1, Iowa 2, UConn 3). I've never seen them play (so I am speaking out of ignorance), but I think we would have no issue with Va Tech (or Utah).

 

[SJF]

Don’t care if our seeding is a 1,2 or 3 as long as it’s opposite of S.C. so the best 2 teams in the country can play for the NC

 

[BRS24]

Not bad for a 3-seed.

(Shown on ESPN during the Louisville/VA Tech game.)

**EDIT: Just realized the three teams beneath UConn are projected 1-seeds. The jokes write themselves.

View attachment 84705

And this:

 

[Cornell Lt]

I saw a graphic listing UConn as having the most top 25 wins ( or games, not sure) with 10. A couple teams had nine. That should carry some weight.

That was teams ranked in the top 25 of the NET rankings

 

[hoopsnloops32]

this game is irrelevant to a 1 seed, at best its a 2 for Uconn but too many loses to get a 1 at this point. Esp when the h2h with Maryland was lost.

How you figure when other one seeds have as many or more losses?

 

[Mike72fl]

I want them to seed UConn as low as possible. It would make Geno and his players so mad that they would crush all the teams on its way to the final 4. As I mentioned, there are regular season games and there are games in March/April.

 

[Bone Dog]

this game is irrelevant to a 1 seed, at best its a 2 for Uconn but too many loses to get a 1 at this point. Esp when the h2h with Maryland was lost.

I think Megan and I will just have to agree to disagree with you. We suspect the committee will see that we lost a close game to MD playing without Azzi, Nika and Dorka and starting our 4th string pg. They may also notice that we beat Iowa handily without Dorka.

 

[bballnut90]

With 2 regional sites, is the S-curve still based on geography or is it set up based on seeding/ranking where the top #1 plays the weakest #2?

 

[socal613ws]

How you figure when other one seeds have as many or more losses?

because Indiana lost to a top 10 team and a top 20 team we now think they're not a 1? Because Stanford lost to a top 20 team they're not a 1 now? Compare that to losing at home to St John's and at Marquette, 2 teams that might not even get in the tournament it's pretty obvious.

 

[Rb335]

because Indiana lost to a top 10 team and a top 20 team we now think they're not a 1? Because Stanford lost to a top 20 team they're not a 1 now? Compare that to losing at home to St John's and at Marquette, 2 teams that might not even get in the tournament it's pretty obvious.

My big thing is how is Uconn a 3 but Stanford is firmly a 1 seed per Crème.

Uconn- net #2, SOS #7, Losses per Massey (1, 8, 9, 41, 58) top 25 (9-3)

Stanford - net #4, SOS #5, Losses per Massey (1, 10, 14, 33, 56) top 25 (9-3)

They have really similar resumes. So what has Stanford done that’s so much better than Uconn? Not saying Uconn should be a 1, but how do you realistically rank Stanford 4th overall and Uconn 9th.

Although the losses to Marquette and St John’s aren’t great, Stanfords losses to USC and Washington aren’t great either.

 

[socal613ws]

My big thing is how is Uconn a 3 but Stanford is firmly a 1 seed per Crème.

Uconn- net #2, SOS #7, Losses per Massey (1, 8, 9, 41, 58) top 25 (9-3)

Stanford - net #4, SOS #5, Losses per Massey (1, 10, 14, 33, 56) top 25 (9-3)

They have really similar resumes. So what has Stanford done that’s so much better than Uconn? Not saying Uconn should be a 1, but how do you realistically rank Stanford 4th overall and Uconn 9th.

Although the losses to Marquette and St John’s aren’t great, Stanfords losses to USC and Washington aren’t great either.

quad 2 loss is what stands out, Stanford I think has 0 Uconn has 1. The pac 12 might get 8 teams if Oregon gets in, the big east gets maybe 3.

 

[Bone Dog]

because Indiana lost to a top 10 team and a top 20 team we now think they're not a 1? Because Stanford lost to a top 20 team they're not a 1 now? Compare that to losing at home to St John's and at Marquette, 2 teams that might not even get in the tournament it's pretty obvious.

Indiana lost to good teams because they ran out of gas, not because of injuries. There's no one coming to rescue them. That's the point of NET, to reflect how teams are playing in March. It matters more for seeding considerations. We may not like it and argue that resumé should count more, but that's not the reality.

We took two losses to middling teams in February -- that definitely hurt our chances -- but the return of Azzi made a startling difference even though she didn't score much. This puts those losses into context. The committee (and every other coach) has to be thinking: "What will they be like when Azzi starts hitting 3s like she did in November?" If Azzi hadn't come back, or hadn't made a difference in the way we play, I think we'd be a solid 3 seed.

The other thing the committee knows is that like SC and Stanford, UConn already knows what it feels like to play under tournament pressure. 6 of our veterans (if you include Amari who played in the NC game last year) know what kind of resolve winning a FF game demands. No-one besides SC has that kind of experience.

As someone in another thread (or maybe earlier in this one) any 1 seed who gets us as the 2 seed in their bracket is going to be screaming bloody murder. Remember NC St last year. I suspect the committee will seek to avoid this if they can. Of course, if we don't win decisively over Villanova, all bets are off.

 

[UConnCat]

The entire injury discussion is funny and brings back memories of Stanford and 1998. From the ESPN story:

Teams are supposed to inform the committee what the realistic prognosis is for an injured player ahead of Selection Sunday. Sometimes it doesn't happen, leaving the committee members to speculate or not consider the injury at all.

Wes Moore was very straightforward about Johnson saying she wouldn't play in the ACC tournament, hoping that the additional rest would allow her to play in the NCAA tournament. Niele Ivey, on the other hand, was much less . . . clear on Miles's availability even for the ACC Tournament. Ivey couldn't even say the words "Olivia Miles won't be available for the ACC tournament." She instead said: "She's day to day. She's still getting looked at, and so we won't really know until probably after the weekend." I suspect the Committee will get the same answer from Niele leading up to the Selection show.
Some will recall the situation in 1998 with Stanford and Vanessa Nygaard's knee injury in the PAC-10 conference final against Oregon State. While Nygaard's knee was undergoing testing (MRI), the committee tried to get in touch with Tara.

Jean Lenti Ponsetto, NCAA selection committee chair from DePaul: "By Saturday afternoon, when Nygaard was injured, the bracket was probably almost done. I know we tried to get ahold of Tara after we had heard that there was an injury at Stanford. The rule is that the committee is notified as soon as an injury happens, but that wasn't probably easy at that point because we were holed up. I remember the NCAA staff had tried to reach Tara, and she was out walking her dog. We had two brackets, one with them as a No. 1 seed and another with them as a No. 2. But the bottom line is, the committee went with the info we had. And we left them at a No. 1. I remember asking Tara later, 'Were you really out walking your dog while we were trying to reach you?' She said, 'I guess.'"

Stanford then lost to #16 seed Harvard.

 

[hoopsnloops32]

because Indiana lost to a top 10 team and a top 20 team we now think they're not a 1? Because Stanford lost to a top 20 team they're not a 1 now? Compare that to losing at home to St John's and at Marquette, 2 teams that might not even get in the tournament it's pretty obvious.

Stanford has any many losses as us, two of which aren't to top 20 teams, one of which was to a team worse than St Johns and Marquette, and they haven't had a single injury this whole season. Indiana also lost to Michigan State, another team worse than St Johns and Marquette. Iowa lost to a 16-15 Kansas State team. You are just cherry picking their good losses and only considering our bad losses.

 

[UConnCat]

the big east gets maybe 3.

Charlie has the BE getting 4 in, but I guess he's wrong on this one.

 

[hoopsnloops32]

quad 2 loss is what stands out, Stanford I think has 0 Uconn has 1. The pac 12 might get 8 teams if Oregon gets in, the big east gets maybe 3.

Now you are just showing your bias. Big East gets four maybe 5.

 

[Urshurak]

because Indiana lost to a top 10 team and a top 20 team we now think they're not a 1? Because Stanford lost to a top 20 team they're not a 1 now? Compare that to losing at home to St John's and at Marquette, 2 teams that might not even get in the tournament it's pretty obvious.

Marquette will be i the tournament. St Johns probably won't be. UConn, Villanova, Creighton and Marquette.

Stanford has lost 2 games outside of the top 25, like UConn

Injuries and who is NOW playing also are part of the conversation. Stanford was at full strength, UConn, as we have gone over a million times, was not.

UConn's Net and SOS is higher than Stanford's.

So, I agree, it's obvious, just 180 out from your obvious........

 

[UConnCat]

Charlie is predicting that Columbia will win the Ivy League Tournament and be an automatic qualifier for the tournament. He then has Princeton as one of the last four in the field of 68.

I doubt he's giving much thought to the Ivy League but curious why he consistently picks Columbia to win. Princeton and Columbia split their games this season and shared the Ivy League regular season championship, though Columbia was taken to OT by a 10-17 Cornell team in its last game. Princeton, meanwhile, won its last 12 regular season games, including an 18-point win over Columbia in early February. (Columbia defeated Princeton in OT in early January.)

The Ivy League tournament will be played at Jadwyn Gym, btw.

Go Tigers! Go Carla!

 

[DefenseBB]

You seem to be the one to not understand his role. His role is to drive clicks and conversations online- typically through outrage. He is nobody’s message, just a court jester.

Actually I DO GET his role, as I said in my original retort, his “role is to generate excitement and dialogue“, he does not have ANY SWAY, with the committee. Charlie has actually done a good job creating dialogue despite this boards view he is anti-UConn. VPI is 12-4 in Quad1 games but their SoS is #31 and yes being on a hot streak and winning your conference matter so it will be interesting what the 12 person committee decides.
The committee made up of conference team members who are given criteria and then argue their case for as many teams from their conference to qualify based on the criteria. There is a member from the ACC (Georgia Tech) and a member from the Big East (Villanov) so if UConn wins tonight and has a 14-4 Quad1 record plus a conference title and #2 SoS I think we will be placed higher than VPI.
I will be curious what Charlie will have to say after the game tonight which could go a long way to either validate or refute Nan’s view on an anti UConn stance.
if we win big, with our Quad1 record, our NET ranking, our SoS and an acknowledgment of our finally healthy roster, I do think we have a legitimate chance for a #1 and a better case than all but Indiana and SC.
we shall see. But the main point stands that Charlie is creating dialogue and clicks, though not necessarily of the good kind for people on this forum.

 

[hoopsnloops32]

Actually I DO GET his role, as I said in my original retort, his “role is to generate excitement and dialogue“, he does not have ANY SWAY, with the committee. Charlie has actually done a good job creating dialogue despite this boards view he is anti-UConn. VPI is 12-4 in Quad1 games but their SoS is #31 and yes being on a hot streak and winning your conference matter so it will be interesting what the 12 person committee decides.
The committee made up of conference team members who are given criteria and then argue their case for as many teams from their conference to qualify based on the criteria. There is a member from the ACC (Georgia Tech) and a member from the Big East (Villanov) so if UConn wins tonight and has a 14-4 Quad1 record plus a conference title and #2 SoS I think we will be placed higher than VPI.
I will be curious what Charlie will have to say after the game tonight which could go a long way to either validate or refute Nan’s view on an anti UConn stance.
if we win big, with our Quad1 record, our NET ranking, our SoS and an acknowledgment of our finally healthy roster, I do think we have a legitimate chance for a #1 and a better case than all but Indiana and SC.
we shall see. But the main point stands that Charlie is creating dialogue and clicks, though not necessarily of the good kind for people on this forum.

I apologize for not understanding your earlier post!

 

[DefenseBB]

My big thing is how is Uconn a 3 but Stanford is firmly a 1 seed per Crème.

Uconn- net #2, SOS #7, Losses per Massey (1, 8, 9, 41, 58) top 25 (9-3)

Stanford - net #4, SOS #5, Losses per Massey (1, 10, 14, 33, 56) top 25 (9-3)

They have really similar resumes. So what has Stanford done that’s so much better than Uconn? Not saying Uconn should be a 1, but how do you realistically rank Stanford 4th overall and Uconn 9th.

Although the losses to Marquette and St John’s aren’t great, Stanfords losses to USC and Washington aren’t great either.

The committee, is supposed to weigh Conference titles, injuries both out and returning in their assessments so while I would quibble our losses to unranked teams and only projected to make the NCAAT are worse than Stanfords losses to 2 ranked teams, our conference title and returning players of Azzi and Caroline Trump the Cardinal resume. Both teams are 8-3 in their last 11.
To me, we should be the 3rd #1 seed, Stanford, 4th #1 seed, Iowa the top #2 seed, VaTech the second #2 seed (6th overall), Utah third #2 seed and LSU fourth #2 seed.

 

[hoopsnloops32]

The committee, is supposed to weigh Conference titles, injuries both out and returning in their assessments so while I would quibble our losses to unranked teams and only projected to make the NCAAT are worse than Stanfords losses to 2 ranked teams, our conference title and returning players of Azzi and Caroline Trump the Cardinal resume. Both teams are 8-3 in their last 11.
To me, we should be the 3rd #1 seed, Stanford, 4th #1 seed, Iowa the top #2 seed, VaTech the second #2 seed (6th overall), Utah third #2 seed and LSU fourth #2 seed.

I agree with this is exactly what I think the commitee will do if we win tonight, especially if its by double digits.

 

[CajunHusky]

UConn dropped to a 3 seed on "weak" wins to end the regular season against teams like Georgetown and Xavier. But they have bounced back with very strong wins in the tournament and the return of Azzi. Meanwhile as of Sunday, 6 of the top 10 AP teams lost - including the 2 thru 6 ranked teams. How does UConn NOT rise to a 2 seed?

 

[VA Huskie]

I think UConn’s seeding will be based, ALMOST ENTIRELY, on the Committee’s assessment of the likely availability and performance of our HEALTHY MAGNIFICENT SEVEN - AE, Dorka, Nika, AG, Lou, CD and Azzi. We are 8-0 with a healthy Azzi. We just beat two teams (1 beat us last time and the other played us tough twice) by 30 points… with Azzi and CD. Along with all the other stats (NET, SOS, etc), it’s pretty clear we’re one of the best 4 teams in the country.

Now let’s go out and beat Villanova by 15-20 points - and make the Committee’s decision even easier.

 

[hoopsnloops32]

UConn dropped to a 3 seed on "weak" wins to end the regular season against teams like Georgetown and Xavier. But they have bounced back with very strong wins in the tournament and the return of Azzi. Meanwhile as of Sunday, 6 of the top 10 AP teams lost - including the 2 thru 6 ranked teams. How does UConn NOT rise to a 2 seed?

Uconn never dropped to a 3 seed. The committee only dropped them to a 2 seed.

 

[BRS24]

Uconn never dropped to a 3 seed. The committee only dropped them to a 2 seed.

Good point. The 2/9 reveal had us as a #1 in Seattle "4" and the 2/23 as a #2 in Greenville "2".

 

[Bjbod]

Uconn never dropped to a 3 seed. The committee only dropped them to a 2 seed.

Personally, the 2 teams I don't want in Iowa's way to the Final 4 are UConn and S Carolina.

 

[UCBaller2012]

Not really sure why Nova would be in danger to host, but he seems to not be sold on them

 

[HuskyFan1125]

He wasn’t sold on them when the committee initially had them in the first reveal. Memory serves me correctly when asked what stood out on the reveal he said Novas inclusion.