Bracketology 3/9/2019

Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,919
Likes
2,745
This is not a hard-and-fast rule *unless* the teams have already played each other 3 times.

There is a principle that says the committee "will attempt" to prevent conference rivals from meeting until the regional final, but that's not a hard-and-fast rule. There are other principles that can take precedence.
I believe that they do mandate that if there are 2 conference teams in the same region they must not meet till the E8. 2's & 3's meet in the S16. And I disagree about the level of importance of this policy. It trumps geography for sure. If it didn't then Stanford and Oregon would both be in the west.
 

vowelguy

Boneyard contrarian since 1998
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
14,559
Likes
12,412
It trumps geography for sure. If it didn't then Stanford and Oregon would both be in the west.
There's a separate rule about the top 4 seeds -- two teams from the same conference that are both in the top 16 cannot be in the same region unless the conf has >4 teams in the top 16.
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
8,711
Likes
11,390
I believe that they do mandate that if there are 2 conference teams in the same region they must not meet till the E8. 2's & 3's meet in the S16. And I disagree about the level of importance of this policy. It trumps geography for sure. If it didn't then Stanford and Oregon would both be in the west.
I didn't say anything about geography.

From the tournament manual:

Each of the first four teams selected from a conference​
shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded​
on the first four lines.​
Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior​
to the regional final if they played each other three or​
more times during the regular season and conference​
tournament.​
The committee will attempt to keep conference teams​
from meeting until the regional final round.​
If the committee is unable to balance the bracket after​
exhausting all possible options, it has the flexibility to
permit two teams from the same conference to meet
each other after the first round [emphasis added].​
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,919
Likes
2,745
When the NCAA awarded a regional to Portland, OR for 2 consecutive years (or was it 3 years?), it was with the assumption that either Oregon or Oregon State would be good enough to be a Top 16 seed and bring a lot of fans to the regional. Don't kid yourselves to think that Oregon is going to be sent to any regional other than Portland, regardless of whether they are a #1 or #2 seed.

Stanford is deserving of a #1 seed, IMO, over Oregon, and they have a proximity argument as to being sent to Portland instead of the Ducks. But, would attendance be even close with Stanford there instead of Oregon? I don't think so.

Same premise as when the committee awards Regionals to cities in the northeast -- because UConn fans will buy tickets and support their team year in and year out.
Arenas are invited to make offers for the regionals. The NCAA accepts the best deals. Albany and Bridgeport can offer a higher guarantee than most other sites because they know it will be a near full house.
 

southie

Longhorn Lover
Joined
Apr 1, 2012
Messages
732
Likes
733
As we saw 3 or 4 years ago, the committee has no problem "rationalizing" their (last-minute) decisions like when they sent Notre Dame to Lexington and South Carolina all the way to South Dakota to the total dismay of Dawn Staley.

If the committee determines Notre Dame to be the #1 overall seed (which I do believe they are worthy based on their resume'), that allows them to send Baylor anywhere they want (including Portland) without violating the rule that the overall #1 seed must be sent to the closest regional site (that's still a rule, right?).

So, paying no attention to what Crème has to say about Miss. State being a #1 seed (he's been wrong plenty the last few seasons when it comes to the top seeds and their regional locations):

Chicago: Notre Dame/Iowa
Portland: Baylor/Oregon
Albany: UConn/Miss. State
Greensboro: Stanford/Louisville (and they can still send South Carolina there instead of NC State from ACC)
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
149
Likes
109
It's tough to say who the 4th no. 1 seed should be. If you're going on resume building wins, I'd say State should'nt be a 1 seed because we have no top 10 wins. If you want to add considerations like winning your conference and conference tournament, I can see the argument.

I figured this would happen. There would be 3 clear cut 1 seeds and a 4th that can be debated. I don't really have a strong opinion on it. A number by your name doesn't equal a ring at the end of the tournament. The 2 seeds are so good that it doesn't matter where you go. If State is a 1 seed, it's not much of advantage to go play a home game against Oregon and have Miami in your bracket as another possiblity.
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
8,711
Likes
11,390
As we saw 3 or 4 years ago, the committee has no problem "rationalizing" their (last-minute) decisions like when they sent Notre Dame to Lexington and South Carolina all the way to South Dakota to the total dismay of Dawn Staley.

If the committee determines Notre Dame to be the #1 overall seed (which I do believe they are worthy based on their resume'), that allows them to send Baylor anywhere they want (including Portland) without violating the rule that the overall #1 seed must be sent to the closest regional site (that's still a rule, right?).
There is no rule per se about sending any team to the closest regional site.

On geography the wording in the tournament manual is rather vague: "By order of the s-curve, the committee will assign each team to a regional and first-/second-round site by taking into account distance from site, mode of transportation and accessibility by fans."

We have seen many times that this doesn't necessarily translate to the closest regional site. In 2014 UConn was the clear #1 overall seed, but they were sent to the Lincoln regional instead of Louisville or South Bend (presumably to allow Notre Dame and Louisville to have their "home-court" regionals).

The infamous 2016 Lexington/South Dakota controversy was, according to the committee chair, decided by driving vs. flying distance: South Bend is less than 350 miles from Lexington, and Columbia SC isn't.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,919
Likes
2,745
I didn't say anything about geography.

From the tournament manual:

Each of the first four teams selected from a conference
shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded
on the first four lines.
Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior​
to the regional final if they played each other three or​
more times during the regular season and conference​
tournament.​
The committee will attempt to keep conference teams​
from meeting until the regional final round.​
If the committee is unable to balance the bracket after​
exhausting all possible options, it has the flexibility to
permit two teams from the same conference to meet
each other after the first round [emphasis added].​
The first part (that I bolded and enlarged) is the pertinent section. Notice the word "shall". It is an imperative. The rest of that section applies to 2 conference teams when only one (or none) are among the top 16 teams. Or when a conference has more than 4 teams among the top 16.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
8,711
Likes
11,390
The first part (that I bolded and enlarged) is the pertinent section. Notice the word "shall". It is an imperative. The rest of that section applies to 2 conference teams when only one (or none) are among the top 16 teams.
The original question to which I was responding was: "In the latest bracket, can L'ville and Syracuse be the 2 and 3 in Albany? I thought conference rivals cannot meet until the regional final."

This would be verboten by the "shall" provision only if they're among the first 4 teams selected from the ACC. Syracuse might be the committee's 5th team from the ACC (depending on whether they're slotted ahead of or behind Miami). If Syracuse is the committee's 4th ACC team, then yes, they will have to be in a separate region from Louisville (i.e., the earliest they could meet would be the Final Four, not the Elite 8).

If Syracuse is the 5th team from the ACC, then the "shall" provision doesn't apply. In that scenario the committee "will attempt" to keep Syracuse from meeting an ACC rival before the Elite 8, but they have the "flexibility" to have them meet as early as the 2nd round.
 
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
25
Likes
18
This is not a new development, the committe has had them in Chicago both reveals. Just no pleasing you Irish folk is there? ;)
A lot of crocodile tears me think's. For all the handwringing one loss was to a veteran Stanford team after Lloyd went early to the WNBA . The other after Turner tore up her knee during the 2nd game South Bend. Texas A&m would be a greater threat.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
483
Likes
721
The goal is to win a Championship and y'alls strengths work better against teams like UConn and Louisville. So I am surprised that y'all would want to play us considering your two bigger strengths are our biggest strengths. So they would possibly offset.
It is not wanting to play Baylor, it is where we would have to play UConn and Oregon. I think fan support at Portland or Albany would be almost like a home game for them, Greensboro would be more of a neutral site. MSST fans travel but local support at Albany or Portland would overwhelm the MSST fans traveling. Also I just want to see a Baylor MSST matchup!
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
8,711
Likes
11,390
They're Tennessee, that's why. .. huh
Tennessee has 5 wins over the RPI top 50. There are no other bubble teams that have that many.

It's no guarantee that they're in. But other bubble teams have been losing left and right, and tournament selection is a comparison game. The 32 at-large teams have to come from somewhere.
 

southie

Longhorn Lover
Joined
Apr 1, 2012
Messages
732
Likes
733
Stanford wouldn't be considered for a #1 seed with losses to Gonzaga, Cal, Utah, and Oregon, the last being a 40 point loss to Oregon at Stanford.
That's definitely the glass half-empty outlook. Regardless, those losses are facts. But, despite those losses they still are #4 in the RPI rankings, #6 in SOS, and #7 in non-conference SOS; that's tough to beat.

The glass half-full outlook is that they beat Baylor, UCLA (twice), Arizona State (twice), Oregon State, California, and Oregon (to claim the conference tourney championship).
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
7,733
Likes
9,419
How on earth is Tennessee in the ncaa tournament. Tf.. they lost like 5 or 6 games, primarily to unranked opponents.
TN has lost 12 games, 5 of them to opponents who are currently unranked. But, if they win one game in either the conference or NCAA tournament, they will have another 20-win season.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
346
Likes
273
A lot of crocodile tears me think's. For all the handwringing one loss was to a veteran Stanford team after Lloyd went early to the WNBA . The other after Turner tore up her knee during the 2nd game South Bend. Texas A&m would be a greater threat.
I personally think Stanford is a better team then Texas A&M. But either way no game will come easy.
 

nwhoopfan

hopeless West Coast homer
Joined
Feb 16, 2017
Messages
8,940
Likes
7,060
That's definitely the glass half-empty outlook. Regardless, those losses are facts. But, despite those losses they still are #4 in the RPI rankings, #6 in SOS, and #7 in non-conference SOS; that's tough to beat.

The glass half-full outlook is that they beat Baylor, UCLA (twice), Arizona State (twice), Oregon State, California, and Oregon (to claim the conference tourney championship).
Agreed. Claiming Texas A&M is better than Stanford just seems way out in left field to me.
 

TheFarmFan

Stanford Fan, Huskies Admirer (most of the time)
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
133
Likes
346
RPI tells a different tale, my friend. Stanford is 4-2 vs. RPI top 25, 12-3 vs. RPI top 50, and 1 sub-top 50 loss (Utah). Four losses total.

Texas A&M is 2-3 vs. RPI top 25, and 7-5 vs. RPI top 50, with another 2 sub-top 50 losses (Arkansas and LSU).

Don't like RPI? Massey: Stanford is 7-2 vs. top 25, 14-4 vs. top 50 (Utah is 43 by Massey).

Massey on A&M: 3-3 vs. top 25, 8-3 vs. top 50, and 3 other sub-top 50 losses (Arkansas, LSU, and Lamar).

Not even close.
 

Top