Bracketology Feb 26th. Baylor still a #2 Seed.

[Vowelguy]

If ND loses to Lou, it will have 3 losses, all to #1 seeds. Baylor has played no # 1 seeds. Who’s to say it could have done any better?

Among the (rough) top 16:

ND will also have wins over Fla St, SC, Tenn, Oregon st

Baylor has Wins over Tex (x2), Stanford, and a loss to UCLA.

 

[skilz]

As I contemplate this, I wonder if Oregon wins the PAC12, Louisville wins the ACC if Oregon gets a #1 in Spokane and Baylor is #2. ND would go to Kansas City, Texas goes to Lexington. BU would be the best #2 seed, Oregon the weakest #1 seed, SC would be the weakest #2 seed and goes to Albany. Louisville as the 3rd #1 is in Lex, MSU as the overall second best is #1 in KC.

Based on what the committee has stressed last year with Maryland and in all the reveals this year, SoS is a major factor. You want to be the best, play the best. I just don't see them "rewarding" Baylor with a #1 even if the eye test says yes, #1- you need to go and prove it.

BTW, Kim has been remarkably silent on this. Maybe she wants to see the final seeding as up to this point it's all speculation. I do wonder if she will modify her soft schedule of "in-state cupcakes" and "home-cooking" in Nov/Dec and actually take on a few blue bloods, of which she is supposed be one of.
Seriously-Lamar, Coppin St, Missouri St, North Dakota, McNeese and Nichols dotted your schedule this year and ALL were at home.

So the more I write, the more I want BU to be a #2. You want to be considered a "big boy" put on "big boy pants" and play other "big boys"....

Defense - What I hear, scheduling was quite hectic this year which turned into more "home" games than normal (several scheduled games fell through for one reason or another). However, Kim has always had a few cupcakes scheduled each year, and I'm not sure that changes next year with 5 new Freshman coming in. We do know UConn goes to Baylor next year, and we also know that Baylor will go to Stanford. I also expect Baylor to have a tougher game (away) for the Big 12/SEC Challenge (this could possibly be SC or Tenn from what I hear). All in all, I definitely expect a tougher schedule for Baylor next year, but not a dominant one. As a note: Baylor was to play in a tournament in New Orleans this year with teams that included Missouri (can't remember the others but they were much better than McNeese and Nichols). This tournament fell through for Baylor, however I believe it had more to do with a last minute schedule for Big 12/SEC challenge. McNeese, Stanford, and Nichols were scheduled to take the place of the tourney, which was last minute. Nichols was scheduled to get Kalani Brown and Moon Ursin back home (Kim schedules games for all the girls in their home towns).

I'm actually interested in hearing why you think Oregon would jump to a #1. With loses to Stanford (whom Baylor beat) and Oregon State, not sure how Oregon could get the ranking of a #1. I would think that Louisville and ND (no matter the outcome of the tourney) stays ahead of Oregon. Oregon is a good #2.

 

[Tonyc]

Well as of right now I would pick ND as the second best team behind UConn number 1. Miss St third LVille 4th and Baylor 5th. Im looking at defense, balance on both offense and defense and coaching. ND and LVille have multiple players that can score and they are very quick. ND plays better D. Miss St and Baylor imo dont. Miss St is very disciplined much like ND.

 

[shizam]

I have found in the past that C.Creme's bracket placements of the 8 regions does not always fall in line with the committee's brackets. Any comments/thoughts?

Not sure about that but Creme tends to be high on L’vile most of the time. Two years ago he picked them to reach final four and they got beat in the 2nd round at home by DePaul thanks to Jessica January.

 

[triaddukefan]

Just looked at the latest RPI. If Louisville advances to the ACC Final and loses... its record vs the top 50 RPI would be 13-3 vs Baylor's 7-1 perhaps.... if they win the Big 12. Havent looked at the possible Big 12 bracket yet. Assuming Louisville faces Syracuse and Duke/State on the way to the final.

 

[EricSD]

I have no issue with Baylor being a 2 seed, mainly because they played such a dismal OOC strength of schedule. And it makes sense that without the UCLA loss, their ranking could even be #2. But... their loss to UCLA was early in the season and other teams have lost since then so it makes sense that their AP and Coaches Polls rankings would be high...

BUT... as the committee has shown over the past several years, SOS counts, and with a cupcake heavy schedule, Baylor does not have the resume of other teams who have more losses.

As for ND and L'ville, it's the same thing. The "rankings" may show L'ville 4th and ND 5th, but given their SOS and other factors that go into the ratings, I can see that even with more losses than Baylor, both would be rated higher for NCAA tourney seedings. I will be interested to see what the committee does if ND and L'ville face off in the ACC championship, and Baylor beats Texas for a 3rd time in their conference finals...

 

[DallasBUFan]

Well as of right now I would pick ND as the second best team behind UConn number 1. Miss St third LVille 4th and Baylor 5th. Im looking at defense, balance on both offense and defense and coaching. ND and LVille have multiple players that can score and they are very quick. ND plays better D. Miss St and Baylor imo dont. Miss St is very disciplined much like ND.

You must not watch the same basketball I watch......

 

[Bear11]

Anyone criticizing Baylor for its schedule must do the same for Mississippi State. They now have a weaker schedule by both Massey and Sagarin. In reality, both have played enough tough games to prove themselves and earn their top seeding.

 

[Alydar]

Who is arguing that we exclude it?

I'm saying that ND's overall resume is better. Better RPI, better strength of schedule, more RPI top 50 wins. That's the argument for ND's resume. What is the argument for Louisville's? Beat ND badly head-to-head. And? What else?

Both teams have outstanding records. I don't hold much to top 50 wins as a meaningful stat. Once you get above the top 15 or so the ranking curve flattens out substantially. If we look at Massey we see that #3 N Dame has a rating of 2,67 and #4 Louis 2.54. The difference could be statistically insignificant. That makes the head on head much more meaningful.

There is a historical parallel to this. In 2001 Notre Dame and UConn tied for the BE title. Notre Dame had won the regular season game and was given the top seed in the tournament. UConn won the tournament final vs the Irish and expected a one seed but the committee gave a one to ND and sent UConn out west as the 2. When asked to explain their decision, the NCAA said that they thought winning the regular season game and title was the decider. When the ESPN interviewer pointed out that the teams had in fact tied for the regular season title and that UConn also won the tournament the official stammered and ended the interview.

As you can see I carry things a lot longer than would seem healthy but I would be able to put this sore point to bed if N Dame won the tournament and then got a 2 seed based on that regular season loss. But I doubt it would happen.

 

[Plebe]

Anyone criticizing Baylor for its schedule must do the same for Mississippi State. They now have a weaker schedule by both Massey and Sagarin. In reality, both have played enough tough games to prove themselves and earn their top seeding.

Except, Baylor has a loss and Miss St doesn't.

 

[LoTrader]

Except, Baylor has a loss and Miss St doesn't.

Details

 

[Plebe]

Just looked at the latest RPI. If Louisville advances to the ACC Final and loses... its record vs the top 50 RPI would be 13-3 vs Baylor's 7-1 perhaps.... if they win the Big 12. Havent looked at the possible Big 12 bracket yet. Assuming Louisville faces Syracuse and Duke/State on the way to the final.

About a month ago, I was convinced that if Baylor won out they would for sure be a #1 seed. I would've guaranteed it. But I never imagined that the Big 12 would end up with only 3 teams in the RPI top 50. All those wins over TCU, West Virginia, and Oklahoma State are (for now) amounting to very little in the committee's eyes. (Oklahoma State is teetering on the brink right now at #52.)

 

[Vowelguy]

Except, Baylor has a loss and Miss St doesn't.

Also,

Vs RPI Top 50:

Miss St 10-0
Baylor 5-1​

Vs RPI Top 25:

Miss St 7-0
Baylor 3-1
​

Quality wins (defined as rough top 16):

Miss St - Oregon, So Carolina, @Tenn, @Mizzou, @Georgia
Baylor - Texas, @Texas, Stanford

​

 

[Bear11]

Except, Baylor has a loss and Miss St doesn't.

I wasn't arguing that Baylor should be above Mississippi State, just that if we are going to criticize schedules we should do so evenly.

 

[Alydar]

I wasn't arguing that Baylor should be above Mississippi State, just that if we are going to criticize schedules we should do so evenly.

You are absolutely correct. Miss St has gotten a free ride this year as far as criticism for their weak OOC schedule.

 

[Plebe]

I wasn't arguing that Baylor should be above Mississippi State, just that if we are going to criticize schedules we should do so evenly.

Yes but ... by the committee's primary tool (RPI) Mississippi State's schedule is in fact deemed better than Baylor's.

Baylor has played only 4 top 25 (RPI) opponents and beaten 3 of them.
Mississippi State has played 7 top 25 opponents and beaten all of them.

 

[Plebe]

Also,

Vs RPI Top 50:

Miss St 10-0
Baylor 5-1​

Vs RPI Top 25:

Miss St 7-0
Baylor 2-1
​

Quality wins (defined as rough top 16):

Miss St - Oregon, So Carolina, @Tenn, @Mizzou, @Georgia
Baylor - Texas, @Texas

​

Should be Baylor 3-1 vs top 25 but the point remains intact.

 

[Vowelguy]

Should be Baylor 3-1 vs top 25 but the point remains intact.

fixed

 

[Bear11]

It will be a good day for basketball when the RPI is discontinued.

 

[Plebe]

To me, ND should be ahead of Louisville right now. Better RPI, better strength of schedule. The Committee doesn't take computer rankings into account, as far as I know, but both Massey and Sagarin have ND ahead of Louisville. You can't just throw out that head-to-head, but anyone who has watched ND knows they have greatly improved since that game, especially defensively since switching to the zone basically full-time.

If the margin of Louisville's victory over ND matters so much, it should matter that Louisville lost at home to the same Florida State team that ND whipped by 31 in Tallahassee.

That being said, Louisville was ahead of ND in the final rankings reveal, so you are probably right.

I think they gave Louisville the edge over ND in the last reveal due to the resounding head-to-head win. Otherwise I agree that ND's overall resume is more impressive than Louisville's.

 

[Plebe]

I only just noticed, but Baylor is now 4th in the RPI over Louisville. There is really no justification for keeping us as a 2 seed according to their own metrics.

The committee has never gone strictly by RPI ranking. They're way more interested in quality wins. Which just happens to be where Baylor falls flat, compared to the top four.

Baylor vs. RPI top 25: wins over Texas x 2, Stanford; lost to UCLA
Louisville vs. RPI top 25: wins over Notre Dame, Oregon, Ohio State, Duke, NC State; lost to UConn, Florida State

So, Louisville has two wins over teams that are better than anyone Baylor has even played.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

Personally I feel who ever wins the ACC L'ville or ND should get one #1 seed and the other is a #2! UCONN & Miss St. are set as #1's!
Mulkey and Baylor put themselves in this mess by scheduling lousy OOC teams so they do not deserve a #1 but should be a #2! If they scheduled even a 1/2 way decent OOC they would earn a #1!
Oregon St. or Oregon, whoever wins the Pac12 should have a good chance to take the 4th #1 seed.

 

[southie]

Oregon is 9-4 versus the RPI Top 50, and that includes two wins over Texas A&M, two wins over Top 10 UCLA, two wins over USC, Oklahoma, Oregon State, and California.

Oregon is 4-3 versus the RPI Top 25, and that includes two wins over Texas A&M and two wins over Top 10 UCLA.

Losses are @Miss. State, @Louisville, Stanford, and @Oregon State. No bad losses at all, and bonus points (IMO) for those road losses at possible two Top 4 national seeds.

Baylor's body of work does not come close to that, other than a record which has only one blemish in the loss column.

 

[Plebe]

Oregon is 9-4 versus the RPI Top 50, and that includes two wins over Texas A&M, two wins over Top 10 UCLA, two wins over USC, Oklahoma, Oregon State, and California.

Oregon is 4-3 versus the RPI Top 25, and that includes two wins over Texas A&M and two wins over Top 10 UCLA.

Losses are @Miss. State, @Louisville, Stanford, and @Oregon State. No bad losses at all, and bonus points (IMO) for those road losses at possible two Top 4 national seeds.

Baylor's body of work does not come close to that, other than a record which has only one blemish in the loss column.

You think Oregon should be seeded ahead of Baylor? I don't agree.

First of all, you don't get bonus points for losing, especially when the games aren't competitive, which the losses to Miss St and Louisville weren't.

Baylor's two wins over Texas are, in the committee's eyes, better than Oregon's wins over UCLA and Texas A&M.

 

[southie]

You think Oregon should be seeded ahead of Baylor? I don't agree.

Baylor's two wins over Texas are, in the committee's eyes, better than Oregon's wins over UCLA and Texas A&M.

Texas and UCLA are very close, IMO, so those are basically a wash. Then, you compare Oregon's two wins over A&M, and Baylor's win over Stanford, and Oregon still comes out ahead in wins against Top 20 RPI.

What I do think is that Baylor is closer (in ranking) to Oregon than they are to Notre Dame.

Of course, you have to play/schedule the games against tougher opponents in order to even have a chance to win them. And, you need to win a lot of them.

The committee's first reveal had Oregon as the final #1 seed, and Baylor as a #3 seed. Oregon then lost a 2OT game at Oregon State (who is now at #33 RPI). They later suffered a loss at home against Stanford (who s now #15) . Baylor has added two wins over #11 RPI Texas since the first reveal. Perhaps the timing of that first reveal is hurting Oregon and helping Baylor based on "what have you done for me lately" mindset.

If you look at the records versus Top 50 RPI teams for the four #2 seeds in Baylor (7-1), Oregon (9-4), South Carolina (7-6) and Texas (6-4), Baylor played FIVE less games than Oregon and USC. So, based on the rankings, the committee is basically sending a message to Oregon and USC to schedule about 3 less (non-conference) games against Top 50 RPI teams so they can "avoid" losses and not be penalized. In a sense, do what Baylor did and schedule weaker in the non-conference and we'll rank you higher.

If you look at the records versus Top 50 RPI teams for the #3 seeds in UCLA (8-6), Tennessee (8-5), Florida State (4-5), and Mizzou (4-6), Baylor played FIVE less games than Tennessee and SIX less games than UCLA. Those are huge gaps, IMO. Despite more losses, both UCLA and Tennessee have more wins than Baylor.

Obviously, Baylor comes up way short, IMO, and a lot of it has to do with a weak Big 12 and only Texas and Oklahoma currently in the Top 50 which results in 4 wins for the Bears. The PAC, SEC, and ACC teams just have so many more teams in the Top 50.

Of course, what matters in the end is the committee's criteria and perspective. I just see huge discrepancies in Baylor's number of games played against Top 50 RPI teams compared to so many other teams ranked below them.

 

[Plebe]

Texas and UCLA are very close, IMO, so those are basically a wash. Then, you compare Oregon's two wins over A&M, and Baylor's win over Stanford, and Oregon still comes out ahead in wins against Top 20 RPI.

What I do think is that Baylor is closer (in ranking) to Oregon than they are to Notre Dame.

Of course, you have to play/schedule the games against tougher opponents in order to even have a chance to win them. And, you need to win a lot of them.

The committee's first reveal had Oregon as the final #1 seed, and Baylor as a #3 seed. Oregon then lost a 2OT game at Oregon State (who is now at #33 RPI). They later suffered a loss at home against Stanford (who s now #15) . Baylor has added two wins over #11 RPI Texas since the first reveal. Perhaps the timing of that first reveal is hurting Oregon and helping Baylor based on "what have you done for me lately" mindset.

If you look at the records versus Top 50 RPI teams for the four #2 seeds in Baylor (7-1), Oregon (9-4), South Carolina (7-6) and Texas (6-4), Baylor played FIVE less games than Oregon and USC. So, based on the rankings, the committee is basically sending a message to Oregon and USC to schedule about 3 less (non-conference) games against Top 50 RPI teams so they can "avoid" losses and not be penalized. In a sense, do what Baylor did and schedule weaker in the non-conference and we'll rank you higher.

If you look at the records versus Top 50 RPI teams for the #3 seeds in UCLA (8-6), Tennessee (8-5), Florida State (4-5), and Mizzou (4-6), Baylor played FIVE less games than Tennessee and SIX less games than UCLA. Those are huge gaps, IMO. Despite more losses, both UCLA and Tennessee have more wins than Baylor.

Obviously, Baylor comes up way short, IMO, and a lot of it has to do with a weak Big 12 and only Texas and Oklahoma currently in the Top 50 which results in 4 wins for the Bears. The PAC, SEC, and ACC teams just have so many more teams in the Top 50.

Of course, what matters in the end is the committee's criteria and perspective. I just see huge discrepancies in Baylor's number of games played against Top 50 RPI teams compared to so many other teams ranked below them.

Baylor played fewer games than Oregon vs. top 25 and top 50 competition, true, but their winning percentage in the games they did play is much better, which also matters.

 

[bags27]

It will be a good day for basketball when the RPI is discontinued.

well, a good day for Baylor, at least.

On a more serious note, all of our fingers and toes are crossed for Kristy Wallace.

But if her injury would at least make her appearance in the tournament problematic, I wonder if the selectors take that into consideration. I ask this as a broader question: do injuries to key players near the end of the season factor into the selection process? One would think teams are rewarded on the basis of their previous play, not on a projection going forward. On the other hand, teams are rewarded more for recent play. That's not exactly the same as a projection based on changing personnel, but it's somewhat similar.

 

[oldude]

well, a good day for Baylor, at least.

On a more serious note, all of our fingers and toes are crossed for Kristy Wallace.

But if her injury would at least make her appearance in the tournament problematic, I wonder if the selectors take that into consideration. I ask this as a broader question: do injuries to key players near the end of the season factor into the selection process? One would think teams are rewarded on the basis of their previous play, not on a projection going forward. On the other hand, teams are rewarded more for recent play. That's not exactly the same as a projection based on changing personnel, but it's somewhat similar.

The injury to Alaina Coates last season didn't impact SC's seed, although it could be argued that SC was a better team once the middle opened up for Gray & Davis to drive to the basket. The critical element is that SC won their conference tournament. Should Baylor win the Big12 conference tournament, I don't think losing Wallace will be a factor in their seeding. But should TX, or some other team, upset the Bears, then obviously their seeding would be affected.

 

[Vowelguy]

But if her injury would at least make her appearance in the tournament problematic, I wonder if the selectors take that into consideration. I ask this as a broader question: do injuries to key players near the end of the season factor into the selection process?
.

Yes injuries matter.
The goal is to create a *bslanced bracket*. If loss of a player significantly weakens a team, then their seed will be downgraded.

Baylor has a chance to show its quality in the B12 tourney. If it still wins, then maybe it’s still in contention fir a 1, though I gotta say it seems a lot less likely.

But if say Texas kills them, then I might drop Baylor to #7 in the committee rankings.

 

[Orangutan]

Personally I feel who ever wins the ACC L'ville or ND should get one #1 seed and the other is a #2! UCONN & Miss St. are set as #1's!
Mulkey and Baylor put themselves in this mess by scheduling lousy OOC teams so they do not deserve a #1 but should be a #2! If they scheduled even a 1/2 way decent OOC they would earn a #1!
Oregon St. or Oregon, whoever wins the Pac12 should have a good chance to take the 4th #1 seed.

Oregon St. is RPI #33 and their schedule is ranked #102. They are nowhere close to the 1 line even with a conference tournament win. Or the 2 line, for that matter.