Bracketology: The Perfect Non-S Curve

[RegisteredUconn]

Just looked at Creme's latest bracket predictions, matched it with the latest AP Poll, and discovered the following.

• #1 UConn is in the Louisville Region with #5 Louisville.
• #2 Notre Dame is in the South Bend Region with #6 Maryland.
• #3 Duke is in the Lincoln Region with #7 Baylor.
• #4 Stanford is in the Stanford Region with # 8 South Carolina.

If that's not bad enough, how about?

• Overall #1 must play on the home court of its #2 seed. Overall #2 (according to AP) plays at home, overall #3 plays on a neutral court, and overall #4 plays at home.
• The AAC has its two best teams, and AP #1 and #5 scheduled to match up before the Final Four. The ACC has its best matched up with conference-mate and # 6 before the Final Four. (I realize that conference-mate Duke is also a #1 regional seed but still...).

I understand that these aren't the actual brackets nor, given the number of games yet to be played before selections are made, are they likely to be. However, when a knowledgeable and independent mind well versed in the application of the rules offers such cockamamie pairings, it is obvious that the rules themselves are the issue. So long as the selection rules sanction such patent unfairness, the women's game remains open to, and deserves, ridicule.

 

[Phil]

Someone posted yesterday that it was far too early for Creme to be making these predictions. While I understand and agree with the reason behind that observation, I think there is a silver lining.

The Selection Committee has not yet promulgated the rules for 2014.

They cannot simply use the rule for 2013. Because 2014 is a one off experiment is allowing school sites for Regionals, there are rules in the 2103 Principles and Procedures that literally cannot be followed, so they will have to make some changes.

My hope is that they will look at what Charlie cam up with, realize that his selections are his best attempt to follow the 2013 rules, and realize they need to rethink the seeding rules, not just made a minor change.

Better to be thinking about this in January, rather than March.

 

[UcMiami]

I agree - there was a thread on a column titled 63 miles - the difference in distance between Storrs and South Bend/Louisville. According to the OVERRIDING consideration in previous seeding decisions that would mean that Uconn plays in South Bend and ND travels to Louisville as the #1 and #2 overall seeds. The point in the column was that the NCAA committee must change their basic rules and make that public before they get into the meeting room because they KNOW now that they are going to have to make adjustments to those rules. They set this whole nightmare up when they chose to change the rule regarding hosting regionals but they have been completely mum on the implications of that decision (as well as their very questionable choice of those regional sites with three midwestern locations, no eastern or southern location and their always present western location.
The obvious location for Uconn is Nebraska since it is unlikely to be home to either a 1 or 2 seed, while the other three locations will definitely have a 1 or 2 seed playing host. But that would mean they would select the furthest of three midwestern sites for Uconn.
Time for the NCAA committee to publicly state they are throwing out the proximity rule for #1 and #2 seeds and will use 'competitive fairness' 'and/or' 'S curve consideration' as their overriding rule.