Kent State won so it will be Buffalo vs Kent State in the MAC final. So what's you view on Toledo(Net 64 sos 147) if Kent State (20-10, Net 122 SOS 144) wins or if Buffalo wins (Net 188 SOS 283)?
Columbia has the best chance of the teams you named, maybe 50/50 if they lose to Princeton. MTSU and FGCU slimmer chances.
So to put words in your mouth Kent State or Buffalo gets the automatic bid and Toledo, etc are left out since they lost their tournament and don't have a good enough record to get in on their own, right?
All of these teams' resumes are very close to each other.
As much as I would have loved to see my Alma Mater beat Princeton yesterday, the Tigers were hardly “susceptible” to being upset. Yes they lost to Columbia in NYC a few weeks ago by 2 pts, but Princeton has a far more balanced team than Columbia, and the Tiger always peak in March.Yesterday's update:
Women's Bracketology: Ranking of No. 1 seeds shifts in final preseason edition
A key injury to South Carolina and other developments in the final weeks to tipoff shift projections.www.espn.com
Per CC - Not only did Princeton win Ivy Madness on Saturday to ensure the Ivy League would remain a one-bid conference, the Tigers beat Columbia on the Lions' home floor. That, coupled with Middle Tennessee's Conference USA tournament win, ended all the bid-stealing possibilities for the bubble teams. Now, we sit and wait for Sunday's selection show to see how the NCAA tournament committee views the bubble. Portland ended up being the only bid stealer of the week, upsetting Gonzaga in Tuesday's WCC tournament championship game. The Bulldogs headed into Champ Week as the least likely mid-major champion to lose. Princeton seemed to be the most susceptible but beat the Lions by 17. Such is the unpredictability of the 2023-24 season.
1. Poll rankings are not a factor in tournament seeding.
Ok. "Poll rankings are not a factor..." But there must be some more fundamental (data-founded) factors that do affect tournament seeding. Two questions: 1) Why are these "more fundamental" factors NOT the same ones influencing both the coaches who vote in the "coaches poll" and the committee that determines tournament seeding? 2) If the two groups use different criteria, why? Examples: Duke. Not ranked based on AP voting and on coach voting. Seeded a 6 in "Bracketology." Final question: How did the "stronger resume of quality wins" not affect the polls? Still seems very subjective.
Well yes but a #1 seed is supposed to have an easier path. The first test (using today's bracket) is Indiana and Massey thinks Indiana will win by 3 so that's not a cake walk. Then it would be Texas or NC State and again Massey thinks they both beat USC and so do I.
It's a complicated set of criteria some subjective some not. This list is often used:
Of course it's all subjective. Humans are making decisions after all. Forcing the seeding to follow the polls would not make it any less subjective.
www.ncaa.org
Yet one of the criteria is conference record and the committee always seems to go with the team that has a losing record in their conference vs the team that won their conference but didn't win the conference tournament. I believe that for a team that can't win in their own conference they must win their conference tournament to qualify or not get a committee bid.Of course it's all subjective. Humans are making decisions after all. Forcing the seeding to follow the polls would not make it any less subjective.
The AP and coaches' polls do not follow any specified criteria. Each voter simply fills out their personal list of 1-25 and the points are added up.
The NCAA lists 13 criteria that are considered by the committee in selection and seeding. See:
Women's Basketball Selections 101 - Selections
Women's Basketball Selections 101 - Selections
Not true. Gonzaga will not only be selected, they'll be a 4 or 5 seed. Princeton and UNLV would also be in the tournament even if they'd lost.
Gotta react to the "of course." Humans making decisions doesn't explain the numbers in the weekly rankings. If it's subjective, couldn't be "Here are 25 teams we think are pretty good, you decide the order." And if the NCAA has 13 criteria (and they're not secret), then the poll people could be thinking along the same lines if they wanted. But they fill out "their personal list"... but based on what? How can Duke look so bad according to no "specified criteria" and be a 6 seed in Bracketology? Don't you get the feeling this is all like the "East German" figure skating judges way long ago? Another image that comes to mind is those guys in the white coats who use measuring tapes to decide how far the discus went. And by the way, what do betting lines tell us about the opinions of the wider populations? Curious...Of course it's all subjective. Humans are making decisions after all. Forcing the seeding to follow the polls would not make it any less subjective.
The AP and coaches' polls do not follow any specified criteria. Each voter simply fills out their personal list of 1-25 and the points are added up.
The NCAA lists 13 criteria that are considered by the committee in selection and seeding. See:
Women's Basketball Selections 101 - Selections
Women's Basketball Selections 101 - Selections
Late season injuries are never confirmed so the committee can't use them. Or I don't think they can. If Virginia Tech said Kitley was unavailable for the NCAA the committee would see 2 losses without her (Virginia and Notre Dame) and one win with her over Miami 55-47. I'm not sure what they'd do, if VT was crazy enough to confirm it. I don't think Brooks is that crazy.
Are you saying a maximum of 2 teams per conference?