Bracketology - week of March 11 | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Bracketology - week of March 11

Status
Not open for further replies.
DallasDomer said:
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?
Expand ...

Correct - the MAC is a one bid league this year. Toledo and Ball State didn't do enough in the non-conference to earn the bid sadly.
 
I would hope that Auburn and Texas A&M get bumped and replaced by Washington State and Penn State:

Auburn's best wins are: LSU and Alabama; they did defeat Washington State
Texas A&M best: California, Kansas and Tennessee
Washington State defeated: Gonzaga, Maryland, So. Dakota State, UCLA, and Colorado
Penn State bested: Kansas, Oklahoma State, Nebraska, and Maryland
 
FridaFriend said:
I would hope that Auburn and Texas A&M get bumped and replaced by Washington State and Penn State:

Auburn's best wins are: LSU and Alabama; they did defeat Washington State
Texas A&M best: California, Kansas and Tennessee
Washington State defeated: Gonzaga, Maryland, So. Dakota State, UCLA, and Colorado
Penn State bested: Kansas, Oklahoma State, Nebraska, and Maryland
Expand ...
All of these teams' resumes are very close to each other.

WSU and Auburn probably have the slight edge among these 4 in body of work. WSU's win over South Dakota State is not significant, but they do have 3 wins over the NET top 25. They struggled a lot after Leger-Walker went out, but they did beat Colorado without her.

Penn State's win over Oklahoma State, a team that finished 14-16, is not a resume booster. PSU also struggled a lot after losing Tay Valladay. The committee will have to decide what to make of PSU's and WSU's diminished performance following injuries to key players.
 
The only way I can read brackets is to track UConn's possible path through them. CC's latest has us in Portland 3 and our toughest path would be:

Stony Brook -- Duke -- LSU -- Iowa -- Stanford -- SC​

I think that's a doable path to get to the Final Four.

Also does it seem to anyone else that Portland 4 (according to CC) is a ridiculously easy path for USCw?
 
I'm curious about what the criteria are for seeding at the 5,6,7,8 levels. Princeton is recently ranked 24 and seeded 9. Duke is unranked and seeded 6. There are more examples. Anyone?
 
.-.
Yesterday's update:
www.espn.com

Women's Bracketology: One final projection before the bracket is revealed

All 31 auto-bids are spoken for. Will UConn or UCLA be No. 1 overall? And where will the hosts be seeded?
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.
 
BRS24 said:
Yesterday's update:
www.espn.com

Women's Bracketology: One final projection before the bracket is revealed

All 31 auto-bids are spoken for. Will UConn or UCLA be No. 1 overall? And where will the hosts be seeded?
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.
Expand ...
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.

Columbia for their part had a wonderful season lead by Ivy POY Aby Hsu. The Lions will get another opportunity in the WNIT, where they made a run to the championship game last season.
 
I’m just gonna say it: I’m not crazy about the term bid-stealing. It’s not like these bids were the property of the bubble teams who lost them. WCBB has an interest in building a fan base all across the country. When teams make a surprise upset of the powerhouse in their league and earn a bid, it seems more like an achievement than a theft to me.
 
Pharos said:
I'm curious about what the criteria are for seeding at the 5,6,7,8 levels. Princeton is recently ranked 24 and seeded 9. Duke is unranked and seeded 6. There are more examples. Anyone?
Expand ...
1. Poll rankings are not a factor in tournament seeding.
2. Duke has a stronger resume of quality wins than Princeton: Duke has beaten NC State, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, North Carolina and Florida State. Princeton's only wins over the NET top 50 are Oklahoma and Middle Tennessee.
 
Plebe said:
1. Poll rankings are not a factor in tournament seeding.
2. Duke has a stronger resume of quality wins than Princeton: Duke has beaten NC State, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, North Carolina and Florida State. Princeton's only wins over the NET top 50 are Oklahoma and Middle Tennessee.
Expand ...
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.
 
Bone Dog said:
The only way I can read brackets is to track UConn's possible path through them. CC's latest has us in Portland 3 and our toughest path would be:

Stony Brook -- Duke -- LSU -- Iowa -- Stanford -- SC​

I think that's a doable path to get to the Final Four.

Also does it seem to anyone else that Portland 4 (according to CC) is a ridiculously easy path for USCw?
Expand ...
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.

So once they get out of their hosting role I think they are in trouble.
 
.-.
Pharos said:
I'm curious about what the criteria are for seeding at the 5,6,7,8 levels. Princeton is recently ranked 24 and seeded 9. Duke is unranked and seeded 6. There are more examples. Anyone?
Expand ...
It's a complicated set of criteria some subjective some not. This list is often used:
Bad losses
Common opponents
Competitive in losses
Conference record
Early performance versus late performance
Head-to-head
NET ranking
Non-conference record
Observable component
Overall record
Regional rankings
Significant wins
Strength of schedule
 
Pharos said:
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.
Expand ...
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:
www.ncaa.org

Women's Basketball Selections 101 - Selections

Women's Basketball Selections 101 - Selections
www.ncaa.org www.ncaa.org
 
Plebe said:
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:
www.ncaa.org

Women's Basketball Selections 101 - Selections

Women's Basketball Selections 101 - Selections
www.ncaa.org www.ncaa.org
Expand ...
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.
 
There’s some data driven elements and there’s some pragmatic considerations, and finally there’s the question of late season injuries.
 
MSGRET said:
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
Expand ...
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.

"One of the criteria" does not equate to "deciding criterion".
 
Plebe said:
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:
www.ncaa.org

Women's Basketball Selections 101 - Selections

Women's Basketball Selections 101 - Selections
www.ncaa.org www.ncaa.org
Expand ...
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...
 
.-.
Bone Dog said:
There’s some data driven elements and there’s some pragmatic considerations, and finally there’s the question of late season injuries.
Expand ...
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.

I haven't seen anything in the media, there's some chatter on the fan board about how many games they can win without her but nothing official.

All injuries are "day to day" until there are no more games to play. And maybe that's the truth and maybe it isn't.
 
MSGRET said:
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.
Expand ...
Are you saying a maximum of 2 teams per conference?

There's 32 conferences and maybe half the regular season winners won the tournament so there wouldn't be enough teams to fill the 68 team bracket. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
 
Plebe said:
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.

"One of the criteria" does not equate to "deciding criterion".
Expand ...
So you are in favor of teams that can't have a winning record in their own conference getting in without winning their tournament. Both Arizona and Miami have losing conference records.
DallasDomer said:
Are you saying a maximum of 2 teams per conference?

There's 32 conferences and maybe half the regular season winners won the tournament so there wouldn't be enough teams to fill the 68 team bracket. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
Expand ...
No I believe that the MAX should be no more than 7 from any conference and none with a losing Conference record unless they win the conference tournament.
 
Ok, so here's a look at the AQ vs regular season champs. Out of 32 leagues, 19 teams won both the RS and conference tourney.
1710708990536.jpeg
 
MSGRET said:
So you are in favor of teams that can't have a winning record in their own conference getting in without winning their tournament. Both Arizona and Miami have losing conference records.

No I believe that the MAX should be no more than 7 from any conference and none with a losing Conference record unless they win the conference tournament.
Expand ...
I'm not in favor or disfavor per se. I'm just speaking of how the committee tends to see things. Projection and advocacy are two different things.

If more-exclusionary criteria such as what you propose were to be adopted, it would need to be done between seasons and not on the eve of selection.
 
.-.
DallasDomer said:
Late season injuries are never confirmed so the committee can't use them.
Expand ...
I read somewhere that they don’t use injuries to determine who’s in the field — they focus on the entire season as a résumé of work. But they can use them to fine tune the seeding.

I think you must be right especially in cases where the coaches don’t reveal the extent of very late season injuries. But I’m also thinking of a case like Aubrey, who helped us win some OOC games, like the Louisville game, and is no longer available. This is different from the injuries to Azzi Ayanna Caroline or Jana, which were known very early. Data alone doesn’t fully capture the impact of losing Aubrey to the team.
 
AgStatesman said:
To win it all
Jackson St
Syracuse
Ohio St.
Southern Cal
Iowa
South Carolina
Expand ...
I think it's the easiest bracket that they could wish for. I just feel sorry for all of the fans that bought tickets for Albany.
 
BRS24 said:
Ok, so here's a look at the AQ vs regular season champs. Out of 32 leagues, 19 teams won both the RS and conference tourney.
View attachment 97796
Expand ...
You tricked me...why is the SEC above the line? :)

But seriously, I really, really appreciate the work that you put into every table you create!
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,135
Messages
4,554,418
Members
10,439
Latest member
UConnheart


Top Bottom