Bracktology - week of January 23

[BRS24]

Hey hey hoop fans, here's today's Bracketology - Utah back in the top 16, Baylor out. CC says -

"This was the most difficult bracket to compile so far this season. From the No. 1 seeds straight through the bubble teams, there were no easy decisions -- except South Carolina at No. 1 overall. The other three 1-seeds are from the Pac-12. UCLA and Stanford lead the country in top-25 NET wins with five apiece. Colorado has four, and while NC State beat the Buffs, the Wolfpack's two losses -- to Virginia Tech and Miami -- are the worst cumulative NET-ranking defeats (59) of any of the contenders. Iowa is just on the outside of the top line for the same reason. The Hawkeyes' losses to Kansas State and Ohio State aren't bad, but they are worse than the losses suffered by the Pac-12 trio. What about the case for 19-1 Kansas State? The schedule strength rank (57) and top-25 NET wins (three) don't quite get the Wildcats there."​

 

[maple]

I think the committee would swap UConn for Albany and USC for Portland (I'm not an expert, but they must somehow take into account geography and fanbases, right?). Not sure about Louisville being a #4 seed.

 

[visitingcock]

garbage

 

[MSGRET]

Nothing but click bait for CC and ESPN.

 

[Bone Dog]

9 teams each from the BiG10 and the ACC?

 

[MSGRET]

9 teams each from the BiG10 and the ACC?

I'm a firm believer that there should be no more than 8 teams from any conference, especially since the NCAA has now taken over the NIT as well.

 

[Bone Dog]

Here's an S-curve bracket made directly out of the NET rankings including Monday's games -- just for curiosity:

• Albany 1: SC, K St, ND, Gonzaga
• Portland 1: Texas, UCLA, NC St, USC
• Albany 2: UConn, Iowa, Indiana, Baylor
• Portland 2: Stanford, Utah, LSU, tOSU

I'm not saying Charlie should simply do this, and maybe we think there should be some adjustments for geography, like swapping Gonzaga and tOSU. But this is pretty much just data. It's where the NET is right now.

One really interesting departure from Charlie's bracket is this S-curve omits Louisville and Colorado altogether. Did the NET get it wrong or did Charlie? Maybe UConn and ND are too high, but USC and UCLA look about right. I assume that as the season continues, the NET will gradually approach what everyone can more or less agree on, even if it's not exactly there yet.

[NB: I said approach, not be identical with.]

 

[Plebe]

Here's an S-curve bracket made directly out of the NET rankings including Monday's games -- just for curiosity:

• Albany 1: SC, K St, ND, Gonzaga
• Portland 1: Texas, UCLA, NC St, USC
• Albany 2: UConn, Iowa, Indiana, Baylor
• Portland 2: Stanford, Utah, LSU, tOSU

I'm not saying Charlie should simply do this, and maybe we think there should be some adjustments for geography, like swapping Gonzaga and tOSU. But this is pretty much just data. It's where the NET is right now.

One really interesting departure from Charlie's bracket is this S-curve omits Louisville and Colorado altogether. Did the NET get it wrong or did Charlie? Maybe UConn and ND are too high, but USC and UCLA look about right. I assume that as the season continues, the NET will gradually approach what everyone can more or less agree on, even if it's not exactly there yet.

[NB: I said approach, not be identical with.]

First off, that bracket is not viable because, for example, in this thought exercise Stanford and Utah can't be in the same quadrant, nor can Iowa and Indiana. The first 4 teams selected from each conference must go into separate regions if they are on the top 4 seed lines.

Colorado clearly has a stronger resume than Utah right now despite being lower in the NET. Colorado would be at worst a 2 seed right now, while Utah is at best a 3 seed.

 

[MSGRET]

First off, that bracket is not viable because, for example, in this thought exercise Stanford and Utah can't be in the same quadrant, nor can Iowa and Indiana. The first 4 teams selected from each conference must go into separate regions if they are on the top 4 seed lines.

Colorado clearly has a stronger resume than Utah right now despite being lower in the NET. Colorado would be at worst a 2 seed right now, while Utah is at best a 3 seed.

I thought that CC is supposed to be an expert in Bracktology. Maybe someone should explain this to CC so he may appear to know what he is doing!

 

[Plebe]

I thought that CC is supposed to be an expert in Bracktology. Maybe someone should explain this to CC so he may appear to know what he is doing!

No, I'm referring to the bracket outlined in the post I was responding to, which strictly followed the NET rankings. That's not the same bracket projected by CC.

 

[Bone Dog]

First off, that bracket is not viable because, for example, in this thought exercise Stanford and Utah can't be in the same quadrant, nor can Iowa and Indiana.

As you say, it’s a thought exercise, and only a starting point at best. How would you adjust it for geographic considerations? And since the NET doesn’t seem ‘to think’ Colorado has a stronger resume, would adding them solve the geographic problem?

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

I can't believe the NCAA committee would put UConn in Portland and USC in Albany as it's all about the $!
Both USC and UConn draw huge # of fans, but not if they have to go 3,000 miles!

 

[maple]

I can't believe the NCAA committee would put UConn in Portland and USC in Albany as it's all about the $!
Both USC and UConn draw huge # of fans, but not if they have to go 3,000 miles!

That was my train of thought, too.

 

[Plebe]

As you say, it’s a thought exercise, and only a starting point at best. How would you adjust it for geographic considerations? And since the NET doesn’t seem ‘to think’ Colorado has a stronger resume, would adding them solve the geographic problem?

Not really clear on your latter question. How would adding Colorado solve a geographical problem?

Geography and conference affiliation are two different things. Iowa and Iowa State were the 2 and 3 seeds in the same quadrant a couple years ago (the year they were both brilliantly taken down by Creighton), whereas that could not have happened with, say, Iowa State and Texas.

 

[DefenseBB]

Here's an S-curve bracket made directly out of the NET rankings including Monday's games -- just for curiosity:

• Albany 1: SC, K St, ND, Gonzaga
• Portland 1: Texas, UCLA, NC St, USC
• Albany 2: UConn, Iowa, Indiana, Baylor
• Portland 2: Stanford, Utah, LSU, tOSU

I'm not saying Charlie should simply do this, and maybe we think there should be some adjustments for geography, like swapping Gonzaga and tOSU. But this is pretty much just data. It's where the NET is right now.

One really interesting departure from Charlie's bracket is this S-curve omits Louisville and Colorado altogether. Did the NET get it wrong or did Charlie? Maybe UConn and ND are too high, but USC and UCLA look about right. I assume that as the season continues, the NET will gradually approach what everyone can more or less agree on, even if it's not exactly there yet.

[NB: I said approach, not be identical with.]

For your educational purposes, below is the list of criteria. Also, despite many naysayers on this board, Charlie really does a credible job of picking who the committee will pick and where they will be seeded (often much to the BYers chagrin). The NET is ONE component of the criteria.

Criteria used by the Division I Women’s Basketball Committee to evaluate a team includes (alphabetically):​

• 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

 

[Bone Dog]

For your educational purposes, below is the list of criteria. Also, despite many naysayers on this board, Charlie really does a credible job of picking who the committee will pick and where they will be seeded (often much to the BYers chagrin). The NET is ONE component of the criteria.

Criteria used by the Division I Women’s Basketball Committee to evaluate a team includes (alphabetically):​

• 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

Not sure why you seem to be directing this at me in particular. I’m not dismissing Charlie. The point of a thought experiment like this one is to understand the choices that go into a result like his.

Thanks for posting the list again. It has been posted more than once already in the last month. But it can’t hurt to repost it occasionally.

As for the list itself, none of us is in a position to assess some of its elements to the extent that they will reflect the judgments of the individuals on the committee, like bad losses, observable component, significant wins, and even strength of schedule. This last one, along with competitive losses and overall record are already at least indirectly reflected in the NET itself. Other elements would require more time than I have at the moment to sort out for 16 teams, much less for 64 or 68. This makes the NET a not unreasonable starting point for a thought experiment.

 

[DefenseBB]

@Bone Dog Yes, I was directing it as you as you confused a lot of us with your "curiosity" to choose just one of the criteria to do your "S" curve to lead us to believe you felt it was the leading indicator. You could have easily just chosen Massey or WarrenNolan as well. I am still not sure what the point is you are trying to make.

What I will say is I do think a lot of work and logic does go into Charlie's bracket to imitate what the committee will do with the noted concern that UConn will most probably be placed in Albany, especially if they are a 2 seed. The committee knows full well that the only reason that region sold out BOTH sets of regional action was because of UConn. Their placement into Portland would be akin to a "bait and switch". Now that said, if UConn loses a few games and falls to 3 or 4 seed the committee will have no choice but to place them out west.

I don't see 3 PAC 12 teams garnering #1 seeds due to their upcoming schedule but I do see Iowa as a probable #1 and only a 33% chance for UConn to get the other #1 seed. SC is a lock and the PAC 12 winner is a lock.

 

[MilfordHusky]

I can't believe the NCAA committee would put UConn in Portland and USC in Albany as it's all about the $!
Both USC and UConn draw huge # of fans, but not if they have to go 3,000 miles!

I've seen the strength of the USC fan base in So. Cal. in many sports, but the Trojans average only 3,462 at home and 7,234 on the road. I'm not sure how big of a draw they would be in Portland. UConn, on the other hand, guarantees about 10,000 in Albany.

 

[ochoopsfan]

I've seen the strength of the USC fan base in So. Cal. in many sports, but the Trojans average only 3,462 at home and 7,234 on the road. I'm not sure how big of a draw they would be in Portland. UConn, on the other hand, guarantees about 10,000 in Albany.

 

[DallasDomer]

I'm a firm believer that there should be no more than 8 teams from any conference, especially since the NCAA has now taken over the NIT as well.

I don't know one way or the other but I'm interested in why you believe that? Particularly for the conferences with a lot of teams, like the ACC and next year's ACC +3? Thanks

 

[Bone Dog]

@Bone Dog Yes, I was directing it as you as you confused a lot of us with your "curiosity" to choose just one of the criteria to do your "S" curve to lead us to believe you felt it was the leading indicator. You could have easily just chosen Massey or WarrenNolan as well. I am still not sure what the point is you are trying to make.

What I will say is I do think a lot of work and logic does go into Charlie's bracket to imitate what the committee will do with the noted concern that UConn will most probably be placed in Albany, especially if they are a 2 seed. The committee knows full well that the only reason that region sold out BOTH sets of regional action was because of UConn. Their placement into Portland would be akin to a "bait and switch". Now that said, if UConn loses a few games and falls to 3 or 4 seed the committee will have no choice but to place them out west.

I don't see 3 PAC 12 teams garnering #1 seeds due to their upcoming schedule but I do see Iowa as a probable #1 and only a 33% chance for UConn to get the other #1 seed. SC is a lock and the PAC 12 winner is a lock.

Sorry to confuse you. That wasn’t my intention. In order to understand Charlie’s brackets I thought it might help to follow out an S-curve based on one easily available element. I thought I made it clear that this would require adjustments based on other factors like geography. That one stood out because it’s also easily available to us fans. Obviously other adjustments would be involved, too, but looking at the list there aren’t many we can easily incorporate without a lot of work.

Also, clearly, an S-curve based on the NET now isn’t the same as what we’d see a month from now. I didn’t think anyone would assume this alone is a prediction of end of season positions. If anything, I expected others might suggest adjustments and we’d all soon see how complex the process is. Of course, we can all just substitute gut-level guesses and eyeball-prognostications, as we usually do. This thought experiment might be an occasion to give a little more nuance to the discussion.

 

[Plebe]

• Albany 1: SC, K St, ND, Gonzaga
• Portland 1: Texas, UCLA, NC St, USC
• Albany 2: UConn, Iowa, Indiana, Baylor
• Portland 2: Stanford, Utah, LSU, tOSU

As you say, it’s a thought exercise, and only a starting point at best. How would you adjust it for geographic considerations?

Adjusting just for conference affiliation conflicts (not geography) within this alternate universe scenario: one possibility would be to switch Utah and Iowa on the 2 line, and then on the 4 line switch USC and Gonzaga.

 

[DefenseBB]

I can't believe the NCAA committee would put UConn in Portland and USC in Albany as it's all about the $!
Both USC and UConn draw huge # of fans, but not if they have to go 3,000 miles!

I am sorry to ruin your theory, but the actual attendance statistics don't support it. Last year, in Seattle, the two biggest fan bases were Iowa and UConn. The Sweet 16 games of Virginia Tech-Tennessee and UConn-Ohio State had 10,839 whereas the Elite 8 game of VaTech-tOSU only drew 8,466. The other set of games had Iowa-Colorado/Louisville-Ole Miss with 9,626 and the Iowa-Louisville E8 game 11,700. So UConn outdrew Iowa in the Sweet 16 game.

It would be idiotic for the committee to not have UConn in Albany knowing most of the fans bought both sets of tickets anticipating UConn being placed there but UConn fans do travel and UConn fans are everywhere so if UConn is not a top 2 seed, who knows.

I would normally cite more examples of the NCAAT games that UConn had but since 2015 (which I have handy) the regions for UConn have been Albany 3 times, Bridgeport 3 times (no tourney in 2020 and not fans in 2021). In the 7 years of NCAAT data attendance only 1 time has the UConn session seen less attendance than another and that was in 2019 when Oregon with Sabrina played in Portland (22,862). Other than that UConn attendance led 2015 in Albany 15,945, 2016 Bridgeport 17,986, 2017 Bridgeport 17,808, 2018 Albany 20,180, 2019 Albany 17,969 and 2022 Bridgeport 18,621

The good news is UConn still rules the attendance (Sorry all you Gamecock fans but the truth hurts!).

 

[MSGRET]

I don't know one way or the other but I'm interested in why you believe that? Particularly for the conferences with a lot of teams, like the ACC and next year's ACC +3? Thanks

I believe that the regular season champion should always be part of the tournament. So many times you have an upset of the regular season conference champions in their conference tournament and get left out because of some team that finishes 9th, 10th or 11th in their regular season but has a good showing in their tournament. I also believe that any team that has a losing conference record should only be allowed in the Dance if they only win their conference tournament for the automatic bid.

 

[visitingcock]

I am sorry to ruin your theory, but the actual attendance statistics don't support it. Last year, in Seattle, the two biggest fan bases were Iowa and UConn. The Sweet 16 games of Virginia Tech-Tennessee and UConn-Ohio State had 10,839 whereas the Elite 8 game of VaTech-tOSU only drew 8,466. The other set of games had Iowa-Colorado/Louisville-Ole Miss with 9,626 and the Iowa-Louisville E8 game 11,700. So UConn outdrew Iowa in the Sweet 16 game.

It would be idiotic for the committee to not have UConn in Albany knowing most of the fans bought both sets of tickets anticipating UConn being placed there but UConn fans do travel and UConn fans are everywhere so if UConn is not a top 2 seed, who knows.

I would normally cite more examples of the NCAAT games that UConn had but since 2015 (which I have handy) the regions for UConn have been Albany 3 times, Bridgeport 3 times (no tourney in 2020 and not fans in 2021). In the 7 years of NCAAT data attendance only 1 time has the UConn session seen less attendance than another and that was in 2019 when Oregon with Sabrina played in Portland (22,862). Other than that UConn attendance led 2015 in Albany 15,945, 2016 Bridgeport 17,986, 2017 Bridgeport 17,808, 2018 Albany 20,180, 2019 Albany 17,969 and 2022 Bridgeport 18,621

The good news is UConn still rules the attendance (Sorry all you Gamecock fans but the truth hurts!).

After 8 straight years of leading in home attendance and set to repeat this year. It doesn’t hurt that bad