Committee top 16 reveal tonight!

[visitingcock]

Okay. But, NET is only one metric used by the committee, right?

No, they use other metrics and they can still throw in subjective opinions

 

[1974yankees]

Re: Tennessee

I know this is not about the top 16 teams but can Tennessee really get into the NCAA tournament with only 16 wins?

We had this discussion a couple weeks ago about how Tennessee would always get into the dance because of who they are. I agreed with that at the time..

But with only 16 wins and 2 games left against LSU and Vanderbilt (they could definitely lose both) how can they still possibly get in? They have lost a bunch of games in a roll now.

Of course they can get in by winning their tournament but if they dont?

How does the NCAA justify putting a team in with only 16- 18 wins and not winning their conference tournament?

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

I mean, I don't agree with the poster believing they don't "deserve" do be invited to the tourney. But, I don't think a "close" loss is a determining factor. If you didn't win the game, then you lost it. Unfortunately, I have seen the committee penalize teams when they get routed (maybe that's why Vandy got the final #1 seed over Texas in that first reveal?); so, then someone could argue that the Lady Vols' blowout losses at UConn and South Carolina should be weighed differently than "close" losses.

Okay. But, NET is only one metric used by the committee, right?

The NET is an algorithmic average (see Torvik T-Rank for a gist of the NET as they are similar). As a matter of course, specific game results (the resume) can challenge what NET (as an average) suggests for the S-Curve.

• Close wins/losses suggest the neighborhood of a team’s true seed (see Michigan);
• There are similar signals from blowout losses, dominant wins, head-to-head, etc.
• If a team’s resume has several mixed signals (e.g. a Quad 4 loss and a Quad 1 win (see Virginia), then this is a subjective weighting (12 Committee beholder votes)).

NET is the initial guess of the Committee of the S-curve.

• In their terminology, the NET is their (initial) “sorting tool”;
• There is a specific procedure (really read it to understand seeding) used by the NCAA for the S-Curve. It is akin to a step-wise/ rolling hypothesis testing;
• Every step in the procedure entails 12 Committee votes and “cross-country scoring”;
• The Committee’s S-Curve will differ from the NET by considering all prescribed factors and other factors. (See ESPN’s Bracketology below for Crème’s approximation of the Committee’s work; NET and the Bracketed S-Curve (Overall Seed) are listed);
• Note that Nebraska (NET 29) was excluded by Creme. Creme has noted that the NCAA had excluded other teams with a higher NET in the past. I am not saying TN will be booted, as the particulars may be different.

 

[Vowelguy]

Nebraska was excluded because they have 1 quality win —66-65 over Washington.

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

Nebraska was excluded because they have 1 quality win —66-65 over Washington.

Oklahoma State (included by Creme) has no Quad 1 wins but “only” has 8 losses to Nebraska’s 11 losses.

• Tennessee has 10 losses. (Only California Baptist (auto-bid) has 10 losses at 2/19 in Crème’s Bracketology).
• TN’s remaining games are to LSU and Vanderbilt.
• TN’s close loss to TX is data in its favor.

 

[HuskyNan]

I think cities with NBA/NHL teams just don't want to bid because they have to make their arenas available for an entire week. That also affects the availability for concerts or other non-sports events. I guess Sacramento is an exception.

So, it's not a surprise that the cities bidding are relatively small in size compared to the major US cities and they don't have professional sports teams to factor.

Amalie Arena in Tampa, home of the Tampa Bay Lightning, was the women’s Final Four site in 2025 and will host the men’s first and second rounds this year.

 

[Vowelguy]

I think cities with NBA/NHL teams just don't want to bid because they have to make their arenas available for an entire week. That also affects the availability for concerts or other non-sports events. I guess Sacramento is an exception.

So, it's not a surprise that the cities bidding are relatively small in size compared to the major US cities and they don't have professional sports teams to factor.

I don’t think the logistics are a road block. The issue is probably more general availability and potential revenue.
Madison square garden has not only the Rangers and Knicks but also a lot of concerts, with high ticket prices and sold out crowds. And these arenas probably have high costs.

Except for the final 4, WCBB tourney games aren’t sellouts and the ticket prices are more modest. MSG could easily make more money elsewhere.
Similarly story for other large cities, which is why the regionals generally make more sense for medium sized cities.

 

[BRS24]

Hey experts - I'm trying to find out if there's another reveal before the selection weekend, and all I've come up with is the day before official brackets are out. Is this correct?

 

[Phil]

Re: Tennessee

I know this is not about the top 16 teams but can Tennessee really get into the NCAA tournament with only 16 wins?

We had this discussion a couple weeks ago about how Tennessee would always get into the dance because of who they are. I agreed with that at the time..

But with only 16 wins and 2 games left against LSU and Vanderbilt (they could definitely lose both) how can they still possibly get in? They have lost a bunch of games in a roll now.

Of course they can get in by winning their tournament but if they dont?

How does the NCAA justify putting a team in with only 16- 18 wins and not winning their conference tournament?

The selection process for the women's basketball tournament

explicitly States that they picked the 31 automatic qualifiers as well as:
"37 best at-large teams"

(emphasis added).
They go into excruciating detail to identify metrics to review.

Unless I missed something, they nowhere say that "16- 18 wins" is not enough.

Don't get me wrong, I am pulling for Tennessee to lose, but if they are one of the 37 best at-large teams, they deserve an invitation. At present, this isn't a close call. I'd be happy to elaborate if you disagree.

(This may not be appropriate for this thread, happy to move to one of the general threads if you want to discuss this).

 

[Phil]

But, I don't think a "close" loss is a determining factor.

It is explicitly listed as a factor:

"Competitive in losses"

 

[Woof]

I know everyone hates Mulkey but LSU as the weakest 2 seed is crazy. And Ohio State as a three seed? Nuts. It lools like the NCAA uses the AP poll more than NET.

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

I know everyone hates Mulkey but LSU as the weakest 2 seed is crazy. And Ohio State as a three seed? Nuts. It lools like the NCAA uses the AP poll more than NET.

The NCAA has Bracketing Principles that mandates/ permissively allows departures from the S-curve due to teams coming from the same conference.

• A bracketing principle (highlighted below) currently affects LSU and Vanderbilt on the 1 and 2 seed lines.
• Ohio St. is the 6th highest-seeded Big Ten team per ESPN’s Bracketology, so there should be no bracketing restrictions; their NET is 17 and their overall seed is 14.

 

[southie]

Amalie Arena in Tampa, home of the Tampa Bay Lightning, was the women’s Final Four site in 2025 and will host the men’s first and second rounds this year.

The cities we've seen so far for the women's Regionals are Spokane, Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, Birmingham, Greenville, Fort Worth and Albany. So, two out eight sites were NBA cities/arenas. The women's Final Fours typically have been held in major cities.

Looks like it will be Las Vegas and Philadelphia in 2027; and Portland (again) and D.C. in 2028; so, maybe the women's Regionals are becoming more lucrative.

 

[southie]

It is explicitly listed as a factor:

"Competitive in losses"

The word "competitive" is extremely subjective and open to interpretation.

My point was that Tennessee's 2-point loss (at home) to Texas (one game pointed out by one poster) when compared to their blowout losses at UConn, South Carolina, Ole Miss and a home rout against Miss. State doesn't give "competitive" feel for those 5 losses overall. What about their "close" 2-point loss at home to hapless Texas A&M where they trailed the entire game and trailed by as many as 20 points? Is that "competitive" to you?

 

[bballnut90]

The NCAA has Bracketing Principles that mandates/ permissively allows departures from the S-curve due to teams coming from the same conference.

• A bracketing principle (highlighted below) currently affects LSU and Vanderbilt on the 1 and 2 seed lines.
• Ohio St. is the 6th highest-seeded Big Ten team per ESPN’s Bracketology, so there should be no bracketing restrictions; their NET is 17 and their overall seed is 14.

View attachment 117408

View attachment 117409

I feel like they should restructure this set up since we now have super conferences where 12 of the 16 projected seeded teams come from 2 conferences.

LSU as your regional final matchup after going undefeated is infinitely more terrifying than facing Louisville the same round.

 

[southie]

I feel like they should restructure this set up since we now have super conferences where 12 of the 16 projected seeded teams come from 2 conferences.

LSU as your regional final matchup after going undefeated is infinitely more terrifying than facing Louisville the same round.

I get what you're saying, but I don't see that changing any time soon; it's been in place ever since UConn/Rutgers from the Big East were matched up as the top two seeds in the same regional years ago. And, that's how the men's tourney does it, too, I believe.

UConn is going to get an SEC team as its 2-seed; it will either be Vanderbilt, Texas, or LSU (the current 4th place team in the SEC standings).

 

[Stagnant]

If South Carolina wins out and they end up as the 3rd #1 seed; I expect them to not be happy about it. I remember that Dawn complained last year during the selection show and indicated South Carolina shouldn’t bother playing such a tough schedule if they aren’t rewarded for it.

I expect similar if they win the toughest conference tournament and get nothing for it.

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

The word "competitive" is extremely subjective and open to interpretation.

My point was that Tennessee's 2-point loss (at home) to Texas (one game pointed out by one poster) when compared to their blowout losses at UConn, South Carolina, Ole Miss and a home rout against Miss. State doesn't give "competitive" feel for those 5 losses overall. What about their "close" 2-point loss at home to hapless Texas A&M where they trailed the entire game and trailed by as many as 20 points? Is that "competitive" to you?

The 12 Committee beholder votes are used to value disparate, possibly conflicting &1, information in order to determine the at-large bids, the S-Curve, and the bracketed S-Curve.

&1 Tennessee (NET 22):

• Loss to NET 66: Texas A&M (Quad 3)
• Loss to NET 37: Mississippi State (Quad 2)
• Close loss to NET 23: NC State (Quad 1B)
• Close loss to NET 4: Texas (Quad 1)
• Blowout losses to NET 1 (UConn), NET 2 (UCLA), NET 3 (SC)
• 10 Losses
• 4-8 Quad 1 Record
• Most significant win: NET 26 Alabama
• NETSOS of 5.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

I wouldn't complain with the #3 , but if Carolina knocked off Texas, LSU or Oklahoma and Tennessee, Kentucky or Ole Miss in SECT then there would definitely be an argument.

I felt Carolina was appropriately seeded last season.

 

[HuskyNan]

 

[southie]

I wouldn't complain with the #3 , but if Carolina knocked off Texas, LSU or Oklahoma and Tennessee, Kentucky or Ole Miss in SECT then there would definitely be an argument.

I felt Carolina was appropriately seeded last season.

While each committee is different, I don't get the feeling this one will drop UCLA from #2 if they go undefeated the rest of their B1G games regardless of what SC does in the in the SEC tourney; UCLA would also rack up some impressive wins in their conference tournament.

In the end, it doesn't matter (too much) who's the 2-seed and who's the 3-seed as UCLA and S. Carolina are in different conferences and the 2-line teams in their regional can't be from their own conference. Now, if S. Carolina and Texas were competing for the 2 and 3 national seeds, then it would be more important. UCLA, like UConn, will most likely get a 2-line team from the SEC (like Vandy/Texas and LSU), while the 2-seeds from the SEC (S. Carolina and Vandy/Texas) will most likely draw a 2-line team from the B1G/ACC.

 

[visitingcock]

Thanks @HuskyNan . Could you post this as a stand-alone thread ? Maybe on the General Board?

I would be interested to low (if anybody knows) how these two factors interplay. Is the seed determined by an average of the two? If so, the averages are interesting:

UCLA: 3/1=4 (2)
UConn: 1/4=5 (2.5)
SCar: 3/2.=5 (2.5)
Texas: 4/3 =7 (3.5)

Based on these averages, UCLA would be the one seed. I would assume UConn to be the two seed based on an undefeated season and SCar at 3 which leaves Texas at 4.

Of course, SCar and Texas (and LSU) can all adjust based on this next week and the SEC tournament). I don’t have any hesitation in saying UConn will sweep out and little hesitation about UCLA.

Averaging the two rankings is even more interesting when looking at the potential two seeds because we have teams like LSU and Minnesota with high NET rankings but relatively low WAB rankings

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

Thanks @HuskyNan . Could you post this as a stand-alone thread ? Maybe on the General Board?

I would be interested to low (if anybody knows) how these two factors interplay. Is the seed determined by an average of the two? If so, the averages are interesting:

UCLA: 3/1=4 (2)
UConn: 1/4=5 (2.5)
SCar: 3/2.=5 (2.5)
Texas: 4/3 =7 (3.5)

Based on these averages, UCLA would be the one seed. I would assume UConn to be the two seed based on an undefeated season and SCar at 3 which leaves Texas at 4.

Of course, SCar and Texas (and LSU) can all adjust based on this next week and the SEC tournament). I don’t have any hesitation in saying UConn will sweep out and little hesitation about UCLA.

Averaging the two rankings is even more interesting when looking at the potential two seeds because we have teams like LSU and Minnesota with high NET rankings but relatively low WAB rankings

“It’s up to the Committee” &1 on how to use information in their team sheets. (youtube @3:42 for NET and WAB).

&1 For example, for seeding:

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

I feel like they should restructure this set up since we now have super conferences where 12 of the 16 projected seeded teams come from 2 conferences.

LSU as your regional final matchup after going undefeated is infinitely more terrifying than facing Louisville the same round.

The rule mitigates “unfairness” to teams from the same conference, at the expense of top seeded teams of other (smaller) conferences.

• (a) The most unfair scenarios to the latter are when a #1 team is forced to meet the #5 team (instead of the #8 team), or when a #1 team is forced &1 to meet the #6 team (instead of the #8 team) and the #2 team is forced &1 to meet the #5 team (instead of the #7 team);
• (b) There is another rule that there is no cap on the number of teams coming from the same conference.
• Both of these rules favor the P4 conferences.

There are loud coaches that will complain incessantly about changing either of these rules vs ensuring that the top seeds, should they be from smaller conferences, get rewarded for being the top seeds or other teams from smaller conferences get to play in the NCAAT.

&1 which seems to be happening this year.

 

[southie]

The rule mitigates “unfairness” to teams from the same conference, at the expense of top seeded teams of other (smaller) conferences.

• (a) The most unfair scenarios to the latter are when a #1 team is forced to meet the #5 team (instead of the #8 team), or when a #1 team is forced &1 to meet the #6 team (instead of the #8 team) and the #2 team is forced &1 to meet the #5 team (instead of the #7 team);
• (b) There is another rule that there is no cap on the number of teams coming from the same conference.

There are loud coaches that will complain incessantly about changing either of these rules vs ensuring that the top seeds, should they be from smaller conferences, get rewarded for being the top seeds or other teams from smaller conferences get to play in the NCAAT.

&1 which seems to be happening this year.

The NCAA softball and women's volleyball committees do not make exceptions in their seeding of the Top 16 teams as it pertains to conference affiliations; they use the straight S-curve. Many fans/coaches want them to do what basketball does to avoid teams from the same conference meeting up prior to the Final Four.