committee top 16

[oldude]

With fan attendance probably disallowed, I doubt there will be any significant quasi-home court advantage unless teams are actually playing in their home arena, which apparently isn't the case, unless we count a potential 1st-round game for Texas at the Erwin Center ... or potential 1st- and/or 2nd-round games for UTSA.

TX currently allows attendance, albeit limited, for college basketball games. I would expect similar attendance policies to be in effect for the NCAA tournament.

 

[Vowelguy]

With fan attendance probably disallowed, I doubt there will be any significant quasi-home court advantage unless teams are actually playing in their home arena, which apparently isn't the case, unless we count a potential 1st-round game for Texas at the Erwin Center ... or potential 1st- and/or 2nd-round games for UTSA.

I am sure they will put TX at one of the other sites.

 

[oldude]

I am sure they will put TX at one of the other sites.

Perhaps, but it’s still drivable for TX fans. To the extent that fans are allowed, I would expect supporters of TX, Baylor & A&M to buy up a majority of available tickets.

 

[j66kicker]

With fan attendance probably disallowed,..

TX currently allows attendance, albeit limited, for college basketball games. I would expect similar attendance policies to be in effect for the NCAA tournament.

I read there will be 6 tickets per player & Tier 1 program staffer, for friends & family, with attendance limited to max 408 fans per game.

Edit: Here's the article. After re-reading (see last paragraph) I'm not sure the 408 isn't just the Friends and Family policy and not the total attendance limit...

2021 DI Women’s Basketball Championship health and safety protocols announced

Following the recent announcement that San Antonio and the surrounding region would play host to the entire 2021 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship,

www.ncaa.org

"The protocols also address game attendance, with up to six guests per Tier 1 participant (up to 408 guests total) allowed in each venue per game. Those admitted will follow the established county and venue guidelines for attendance. The guests will be prohibited from interacting in person with any of the Tier 1 participants during the entire tournament. They will be seated in physically distanced family clusters. The final attendance policy will be announced before the championship."

 

[oldude]

That’s a horse of a different color. In the words of Emily Littela, “Never mind.”

 

[Plebe]

TX currently allows attendance, albeit limited, for college basketball games. I would expect similar attendance policies to be in effect for the NCAA tournament.

Early in the season, I tried hard to get tickets to some of UT's home games and it was impossible. What I was told then was that season ticket holders were the only members of the general public allowed to attend. Perhaps that's changed in the 2-3 months since, but not judging from the attendance numbers.

 

[southie]

Hardly neutral for teams from the Lonestar State.

I guess it depends on if fans will be allowed to attend. Of course, for the "local" teams in Texas, it for sure makes their travel much easier. I'm sure there are some other advantages, as well.

With some first round games being held in Austin at Texas' arena, I'll be curious if they allow Texas (assuming we make the tournament) to play on its homecourt. Or, do they incur additional travel (hotel, etc.) costs by busing them to San Antonio? Even if they bused Baylor and Texas A&M to Austin instead of San Antonio for the first round games, I'm not sure how much of a homecourt advantage it would be for them.

Of course, all men's tourney games are being played in and around Indianapolis. So, there will be some advantages for local teams like Indiana, Purdue, etc.

 

[MSGRET]

What if you don’t play a tournament game due to Covid? You still need 13 games, and while MI is very likely to get there, they’re not there yet.

The NCAA put out a couple of weeks ago that teams that don't reach the magic number can have the Conference submit a request for consideration to be eligible for the Tournament. I believe the deadline was the Monday before the selection committee meets.

 

[oldude]

The NCAA put out a couple of weeks ago that teams that don't reach the magic number can have the Conference submit a request for consideration to be eligible for the Tournament. I believe the deadline was the Monday before the selection committee meets.

That sounds like what the Big10 did to leapfrog tOSU football, when the Buckeyes didn’t have enough games to qualify for the Big10 championship, and a chance to play for the national championship.

 

[stamfordhusky]

The NCAA put out a couple of weeks ago that teams that don't reach the magic number can have the Conference submit a request for consideration to be eligible for the Tournament. I believe the deadline was the Monday before the selection committee meets.

At the moment, the dates to apply for a waiver were from Feb. 8 through Feb. 26. After Feb. 26, a team can only apply if it has one or more games postponed after that date.

 

[stamfordhusky]

That sounds like what the Big10 did to leapfrog tOSU football, when the Buckeyes didn’t have enough games to qualify for the Big10 championship, and a chance to play for the national championship.

Slightly different since the rule applying to OSU was only a Big Ten rule, and thus it only required a Big Ten vote to change it. The basketball waiver process relates to an NCAA rule - so it takes an NCAA ruling to change it.

 

[Dokey]

Just as a general question, how do you fairly rank the Pac-12 teams when none of them played a real non-conference schedule? I don't think the NET and the other ranking systems can really apply to a conference that only played amongst themselves.

Because the PAC-12 is a tough conference where each team has played a tougher schedule than say...UConn.

 

[Vowelguy]

By my count, just three P5 teams have <13 games: MI (12), RU (11), OreSt (12).
USF & UCF have 12.
And a few small conference leaders are below 13 as well.

I think every at-large NCAA pick will be well over 13 by tourney time.
Maybe a few small conference champs get waivers.

 

[Bear11]

Because the PAC-12 is a tough conference where each team has played a tougher schedule than say...UConn.

Yes the Pac-12 is tough, but we really have no idea how tough. As far as I can tell no one in the entire conference played a P5 opponent in non-conference. That means the committee is just relying on preseason rankings and the eye test to rank the teams in the absence of any real data. You can rank the Pac-12 teams relative to each other, but there is no basis to compare them with the rest of the country. Has the committee made any comment on how they will do that, or is it a total guess?

Personally I think the Pac-12 should take a slight hit across the board for not playing a non-conference schedule, but that may just because Oregon cancelling the Baylor game cost us a chance to improve our own schedule.

 

[DefenseBB]

Oh really? Let's see how they actually fare against SC first given their Top 25 wins are really wins against 13-25 teams and 2 of them are way out of top 25 contention-MSU and Texas. Look at their other wins, all are by paltry scores. I am not sold on this team even as a #2 seed as I think Baylor is better, UCLA, Arizona and probably Oregon and Maryland. The whole 7-0 vs. Top 25 without a top 10 team in the bunch is not a great discussion. I would be very comfortable having them in our side of the bracket.

 

[ScuderiaDiU]

The shuffling of teams to avoid conference matchups is idiotic. It punishes teams like UConn that are from weaker conferences. We almost always end up with the best 2 seed. And, yes, it matters. It is all about probabilities.

As for the rankings, they are awful. There are only 5 teams that can win it all. UConn, South Carolina, Stanford, Oregon and Baylor. Anyone willing to challenge that in a bet, I will take those 5 and you take the rest of the field.

Of course, with 5 teams, that means at least one bracket will have two of them. Guess whose bracket that is?

 

[southie]

Oh really? Let's see how they actually fare against SC first given their Top 25 wins are really wins against 13-25 teams and 2 of them are way out of top 25 contention-MSU and Texas. Look at their other wins, all are by paltry scores. I am not sold on this team even as a #2 seed as I think Baylor is better, UCLA, Arizona and probably Oregon and Maryland. The whole 7-0 vs. Top 25 without a top 10 team in the bunch is not a great discussion. I would be very comfortable having them in our side of the bracket.

I'm not one to defend A&M (in any sports) very often, but they won at Arkansas, which is something neither Baylor nor UConn could do. And, they beat Arkansas a second time at home.

While that's simply comparing the results of 3 teams against one common opponent, it's a valid comparison. We can dissect different teams' resumes', but I believe A&M's is better than just about all but 5 teams (think that's what was on the screen last night when Carolyn Peck was advocating for A&M). Even though some might "think" other teams are "better" than A&M, that is just based on the subjective eye test; the actual numbers indicate A&M has better collective quality wins than all the schools you listed (other than UCLA beating Stanford).

 

[Alydar]

What if you don’t play a tournament game due to Covid? You still need 13 games, and while MI is very likely to get there, they’re not there yet.

The NCAA is offering waivers to the 13 game rule to teams on a case by case basis.

I'm sure that the NCAA would award waivers in the same impartial basis they waive sitout years for transfers.

 

[MSGRET]

I'm not one to defend A&M (in any sports) very often, but they won at Arkansas, which is something neither Baylor nor UConn could do. And, they beat Arkansas a second time at home.

While that's simply comparing the results of 3 teams against one common opponent, it's a valid comparison. We can dissect different teams' resumes', but I believe A&M's is better than just about all but 5 teams (think that's what was on the screen last night when Carolyn Peck was advocating for A&M). Even though some might "think" other teams are "better" than A&M, that is just based on the subjective eye test; the actual numbers indicate A&M has better collective quality wins than all the schools you listed (other than UCLA beating Stanford).

South Carolina beat Arkansas by 22 points, while A&M won their games by 2 points and 1 point respectively. South Carolina has only lost two games both against Top ten teams, NC State and UConn. While A&M lost to an 8-10 LSU by 4 points. UConn has lost only one game against a Top 25 team on the road by 3 points who had a player, who got away with numerous push offs to get open, have her best game ever with 37 points. UConn also beat the #1 ranked team, who A&M plays at the end of the season. I don't see A&M beating South Carolina, but if they do, then they should be in the discussion of being #1.

 

[Alydar]

Edit: Here's the article. After re-reading (see last paragraph) I'm not sure the 408 isn't just the Friends and Family policy and not the total attendance limit...

2021 DI Women’s Basketball Championship health and safety protocols announced

Following the recent announcement that San Antonio and the surrounding region would play host to the entire 2021 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship,

www.ncaa.org

"The protocols also address game attendance, with up to six guests per Tier 1 participant (up to 408 guests total) allowed in each venue per game. Those admitted will follow the established county and venue guidelines for attendance. The guests will be prohibited from interacting in person with any of the Tier 1 participants during the entire tournament. They will be seated in physically distanced family clusters. The final attendance policy will be announced before the championship."

408 tickets means you have 68 Tier 1 members? Players, practice players, coaches, trainers don't add up to 68. Even on 15 player squads with 15 practice players. 4 coaches, a couple of grad assistants, 2-3 managers make 39. If there are another 20 or more people having daily contact with players no wonder there have been so many pauses around the country.

 

[FridaFriend]

Have they said how they will choose representatives from conferences where no team could qualify for an at-large bid AND the conference tournament is not held?

I hope Hillmon gets Michigan into the tournament with a 4 seed or better. Maybe they can beat MSU today?

The 16 reveal loves SEC teams as usual: Tennessee, Georgia, and Kentucky really don't belong.

I think Pac12 teams deserve high seedings. They have performed very well in the tournament in recent years. Especially this year, they shouldn't be penalized for lack of non-conference games. Even without Covid, Pac12 teams are disadvantaged because they have to travel much further to play other P5 opponents.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

most notable omission: Michigan!

Yep, Kim Barnes Arico is building Michigan into a power just as she did St Johns. Strong coach. Making her way into the top ranks of top coaches.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

The regions are pretty imbalanced imo.

I would like us to avoid Group D. Don't want to tangle with A&M. Or Oregon. Or Louisville.

 

[southie]

South Carolina beat Arkansas by 22 points, while A&M won their games by 2 points and 1 point respectively. South Carolina has only lost two games both against Top ten teams, NC State and UConn. While A&M lost to an 8-10 LSU by 4 points. UConn has lost only one game against a Top 25 team on the road by 3 points who had a player, who got away with numerous push offs to get open, have her best game ever with 37 points. UConn also beat the #1 ranked team, who A&M plays at the end of the season. I don't see A&M beating South Carolina, but if they do, then they should be in the discussion of being #1.

Those are some good points. But, I doubt the committee will put any stock into your bolded comment above; it's not relevant to the committee's criteria, IMO. A win is a win; a loss is a loss. Maybe the committee considers if a team played without a key player (like NC State against Va Tech), but it didn't appear that they did.

South Carolina did lose at home.

A&M lost at LSU; but, then they beat LSU at home. Like Carolyn Peck stated last night, that should be considered a "wash".

If the margin of victory is being used by the committee (I think it is), then that is a bonus for South Carolina. Still, A&M has 2 wins over Arkansas, while USC has 1 win over Arkansas. Which stat is more "valuable" to the committee?

By no means am I suggesting that A&M should be above SC; just commenting on your statements.

We all have opinions on the reveal; makes for good discussion.