Creme with new #1 seeds

[wire chief]

Cool the negativity. Nothing wrong with ETT being a kind of devil's advocate. He's always been reasonably courteous, so what's wrong with another point of view. His presence helps us not become like the Summit

 

[UcMiami]

Can I jump in with a quick math lesson? Unfortunately, it involves the difference between conditional and unconditional probabilities, so isn't exactly a trivial subject, although I think I can illustrate the point.

It is often said that it is difficult to beat a team four times in one season.

True statement.

Because people know this is true, if they see a team has beaten another team three times, they trot out the bromide suggesting that a fourth win will be very tough.

Not so true, it does not follow from the first statement.

One challenge is that the chance of winning is not 50%, and the chance of winning a game given that one team has won, is not the same as the chance before the first game was played. That part gets complicated, as it involves Bayesian statistics, and is far from trivial.

However, pretend for a second that the probability of winning any game is 50%.

What are the chances of a given team beating another four times?

I hope everyone can do that simple math and conclude the chances are one in 16, or about 6%.

This is (roughly) why people say it is hard to win four in a row. (The real probability is higher, but let's skip that for now.)

Here's the key question:

What are the chances of winning a fourth game, given that one team has won the first three?

The answer is 50%.

The error people make is thinking that if the chance is only 6% that four in a row can happen, that the odds must be low that a string of three will be followed by a fourth win.

Get out a coin, do some flips and you can verify the results.

Flip four in a row, see how often you get four heads.

It will happen about 6% of the time.

Now flip until you get three heads in a row (or keep track of your groups of four flips and find ones with three heads in a row). Flip a fourth time and half the time it will be heads, half tails.

As I said, the fact that real probabilities differ from 50% complicate the situation, but it goes against the trite wisdom. A team that beats another three times in a row is more likely to be the stronger team, and the odds (Baylor/TAMU and ND/CT notwithstanding) are better than 50% that the streak will continue.

There are legitimate reasons for being unhappy with a fourth Louisville/CT matchup, but the possibility that this decreases UConn's chance of winning is not one of them.

Ah, but you are assuming as with a coin (the act of coming up heads or tails does not change the coins properties), that the act of winning or losing a series of games does not change both teams involved. The truth is a game between two teams changes the teams involved, and a string of games, in a relatively short time frame, will change those two teams more than just a single game. For good coaches and good teams, there are multiples of ways of matching up against another team and the process of finding things that work and things that don't becomes more than a scouting process with the continued competition. A team that has lost three times in a row, may decide on a drastic change in approach that they would not have contemplated the first three times. And for the winning team in the series, the psychological effect of winning the first time may be confidence, and the second and the third, by the fourth game it may actually have risen to over confidence and taking the next victory for granted. So while the teams may come into the first game at 50% (or 60%, or 90%) they will not come into the subsequent games at exactly the same percentage.

 

[Phil]

But, on average, the team that wins three will not have less than a 50% chance of winning, they will have more than a 50% chance. Someone has probably documented this, but I am sure that the empirical results will show that the fourth game is more likely to be a fourth win than the sole loss.

 

[wire chief]

But, on average, the team that wins three will not have less than a 50% chance of winning, they will have more than a 50% chance. Someone has probably documented this, but I am sure that the empirical results will show that the fourth game is more likely to be a fourth win than the sole loss.

But it will be skewed by the closeness of the previous games, as played out
in the UConn/ND contests.

 

[Tonyc]

Here are my thoughts. First right now LVille is the third best team in the country and if they lose a few more times to UConn they still are the third best team in the country. LVille plays hard, has a bunch of scorers and is a very balanced team. They deserve a 1 seed as of today. ND is not the same team they were last season and either is UConn. ND has had a couple of close games and not looked consistent. They are not in UConns category this season. UConn has MoJeff and Breanna playing at a level they didn't play at last season when they won the NC. Big Difference.

An ND/ LVille game would be a very good matchup. Sending South Carolina to LVille would be a very good matcheup and draw a lot of fans. UConn has had good shooting nites and poor shooting nites, has had KML and Tuck on the bench and won decisively and won with them in the lineup. UConn has nothing to prove being number 1. I do think if UConn gets in foul trouble they may not win by double digits but they will win. I don't know what UConn has to do to prove they are better then advertised to some fans. Maybe if UConn has 3-4 starters foul out which I think is pretty silly to think of they could lose.

Stanford or Baylor get my next one seed. I think Stanford will get it and play at home. A game of Sims against Chiney would be a great game to watch.

Over all I think the NCAA Selection Committee will match up the teams this season to draw and create excitement. The decisions for matchup should be driven by getting fans to the games and in front of the TV. This is the year to do it. Move UConn to Lincoln as imo if you put UConn in LVille of ND you defeat that purpose. Let everybody else fight it out as they will be good matchups and let that lead to a build up of playing mighty UConn in the FF. No team has competed with UConn this season healthy or not healthy home or away. Under the pressure of the NCAAs UConn will excel at a higher level. Those teams facing UConn will have a problem reaching the level UConn is at. To make the NCAAs exiting have everybody play everybody that's good and that will lead up to facing UConn in the FF. If a UConn Tenn draw is something the committee wants so be it but have it in Lincoln. JM2censts worth.

 

[Fightin Choke]

Here are my thoughts. First right now LVille is the third best team in the country and if they lose a few more times to UConn they still are the third best team in the country. LVille plays hard, has a bunch of scorers and is a very balanced team. They deserve a 1 seed as of today. ND is not the same team they were last season and either is UConn. ND has had a couple of close games and not looked consistent. They are not in UConns category this season. UConn has MoJeff and Breanna playing at a level they didn't play at last season when they won the NC. Big Difference.

An ND/ LVille game would be a very good matchup. Sending South Carolina to LVille would be a very good matcheup and draw a lot of fans. UConn has had good shooting nites and poor shooting nites, has had KML and Tuck on the bench and won decisively and won with them in the lineup. UConn has nothing to prove being number 1. I do think if UConn gets in foul trouble they may not win by double digits but they will win. I don't know what UConn has to do to prove they are better then advertised to some fans. Maybe if UConn has 3-4 starters foul out which I think is pretty silly to think of they could lose.

Stanford or Baylor get my next one seed. I think Stanford will get it and play at home. A game of Sims against Chiney would be a great game to watch.

Over all I think the NCAA Selection Committee will match up the teams this season to draw and create excitement. The decisions for matchup should be driven by getting fans to the games and in front of the TV. This is the year to do it. Move UConn to Lincoln as imo if you put UConn in LVille of ND you defeat that purpose. Let everybody else fight it out as they will be good matchups and let that lead to a build up of playing mighty UConn in the FF. No team has competed with UConn this season healthy or not healthy home or away. Under the pressure of the NCAAs UConn will excel at a higher level. Those teams facing UConn will have a problem reaching the level UConn is at. To make the NCAAs exiting have everybody play everybody that's good and that will lead up to facing UConn in the FF. If a UConn Tenn draw is something the committee wants so be it but have it in Lincoln. JM2censts worth.

Tony, I don't think you are giving this season's Notre Dame enough credit and I fear you are giving Louisville too much credit. Louisville's best win all year is LSU. That's not impressive. While Louisville doesn't have any bad losses (KY and UConn), their SOS may make their record seem more impressive than it really is.

Last year's Notre Dame team had several single-digit wins that were less than impressive (Ohio St. by 6, Central Michigan by 9, USF by 4, 'Nova by 7, USF by 9) as well as the single digit wins over UConn (1, 9, and 2) and A&M (9) and the loss to Baylor.
This season the only single digit games have been Virginia (7) and Maryland (4) and they have lost no games.

This season's MOV is 27, which is 5 points higher than last season so I would call Notre Dame more consistent this season.

That said, it would a terrible decision for WCBB to have UConn in Louisville's region. Let the 2 AAC stars line up on opposite sides of the bracket so Louisville would potentially need to defeat Notre Dame for the privilege to face UConn in the NC game. That could be accomplished by having the Louisville region match up with the South Bend region.

 

[connboy77]

I am just saying that if Baylor were to end up a 1 seed that it would make more sense to send them to Lincoln as it would put them geographically closer to home while doing the same for UCONN. Some fans, especially students, do still travel by ground and it would put those fans within driving distance. Remember those folks, the student body?

The problem as I see it is why punish UCONN who will probably be the overall #1 by sending them to play on the home court of Louisville, Notre Dame, or Stanford? The logical location should be Lincoln.

 

[DobbsRover2]

But, on average, the team that wins three will not have less than a 50% chance of winning, they will have more than a 50% chance. Someone has probably documented this, but I am sure that the empirical results will show that the fourth game is more likely to be a fourth win than the sole loss.

Statistically, you are correct, but by experience until a team beats another team four times in a season there is always the question as to whether there is something about losing to a team three times in a season that gives you a considerable advantage on the fourth go-round. For Baylor vs. Texas A&M in 2010-11, UConn vs. ND in 2010-11, and ND vs UConn in 2012-13, the answer has been that the 0-3 team has come out on top. That may just be a freak coincidence, but I'm guessing not. There have been a few other times when teams have played four times in a season such as MD vs. Duke in 2005-06 and ND vs. UConn in 2011-12 that did not involve one team winning the first three games, but getting the fourth win till now has been a step too far. I don't want to bring religion into this, but maybe the basketball gods have laid down a commandment, "Go 4th not greedy, or go down."

 

[NickyNewark]

Here are my thoughts. First right now LVille is the third best team in the country and if they lose a few more times to UConn they still are the third best team in the country. LVille plays hard, has a bunch of scorers and is a very balanced team. They deserve a 1 seed as of today. ND is not the same team they were last season and either is UConn. ND has had a couple of close games and not looked consistent. They are not in UConns category this season. UConn has MoJeff and Breanna playing at a level they didn't play at last season when they won the NC. Big Difference.

An ND/ LVille game would be a very good matchup. Sending South Carolina to LVille would be a very good matcheup and draw a lot of fans. UConn has had good shooting nites and poor shooting nites, has had KML and Tuck on the bench and won decisively and won with them in the lineup. UConn has nothing to prove being number 1. I do think if UConn gets in foul trouble they may not win by double digits but they will win. I don't know what UConn has to do to prove they are better then advertised to some fans. Maybe if UConn has 3-4 starters foul out which I think is pretty silly to think of they could lose.

Stanford or Baylor get my next one seed. I think Stanford will get it and play at home. A game of Sims against Chiney would be a great game to watch.

Over all I think the NCAA Selection Committee will match up the teams this season to draw and create excitement. The decisions for matchup should be driven by getting fans to the games and in front of the TV. This is the year to do it. Move UConn to Lincoln as imo if you put UConn in LVille of ND you defeat that purpose. Let everybody else fight it out as they will be good matchups and let that lead to a build up of playing mighty UConn in the FF. No team has competed with UConn this season healthy or not healthy home or away. Under the pressure of the NCAAs UConn will excel at a higher level. Those teams facing UConn will have a problem reaching the level UConn is at. To make the NCAAs exiting have everybody play everybody that's good and that will lead up to facing UConn in the FF. If a UConn Tenn draw is something the committee wants so be it but have it in Lincoln. JM2censts worth.

As an RU WBB fan just the thought that L'ville is the (3rd?) best team in the country depresses me as unranked RU could beat them 4 out of 10 times and unranked Temple played them fairly evenly last night!! Is it the AAC conference or is competition just weak all-around this year? Outside ND I dont see anything that indicates anything other than another UConn NC this year !?! I see RU getting their swagger back as the "13/14" season roll's into the next few yrs but unfortunately it'll be mostly against the B1G teams and I like playing all the local/national powers as much as possible more than the B1G schools outside OSU/PSU. Oh well I'll have to get used to Minn/Ill etc.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Arguments over good wins, bad losses, not so bad losses, good SOS, bad SOS, being hot now versus being hot in November, and all the different views of ranking and rating services give us all huge amounts of ammo to selectively argue for one team being better than another, though I have yet to read any comments in this thread proposing New Orleans as a top team even if after 20 straight losses to begin the year I believe the team has to get hot sometime.

FWIW, a composite score taken from four semi-respectable ratings services (Sagarin, Massey, Nolan, Moore) plus the ranking polls AP and USA\Today is given below, though the AP does not factor in the 3rd Duke home pasting. I only include the top 18 because after that a few hugely variant rankings for teams in one service really skews the scores, and maybe mode would be better than average. Interestingly, despite some major weighting difference the four rating services, all rate three of the teams exactly the same -- UConn at #1, ND at #2, and UTenn at #7.

1. UConn-------- 1.0
2. ND------------2.0
3. Stanfd--------4.3
4. Duke---------4.5
5. Baylor-------5.6
6. Lville--------5.8
7. UTenn-------7.3
8. S. Car--------7.5
9. MD----------8.5
10. WVU------11.3
11. UNC-------12.8
12. Gonzo-----13.3
13. OK St------14.4
14. NC St------14.6
15. PSU--------15.5
16. Tex A&M--17.8
17. LSU---------19.0
18. KY----------19.5

The extremes in ratings\rankings for teams can be really huge, for example for best and worst for some teams: Texas (13 and 56), OK (18 and 74), Nebraska (19 and 45), GTech (23 and 58), Purdue (23 and 39), MSU (24 and 73), Syracuse (16 and 59), Vandy (21 and 46). This is likely reflective of inconsistent results for those teams, which makes getting a handle on them much tougher. Four mid majors that are getting some love in some of the services are James Madison, Wichita State, Middle Tennessee, and Dayton.

 

[Phil]

Statistically, you are correct, but by experience until a team beats another team four times in a season there is always the question as to whether there is something about losing to a team three times in a season that gives you a considerable advantage on the fourth go-round. For Baylor vs. Texas A&M in 2010-11, UConn vs. ND in 2010-11, and ND vs UConn in 2012-13, the answer has been that the 0-3 team has come out on top. That may just be a freak coincidence, but I'm guessing not. There have been a few other times when teams have played four times in a season such as MD vs. Duke in 2005-06 and ND vs. UConn in 2011-12 that did not involve one team winning the first three games, but getting the fourth win till now has been a step too far. I don't want to bring religion into this, but maybe the basketball gods have laid down a commandment, "Go 4th not greedy, or go down."

A couple comments:

We are focusing on four, because of the potential this year with Louisville, and recent history with ND plus the notable Baylor/TAMU incident. However, a more common trope is winning a third this season. While Google hits are a crude measure, there are more hits for "hard to win three times in a season" than "hard to win four times in a season"

I'd like to see the numbers. I did a brief search, thinking is would be easy to find, but I did not find a summary.

Four is also special, in that (in college basketball) it is difficult for two teams to meet four times unless they are roughly comparable in strength. Obviously, two is trivial for mismatched teams, but they have to meet in a tournament game, both qualify for the NCAA and then meet again in that tournament. Given the committees attempts to keep such a thing from happening, it is most likely to happen if the two teams are both reasonably strong and not too far apart in strength. Thus, the starting probabilities are closer to 50% that two teams chosen at random.

 

[CL82]

Can I jump in with a quick math lesson? Unfortunately, it involves the difference between conditional and unconditional probabilities, so isn't exactly a trivial subject, although I think I can illustrate the point.

It is often said that it is difficult to beat a team four times in one season.

True statement.

Because people know this is true, if they see a team has beaten another team three times, they trot out the bromide suggesting that a fourth win will be very tough.

Not so true, it does not follow from the first statement.

One challenge is that the chance of winning is not 50%, and the chance of winning a game given that one team has won, is not the same as the chance before the first game was played. That part gets complicated, as it involves Bayesian statistics, and is far from trivial.

However, pretend for a second that the probability of winning any game is 50%.

What are the chances of a given team beating another four times?

I hope everyone can do that simple math and conclude the chances are one in 16, or about 6%.

This is (roughly) why people say it is hard to win four in a row. (The real probability is higher, but let's skip that for now.)

Here's the key question:

What are the chances of winning a fourth game, given that one team has won the first three?

The answer is 50%.

The error people make is thinking that if the chance is only 6% that four in a row can happen, that the odds must be low that a string of three will be followed by a fourth win.

Get out a coin, do some flips and you can verify the results.

Flip four in a row, see how often you get four heads.

It will happen about 6% of the time.

Now flip until you get three heads in a row (or keep track of your groups of four flips and find ones with three heads in a row). Flip a fourth time and half the time it will be heads, half tails.

As I said, the fact that real probabilities differ from 50% complicate the situation, but it goes against the trite wisdom. A team that beats another three times in a row is more likely to be the stronger team, and the odds (Baylor/TAMU and ND/CT notwithstanding) are better than 50% that the streak will continue.

There are legitimate reasons for being unhappy with a fourth Louisville/CT matchup, but the possibility that this decreases UConn's chance of winning is not one of them.

Good explanation of the odds as it relates to coin flip, but I think that the reasoning behind the bromide that it is tough to beat a team four times in a row, is at least somewhat due to the fact that the losing coach has a good knowledge of the winning team's strength's by that point so they have an opportunity to make effective adjustments. That reasoning has it flaws as well but it is based upon more than a flawed understanding of the odds.

 

[DobbsRover2]

As an RU WBB fan just the thought that L'ville is the (3rd?) best team in the country depresses me as unranked RU could beat them 4 out of 10 times and unranked Temple played them fairly evenly last night!! Is it the AAC conference or is competition just weak all-around this year? Outside ND I dont see anything that indicates anything other than another UConn NC this year !?! I see RU getting their swagger back as the "13/14" season roll's into the next few yrs but unfortunately it'll be mostly against the B1G teams and I like playing all the local/national powers as much as possible more than the B1G schools outside OSU/PSU. Oh well I'll have to get used to Minn/Ill etc.

Unfortunately, Rutgers lost to a Memphis team that just lost to a bedraggled Cinci team, and the Knights are really haunted by the early loss to UMass, which has now lost 14 games in a row and is 3-22 on the season and rated #327 by Sagarin. When you are one of the three victims of a really really poor team, you just gotta be grateful for any stray votes the pollsters throw your way and not go belittling Louisville. The one Knights' win over a then-ranked team UGA is now not very good since the Bulldogs have gone way south this year, and they were pretty south to begin with.

Next year Rutgers should be careful not to schedule intrastate rival FDU, because you never know what can happen, and as the #335 team this year that would likely be a very bad loss next year.

 

[Phil]

Here's an article about the more common "hard to win three times in a season", which is more ubiquitous in football, for obvious reasons.

They had all the stats, and the team which won 2 in regular season was victorious by a margin of 12-7.

They also make the same point I did, that if two teams are not close, you wouldn't expect it, but if two teams are not close, one probably isn't making the playoffs.

 

[Phil]

Good explanation of the odds as it relates to coin flip, but I think that the reasoning behind the bromide that it is tough to beat a team four times in a row, is at least somewhat due to the fact that the losing coach has a good knowledge of the winning team's strength's by that point so they have an opportunity to make effective adjustments. That reasoning has it flaws as well but it is based upon more than a flawed understanding of the odds.

The winning coach sees the same games, and can make adjustments. I accept that, almost by definition, the losing coach has more opportunities for change than the winning coach, but we have to wonder why those changes weren't made after loss one, or loss two. I suppose one can argue that the losing coach will keep trying new things, and may stumble on something that works. but I'm not convinced. Would be nice if we could pull together all examles of teams playing four times.

 

[DobbsRover2]

A couple comments:

We are focusing on four, because of the potential this year with Louisville, and recent history with ND plus the notable Baylor/TAMU incident. However, a more common trope is winning a third this season. While Google hits are a crude measure, there are more hits for "hard to win three times in a season" than "hard to win four times in a season"

I'd like to see the numbers. I did a brief search, thinking is would be easy to find, but I did not find a summary.

Four is also special, in that (in college basketball) it is difficult for two teams to meet four times unless they are roughly comparable in strength. Obviously, two is trivial for mismatched teams, but they have to meet in a tournament game, both qualify for the NCAA and then meet again in that tournament. Given the committees attempts to keep such a thing from happening, it is most likely to happen if the two teams are both reasonably strong and not too far apart in strength. Thus, the starting probabilities are closer to 50% that two teams chosen at random.

The three times that a 4-game season series has resulted in the 4th game switch after three losses, the situations all involved some common factors. For the total of 9 games that preceded the final encounters, most were indeed pretty close, with 5 matches decided by 3 points or less, 8 matches decided by 9 or less, and only one being a real blowout, UConn's 21 home win over ND in 2010-11. Each of the series started with the 3-game-winner victorious on the road by 1 or 3 points, then that team's home win averaging a much bigger 13 point margin, and then a conference tourney game that was won by Baylor by 3 points on a neutral court and a 9 point victory for UConn and 3 point win for ND on the XL court that was technically neutral for both teams but in reality of course not. The final game in the NCAA's have seen the thrice-beaten losers really turn the tables, knocking off the higher ranked team by that same 13 point average margin of the second games in the series.

There's not really a firm pattern for the final game, though both Texas A&M and UConn ran out to double-digit leads in the first half of their wins, while it took ND a little longer to get things worked out while recovering from a 6-point first half deficit to win by 9. But whatever the losing teams learned during the first three losses, they learned it well and earned decisive wins in the last meeting.

What the OP thread title subject Charlie Creme has to say about all this, I don't know.

 

[easttexastrash]

Here's an article about the more common "hard to win three times in a season", which is more ubiquitous in football, for obvious reasons.

They had all the stats, and the team which won 2 in regular season was victorious by a margin of 12-7.

They also make the same point I did, that if two teams are not close, you wouldn't expect it, but if two teams are not close, one probably isn't making the playoffs.

The biggest point is that the teams are not close. The talent level is so far in UCONN's favor that you could play L-ville 20 times on their home court and still win.

 

[easttexastrash]

There is also a possibility that Louisville will lose before the regional final. They have had two games won in OT, a loss to UK, and single digit victories over unranked Colorado, Temple, USF and Rutgers. Is this really the third best team in the nation?

I suspect that after UCONN trounces the Cards a couple more times that sending UCONN to Louisville will hardly be seen by the committee as punishment.

 

[uconnfan68]

Maybe "distance" should be measured travel time. Maybe "distance" should be measured using intervals of time or miles rather than points. Maybe two or more destinations where flight times or miles are within say, I don't know, +/-10% of each other should be considered the same "distance" and match ups should be determined by the S-curve.

light-years sounds appropriate...

 

[doggydaddy]

There is also a possibility that Louisville will lose before the regional final. They have had two games won in OT, a loss to UK, and single digit victories over unranked Colorado, Temple, USF and Rutgers. Is this really the third best team in the nation?

Pretty much, UL TN, Stanford, Maryland, Duke, UNC, SC (did I miss anyone) are equal in my mind and it depends on who has been playing better that week in regards to how I would rank them.

 

[DobbsRover2]

There is also a possibility that Louisville will lose before the regional final. They have had two games won in OT, a loss to UK, and single digit victories over unranked Colorado, Temple, USF and Rutgers. Is this really the third best team in the nation?

I suspect that after UCONN trounces the Cardsa couple more times that sending UCONN to Louisville will hardly seen by the committee as punishment.

Sure, but last year Louisville racked up 8 losses before the tourney started and still continued on to the NC, and it was a 1-loss Baylor team that didn't make it to a regional final, hard as that might have been to guess from the spiffy regular season results.

Those who predict dark things for the Cardinals based on regular season results have often gotten egg on their faces in recent years.

 

[southie]

First, we would be on the home court of the #2 seed, which shouldn't happen to the #1 overall seed.

Sorry, but that is just your opinion; it is not reality. If the committee was against sending the #1 overall seed to a regional hosted by a #2 seed, they wouldn't have pre-determined regionals; they'd just let the #1 national seeds host every season.

In volleyball, Texas was the the #1 overall seed this past December, but was sent to Lincoln to have to play a #2 seed (#8 overall seed) in front of 9,000 Husker fans. #2 overall seed Penn State was sent to play in Lexington, KY, where the #2 seed (#7 overall) was Stanford.

Bottom line is that having pre-determined host sites means the committe has to "fit" the seeds around the seeds of the host sites, unfortunatetly.

 

[southie]

The problem as I see it is why punish UCONN who will probably be the overall #1 by sending them to play on the home court of Louisville, Notre Dame, or Stanford? The logical location should be Lincoln.

Not a punishment.

If UConn is the #1 overall seed, they simply have to be placed in a Regional where the #8, 9, and 16 seeds "fit". If one host school fits the bill, that's where UConn goes.

Otherwise, the integrity of the bracket suffers.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

First, we would be on the home court of the #2 seed, which shouldn't happen to the #1 overall seed.

Sorry, but that is just your opinion; it is not reality. If the committee was against sending the #1 overall seed to a regional hosted by a #2 seed, they wouldn't have pre-determined regionals; they'd just let the #1 national seeds host every season.

In volleyball, Texas was the the #1 overall seed this past December, but was sent to Lincoln to have to play a #2 seed (#8 overall seed) in front of 9,000 Husker fans. #2 overall seed Penn State was sent to play in Lexington, KY, where the #2 seed (#7 overall) was Stanford.

Bottom line is that having pre-determined host sites means the committe has to "fit" the seeds around the seeds of the host sites.

Your post makes me wonder if you work for the selection committee because it makes about as much sense a their rules do.

Your criticism begins by stating that the posters opinion is their opinion. O - k - a - y. Unnecessary but Okay. [End of you making sense.]

The wheels start coming off when you address the overall #1 seed playing on the home court of a #2 seed. True, that's an injustice in and of itself but that's not the jist of the argument. A worse injustice is the overall #1 playing on the home court of the BEST #2 seed. At the moment, the consensus here as I read it is that Louisville is at worst the best #2 and many think they are better than that.

Your volleyball example does nothing to illustrate your point because it follows an S-curve format. (What I wouldn't give for S-curve pairings).

Finally, having pre-determined host sites in no way suggests that the overall #1 should be paired with the overall #2. That result is purely a perverse result of poorly designed bracket rules.

Maybe the committee should refresh their memories about the prime objective of the tournament: to crown a champion. Not to please fans. Not to minimize expenses. Not to foster interest in the game. Those are all laudable secondary purposes and rightfully should take a back seat to the primary.[/quote]

 

[NickyNewark]

Unfortunately, Rutgers lost to a Memphis team that just lost to a bedraggled Cinci team, and the Knights are really haunted by the early loss to UMass, which has now lost 14 games in a row and is 3-22 on the season and rated #327 by Sagarin. When you are one of the three victims of a really really poor team, you just gotta be grateful for any stray votes the pollsters throw your way and not go belittling Louisville. The one Knights' win over a then-ranked team UGA is now not very good since the Bulldogs have gone way south this year, and they were pretty south to begin with.

Next year Rutgers should be careful not to schedule intrastate rival FDU, because you never know what can happen, and as the #335 team this year that would likely be a very bad loss next year.

Sorry if you're a "ville" fan but watching them they appear overrated to me? Funny how 2 1 pt losses are holding RU back! Btw, as bad as RU has been check out their record the last couple/few yrs against them(L'Ville)! I'm really not one to belittle anyone but this yr has me (realignment and all) depressed with college athletic's as a whole Dobbsy!!