Creme with new #1 seeds

[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!!

 

[UcMiami]

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.

The answer to your angst is - take a look at previously #3 Stanford's results from the weekend - they actually lost to that 'unranked' teams as opposed to theoretically losing some games in a best of ten match-up. And as for struggling ... ND has had a few 'difficult' games, Duke just laid a whopper, and the further down you go the worst it looks.
Going undefeated is a really difficult proposition - in 19 years Uconn has pulled it off 4 times - TN and Baylor once each. Struggling in games during a season is what most teams do even if they are really good and losing multiple games is a standard for 99.9% of all D1 basketball teams (6/6650 team years)

 

[DobbsRover2]

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!!

Nicky, I'm only a Cards fan in that they have been in the same conference as UConn, a fact that even makes me root for Rutgers for most of the year against OOC opponents and to insure a third AAC team in the tourney (which seems very likely). Next year I'll be dragging the Cards through the mud as one of the accursed ACC teams. But we all do have to be realists about our team even when it is UConn, even when as it turns out they pleasantly surprise us as UConn did from pre-tourney through the NC.

But this year Louisville has just the two losses to teams that were ranked #1 and #7 when the Cards played them, and wins over teams that were #11 and #14 when they played them. It's not the Cards fault that KY, Colorado, and LSU have either tanked or slid back since playing Louisville. They have the 6th best scoring margin in the country with an SOS rated 20th best by Massey.

I'm sorry that Rutgers lost two games to weak teams by a measly point, but a loss is still a loss in the eyes of the pollsters. You just cannot afford to lose a game to a team outside the top 120 and another outside the top 320 and expect that WCBB experts will think highly of your team. Lville beat LSU by 21 and Rutgers lost by 4, so maybe that's another indicator of where the teams' level is at.

But take heart, because Rutgers is predicted to have 8 losses during the regular season, only 1 more than Louisville did last year, so maybe Rutgers can make a run to the NC game just like they did.

 

[ndmb]

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.

Do you think, just maybe, if I were trying to reflect reality, I wouldn't have used the word shouldn't?

But, if you want to talk about not reflecting reality, how about the fact that WCBB doesn't use the S-curve?

I have yet to see a reason (putting the committee's rules aside for a second) why it would fair or reasonable for UConn to be going anywhere other than Lincoln.

 

[Phil]

Here's what I think the committee missed (subject to the fact that I have not seen the Principles and Procedures for 2014, so it is possible they have considered and changed the rules; however, if they did so, they didn't tell Charlie Creme):

Years ago, they realized they had to address some financial issues. How many people realize that Division I women's basketball holds a number one position they would rather not hold; of all the Championship tournaments hosted by the NCAA the D1 WBB tournament loses the most money.

While the goal as someone pointed out, ought to be to identify the champion, it would be financially irresponsible to ignore the cost structure.

As a response, the Selection committee changed the emphasis from the S-Curve to geography. This change was intended to provide two benefits:
Because the NCAA foots the bill fro transportation, going to a closer venue is likely to reduce the direct transportation costs.
A secondary benefit is that is a venue is closer to the fans, more might show up and purchase tickets, also improving the financial picture.

The selection committee did not say that geography was the only consideration. It would not be hard to design a bracket allocation program which could either minimize travel overall or minimize travel subject to some constraint (such as match ups). The actual process implemented preserved the ranking order of teams, and gave the first preference to the highest seeds (which is not the same as minimizing travel).

However, that set of rules was created when the regionals were at neutral locations.

When locations are neutral, sending the top seed to the closest location is giving the benefit to the team that earned the top seed. This was intended. (Yes, people can identify situations where this might not be absolutely true, but most of the exceptions are minor.)

However, as soon as they decided that teams could host the regional, they need to rethink the geographical rule. (I still hope they have changed it, and simply haven't shared their change.)

When teams can host a regional, sending the top team to the closest regional is not necessarily a reward.

The whole point of allowing regionals to host was to materially increase the attendance at the regional sites. What they should have done, is realize they should scrap the geography rule, as the regional hosting rule is in conflict with the notion that the top seeds should get some preference.

 

[pap49cba]

Like most things in sports and politics, follow the money.... IMO, this isn't about "fairness", it's simply about money.

 

[Suebird10fan]

Pretty much, UL TN, Stanford, Maryland, Duke, UNC, SC (did I miss anyone)

Ask ETT!

 

[easttexastrash]

Ask ETT!

Must be a question by someone I have on "Ignore."

 

[Geno-ista]

The geography "rule" may go to the side now that there are 4 schools hosting.

I personally don't think UCONN should have to play on someone's home floor to go to the FF, but it doesn't matter where you go this year it's gonna happen. With that said if Louisville is #2 seed or lower I would hope the committee wouldn't make UCONN play them a 4th time!

I'm quite ok going to Lincoln. Playing Nebraska to get a FF is unlikely.

I'm really interested in how the conference races finish up in the SEC and BIG12 and who wins the conference tourneys.

Seeding will be interesting.

But again it would be NCAA Tourney time and anything could happen.

#1 seed Duke had to go Thru Bridgeport and #2 Uconn Renee's freshman year- not saying it's right- just sayin!

 

[Tonyc]

The reason I mentioned my seedings is I think if the Committee focuses on competitive rounds in the Regionals that will bring out the casual fans and the dye hard fans. If you have UConn play Lville whats the point. Or preliminary UConn ND why not wait til the FF for that one and have time to build it up. LVille Duke or USC. ND Duke or USC would be great. Then place Tenn in Lincoln and hope for a UConn Tenn matchup. Think about those competitive regionals and how many fans will watch. Stanford and Baylor or maybe Duke. There are a lot of combos that will draw fans. Think about it LVille and USC. Stanford Duke ND Baylor UConn Tenn or Stanford Baylor and ND Duke. A lot of drawing power. Hey I might even take a couple of days off tax season and fly out to Lincoln...yeah right. LOL

 

[NickyNewark]

Nicky, I'm only a Cards fan in that they have been in the same conference as UConn, a fact that even makes me root for Rutgers for most of the year against OOC opponents and to insure a third AAC team in the tourney (which seems very likely). Next year I'll be dragging the Cards through the mud as one of the accursed ACC teams. But we all do have to be realists about our team even when it is UConn, even when as it turns out they pleasantly surprise us as UConn did from pre-tourney through the NC.

But this year Louisville has just the two losses to teams that were ranked #1 and #7 when the Cards played them, and wins over teams that were #11 and #14 when they played them. It's not the Cards fault that KY, Colorado, and LSU have either tanked or slid back since playing Louisville. They have the 6th best scoring margin in the country with an SOS rated 20th best by Massey.

I'm sorry that Rutgers lost two games to weak teams by a measly point, but a loss is still a loss in the eyes of the pollsters. You just cannot afford to lose a game to a team outside the top 120 and another outside the top 320 and expect that WCBB experts will think highly of your team. Lville beat LSU by 21 and Rutgers lost by 4, so maybe that's another indicator of where the teams' level is at.

But take heart, because Rutgers is predicted to have 8 losses during the regular season, only 1 more than Louisville did last year, so maybe Rutgers can make a run to the NC game just like they did.

NC this yr? That would be dreaming esp with ND and UConn being so talented, experienced,and well coached but I think CVS is shooting for 1 more run before retiring and she just may have the young horses to do it in "15" ? 8 losses is what I predict myself but at least the next couple losses will be to top 5 teams(hopefully)!

 

[ASweet3781]

Maybe the Charlie Creme fan club can explain to me why he would put Maryland as the 3 seed in the UConn-Louisville region as well?

The other 3 seeds he has are Penn State, Oklahoma State, and Texas A & M.

I don't care what the numbers say, the eyes tell you Maryland is better than those teams. Gave ND their biggest scare of the year and gave UConn a good game for 20 minutes and have a legit 1st team All American.

So Charlie currently has the toughest 1, the toughest 2, and toughest 3 all bracketed in the same region.

There could be no possible explanation for that. Unless your engaging in wishful thinking.

 

[Phil]

I realize you have expressed a disdain for the rules, but the rules do exist.

The rule say the strongest seed gets the closest geographical location. You think MD is the strongest three seed.

Louisville is the closest region.

It is that simple.

This might increase your disdain for the rules, but I don't get why you take it out on Creme. He didn't write the rules.

As an aside, if you were wrong about MD being the strongest three seed, and they were the second strongest after TAMU, then TAMU would get first choice, which would be Lincoln, and MD would get second choice , which would be ...Louisville.

If Penn State were the strongest three seed, they would get the closest location, which would be Notre Dame, and MD if second, would get... Louisville.

If Penn State were the strongest three seed, they would get the closest location, which would be Notre Dame, and MD if third , would get... Louisville.

In other words, if MD is the strongest, second strongest or third strongest three seed, they end up in Louisville. Only if they are the weakest, which you do not believe, would they end up in Stanford.

 

[Vowelguy]

Does someone have a link to the policies and procedures doc?

 

[Phil]

Link

Caution, the date on this is October 2012. That suggest there should be an update for this season, but I haven't found it. I asked Charlie Creme, but I'm not sure he understood my question. His answer suggested that the link goes to the rules in place fro 2014, but that makes no sense.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Link

Caution, the date on this is October 2012. That suggest there should be an update for this season, but I haven't found it. I asked Charlie Creme, but I'm not sure he understood my question. His answer suggested that the link goes to the rules in place fro 2014, but that makes no sense.

Y'know, Charlie could be being intentionally fuzzy. The NCAA has very unofficial relationships with sports media staff and ratings services that they depend on for info. It is likely that there is some inside communications among this group that is not supposed to be shared with the general public. For whatever reason, the committee members and NCAA admins have not seemingly gotten together yet to make certain decisions, or at least they have not released any documents about such for public consumption.

Twenty years ago guys like Sagarin mentioned how they got informal and sometimes vague communications from the selection committee, and even then he was told that his metrics were getting heavy usage while the RPI was being pushed to the background as more of a figurehead marker. But that info could not be noted in official documents because of potential MOV hysteria. Instead what we got was a useless system and the sadly twisted state of OOC scheduling with some schools no longer playing away games to boost RPI schools that are largely ignored.

 

[Vowelguy]

In other words, if MD is the strongest, second strongest or third strongest three seed, they end up in Louisville. Only if they are the weakest, which you do not believe, would they end up in Stanford.

Yes ... if geography is the _only_ criteria for the seeding.
But there are other factors the committee considers.
One is keeping conference opponents away until the Regional final. While a UConn-Lou-Md regional doesn't violate that, you need to think about what's going on in the other regions as well. Something there might necessitate flipping another team with MD.
Another is balancing the brackets. A lot harder to predict how that would go, but it provides another method for the process to not follow the simple geographic bracketing.

 

[UConnCat]

Link

Caution, the date on this is October 2012. That suggest there should be an update for this season, but I haven't found it. I asked Charlie Creme, but I'm not sure he understood my question. His answer suggested that the link goes to the rules in place fro 2014, but that makes no sense.

The NCAA Selection Committee for the Men's tournament has been in the news lately. The rules for the men's tournament were changed in August 2013 and discussed in an ESPN story from last week. The overall goal of the new rules is "fairness." http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10446244/ncaa-selection-committee-chairman-ron-wellman-believes-tournament-fairer

The men's selection committee also hosted its mock selection last weekend: http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball...new-bracketing-principles-during-ncaa-tourney

I've been searching for news from the women's selection committee on the 2014 tournament, including whether there have been changes to rules, etc. I haven't found anything.

 

[Phil]

I tried to make a point that seems to have been missed, so I'll try again.

The rules talk about some goals, but some things are absolute. At least, they are absolute, if they mean what they say (oddly, I hope not).

When they use a phrase like "attempt to achieve" they have provided themselves (appropriately) with some leeway.

However, some rules appear to be absolute. When they say "the
team seeded higher in the s-curve will be assigned to
the closest geographical proximity site.'

They did not say, subject to consideration of other important principles.

"Will be assigned" doesn't mean "strive to assign" if it can be done while maintaining balance.

Just to be clear, my personal position on what should be done is close to yours. I hope they will view the wording more flexibly than it is written.

I'm simply trying to point out that the rules, as written, do not provide much flexibility on the geographical aspect, unless I am misreading them.

 

[Phil]

The NCAA Selection Committee for the Men's tournament has been in the news lately. The rules for the men's tournament were changed in August 2013 and discussed in an ESPN story from last week. The overall goal of the new rules is "fairness." http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10446244/ncaa-selection-committee-chairman-ron-wellman-believes-tournament-fairer

The men's selection committee also hosted its mock selection last weekend: http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball...new-bracketing-principles-during-ncaa-tourney

I've been searching for news from the women's selection committee on the 2014 tournament, including whether there have been changes to rules, etc. I haven't found anything.

There have been mock selections for the women's side, and they have been well-received by attendees. I wonder if they only do them every couple of years. I find it hard to believe it would be done quietly, it sounds like a perfect excuse for some coverage.

I liked the concept behind the new men's rule:

The focus of this year’s meeting was on the new bracketing principles that allow teams from the same conference to play in the third round of the tournament if they only faced each other once during the regular season and conference tournament. If schools played twice, they can’t meet again until the Sweet 16, and if they faced off three times, they may not meet until the Elite 8.​

Some have proposed something similar here, I hope it gets added.

 

[CL82]

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.

I don't disagree with that Phil, I just think that there more going on than a flawed understanding of probability.

 

[Vowelguy]

However, some rules appear to be absolute. When they say "the
team seeded higher in the s-curve will be assigned to
the closest geographical proximity site.'

But you left out the first part of that rule.

The committee will attempt to assign each team to the most geographically compatible regional and first‐/second‐round site, by order of the s‐curve. ​

Does not seem like an absolute rule to me.

Additionally a subsequent bullet says:

After each group of four teams is determined, check for conflicts with the principles for placing the teams into the bracket and determine the relative strengths of the regions by adding the “true” seed number in each region (e.g., original s‐curve order). Generally, no more than five points should separate the lowest and highest total in Line Nos. 1‐4. ​

Which suggests there are several rules they are trying to jointly follow and that could cause teams to be moved.


Lastly, if the process were dominated by absolute rules, then it would seem easy to back out the committee's 1-64 ranking of the teams and then recreate their bracket. I do not believe that is the case.

 

[Phil]

Lastly, if the process were dominated by absolute rules, then it would seem easy to back out the committee's 1-64 ranking of the teams and then recreate their bracket. I do not believe that is the case.

Not really.

See:

Once the s-curve is finalized, it remains unchanged while placing the teams
into the championship bracket.​

Read that in conjunction with:

The process for selecting the at-large teams, seeding the teams and placing the teams in the tournament bracket shall be conducted in the prescribed chronological order (e.g., selection, seeding and bracketing).​

and you will see that the curve must be finalized before doing the bracketing, and once the bracketing starts, it is too late to change the curve.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Whatever the rules and how they are interpreted, what Creme has put together at this point would be a total travesty for any idea of perceived competitiveness if you take the current AP rankings as a guide. Adding the rankings of the 4 teams behind each of his #1s, and noting that Kara Lawson would agree with the rankings and say that there are two #1 seeds in UConn's region. He also assigns as a 5 seed there the freshman team that she says no one wants in their region. Thanks, Charlie.

1. UConn ....,.... (3, 8, 13, 11) = 35
2. Notre Dame (2, 7, 9, 15, 18) = 49
3. Stanford ...,... (10, 12, 19, 22) = 63
4. South Car. ..,.. (6, 16, 14, 21) = 57

Ah, no. That is just crackbrained. Two clear #1 seeds and they have the toughest groups by far in their region, and the top overall seed has its region at still another level of toughness from the second overall team ND.

At this point I just have to ask why Charlie is even bothering to peddle this bilge. Oh yeah, he's contracted to do it, but that's still not an excuse. If he can't put together something halfway logical, why post this stuff?

 

[Vowelguy]

Not really.

See:

Once the s-curve is finalized, it remains unchanged while placing the teams
into the championship bracket.​

Read that in conjunction with:

The process for selecting the at-large teams, seeding the teams and placing the teams in the tournament bracket shall be conducted in the prescribed chronological order (e.g., selection, seeding and bracketing).​

and you will see that the curve must be finalized before doing the bracketing, and once the bracketing starts, it is too late to change the curve.

I think you may have misunderstand what I said. My point is that if the bracketing is bound to hard rules, then it should be fairly easy to figure out the 1-64 ranking that the committee used.
And then once you had that, you could use those same rules to recreate the bracket the committee made.

 

[Phil]

I think you may have misunderstand what I said. My point is that if the bracketing is bound to hard rules, then it should be fairly easy to figure out the 1-64 ranking that the committee used.
And then once you had that, you could use those same rules to recreate the bracket the committee made.

I did misunderstand, sorry. I thought you were saying that if the initial ranking produced bad results, they could just redo it.