Feb 28 Committee Rankings | Page 10 | The Boneyard

Feb 28 Committee Rankings

Status
Not open for further replies.
hookshot said:
Since a Paigeless Uconn played Louisville to 5 points earlier this year, if you think PB is worth +5, I'd go with Uconn
Expand ...
Louisville one of the worst #1 seeds that I can recall. Got bullied by Arizona, were down in the 4th at home to an 11-18 Syracuse team, their only tough tests on the road were Unc and Nc st lost both. If Paige was healthy Uconn smokes Louisville. Indiana I would have upsetting Louisville as a #4 if they are healthy.
 
The bottom line is this: what can and will each team do NOW, (in March)?
Most of the "experts" are compiling their rankings based on what teams have done throughout the season, which is reasonable.
As many posters have stated, UCONN is a completely different, and better team than they were weeks ago.
I don't know IF the committee considers that fact, but I think they should.
 
MilfordHusky said:
I know these are subject to change, but I don’t see Louisville surviving Iowa and Baylor.
Expand ...

I think a lot will depend on which Iowa & Baylor team is playing that day. I've seen a lot of B1G games this month and I've seen all 4 of the top teams look both great and crappy. Or great-crappy-great-crappy. The NCAA's are going to be filled with upsets because of this. Catch a team like Iowa when they are on and you better be able to score 100. Or Iowa could go cold from outside and lose by 15. The steady teams will advance. Play great defense and be able to put up pts. Defense can keep you in every game and somewhere in the NCAA's every team has an offensive drought.
I looked at Massey and six of the top 7 teams are in the top 10 defensively, and only 3 of the top 7 offensively.
 
BlueSkyGLW said:
Reading through all these comments, I suggest UConn fans are doing too much hand wringing, as I mentioned earlier. Where it is now projected in the NCAA bracket is the consequence of what happened to the team because of the circumstances they had to navigate throughout the season. The most important thing is to be thankful that the team has come through whole and healthy and is in the early stages of playing very well with 9 solid rotation contributors, each one having gone through a period when they were needed to contribute and each one delivered in order to keep the season afloat. That will serve them all well.

Now, they have six games to improve farther, still floating from the uplifted spirits brought on by the final piece returning to the team. If they make full use of those six games going into the Regional Final, it doesn't make much difference which region they will play and that includes meeting SC at that stage. Right now, the team is focusing on preparing to fully determine its own Fate....so that winning or losing depends entirely on what they do, not what their opponents do. This is all they can control. And their 9 offers different kinds of offensive and defensive combinations to counter or gain advantage over any opponent.

If they achieve that and all stay healthy, I say, it doesn't matter how the bracket goes...and it will not matter what any opposing coach thinks (being unafraid of facing a healthy UConn team), but it matters what opposing players will think and feel when they finally face this version of UConn.
Expand ...
I think most here would agree with you. I have the beginnings of a smile of a spider contemplating a fly and not caring if the parlor is in Greensboro.
 
jchuskie said:
yep most overrated team in the country
Expand ...
jchuskie said:
Louisville one of the worst #1 seeds that I can recall. Got bullied by Arizona, were down in the 4th at home to an 11-18 Syracuse team, their only tough tests on the road were Unc and Nc st lost both. If Paige was healthy Uconn smokes Louisville. Indiana I would have upsetting Louisville as a #4 if they are healthy.
Expand ...
Didn't they also have a road game at Notre Dame recently? And weren't they up by like 50 in the first half? So who's the overrated team?
 
Huskee11 said:
Saw Iowa State for the first time last night... Number 6? I don`t get it.
Expand ...
Iowa State has a solid resume to-date to have warranted a Top-10 seed prior to last night's 2nd drubbing by Texas.

A time-tested vagary of sports competition is that a particular team is another team's bugaboo or nemesis, for whatever reason & regardless of transitive- or any chalk-based analysis. This seems to be the case with Texas for Iowa State.

Iowa State's problem isn't so much that they lost to a formidable & peaking Texas team twice, but rather by how badly they were beaten in both games. Hard to make a justifiable case for a high Tournament seed when you are whitewashed multiple times.
 
jchuskie said:
if people think Dawn Staley is scared of having Uconn in her bracket they don't know her. She could care less if they are in it, if they have to face off in the elite 8 then so be it, but people better not start overlooking Baylor. This team is on fire and Nalyssa Smith is one of the most unstoppable players in Wcbb.
Expand ...
But no one said (at least not me) that Dawn was scared, did they? And it does coaches no good to complain. But as fans we can. Nan had a whole thread about people complaining.
 
ConnMotors said:
It will get to a point as to is the selection committee is going to piss off. Will it be NC State having to possibly UConn in Bridgeport if it ends that way. Or are they going to piss of Dawn Staley by placing UConn in her bracket. We all know that Dawn is not a quiet person. She will make her comments known. Some of you might dislike her but I don't. She brings what the game needs. A women's side to Geno.

Plus, didn't Iowa State get their butts kicked last night at home by Baylor.

Come on committee get your act together here.
Expand ...
I'm with ya. And I'm fine with Dawn.

I am though very worried for her. Because once in the NCAA Tourney starts, eventually she might run into that matchup that features that darn Nike Basketball again. :p
 
Last edited:
HopJim said:
Not sure why so many comments about Charlie Creme. Hasn't anyone heard about "click bait?" Charlie is paid based on bringing in readers and viewers. I doubt most of his management ever looks into his accuracy.
Expand ...
It was on National TV.
 
sun said:
There's no cause to misread because the decision is not official yet.
After it's official then folks can get upset, but not yet.
Folks seem to want to jump the gun when they need to be more patient & at least wait for the final word.
Expand ...
Sun, I get your point, but UCONN fans should not get upset, even after the official placement is announced. I’m sure Geno will tell the girls to pack their bags for the journey, wherever they’re sent, even if the committee ranks them the 68th best team in the tourney.
Also, I do understand the gripes from my fellow Boneyarders about seeding, but our team hadn’t played exceptionally well during the middle of the regular season. Yes, Paige’s absence, amongst other injuries created a disturbance in the flow of things, but at least three of the games lost could’ve/should’ve been avoided. Now at this stage of the game, let’s not worry about all the outside noise. All the team has to do is to go play UCONN basketball, and win some games.
 
hoophuskee said:
I'm with ya. And I'm fine with Dawn.

I am though very worried for her. Because once in the NCAA Tourney starts, eventually she might run into that matchup that features that darn Nike Basketball again. :p
Expand ...
HH, you’re so :p
 
BlueSkyGLW said:
Why is Charlie Creme's accuracy an issue? There are two main components: the S-Curve and the Region Placement rules. The S-Curve should yield the same results for him and the Committee. If there is a difference, like Indiana and Tennessee, it is the Committee who got off the S-Curve and considered other factors to justify departing from the S-Curve. On those, Charlie definitely can't read their minds. In this case, who exactly is inaccurate? Waving the first rule (S-Curve) to justify a result they want is not a basis for establishing accuracy.....it may even be a result of a whim.

Now, regional placement is another process where subjective manipulation by the Committee often occurs.....again, no way to test accuracy when it includes reading the Committee's mind.

I wouldn't criticize Mr. Creme's accuracy or what he is doing.....it is his judgment using those non-quantitative rules against a Committee that debates among themselves: he could be more right in applying the rules but the Committee could easily come out with a different answer based on their internal discussions.
Expand ...
But who is to say "what accuracy is?" Otherwise why have a committee? Why meet if all you are going to do is read off of a formula? My comment still applies: Stop acting like a computer. As for Charlie, he can’t think for himself?

When you have injuries with the magnitude UCONN has had, how can the S-Curve account for that? But Net Rankings can account for things such as Quality, right? Isn’t that what one function it is designed to do? The definition of Net Rankings specifically states that in one aspect it measures Quality. On what planet is Quality something to be minimized?

And you can do an S-Curve by putting UCONN as the 2 seed.

And yes Charlie deserves criticism. He feels it's okay for him to criticize the committee who isn't acting like a computer as he is, yet he's supposed to be untouchable at the other end of the spectrum? Only he can criticize?

Charlie doesn't have to read their minds. But he can use logic when logic dictates instead of following a formula and having near zero flexibility.
 
hoophuskee said:
But who is to say "what accuracy is?" Otherwise why have a committee? Why meet if all you are going to do is read off of a formula? My comment still applies: Stop acting like a computer. As for Charlie, he can’t think for himself?

When you have injuries with the magnitude UCONN has had, how can the S-Curve account for that? But Net Rankings can account for things such as Quality, right? Isn’t that what one function it is designed to do? The definition of Net Rankings specifically states that in one aspect it measures Quality. On what planet is Quality something to be minimized?

And you can do an S-Curve by putting UCONN as the 2 seed.

And yes Charlie deserves criticism. He feels it's okay for him to criticize the committee who isn't acting like a computer as he is, yet he's supposed to be untouchable at the other end of the spectrum? Only he can criticize?

Charlie doesn't have to read their minds. But he can use logic when logic dictates instead of following a formula and having near zero flexibility.
Expand ...
My point is the Committee itself is not "accurate" because they make compromises. Both the Committee and Creme deserve criticism but not for accuracy because there is no fundamental standard to measure deviations from it if you shuffle the rules in order to compromise. Mind-reading is not part of the comparison between the two outcomes.

However, if you contend that everything the Committee says is the standard upon which deviations are to be judged, then the word accuracy is misused.

Someone might suggest the word difference....to which I likely would agree. Beyond that, it doesn't matter......
 
Last edited:
BlueSkyGLW said:
My point is the Committee itself is not "accurate" because they make compromises. Both the Committee and Creme deserve criticism but not for accuracy because there is no fundamental standard to measure deviations from it if you shuffle the rules in order to compromise. Mind-reading is not part of the comparison between the two outcomes.

However, if you contend that everything the Committee says is the standard upon which deviations are to be judged, then the word accuracy is misused.

Someone might suggest the word difference....to which I likely would agree. Beyond that, it doesn't matter......
Expand ...
Well what you call "a compromise," I call it "flexibility." And if the NCAA Committee felt Indiana stays at the 4 seed, then imo Charlie criticizing that point ofc is in his right. And it has nothing to do with mind reading. It's his POV. There is no mind reading. Only opinions.

Just as it is his POV (and the Committee apparently) that at this moment UCONN is a 3 seed. I find that a bit silly (at this moment. OFC it could change.) because imo in their analysis they should be taking injuries into account (apparently more than what they are). I read when evaluating seedings and looking into injuries they specifically state "Talent Availability." Well-- who in wcbb lost more than what was the number 1 player in wcbb last year and who was sensational this year (along with 5 other core players) before the injury? UCONN was doing very well before the Paige injury too. Then UCONN collapsed for a time. Isn’t that what "talent availability" is supposed to take into account? And despite all that, isn’t Net Rankings taking into account the Quality and Efficiency of UCONN? Wjhat's the point of minimizing that for a team badly hurt (significantly more than any other team) with injuries?

And as we speak of misuse; if all injuries for all teams are bundled in the same grouping in terms of not defining/separating the quality of talent lost but just lumping them all in the same bucket and equating an injury of a good player vs a sensational player as equal or near equal, then that is the criteria that is being misused. Which apparently it is.

And to further that, Net Rankings still defines the Quality and Efficiency of a team. And to minimize it for a team that has been hurt badly by injury (losing a ton of talent) then this is yet another example of not using the information they readily have.

When you open that door of looking at injuries (as you should) then this criteria invites discussion which should lead to flexibility in setting up seedings. And injuries cannot be used as a formula. As a result, flexibility should be a foregone conclusion during these meetings in addition to when Charlie discusses on National TV who he feels should be seeded where just as he did with Indiana. He's being inflexible though by not taking a hard enough look at injuries and Net Rankings as an example. And as a result, he is open for criticism because of it. Injuries and Quality of Talent missing-- matter. And not all loss of talent through injuries are the same.

Anyhow- I had fun with this. Thanks for the civil discussion. I'm done.
 
Some of the discussion in this thread has been confusing to me, particularly about the use of the S-curve and NET ratings.

The Committee is following the S-Curve quite closely: that is it ranks teams 1-16 and the puts them in brackets automatically following the curve. It then adjusts placement a bit to separate teams from the same conference--there has been very little of the latter--and it has not affected UConn's placement. So all the talk of having lots of B10 or Big-10 teams has not been the reason thy UConn has ended up against SC or Stanford. The real issue is their initial ranking from 1-16.

Second, the NET ratings is a tool used by the committee, except when it is not. NET ratings already includes quality of schedule and how you did against that--it ignores whether the team had injuries. So using the NET as a guide you would think that UConn would be knocking on the door for a 1 seed, as we are ranked 5--and now we have Paige back. The NET ratings also suggest that UConn's record is pretty damn good--even better than some of the teams with marquee victories. So, why does the Committee have us as a 3 seed. My guess is that they do not value MOV as against weak teams as the NET does implicitly--this would mean that winning the BET will not help much--and for us to get a 2 seed others must fall. In addition, they probably, look at how uncompetitive we were in some of our losses (SC, Oregon, GTech), and the lack of marquee victories.
 
Teams should treat these reveals\rankings like a pop quiz coming up. You know one is coming. You know the subject matter. You just don't know the questions and there's no changing them. Prepare with those realities.
 
hoophuskee said:
Well what you call "a compromise," I call it "flexibility." And if the NCAA Committee felt Indiana stays at the 4 seed, then imo Charlie criticizing that point ofc is in his right. And it has nothing to do with mind reading. It's his POV. There is no mind reading. Only opinions.

Just as it is his POV (and the Committee apparently) that at this moment UCONN is a 3 seed. I find that a bit silly (at this moment. OFC it could change.) because imo in their analysis they should be taking injuries into account (apparently more than what they are). I read when evaluating seedings and looking into injuries they specifically state "Talent Availability." Well-- who in wcbb lost more than what was the number 1 player in wcbb last year and who was sensational this year (along with 5 other core players) before the injury? UCONN was doing very well before the Paige injury too. Then UCONN collapsed for a time. Isn’t that what "talent availability" is supposed to take into account? And despite all that, isn’t Net Rankings taking into account the Quality and Efficiency of UCONN? Wjhat's the point of minimizing that for a team badly hurt (significantly more than any other team) with injuries?

And as we speak of misuse; if all injuries for all teams are bundled in the same grouping in terms of not defining/separating the quality of talent lost but just lumping them all in the same bucket and equating an injury of a good player vs a sensational player as equal or near equal, then that is the criteria that is being misused. Which apparently it is.

And to further that, Net Rankings still defines the Quality and Efficiency of a team. And to minimize it for a team that has been hurt badly by injury (losing a ton of talent) then this is yet another example of not using the information they readily have.

When you open that door of looking at injuries (as you should) then this criteria invites discussion which should lead to flexibility in setting up seedings. And injuries cannot be used as a formula. As a result, flexibility should be a foregone conclusion during these meetings in addition to when Charlie discusses on National TV who he feels should be seeded where just as he did with Indiana. He's being inflexible though by not taking a hard enough look at injuries and Net Rankings as an example. And as a result, he is open for criticism because of it. Injuries and Quality of Talent missing-- matter. And not all loss of talent through injuries are the same.

Anyhow- I had fun with this. Thanks for the civil discussion. I'm done.
Expand ...
Then good. Accuracy has nothing to do with it....has been my point all along. BTW, to be clear, the compromise I referred to is whatever the Committee ends up with if there were differences of opinion among them.

Opinions may differ and almost always do.
 
Well Arizona just got knocked down a few seeds, definitely no longer a top 4 seed
 
Vowelguy said:
It’s just 1 game.
They’ll slip from a 3 seed to a 4. That’s about it.
Expand ...
Plus they'll take into account Cate Reese's absence, as long as she's projected to return for the tournament.
 
I think Louisville beats Baylor or Iowa but they caught us in an off night. On an average night we at least play them even without Paige. We couldn't hit the ocean standing on the beach in that game from outside. I don't think we should underestimate them though. They absolutely crushed Notre Dame in South Bend. They are a different team also.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
1,258
Total visitors
1,336
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,107
Messages
4,382,442
Members
10,184
Latest member
ronmk


.
..
Top Bottom