Feb 28 Committee Rankings

[Puppy Love]

The issue for me is that we really don’t know how good this team is actually playing. It’s just difficult to evaluate against subpar talent. It looks great but our last two opponents don’t provide much challenge. (Quad 3 and Quad 4 games)

My hope is that we get to face DePaul and then Creighton in the conference tournament, which will give the committee two Quad 1 games to evaluate our fully healthy roster. From the viewpoint of the committee evaluation process, that’s the best we can hope for. If we come out and steamroll those two opponents, I think it will give some evidence of our improvement from mid season, and show the committee that a 2 seed could be reasonable.

I completely agree with this post. I’d add that not only do we not know how good they are right now, a lot of people are very optimistic about how good they will be in the next few weeks. I totally agree it’s possible that they will be unstoppable, but it’s not a guarantee. You can’t ask the committee to make decisions on what might be.

 

[Huskee11]

Saw Iowa State for the first time last night.

If the eye test means anything, they failed miserably.

Slow, weak inside, zero effort to defend the three, unimaginative offense, no depth.

I see they have 4 losses to Texas and Baylor, the closest game being 18 points.

Number 6? I don`t get it.

 

[Glenn]

Saw Iowa State for the first time last night.

If the eye test means anything, they failed miserably.

Slow, weak inside, zero effort to defend the three, unimaginative offense, no depth.

I see they have 4 losses to Texas and Baylor, the closest game being 18 points.

Number 6? I don`t get it.

I agree, no reason to have them above Texas. The question is does that mean Texas is a 2

 

[Forego]

I remember this issue rather clearly. There was a year (maybe 2008 or 2009) when UConn and Rutgers were both considered Top 5 teams, and they had already played each other three times (2 in the regular season and 1 in the Big East tournament) and had split the games. However, the Committee in its infinite wisdom placed them in the same region, to near-universal condemnation. The teams didn't want to play each other a fourth time before the Final Four, and the TV audience did not want to see a repeat of that game.

Then, a year or two later, the same situation arose with Baylor and Texas A&M, which was then in the Big 12. They had already played three times, and had to play a fourth time in the regional final. No one liked that either.

A few years after that, there was a situation where, if the Committee strictly followed its own rules regarding geographical proximity, UConn and Louisville would have been in the same Region and would probably have played each other for a fourth time. The Committee broke its rules and sent UConn to a Regional in Lincoln, Nebraska to avoid that outcome.

The general feeling was that in a national tournament, teams should play opponents from other conferences and other parts of the country, and should not be playing very familiar opponents whom they have already played multiple times. Obviously, if two or three teams from the same conference get to the Final Four, that can't be avoided, but (it was felt) it should be postponed as long as possible.

I completely agree with that thought. It is a sound policy not to allow teams from the same conference to meet before the Final Four if that is at all possible.

Thank you for the explanation and I now understand and recall the rational for this bracketing criteria. At the time, with the number teams in a conference it made good sense, and for the most part, it still makes good sense. But with continued conference mergers, growth and raiding of teams this criteria can only become more difficult for the selection committee to apply without impacting teams from other conferences. At some point I believe they might have to modify it.

 

[visitingcock]

Do you think Dawn would rather get UConn in Greenville? Do you think UConn might be playing on a home court in Minneapolis (Bueckers effect)?

It's GreensBORO, NC. Not Greenville, SC

 

[diggerfoot]

beating teams by 100 won't do anything if they are bad teams. Quad 1 wins are what move you up, the only team that UConn beat that was a quad 1 win was Tenn.

UConn has a lot more than 1 Quad One win. They have two wins against the top 25 alone. They are 2-3 against the top 25 NET, Iowa State is 1-4. Maybe you are confusing Quad 1 with top 25 and UConn with Iowa State.

 

[southie]

I remember this issue rather clearly. There was a year (maybe 2008 or 2009) when UConn and Rutgers were both considered Top 5 teams, and they had already played each other three times (2 in the regular season and 1 in the Big East tournament) and had split the games. However, the Committee in its infinite wisdom placed them in the same region, to near-universal condemnation. The teams didn't want to play each other a fourth time before the Final Four, and the TV audience did not want to see a repeat of that game.

Then, a year or two later, the same situation arose with Baylor and Texas A&M, which was then in the Big 12. They had already played three times, and had to play a fourth time in the regional final. No one liked that either.

A few years after that, there was a situation where, if the Committee strictly followed its own rules regarding geographical proximity, UConn and Louisville would have been in the same Region and would probably have played each other for a fourth time. The Committee broke its rules and sent UConn to a Regional in Lincoln, Nebraska to avoid that outcome.

The general feeling was that in a national tournament, teams should play opponents from other conferences and other parts of the country, and should not be playing very familiar opponents whom they have already played multiple times. Obviously, if two or three teams from the same conference get to the Final Four, that can't be avoided, but (it was felt) it should be postponed as long as possible.

I completely agree with that thought. It is a sound policy not to allow teams from the same conference to meet before the Final Four if that is at all possible.

Great explanation.

What's happening now as opposed to back then is that teams from a lot of conferences are no longer playing each other twice during the conference season because there are so many schools in the larger conferences (SEC, B1G, PAC12, ACC). In some conferences like the Big 12 (which only has 10 teams), all teams play each other twice during the regular season; so, there's a chance a few could also end up playing each other 3 times if they match up in the conference tournament.

 

[southie]

Saw Iowa State for the first time last night.

If the eye test means anything, they failed miserably.

Slow, weak inside, zero effort to defend the three, unimaginative offense, no depth.

I see they have 4 losses to Texas and Baylor, the closest game being 18 points.

Number 6? I don`t get it.

Also have a loss at LSU. Best wins are against Oklahoma (twice) and South Dakota (State?). That's it. I just don't get why the committee is so in love with them.

 

[visitingcock]

UCONN Record​

Overall 22-5

• Home 11-1
• Road 8-2
• Neutral 3-2
• Conf 16-1
• Non Conf 6-4

Rankings / Strength of Schedule (SOS)​

• NET - 5
• RPI - 9
  (0.6460)
• Non-Conference
  RPI- 10
• SOS - 23
  (0.5884)
• Non-Conference
  SOS - 1

Quadrant Records - NET​

• Quadrant 1 (8-4)
• Quadrant 2 (6-0)
• Quadrant 3 (4-1)
• Quadrant 4 (4-0)

​

 

[southie]

I agree, no reason to have them above Texas. The question is does that mean Texas is a 2

Texas has a win at Stanford, two wins over Iowa State (who the committee loves), and a win over Oklahoma as their best wins. But, Texas has one bad loss (Q3) at home to Texas Tech; this loss fluctuates between Q2 and Q3 weekly. What if learned is that you give the committee a reason to ding you, they will hold it against you. So, I can see that being the reason Texas is not a #2 seed.

 

[Rb335]

Texas has a win at Stanford, two wins over Iowa State (who the committee loves), and a win over Oklahoma as their best wins. But, Texas has one bad loss (Q3) at home to Texas Tech; this loss fluctuates between Q2 and Q3 weekly. What if learned is that you give the committee a reason to ding you, they will hold it against you. So, I can see that being the reason Texas is not a #2 seed.

Makes you wonder if the same thing is what’s “dinging” Uconn. That Quad 3 loss to Villanova. If you removed that from the resume the 3 Quad 1 losses with major injuries don’t look quite so bad.

At the end of the day, Uconn should’ve been able to handle Georgia Tech and Villanova. I get the injuries, but those are the two games that stick out to me. South Carolina beat us fair and square, we played Louisville tough but they are a 1 seed, and Oregon was without Paige, Christyn, and Azzi. Was never much hope for that one. If we handled those two games, I’m pretty sure we’d confidently be a 2 seed in Bridgeport. That’s why you play the games.

 

[Plebe]

Also have a loss at LSU. Best wins are against Oklahoma (twice) and South Dakota (State?). That's it. I just don't get why the committee is so in love with them.

They also have a win over Iowa. That does make 3 wins over the committee's top 16. (UConn, by comparison, currently only has 1 such win after ND just dropped out.)

The wins over Kansas State and Kansas are also over teams considered safely in the field. It's not a stellar collection of wins, to be sure, but I guess the committee is also rewarding them for not having any losses outside the top 10.

 

[Waquoit]

If you are making the "fairest" brackets, consideration must be given to the way teams are playing right this minute. Is the team making significant, steady improvement. Have the improving teams gained momentum from the return of significant players, for instance? But to do so is deemed "not fair" to those nice teams having a nice year and "deserve" a higher seed. It's actually not fair to the teams that end up playing an underseeded team a round or two early.

 

[npignatjr]

Makes you wonder if the same thing is what’s “dinging” Uconn. That Quad 3 loss to Villanova. If you removed that from the resume the 3 Quad 1 losses with major injuries don’t look quite so bad.

At the end of the day, Uconn should’ve been able to handle Georgia Tech and Villanova. I get the injuries, but those are the two games that stick out to me. South Carolina beat us fair and square, we played Louisville tough but they are a 1 seed, and Oregon was without Paige, Christyn, and Azzi. Was never much hope for that one. If we handled those two games, I’m pretty sure we’d confidently be a 2 seed in Bridgeport. That’s why you play the games.

South Carolina Azzi, Nika limited Caroline didn't play
Georgia Tech day after Paige, Azzi and Nika shutdown, same 3 out for Louisville.
Oregon no Paige, Azzi, Christyn declared out 15 minutes before game
Villanova no Paige, Caroline, Olivia declared out during warmups

The NCAA lists injuries as a determining factor in seedings

 

[npignatjr]

Note to NCAA. Use the S curve, period. Or stop the charade.

 

[Bald Husky]

beating teams by 100 won't do anything if they are bad teams. Quad 1 wins are what move you up, the only team that UConn beat that was a quad 1 win was Tenn.

No kidding Sherlock, as a non-UConn fan, you can't believe we are not that stupid. But at this point, it's the only thing we can do.

 

[mudcat]

Sure they can. OSU's NET ranking is #31; and, they only have 5 Q1 wins.

Emphatically agree! Michigan is the one who got screwed; they beat both Ohio State and Maryland twice and split with Iowa. They would have won the conference crown if they hadn't had that cancelled game with IL that wasn't made up. Ohio State had the benefit of a soft conference schedule.

 

[STLCardinal]

Makes you wonder if the same thing is what’s “dinging” Uconn. That Quad 3 loss to Villanova. If you removed that from the resume the 3 Quad 1 losses with major injuries don’t look quite so bad.

At the end of the day, Uconn should’ve been able to handle Georgia Tech and Villanova. I get the injuries, but those are the two games that stick out to me. South Carolina beat us fair and square, we played Louisville tough but they are a 1 seed, and Oregon was without Paige, Christyn, and Azzi. Was never much hope for that one. If we handled those two games, I’m pretty sure we’d confidently be a 2 seed in Bridgeport. That’s why you play the games.

If the committee doesn't have what it takes to say, both in their private meetings and publicly, that they are taking into account the fact some teams lost games with players out, now those players are back, and they are a different team, then they don't have any business on the committee. They may be doing that and it may show in the final seedings. I hope. I don't have a problem with using all of these NET, SOS, QUAD and YABBA DABBA DABBA DO statistics to break a tie when teams are really close, but c'mon, some of this stuff is obvious. They're getting way too far off into the weeds with these numbers.

 

[Pharos]

SC UConn in an Elite 8 matchup? I really don't see that happening. UConn would have to be an 8 or 9 overall.

With UConn just plain "nasty" at full strength; why on earth would they jeopardize cashflow and not bend over backwards to put them in Bridgeport? NCAA has specifically sold the venues on the idea that they will put the biggest regional draws in their market. Without UConn, Bridgeport would be a weak fan draw.

It seems to me ranking teams 1 -16 in four regions it would be:

Greenville Region 1 - 1 (SC), 8, 9, 16
Spokane Region 2 - 2 (Stan), 7, 10, 15
Wichita Region 3 - 3 (Lou), 6, 11, 14
Bridgeport Region 4 - 4 (NCSt), 5, 12, 13

If UConn is a weak 3 seed (11/12 overall), or a strong 2 seed (5/6); it would make it easier to slot UConn into Bridgeport, otherwise they will be going to Spokane or Wichita. Even though the chart above would suggest Spokane over Wichita, I really don't see NCAA wanting to match Stan UConn in an Elite 8 on the West Coast.

Lou, NC State, Baylor, Texas, Michigan, Iowa State are all vulnerable in the conference tournaments. I really believe UConn will be a low 1 seed or high 2 seed - 4, 5 or 6 overall - after conference tournaments.

I live in Stratford; love Uconn; wouldn't attend if Uconn not in Bridgeport regional; TV is a great way to watch a game I'm only indirectly or theoretically interested in. Bridgeport without Uconn will be dismal.

 

[HuskyNan]

UCONN Record​

Overall 22-5

• Home 11-1
• Road 8-2
• Neutral 3-2
• Conf 16-1
• Non Conf 6-4

Rankings / Strength of Schedule (SOS)​

• NET - 5
• RPI - 9
  (0.6460)
• Non-Conference
  RPI- 10
• SOS - 23
  (0.5884)
• Non-Conference
  SOS - 1

Quadrant Records - NET​

• Quadrant 1 (8-4)
• Quadrant 2 (6-0)
• Quadrant 3 (4-1)
• Quadrant 4 (4-0)

​

Graphically:

 

[Waquoit]

Graphically:
View attachment 73893

I don't know what they do now but I remember when judged sports would drop the highest and lowest.

 

[Vowelguy]

Note to NCAA. Use the S curve, period. Or stop the charade.

As I said above, they did almost exactly.

12 of the 16 teams follow the S-curve. There was a small shift in moving MD/TN from Kansas to CT and AZ/IA from CT to Kansas, putting 3 of those teams significantly closer to home without impacting the overall strength of the brackets.

And FWIW, we should not want strict S-curve compliance: it is HIGHLY unlikely UConn can get to #6, which is what would be needed to face #3 NCSt in Bridgeport. #7 is possible, and if there are adjustments, that team could be placed in B-port. Still not great odds but better.

 

[Vowelguy]

The NCAA lists injuries as a determining factor in seedings

Counting injuries usually means you wont get dinged as much for bad losses.
UConn's problem is the lack of quality wins -- it's Tenn, ND, Creighton at home, and Creighton on the road.
There should be some adjustment for the fact that this is a different team when healthy -- and you need to have balanced brackets -- but that requires some speculation, which the committee tries to avoid.

 

[Plebe]

As I said above, they did almost exactly.

12 of the 16 teams follow the S-curve. There was a small shift in moving MD/TN from Kansas to CT and AZ/IA from CT to Kansas, putting 3 of those teams significantly closer to home without impacting the overall strength of the brackets.

It should also be noted that this departure from the S-curve did not upset the "balance" of the regions (another factor the committee has to pay attention to), as the sum of all seeds in each region is still 34.

 

[sun]

The latest scenario shows that UConn has something to prove.
Since UConn relies on freshmen that can have variable levels of performance, then they need to show that the freshmen are not only good enough to knock off the #1 seed, but to continue doing it in the FF games.
It's one thing to claim that the team is nasty, but the team needs to back up its words so they don't ring hollow.
The national WCBB audience will be relying on consistent performance by whichever teams dominate the toughest matchups.
The Committee wants teams that are going to be consistent and not melt down after a tough win.
The east seems to be the better bracket for UConn to emerge victorious from.
Bridgeport or Greensboro present nearly the same set of challenges except with a different fanbase attending.

#14 Iowa seems to have tougher teams to battle in the midwest & west in order to emerge victorious than UConn does in any part of the east.
I wouldn't mind if the assignments stayed the way they are right now.
Bridgeport may be a better location overall but we need to wait for the process to work itself out for that to happen.
If it's meant to be then it's meant to be, and either way UConn just needs to play as nasty as we believe they can.
UConn needs to be consistent.