Feb 28 Committee Rankings

[Plebe]

A reminder of how teams have fared since the last reveal:

2/10 reveal​	Wins since 2/10​	Losses since 2/10​
1. South Carolina	at Kentucky, at Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee, at TAMU, at Ole Miss	--
2. Stanford	Utah, Colorado, at Oregon St, at Oregon, Washington St, Washington	--
3. NC State	at Boston C., at Duke, Wake Forest, Syracuse, at Virginia Tech	--
4. Louisville	Notre Dame, Virginia Tech, at Pitt, at Notre Dame	at North Carolina
5. Michigan	Maryland, Michigan St	at Michigan St, at Northwestern, at Iowa
6. Arizona	Arizona St, at Washington, USC	at Arizona St, at Washington St, UCLA
7. Iowa State	at TCU, Oklahoma, at Kansas, Texas Tech	at Texas
8. Indiana	Michigan St, Northwestern	at Nebraska, Iowa, at Iowa, at Maryland
9. Oklahoma	at TCU, Kansas St	at Texas, Texas Tech, at Iowa St
10. Baylor	W. Virginia, TCU, at TCU, at Oklahoma St, Kansas	--
11. UConn	DePaul, at Marquette, at Xavier, Georgetown, Marquette, St. John's	--
12. Tennessee	Missouri, Vanderbilt, Mississippi St	at Alabama, at S. Carolina, LSU
13. LSU	Georgia, at TAMU, at Mississippi St, Florida, Alabama, at Tennessee	--
14. Notre Dame	Miami, at Georgia Tech, Clemson	at Louisville, Louisville
15. Texas	Oklahoma, Iowa St, at W. Virginia, at Kansas St, TCU	--
16. Oregon	at Oregon St, UCLA, Cal, Utah	Oregon St, Stanford, at Colorado

The four #1 seeds are about as locked in as they could possibly be. Probably only the order of overall #3 and #4 between NC State and Louisville is TBD by conference tournament results, although NC State is definitely #3 for now.

In sharp contrast to the stability of the 1 line, there's been tumult in the 5-16 range. Here are my predictions for tonight's reveal:

5. Baylor
6. Iowa State
7. LSU*
8. UConn
9. Michigan
10. Texas
11. Arizona
12. Oklahoma
13. Notre Dame
14. Tennessee
15. North Carolina**
16. Maryland**

* No team did more to enhance its resume in the past 2.5 weeks than LSU, who picked up four Quad 1 wins including a top 15 road win at Tennessee.

** It's very close IMHO between North Carolina, Maryland and Iowa for those last two spots. A lot depends on how much emphasis the committee puts on the most recent games. Iowa picked up 3 quality wins in the last 10 days but they also have much worse losses (e.g. IUPUI, Northwestern) than either UNC or Maryland.

Also just missing the top 16: Ohio State, Indiana, Georgia

 

[BRS24]

What I found interesting, is that although you cannot apples to apples conference competition and overall records, projecting 9 SEC teams and only 2 BE teams is a stretch for me. That means that the bottom 3 SEC are at even or losing conf record, and overall, 15-18 wins, where the next 4 BE after UConn have 20+ wins and a winning conference record.

View attachment 73854

And, adding onto this, although some might think it blasphemous, I would love both the M&W tourney minimum reqs be at least a winning conference record, and at least 18 wins, the former similar to CFB where you have to be at .500 or above to qualify for a bowl game, not counting this past year where teams had covid issues. Having a higher winning record would make way for more conference involvement, instead of awarding mediocre teams just because they are in a perceived "tough" conference.

 

[Vowelguy]

And, adding onto this, although some might think it blasphemous, I would love both the M&W tourney minimum reqs be at least a winning conference record, and at least 18 wins, the former similar to CFB where you have to be at .500 or above to qualify for a bowl game, not counting this past year where teams had covid issues. Having a higher winning record would make way for more conference involvement, instead of awarding mediocre teams just because they are in a perceived "tough" conference.

Both the bowl games and March madness require a winning overall record to be eligible for an at-large pick.

 

[hoopsfan22]

That bowl game requirement is no longer. You routinely see teams with losing records in bowls now. Just last month we saw 5-7 Rutgers in the Gator Bowl. Hawaii also had a losing record and made a bowl game. Last year there were a whole bunch of teams with losing records in bowl games. Guessing there are just not enough big name teams with winning records to fill all the bowl slots.

 

[BRS24]

Both the bowl games and March madness require a winning overall record to be eligible for an at-large pick.

Understood. My point above is that if you select Kentucky, Arkansas, and Missouri over Nova, Creighton, DePaul and Marquette, then it doesn't matter how good of a record of a team in a perceived weaker conf, they will never get selected.

That bowl game requirement is no longer. You routinely see teams with losing records in bowls now. Just last month we saw 5-7 Rutgers in the Gator Bowl. Hawaii also had a losing record and made a bowl game. Last year there were a whole bunch of teams with losing records in bowl games. Guessing there are just not enough big name teams with winning records to fill all the bowl slots.

The .500 rule still exists, however this past bowl season, there were so many teams that withdrew due to covid issues, they had to reach down to find teams that would participate, even if below .500, and some bowls may not have even been played. It's all a racket anyway ...

 

[JordyG]

And, adding onto this, although some might think it blasphemous, I would love both the M&W tourney minimum reqs be at least a winning conference record, and at least 18 wins, the former similar to CFB where you have to be at .500 or above to qualify for a bowl game, not counting this past year where teams had covid issues. Having a higher winning record would make way for more conference involvement, instead of awarding mediocre teams just because they are in a perceived "tough" conference.

That is assuming the pool of quality teams remains a constant in WCBB. It doesn't. After about the first 30 teams or so the quality drops off precipitously. Just to fill the brackets the committee is often reaching. Pray the committee doesn't expand the tournament my friend.

 

[hoopsfan22]

The .500 rule still exists, however this past bowl season, there were so many teams that withdrew due to covid issues, they had to reach down to find teams that would participate, even if below .500, and some bowls may not have even been played. It's all a racket anyway ...

Losing teams making bowl games has been going on regularly for the last decade. Just googling it, you had UCLA in 2011, Georgia Tech in 2012, Fresno St in 2014, Nebraka/Minnesota/San Jose St in 2015, Hawaii/Miss St/North Texas in 2016, etc. Basically every year there are teams making bowl games with losing records because there are simply too many games and not enough good teams to fill them.

 

[southernfan]

What I found interesting, is that although you cannot apples to apples conference competition and overall records, projecting 9 SEC teams and only 2 BE teams is a stretch for me. That means that the bottom 3 SEC are at even or losing conf record, and overall, 15-18 wins, where the next 4 BE after UConn have 20+ wins and a winning conference record.

View attachment 73854

While Arkansas did beat LSU, if you look at team season stats for that game, LSU had a horrible night compared to season average and Arkansas shot the lights out. That's just one game though. What else are they gonna hang their hat on? They have lost to every other ranked team they have played, including non-ranked USF and Creighton. Not to mention only beating cellar dweller Auburn by 2 on a last second layup. As to Missouri, yes they did catch SC sleeping (horrible shooting night for the Gamecocks) but it was in overtime, at home. Since that night they have gone 6-9 and lost five of their last 7. Not seeing that one either especially with that 28 point loss to MVC Missouri State in there. If your the all powerful SEC and you cant dust off them off, sorry, no tourney for you. As for Kentucky (15-11), they have won 6 in a row, against 6 of the bottom 7 in the conference. Your telling me your bottom 7 are better than Villanova 21-7 (beat UConn, and won 13 of their last 14), Creighton 20-8 (who beat Villanova and DePaul), and DePaul at 22-9 (who beat Kentucky at Kentucky as well as Villanova and a ranked team (at that time) from your own SEC). Then there is Marquette, 20-9, 13-7. A good solid team that deserves in before Arkansas or Missouri IMHO. Me thinks the football SEC bias may be spreading.

 

[CajunHusky]

Charlie says we're the 3 seed in Greensboro. South Carolina-UConn for the final four.

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.

 

[diggerfoot]

And, adding onto this, although some might think it blasphemous, I would love both the M&W tourney minimum reqs be at least a winning conference record, and at least 18 wins, the former similar to CFB where you have to be at .500 or above to qualify for a bowl game, not counting this past year where teams had covid issues. Having a higher winning record would make way for more conference involvement, instead of awarding mediocre teams just because they are in a perceived "tough" conference.

I would be satisfied with a .500 record for getting in. My two reasons for such a requirement are:

1. Regardless of how a team performs OOC, their record in conference is a measurement of how they theoretically match up with their peers in recruitment opportunities and other factors. A team that cannot achieve a .500 record with their peers should not be rewarded by at large selection.

2. The mid-majors that would take the place of sub .500 P5 teams may not have a realistic chance of winning the whole tournament, but they do have a realistic chance of pulling a major upset, which increases the entertainment value of the tournament immeasurably more than an upset by an underwhelming P5 team.

 

[jchusky]

teams like Notre Dame are always going to get a pass because they play in a power 5 conference. The Nova loss is just a loss that can't be erased esp if they miss the tournament. Then you look at the wins and Uconn's best win on the season is Tenn who is spiraling out of control.

 

[VaConnFan11]

If UConn wins the BE Tournament easily (every game by double digits), which they should, UConn should be a #2 seed. It may not make a difference, because as someone pointed out above, being the worst #2 seed (8 overall) or the best #3 seed (9 overall) is the same thing.

If the committee uses the NET ranking as a major factor in seeding, I think they will end up 5th or 6th, which would mean Bridgeport or Wichita respectively.

 

[huskies29]

Charlie says we're the 3 seed in Greensboro. South Carolina-UConn for the final four.

Poor Charlie is lost!

 

[southie]

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.

That would make sense if the committee were using a true S-curve for seedings.

But, ever since the committee decided that they wanted to make it a rule/priority to avoid placing teams from the same conference among the Top 16 in the same region, it almost makes these seedings more like "fitting" pieces into a puzzle. If the B1G, ACC, SEC, and Big 12 conferences each have 3-4 teams among the Top 16 national seeds, they have to "fit" those teams into the bracket and work the other teams (from different conferences) around those seedings. It's such a dumb rule, IMO. NCAA women's volleyball lets the chips fall where they may, even if it means placing 3 teams from a conference like the (B1G) in the same regional.

 

[southie]

Thread for pre & post announcement discussion

PREDICTION (2/10 Rnk in parenthesis)

1. So Carolina (1)
2. Stanford (2)
3. NC St (3)
4. Louisville (4)
5. Iowa St (7)
6. Baylor (10)
7. UConn (11)
8. Michigan (5)
9. LSU (13)
10. Arizona (6)
11. Tex (15)
12. Okla (9)
13. ND (14)
14. Tenn (12)
15. UNC (-)
16. Iowa (-)

Dropped out: Indi (8), Ore (16)

You didn't account for avoiding teams from the same conference in the same region. Or, I guess the rankings could still hold true, but then the committee will move teams/up down to avoid those intra-conference matchups.

The committee won't place LSU in South Carolina's region. They won't place Arizona in Stanford's region. They won't place Baylor and Texas in the same region, nor Iowa State and Oklahoma in the same region. They won't place ND in Louisville's region.

1, 8, 9, 16
2, 7, 10, 15
3, 6, 11, 14
4, 5, 12, 13

 

[STLCardinal]

Understood. My point above is that if you select Kentucky, Arkansas, and Missouri over Nova, Creighton, DePaul and Marquette, then it doesn't matter how good of a record of a team in a perceived weaker conf, they will never get selected.

You're right. Then throw in the fact DePaul beat Kentucky and it makes it even worse. If you're gonna expand the number of teams in the tournament, don't use it to add more Power 5 teams.

 

[stamfordhusky]

I'm not going to predict each of the seeds, but I think the Big 10 has done enough to warrant 4 top-4 seeds. You can't deny Ohio State a top-4 when they tied for the regular season title with Iowa.

Sure you can. They played a pathetic OOC schedule, and lost to the only top 100 team they played (Syracuse #91 per Massey). To get a top four seed, I think they may need to reach the B10 final. Right now, Indiana has a better resume than OSU, having played a really tough OOC schedule

 

[BRS24]

That would make sense if the committee were using a true S-curve for seedings.

But, ever since the committee decided that they wanted to make it a rule/priority to avoid placing teams from the same conference among the Top 16 in the same region, it almost makes these seedings more like "fitting" pieces into a puzzle. If the B1G, ACC, SEC, and Big 12 conferences each have 3-4 teams among the Top 16 national seeds, they have to "fit" those teams into the bracket and work the other teams (from different conferences) around those seedings. It's such a dumb rule, IMO. NCAA women's volleyball lets the chips fall where they may, even if it means placing 3 teams from a conference like the (B1G) in the same regional.

Oooh - this last part, I like it. Reminds me of CT youth soccer state/open cup tourneys, blind draw, single elimination, where the premier teams hated that #1-2 from prior year could meet up in 1st round and not get a chance to goto the regionals. CT finally separated #1-2, but I wondered if that was "fair', as regardless of whether or not teams change from year to year, there are no guarantees that you would win year to year.

 

[southie]

Oooh - this last part, I like it. Reminds me of CT youth soccer state/open cup tourneys, blind draw, single elimination, where the premier teams hated that #1-2 from prior year could meet up in 1st round and not get a chance to goto the regionals. CT finally separated #1-2, but I wondered if that was "fair', as regardless of whether or not teams change from year to year, there are no guarantees that you would win year to year.

It's okay to like it. Since the B1G is the current power in women's volleyball, you can imagine that fans of that conference hate that the committee doesn't try to avoid conference matchup in the round of 16 and onward.

 

[southie]

1-South Carolina
8-Iowa State
9-Michigan
16-North Carolina

2-Stanford
7-LSU
10-Texas
15-Iowa

3-NC State
6-Baylor
11-Arizona
14-Georgia

4-Louisville
5-UConn
12-Oklahoma
13-Tennessee

 

[Longtime fan]

Thread for pre & post announcement discussion

PREDICTION (2/10 Rnk in parenthesis)

1. So Carolina (1)
2. Stanford (2)
3. NC St (3)
4. Louisville (4)
5. Iowa St (7)
6. Baylor (10)
7. UConn (11)
8. Michigan (5)
9. LSU (13)
10. Arizona (6)
11. Tex (15)
12. Okla (9)
13. ND (14)
14. Tenn (12)
15. UNC (-)
16. Iowa (-)

Dropped out: Indi (8), Ore (16)

The official postings today have LSU at 7 and UConn at 8 I think. No matter. What matters are the brackets whenever they come out. Who will be the number one in our bracket, that we must beat? And how tough will our first game be if we are a 3? In either case, you have to beat them all to win a championship. And that is the plan.

 

[Stymie]

That bowl game requirement is no longer. You routinely see teams with losing records in bowls now. Just last month we saw 5-7 Rutgers in the Gator Bowl. Hawaii also had a losing record and made a bowl game. Last year there were a whole bunch of teams with losing records in bowl games. Guessing there are just not enough big name teams with winning records to fill all the bowl slots.

I believe Rutgers was a ‘stand in’
For a team that opted not to play because of Covid.

 

[TB12]

If UConn is not in Bridgeport, there is going to be a lot of empty seats!! And a lot of egg of the face of the selection committee.

Almost all the seats are sold, so they already have the money. That takes care of a lot of eggs.

 

[Zinethar]

The committee made their own problem by coming up with the stupid rule about ignoring the S-curve abd moving teams to fit their other criteria. Well that and the apparent fact that they think the P5 schools should have all (or close to it) of the remaining slots. I have watched a ton of ACC, SEC, and Big10 games and think more than the top 4 at the most is a reach. I have not had the chance to see many Big12 teams or Pac12 games. Mostly was not real impressed by what I saw except for the top dogs. To what my eyes have see the Big East has 4 teams as good as a lot of those getting top 25 votes. I think Marquette was a long shot but still as good as at least 5 of the top 25 teams.

 

[Vowelguy]

Understood. My point above is that if you select Kentucky, Arkansas, and Missouri over Nova, Creighton, DePaul and Marquette, then it doesn't matter how good of a record of a team in a perceived weaker conf, they will never get selected.

Record is largely irrelevant since anyone can get a good record by playing bad teams. The overall resume is what matters.

DePaul's best non conference win was at Kentucky. They also have a win at Creighton. That's about it.
On the downside are losses to Texas A&M and Seton Hall,
That's pretty thin.

Which is not to say the other teams at the bottom dont also have very thin resumes. Those last 10 or so at-larges all have pretty weak cases.

 

[visitingcock]

The committee made their own problem by coming up with the stupid rule about ignoring the S-curve abd moving teams to fit their other criteria. Well that and the apparent fact that they think the P5 schools should have all (or close to it) of the remaining slots. I have watched a ton of ACC, SEC, and Big10 games and think more than the top 4 at the most is a reach. I have not had the chance to see many Big12 teams or Pac12 games. Mostly was not real impressed by what I saw except for the top dogs. To what my eyes have see the Big East has 4 teams as good as a lot of those getting top 25 votes. I think Marquette was a long shot but still as good as at least 5 of the top 25 teams.

Why do none of the computers agree with you about Marquette? Do they have P-5 bias built into their algorithms?

Massey 65
NET 70
RPI 75
N Warren ELO 58

Your eyeball test is what you accuse the two “ biased” human polls of doing

 

[OldSchooler]

Creme keeps UConn out of the Bridgeport bracket again. CBS Sports said the same thing yesterday after the UConn game. Julianne Vianni, announcer for yesterday's game on CBSSN, made the point that it would be a major mistake.

Creme does not see what UConn is capable of. UConn should be a 2 seed right now.

If UConn is not in Bridgeport, there is going to be a lot of empty seats!! And a lot of egg of the face of the selection committee.

As an aside, have to give kudos to Poughkeepsie native Vianni. We Poughkeepsie peeps stick

Creme keeps UConn out of the Bridgeport bracket again. CBS Sports said the same thing yesterday after the UConn game. Julianne Vianni, announcer for yesterday's game on CBSSN, made the point that it would be a major mistake.

Creme does not see what UConn is capable of. UConn should be a 2 seed right now.

If UConn is not in Bridgeport, there is going to be a lot of empty seats!! And a lot of egg of the face of the selection committee.

As an aside, have to give kudos to Poughkeepsie native Vianni. We Poughkeepsie peeps stick together.

Hey, I'm an NFA grad. I got back to the days when your Pioneers' baseball and basketball coach was Sam Kalloch. Sam had a top-notch rebounder named Monty Stickles, who went on to bigger and better things as a footballer at Notre Dame and the 49ers

 

[TB12]

. Pray the committee doesn't expand the tournament my friend.

didn't they go to 68 this year? or was that last year....

 

[CajunHusky]

Record is largely irrelevant since anyone can get a good record by playing bad teams. The overall resume is what matters.

DePaul's best non conference win was at Kentucky. They also have a win at Creighton. That's about it.
On the downside are losses to Texas A&M and Seton Hall,
That's pretty thin.

Which is not to say the other teams at the bottom dont also have very thin resumes. Those last 10 or so at-larges all have pretty weak cases.

Hickory's best win was over insignificant Terrahune yet they got into the big dance and went on to beat mighty South Bend and take home the big prize. The point where possible is everyone deserves an equal chance. That's where the "Power Five" has harmed college football and threatens to harm student athletes in other sports.

 

[nomdoux]

UConn now ranked 5th in both NET & Massey, and 7th in both AP & Warren Nolan's ELO. ESPN's Michelle Voepel has UConn 7th & The Athletic's Chantelle Jennings 9th in their respective weekly rankings columns.

As I asserted in my initial 2/25 post within this thread (not the follow-up that still appears), I still think UConn ends up as the #2 seed in Wichita when the dust settles after conference tournament play.

Restating my argument: (1) The recent UConn bias allegation affecting media, recruiting, & national perception by a prominent WBB figure provided a spearhead for this notion that has gained traction apparent in follow-up such discussion, including on the #1 ranked team coach's podcast; (2) institutions like ESPN & the NCAA Committee are hyper-sensitive to such allegations & do not want to seem hamstrung by them, so my anticipation is that they are/will go out of their way to appear the opposite; (3) given player caliber/extent of UConn injuries & effect on its record, this is the year to have this UConn bias pendulum swing the other way to "disprove"; and (4) the most effective way of doing so is to remove UConn from the Bridgeport quadrant while still allowing the highest probability of having the 3 best teams on paper get to the Final Four (SC, Stanford, UConn). Since NC State has edged Louisville H2H & sits atop the ACC with a better overall record, I expect them to be the #1 seed in Bridgeport, sending Louisville to #1 in Wichita & a potential Elite 8 perennial titans season rematch.

Finally, three notable points in discussing anticipated Tournament draw:

1. ESPN owns & operates both the SEC & ACC Networks, so they have a vested interest in promoting both conferences. This may or may not influence Charlie Creme in putting 9 SEC teams & 8 ACC teams in his field. I personally think he is incrementally over-stating both at the expense of quality bubble teams in lesser conferences, e.g. Villanova;

2. Creme has not appeared to factor in Paige Bueckers absence nor return in his #3 UConn seeding in South Carolina's bracket. Yes, all teams have injuries, but this is the reigning NPOY & Top 5 player in ANY reasonable assessment. And UConn has suffered a litany of injuries on top of Paige, which has played into 4 of their losses. His oversight seems irresponsible, particularly given Committee seeding criteria clearly outlined within this thread;

3. Nolan's ELO rates UConn's old conference, the American AC, as better than the Big East, which seems counterintuitive & does not help the Huskies SOS optics. They are already fighting an uphill battle in this regard vis-a-vis elite Power 5 programs.