Feb 28 Committee Rankings

[hoophuskee]

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.

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.

 

[BlueSkyGLW]

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.

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......

 

[hoophuskee]

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......

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.

 

[Glenn]

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.

 

[LwrcasefaN]

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.

 

[BlueSkyGLW]

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.

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.

 

[Cornell Lt]

Well Arizona just got knocked down a few seeds, definitely no longer a top 4 seed

 

[Vowelguy]

Well Arizona just got knocked down a few seeds, definitely no longer a top 4 seed

It’s just 1 game.
They’ll slip from a 3 seed to a 4. That’s about it.

 

[Plebe]

It’s just 1 game.
They’ll slip from a 3 seed to a 4. That’s about it.

Plus they'll take into account Cate Reese's absence, as long as she's projected to return for the tournament.

 

[TeamFirst!]

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.

 

[Plebe]

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.

A novel definition of "bullied": squeaked by them by one possession in overtime.

How do you explain the fact that Louisville curb-stomped your beloved Notre Dame, not once but twice, including a roughly 80-point lead at halftime?

 

[UConnCat]

A novel definition of "bullied": squeaked by them by one possession in overtime.

How do you explain the fact that Louisville curb-stomped your beloved Notre Dame, not once but twice, including a roughly 80-point lead at halftime?

Last week he said Arizona "humiliated" Louisville in that one-possession overtime win.

 

[Vowelguy]

Last week he said Arizona "humiliated" Louisville in that one-possession overtime win.

If that's humiliation, do we even have a word to describe 54-15?

Might need to go to German.

 

[jchusky]

If that's humiliation, do we even have a word to describe 54-15?

Might need to go to German.

Did you watch the game? Arz controlled the game if not for a "foul" called on Arz that was not, shouldn't even be in overtime. I actually watch these games not just look at box scores.

 

[visitingcock]

Did you watch the game? Arz controlled the game if not for a "foul" called on Arz that was not, shouldn't even be in overtime. I actually watch these games not just look at box scores.

So what? If you used the word “ humiliated”, it was inappropriate to any single digit outcome.

 

[npignatjr]

Caroline had 24 points vs Louisville. If Paige had been healthy, would Caroline have played the 40 minutes?

These “woulda been“ scenarios are useless, IMO

Who else didn't play in the Louisville game?

 

[Stymie]

I’m still more interested in being in the bracket with Arizona than our particular seed.
Something about Karma...

 

[jchusky]

I’m still more interested in being in the bracket with Arizona than our particular seed.
Something about Karma...

karma? for what? Good lord nobody can celebrate anymore I guess. And even if Arz was in this bracket who cares, Aari Mcdonald the player that cooked Uconn is gone.

 

[HuskyNan]

karma? for what? Good lord nobody can celebrate anymore I guess. And even if Arz was in this bracket who cares, Aari Mcdonald the player that cooked Uconn is gone.

No one can hold a grudge like a UConn fan. There are people on the Boneyard that are still angry with Tara VanDerveer for not playing Rebecca Lobo in the 1996 Olympics, 26 years ago.

 

[Stymie]

karma? for what? Good lord nobody can celebrate anymore I guess. And even if Arz was in this bracket who cares, Aari Mcdonald the player that cooked Uconn is gone.

The Coach’s Bird is what ‘cooked’ me.

 

[jchusky]

The Coach’s Bird is what ‘cooked’ me.

I think anyone that knows the situation was because Arizona was left off by the Ncaa off the final four montage.

 

[Cornell Lt]

The Coach’s Bird is what ‘cooked’ me.

The middle finger controversy was not against UConn last year, that happened this year, I can't remember who they were playing. The issue at last years final four was her choice of language to her team that was caught on camera. that upset some UConn fans.

 

[Stymie]

The middle finger controversy was not against UConn last year, that happened this year, I can't remember who they were playing. The issue at last years final four was her choice of language to her team that was caught on camera. that upset some UConn fans.

We ALL saw the Bird from her Last year in the Tournament.
It was well publicized.
Completely separate and apart from this years ‘classy’ episode.