Final NET rankings (Top 16) vs. Committee Selections (1-4 seeds)

[visitingcock]

So, how much value were the NET rankings in predicting seeds? Logical reasons why the committee departed from the NET? Were the drastic departures warranted? Biggest discrepancies are marked in bold.

Final NET Rankings--------------------- Tournament Seeding (not specifically in order - just seeding groups)

1 Stanford -------------------------------1 seed Stanford
2 UConn ---------------------------------1 seed UConn
3 Baylor ----------------------------------1 seed NC State
4 SCar ------------------------------------1 seed SCar

5. Maryland ------------------------------2 seed Maryland
6. Louisville -------------------------------2 seed Louisville
7. NC State -------------------------------2 seed Baylor
8. UCLA---------------------------------- 2 seed Tx A&M

9. Indiana --------------------------------3 seed UCLA
10. Oregon ------------------------------3 seed Arizona
11. Tx A&M------------------------------ 3 seed Tennessee
12. Rutgers ------------------------------3 seed Georgia

13. Georgia -------------------------------4 seed West Virginia
14. Tennessee ----------------------------4 seed Indiana
15. Arizona -------------------------------4 seed Ga Tech
16 Gonzaga ----------------------------- 4 seed Arkansas

 

[UcMiami]

I suspect this isn't a good year to form opinions about the NET and how the committee uses it. The lack of most of an OOC really screws with mathematical systems of ranking and I think the committee went with their own gut. (not that I think that is any better!)

 

[visitingcock]

I suspect this isn't a good year to form opinions about the NET and how the committee uses it. The lack of most of an OOC really screws with mathematical systems of ranking and I think the committee went with their own gut. (not that I think that is any better!)

I do not disagree that NET may prove a better guide in the future when the "Oregon" problem is addressed or works itself out over a full season including more relevant OOC play.

 

[Plebe]

The NET is not designed or intended to predict the exact seedings. It's just a sorting tool to help the committee evaluate resumes and levels of competition. To the committee's credit, they did not view Oregon and Rutgers as 3 seeds, or Stephen F Austin as a 5 seed.

 

[visitingcock]

Just for fun, I've thrown the AP into the mix

Final NET Rank----Final AP Rankings--------Tournament Seeding

1. Stanford----------1 Stanford ------------------1 seed Stanford
2 UConn ------------2 UCONN-------------------1 seed UConn
3 Baylor -------------3 NC State------------------1 seed NC State
4 SCar----------------4-Tx A&M------------------1 seed SCar

5. Maryland ----------5 Baylor--------------------2 seed Maryland
6. Louisville ----------6. SCar----------------------2 seed Louisville
7. NC State -----------7. Maryland----------------2 seed Baylor
8. UCLA---------------8 Louisville-----------------2 seed Tx A&M

9. Indiana -------------9-UCLA--------------------3 seed UCLA
10. Oregon ----------10--UGA--------------------3 seed Arizona
11. Tx A&M-----------11-Zona-------------------- 3 seed Tennessee
12. Rutgers ----------12--Indiana----------------3 seed Georgia

13. Georgia -----------13-Tennessee----------------4 seed West Virginia
14. Tennessee -------- 14-Gonzaga-----------------4 seed Indiana
15. Arizona ------------15--Arkansas----------------4 seed Ga Tech
16 Gonzaga ----------16---Michigan------------- 4 seed Arkansas

 

[Vowelguy]

They are NOT "departing from the NET." That implies that the NET is the starting point. It is not. It is just one piece of information that they use.

This would be like asking why did college X "depart from using GPA to admit high school students." GPA is just one of many factors that admissions officers look at when deciding.

 

[ScuderiaDiU]

Baylor was 3rd in NET, 5th in the AP, 6th in the coach's poll and 3rd in Massey. Maryland was 5th, 7th, 8th and 4th, respectively, in the same polls and ratings.

Tell me, HOW is Maryland seeded higher than Baylor? I would MUCH rather play Maryland than Baylor. Both UConn and Baylor got screwed by the NCAA just so they could give us the toughest path to the final four.

Hell, I would rather play Texas A&M that finished 11th, 4th, 4th and 13th or even NC State that finished 7th, 3rd, 3rd and 9th.

I find it funny that the committee leaned on "the eye test"/"expert pollsters" to boost up TAMU and NCSt but didn't drop Maryland down or boost UConn up for the same reason. With 4 pieces of data I guess you can pick and choose whatever fits your narrative.

 

[Glenn]

Think of the committee as being the gold standard, which it probably is (groups tend to be better than individuals and can use more info than statistical programs). The NET is really good. It got 3 of 4 first seeds (missing NC state, having Baylor), 7 of 8 of the top two seeds ( ucla instead of Texas AM). Of its top twenty, it overseeded oregon, Rutgers, and SFA. But, instead of focusing on anomalies, we should note how good it is as tool to organize thoughts and conversations

 

[visitingcock]

Baylor was 3rd in NET, 5th in the AP, 6th in the coach's poll and 3rd in Massey. Maryland was 5th, 7th, 8th and 4th, respectively, in the same polls and ratings.

Tell me, HOW is Maryland seeded higher than Baylor? I would MUCH rather play Maryland than Baylor. Both UConn and Baylor got screwed by the NCAA just so they could give us the toughest path to the final four.

Hell, I would rather play Texas A&M that finished 11th, 4th, 4th and 13th or even NC State that finished 7th, 3rd, 3rd and 9th.

I find it funny that the committee leaned on "the eye test"/"expert pollsters" to boost up TAMU and NCSt but didn't drop Maryland down or boost UConn up for the same reason. With 4 pieces of data I guess you can pick and choose whatever fits your narrative.

A partial answer is AP, Coach's Poll and Massey don't count. So, Baylor was third in the NET. However, when you Look at Strength of Schedule, that NET rank becomes suspicious. I don't have a link to the NET SOS. Somebody else does - maybe Plebe. Just for example, I will use Massey. Baylor is 64 and Maryland is 44. SCar was 6. NC State had 3 Top 8 wins.

So basically, Baylor was not a 1 seed in the committees' opinion because they didn't really play anybody. They were determined to be a 2 seed along with three other teams. They don't seed the 2 seeds based on any rank other than being 2 seeds. Then is when the "S-Curve" really kicks in. They stick 2 seeds into a bracket based on other considerations including, but not limited to, avoiding rematches when possible. Somebody else - again maybe plebe - has a link to "the sheets." these show things clearer. If you had played UConn this year, you would not be placed in their bracket. Louisville and NC State are kept separate. SCar and Tx A&M are kept separate.

I mean no offense. To me, there's not a lick of advantage between a one seed and two seed this year. Normally, geography creates a difference, but not in the bubble. Of course, you have a built in advantage in this bubble.

Baylor may be the best team in the country when the smoke clears, but for now the primary question is "Who have they played (in this abnormal year)?

 

[ScuderiaDiU]

A partial answer is AP, Coach's Poll and Massey don't count. So, Baylor was third in the NET. However, when you Look at Strength of Schedule, that NET rank becomes suspicious. I don't have a link to the NET SOS. Somebody else does - maybe Plebe. Just for example, I will use Massey. Baylor is 64 and Maryland is 44. SCar was 6. NC State had 3 Top 8 wins.

So basically, Baylor was not a 1 seed in the committees' opinion because they didn't really play anybody. They were determined to be a 2 seed along with three other teams. They don't seed the 2 seeds based on any rank other than being 2 seeds. Then is when the "S-Curve" really kicks in. They stick 2 seeds into a bracket based on other considerations including, but not limited to, avoiding rematches when possible. Somebody else - again maybe plebe - has a link to "the sheets." these show things clearer. If you had played UConn this year, you would not be placed in their bracket. Louisville and NC State are kept separate. SCar and Tx A&M are kept separate.

I mean no offense. To me, there's not a lick of advantage between a one seed and two seed this year. Normally, geography creates a difference, but not in the bubble. Of course, you have a built in advantage in this bubble.

Baylor may be the best team in the country when the smoke clears, but for now the primary question is "Who have they played (in this abnormal year)?

Here is the problem with that argument. It is not objective because you are essentially saying you don't know how good Baylor is. They could be as good as their results indicate or not. So you turn this into a philosophical argument instead of an analytical one. Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive until we observe it. So do you call it dead or alive? The NCAA chooses based on what they want it to be. If they like the cat, the choose to believe it is alive and vice versa. Power ratings are more analytical. They look at all available data instead of focusing on missing data. Baylor demonstrated that they were better than Maryland based on what we do know and you can't just dismiss that because of what you don't know. Finally, even the pollsters said Baylor was better. So what exactly did the committee use as criteria to put Baylor in our bracket versus Maryland? If it is all about strength of schedule, UConn should be an 8 seed, right? How about Gonzaga on the men's side? 8 seed?

 

[bbsamjj]

From what I can tell, committee ranked top 8 seeds as:

1. Stanford
2. UConn
3. NC State
4. SC
5. A&M
6. MD
7. Baylor
8. Louisville

In order to avoid a potential elite 8 matchup from same conference, committee di:

1. Stanford with 8. Louisville
2. UConn with 7. Baylor
3. NC State with 5. A&M
4. SC with 6, Maryland

as for placing MD above Baylor, i think MD has the stronger resume. Plus, their one common opponent was Arkansas, who MD defeated and Baylor lost to .

• MD's best wins are over: Arkansas (4 seed), Indiana (4 seed), Iowa (5 seed), Rutgers and Michigan (6 seeds); their only losses are to Ohio state (banned from postseason) and Missouri St (5 seed)
• Baylor's best wins are over: West Virginia (3x, 4 seed) and Texas (3x, 6 seed); their losses are to Arkansas (4 seed) and Iowa State (7 seed)

 

[visitingcock]

Here is the problem with that argument. It is not objective because you are essentially saying you don't know how good Baylor is. They could be as good as their results indicate or not. So you turn this into a philosophical argument instead of an analytical one. Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive until we observe it. So do you call it dead or alive? The NCAA chooses based on what they want it to be. If they like the cat, the choose to believe it is alive and vice versa. Power ratings are more analytical. They look at all available data instead of focusing on missing data. Baylor demonstrated that they were better than Maryland based on what we do know and you can't just dismiss that because of what you don't know. Finally, even the pollsters said Baylor was better. So what exactly did the committee use as criteria to put Baylor in our bracket versus Maryland? If it is all about strength of schedule, UConn should be an 8 seed, right? How about Gonzaga on the men's side? 8 seed?

In what way did they demonstrate that they were better than Maryland?

 

[Plebe]

I find it funny that the committee leaned on "the eye test"/"expert pollsters" to boost up TAMU and NCSt but didn't drop Maryland down or boost UConn up for the same reason. With 4 pieces of data I guess you can pick and choose whatever fits your narrative.

You mean kinda like you're doing here?

The persecution complex is out of control. First of all, Maryland had a clearly better body of work than Baylor, and in fact it wasn't even a close call. Why is it so hard for people to realize the polls mean exactly diddly squat in tournament selection? Nor does the NET decide anything; if it did, then Oregon would be a 3 seed and Stephen F. Austin would be a 5 seed.

Secondly, plenty of folks on this board were saying both before and after the selection show that they were more afraid of Maryland being the 2 seed paired with UConn.

Lastly, if you're so unconfident in your team's ability that you want the NCAA to let you hand-pick your preferred opponent in each round, then you must not think your team is any good.

 

[j66kicker]

Just for fun, I've thrown the AP into the mix

Final NET Rank----Final AP Rankings--------Tournament Seeding

1. Stanford----------1 Stanford ------------------1 seed Stanford
2 UConn ------------2 UCONN-------------------1 seed UConn
3 Baylor -------------3 NC State------------------1 seed NC State
4 SCar----------------4-Tx A&M------------------1 seed SCar

5. Maryland ----------5 Baylor--------------------2 seed Maryland
6. Louisville ----------6. SCar----------------------2 seed Louisville
7. NC State -----------7. Maryland----------------2 seed Baylor
8. UCLA---------------8 Louisville-----------------2 seed Tx A&M

9. Indiana -------------9-UCLA--------------------3 seed UCLA
10. Oregon ----------10--UGA--------------------3 seed Arizona
11. Tx A&M-----------11-Zona-------------------- 3 seed Tennessee
12. Rutgers ----------12--Indiana----------------3 seed Georgia

13. Georgia -----------13-Tennessee----------------4 seed West Virginia
14. Tennessee -------- 14-Gonzaga-----------------4 seed Indiana
15. Arizona ------------15--Arkansas----------------4 seed Ga Tech
16 Gonzaga ----------16---Michigan------------- 4 seed Arkansas

What AP rankings are you using? AP has UConn 1 & Stanford 2.

NCAA women's college basketball rankings: AP, Coaches, USA Today

Get NCAA women's college basketball rankings from the Associated Press, USA Today/WBCA and NCAA committee.

www.ncaa.com

 

[visitingcock]

What AP rankings are you using? AP has UConn 1 & Stanford 2.

NCAA women's college basketball rankings: AP, Coaches, USA Today

Get NCAA women's college basketball rankings from the Associated Press, USA Today/WBCA and NCAA committee.

www.ncaa.com

okay. I'm quasi dyslexic.

 

[ScuderiaDiU]

You mean kinda like you're doing here?

The persecution complex is out of control. First of all, Maryland had a clearly better body of work than Baylor, and in fact it wasn't even a close call. Why is it so hard for people to realize the polls mean exactly diddly squat in tournament selection? Nor does the NET decide anything; if it did, then Oregon would be a 3 seed and Stephen F. Austin would be a 5 seed.

Secondly, plenty of folks on this board were saying both before and after the selection show that they were more afraid of Maryland being the 2 seed paired with UConn.

Lastly, if you're so unconfident in your team's ability that you want the NCAA to let you hand-pick your preferred opponent in each round, then you must not think your team is any good.

No, exactly the opposite of what I am doing. BOTH polls (people like the armchair experts here) AND BOTH rating systems have Baylor over Maryland. It isn't even a consensus. It is UNANIMOUS. Baylor has a stronger body of work by both subjective and objective measures. If you disagree, you are flat out wrong and have zero legs to stand on other than your own opinion. And, for the record, UConn fans love to be the devils advocate against supposed conspiracy theories so I place little stock in what anyone here posts. I am just the fly in the ointment, providing data and logic in a forum of opinions and virtue signaling.

 

[ScuderiaDiU]

In what way did they demonstrate that they were better than Maryland?

In what way is the sky not blue?

 

[Plebe]

No, exactly the opposite of what I am doing. BOTH polls (people like the armchair experts here) AND BOTH rating systems have Baylor over Maryland. It isn't even a consensus. It is UNANIMOUS.

Unanimous, you said? Not so fast

BY25 poll #9 (final poll): Results are in

Number of 1st-place votes shown in parentheses: Also receiving votes (on at least two ballots): Ohio State 27, Marquette 24, Oregon 24, Cal Baptist 10, Stephen F. Austin 9, Northwestern 9. The following teams appeared on only one ballot: Seton Hall, Georgia Tech, Texas, UCF, High Point...

the-boneyard.com

Baylor has a stronger body of work by both subjective and objective measures. If you disagree, you are flat out wrong and have zero legs to stand on other than your own opinion.

You have no idea what the term "body of work" means, and the fact that you double down on irrelevant sources only confirms it. Poll rankings do not constitute a body of work.

 

[bbsamjj]

Moreover, who was done a huge disservice here? They are both #2 seeds; and in fact, there was never any real argument that either of them would make it to the #1 seed line. Before you can even get to a potential elite 8 game with UConn or SC, they have to get through three over teams (As of course do the #1 seeds).

You are resting your case on the fact that there is a huge difference in quality between Baylor and MD, such that it's completely unfair that UConn could have to play Baylor and SC gets to play MD. Even if you think Baylor is better than MD, there is zero evidence that it is by any significant margin, or that this is a huge injustice to any team involved. As Plebe said, if you want to win a national championship, you actually have to beat good teams.

 

[ScuderiaDiU]

Unanimous, you said? Not so fast

BY25 poll #9 (final poll): Results are in

Number of 1st-place votes shown in parentheses: Also receiving votes (on at least two ballots): Ohio State 27, Marquette 24, Oregon 24, Cal Baptist 10, Stephen F. Austin 9, Northwestern 9. The following teams appeared on only one ballot: Seton Hall, Georgia Tech, Texas, UCF, High Point...

the-boneyard.com

You have no idea what the term "body of work" means, and the fact that you double down on irrelevant sources only confirms it. Poll rankings do not constitute a body of work.

Nope, you are just wrong. No leg to stand on.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Think of the committee as being the gold standard, which it probably is (groups tend to be better than individuals and can use more info than statistical programs). The NET is really good. It got 3 of 4 first seeds (missing NC state, having Baylor), 7 of 8 of the top two seeds ( ucla instead of Texas AM). Of its top twenty, it overseeded oregon, Rutgers, and SFA. But, instead of focusing on anomalies, we should note how good it is as tool to organize thoughts and conversations

This aged well.