First Committee Top 16

[CocoHusky]

So you are saying that MD has a better team but should be seeded lower because they didn't live up to expectations and MSSt exceeded expectations? .

No.

 

[j66kicker]

According to Creme, Stanford venue is already committed on the dates of the opening rounds...

I always wondered why, when such occurs, a school couldn't offer a suitable alternative venue that was regionally convenient and favorable to the higher seed (and their fanbase). I suppose logistics and economics come in to play.

Last year ASU was scheduled to host the PAC12 gymnastics championship at the time ASU could host a WBB regional. They asked for the gymnastics to be moved, and it got moved to Utah so ASU could host the b-ball thing.

That was WOMEN'S gymnastics - don't know if that is the case with
the Stanford conflict.

 

[triaddukefan]

Last year ASU was scheduled to host the PAC12 gymnastics championship at the time ASU could host a WBB regional. They asked for the gymnastics to be moved, and it got moved to Utah so ASU could host the b-ball thing.

That was WOMEN'S gymnastics - don't know if that is the case with
the Stanford conflict.

And that home court advantage worked out well for ASU

 

[Vowelguy]

If instead of it being MD it was say an ACC or SEC team that was the other team I don't think ESPN would be making derogatory comments about their schedule. ESPN takes care of their conferences.

So in other words, Rebecca Lobo, Kara Lawson, and the rest of the analysts lack professionally integrity and instead of saying what they actually believe, they will just promote ACC & SEC teams. Good to know.

 

[Alydar]

I think ESPN is trying to get back at Maryland for the them leaving the ACC a few years ago.

No, I meant that ESPN is interested in promoting the conferences with whom they have contracts.

 

[Alydar]

So in other words, Rebecca Lobo, Kara Lawson, and the rest of the analysts lack professionally integrity and instead of saying what they actually believe, they will just promote ACC & SEC teams. Good to know.

So despite the recently reported revelations that major news journalists serve as shills for political parties by putting their names on articles that were written for them by partisan political entities, you want us to believe that sports reporters have too much integrity to do what they are told?

See how exaggerating another's posts sounds when it's your post being subjected to "reductio ad absurdum"?

 

[rford53]

In this case, I would put that "pod" in the Stockton group. I think out of the 2 California teams in the top 16, UCLA and Stanford, the Cardinal have a larger fan group that travels and since they cant host round 1 and 2 at least they should get a chance to be closer to home for the regional finals.
On a semi related note, are the dates set in stone for the Bridgeport regional. I know which weekend it is, just not sure the dates.

The
Bridgeport Regionals will be played on Saturday, March 25- first game at 11:30am with the better seed team playing first (UConn) and the second game starting 1/2 hour after the end of the first game.
Monday March 27 7pm Regional Final

 

[Vowelguy]

So despite the recently reported revelations that major news journalists serve as shills for political parties by putting their names on articles that were written for them by partisan political entities, you want us to believe that sports reporters have too much integrity to do what they are told?

See how exaggerating another's posts sounds when it's your post being subjected to "reductio ad absurdum"?

I did not exaggerate your post in the slightest. You said "ESPN" did certain things. Well ESPN for women's basketball commentary is Lobo, Lawson, and others. I merely put the faces to your generic name.

 

[Alydar]

I did not exaggerate your post in the slightest. You said "ESPN" did certain things. Well ESPN for women's basketball commentary is Lobo, Lawson, and others. I merely put the faces to your generic name.

Unlike mainstream news, sports "journalism" and sports teams have a symbiotic relationship. One hand scratches the other. Teams need publicity and sports sells newspapers and in this era provides "hits" to websites. I used to buy the NY Post solely for the sports. It's been long known that a NY sports writer who criticizes the Mara family, the long-time owners of the Giants doesn't keep his/her job for long. Geno uses his "hoard" to send messages to his players and the writers know it. Or, if you doubt me, next WNBA season try switching between the audio call of each team in a game. You'll hear that the refs are favoring the opponent from both sides, and by sports commentators that are supposed to have "integrity"? Remember the Steph White interview after the Tenn game that was heavily discussed on this board? When she said that Tenn only lacked the focus and energy of the Huskies? The obvious followup question that begged to be asked was ... WHY DON"T THEY? But no one wanted to bring that subject up because it might "hurt the game".

But if you want to believe that Lobo, Lawson, et al say exactly what they want then who am I to stop you.

 

[Vowelguy]

Unlike mainstream news, sports "journalism" and sports teams have a symbiotic relationship. One hand scratches the other. Teams need publicity and sports sells newspapers and in this era provides "hits" to websites. I used to buy the NY Post solely for the sports. It's been long known that a NY sports writer who criticizes the Mara family, the long-time owners of the Giants doesn't keep his/her job for long. Geno uses his "hoard" to send messages to his players and the writers know it. Or, if you doubt me, next WNBA season try switching between the audio call of each team in a game. You'll hear that the refs are favoring the opponent from both sides, and by sports commentators that are supposed to have "integrity"? Remember the Steph White interview after the Tenn game that was heavily discussed on this board? When she said that Tenn only lacked the focus and energy of the Huskies? The obvious followup question that begged to be asked was ... WHY DON"T THEY? But no one wanted to bring that subject up because it might "hurt the game".

But if you want to believe that Lobo, Lawson, et al say exactly what they want then who am I to stop you.

After criticizing my response, thank you for now admitting that my interpretation of your OP was correct.

If you don't understand the difference between a broadcasting crew for a particular team and national analysts, I can't help you.

 

[Alydar]

After criticizing my response, thank you for now admitting that my interpretation of your OP was correct.

If you don't understand the difference between a broadcasting crew for a particular team and national analysts, I can't help you.

I understand that there is little difference. The former shill for a team, the later for the sport in general.

We've gone back and forth on this and at this point I have made my point several times. And BTW I never asked for help from you so don't suggest I want or need it. We disagree. Time for me to do something else.

 

[Plebe]

I never said the committee was influenced by ESPN. But the committee never said a word about why they seeded teams as they did. It was ESPN that put their own spin on it and IMO did so for their own benefit. And many on message boards took ESPN's view and somehow turned it into the committee's reasoning. If instead of it being MD it was say an ACC or SEC team that was the other team I don't think ESPN would be making derogatory comments about their schedule. ESPN takes care of their conferences. Look at Miss St's schedule and ask yourself why ESPN doesn't mention the lack of worthy opponents on it. I know their SOS is better than MD's but again, IMO it makes little difference if an elite level team beats No 60 or No 150, they are both totally outclassed. MSSt is getting rewarded for playing weak teams that are only less weak than the ones MD played.

I'm not understanding your theory. Charlie Creme of ESPN projected Maryland as the overall #5 seed just prior to the committee's reveal. Then the committee revealed that they had Maryland tentatively at #9. The obvious explanation for the discrepancy was that Maryland had a much weaker SOS ranking than any of the teams ahead of them. What other explanation did you expect to hear from the ESPN commentators, if you concede that the committee wasn't influenced by ESPN?

And I'm sorry, but Maryland chose to schedule who they scheduled (with the exception of the Louisville game, which was required by the conference). Their SOS ranking is just a matter of numbers. Pointing out that their ranking is miles below that of anyone else in the top 16 is a factual observation. No need to consider such an observation "derogatory."

 

[Plebe]

I think ESPN is trying to get back at Maryland for the them leaving the ACC a few years ago.

And what exactly is ESPN doing to "get back" at Maryland?

 

[triaddukefan]

And what exactly is ESPN doing to "get back" at Maryland?

Actually I was being facetious..... I should have put up a at the end of the sentence.

 

[Plebe]

Actually I was being facetious..... I should have put up a at the end of the sentence.

I suspected so, but it was not inconsistent with other theories put forward in this thread, so I wasn't sure.

 

[Alydar]

I'm not understanding your theory. Charlie Creme of ESPN projected Maryland as the overall #5 seed just prior to the committee's reveal. Then the committee revealed that they had Maryland tentatively at #9. The obvious explanation for the discrepancy was that Maryland had a much weaker SOS ranking than any of the teams ahead of them. What other explanation did you expect to hear from the ESPN commentators, if you concede that the committee wasn't influenced by ESPN?

And I'm sorry, but Maryland chose to schedule who they scheduled (with the exception of the Louisville game, which was required by the conference). Their SOS ranking is just a matter of numbers. Pointing out that their ranking is miles below that of anyone else in the top 16 is a factual observation. No need to consider such an observation "derogatory."

I didn't start on this topic criticizing where MD was placed. My complaint was that MSSt had a very uncompetitive schedule and noted that Massey ranked Miss St behind MD. Using your standard, look at the teams MSSt chose to play and then explain why they should get a 1 seed. What exactly is their resume? Here are the Massey top 10 and their rating:

1 CT - 3.23 SOS - 1
2 BU - 2.95 SOS- 7
3 SC - 2.75 SOS-3
4 Fl St - 2.65 SOS-10
5 Wash - 2.64 SOS-12
6 MD - 2.63 SOS-25
7 MSSt - 2.62 SOS-16
8 N Dame - 2.58 SOS-2
______________________________
9 OSU - 2.50
10 UT - 2.47

Notice that the gap between 1 & 2 is 0.28 while the total gap between 4 & 8 is 0.o7. And notice that Florida St and MD are ranked above MSSt. Then look at how MSSt's SOS looks next to the other projected 1 seeds and tell me if it fits.

Now if you think that RPI is a better method of ranking teams I accept your opinion. I like the Massey method. Besides giving more credit to wins over elite teams, it considers MOV, something RPI ignores. But while the committee has stated that they use RPI as a tool to identify the 64 team field, they have said they use multiple standards in ranking those 64 teams into a 64 team S curve. I just have no idea how they can move MSSt to a top 4 based on their resume. And I can understand not putting MD there also. Frankly, I'd pick Fla St, based on wins over Duke, VTech & Louis. along with their impressive 2 pt loss to UConn. To my way of thinking, given the steep drop off in talent in wcbb, a win over a No 50 by an elite team is not much more impressive than a win over No 150. If a team avoids scheduling games against elite level teams then that should work against them. MD fits that except that they did schedule UConn. MSSt also fits that. They scheduled exactly one of those games, Texas, and it was played in their house. The rest of their wins may have been against less bad teams than MD's but they were bad nevertheless and should work against them as much as MD's bad wins work against them.

The SOS used by the committee and quoted by ESPN considers a win over No 50 as being a lot better than a win over No 100. When it comes to ranking elite level teams among themselves I don't. And that is where their difference between MSSt & MD lies. And that's basically where I disagree with that version of the SOS.

 

[Alydar]

I'm not understanding your theory. Charlie Creme of ESPN projected Maryland as the overall #5 seed just prior to the committee's reveal. Then the committee revealed that they had Maryland tentatively at #9. The obvious explanation for the discrepancy was that Maryland had a much weaker SOS ranking than any of the teams ahead of them. What other explanation did you expect to hear from the ESPN commentators, if you concede that the committee wasn't influenced by ESPN?

And I'm sorry, but Maryland chose to schedule who they scheduled (with the exception of the Louisville game, which was required by the conference). Their SOS ranking is just a matter of numbers. Pointing out that their ranking is miles below that of anyone else in the top 16 is a factual observation. No need to consider such an observation "derogatory."

You are assuming that Creme uses the strict S curve and he has staed previously that he incorporates the committee's policies and procedures that twist the S curve way out of shape.

 

[Plebe]

I didn't start on this topic criticizing where MD was placed. My complaint was that MSSt had a very uncompetitive schedule and noted that Massey ranked Miss St behind MD. Using your standard, look at the teams MSSt chose to play and then explain why they should get a 1 seed. What exactly is their resume? Here are the Massey top 10 and their rating:

1 CT - 3.23 SOS - 1
2 BU - 2.95 SOS- 7
3 SC - 2.75 SOS-3
4 Fl St - 2.65 SOS-10
5 Wash - 2.64 SOS-12
6 MD - 2.63 SOS-25
7 MSSt - 2.62 SOS-16
8 N Dame - 2.58 SOS-2
______________________________
9 OSU - 2.50
10 UT - 2.47

Notice that the gap between 1 & 2 is 0.28 while the total gap between 4 & 8 is 0.o7. And notice that Florida St and MD are ranked above MSSt. Then look at how MSSt's SOS looks next to the other projected 1 seeds and tell me if it fits.

Now if you think that RPI is a better method of ranking teams I accept your opinion. I like the Massey method. Besides giving more credit to wins over elite teams, it considers MOV, something RPI ignores. But while the committee has stated that they use RPI as a tool to identify the 64 team field, they have said they use multiple standards in ranking those 64 teams into a 64 team S curve. I just have no idea how they can move MSSt to a top 4 based on their resume. And I can understand not putting MD there also. Frankly, I'd pick Fla St, based on wins over Duke, VTech & Louis. along with their impressive 2 pt loss to UConn. To my way of thinking, given the steep drop off in talent in wcbb, a win over a No 50 by an elite team is not much more impressive than a win over No 150. If a team avoids scheduling games against elite level teams then that should work against them. MD fits that except that they did schedule UConn. MSSt also fits that. They scheduled exactly one of those games, Texas, and it was played in their house. The rest of their wins may have been against less bad teams than MD's but they were bad nevertheless and should work against them as much as MD's bad wins work against them.

The SOS used by the committee and quoted by ESPN considers a win over No 50 as being a lot better than a win over No 100. When it comes to ranking elite level teams among themselves I don't. And that is where their difference between MSSt & MD lies. And that's basically where I disagree with that version of the SOS.

I'm trying to follow here. So you don't have a problem with Maryland's placement at #9, but your complaint is that Mississippi State wasn't also placed lower by the committee because you feel that MSU's resume is no better than Maryland's?

Maryland has played almost half of its schedule against teams outside the top 150. That's a big deal. MSU, by contrast, has played 75% of its games against teams ranked 110 or higher. I hear you saying that a team in the 50s or 60s should be considered just as bad as a team in the 200s or 300s, but the committee doesn't see it that way (and neither do I). Top-100 teams do matter to a resumé in a way that sub-200 teams don't. And it's also clear that the committee did consider MSU's schedule relatively weak (though not nearly as weak as Maryland's), because they placed an undefeated MSU behind two teams that each had a loss.

 

[Plebe]

You are assuming that Creme uses the strict S curve and he has staed previously that he incorporates the committee's policies and procedures that twist the S curve way out of shape.

Huh? I was referring to Creme's article in which he gave his projected ranking of the top 16 teams (Which teams are worthy of a top-16 seed?). This ranking would be prior to any modifications to the S-curve for bracket placement.

 

[Alydar]

I'm trying to follow here. So you don't have a problem with Maryland's placement at #9, but your complaint is that Mississippi State wasn't also placed lower by the committee because you feel that MSU's resume is no better than Maryland's?

Maryland has played almost half of its schedule against teams outside the top 150. That's a big deal. MSU, by contrast, has played 75% of its games against teams ranked 110 or higher. I hear you saying that a team in the 50s or 60s should be considered just as bad as a team in the 200s or 300s, but the committee doesn't see it that way (and neither do I). Top-100 teams do matter to a resumé in a way that sub-200 teams don't. And it's also clear that the committee did consider MSU's schedule relatively weak (though not nearly as weak as Maryland's), because they placed an undefeated MSU behind two teams that each had a loss.

That's where you & the committee disagree with me. It's fine to use that sort of standard when you deciding which 5 of 15 bubble teams deserve a spot in the dance but when you are assigning 1 & 2 seeds the only time games against #50+ teams should matter is if you lose to one of them. That's just my opinion. I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with me but IMO it's a valid POV.

 

[Phil]

Alydar noted that one should look at the vlaues of the Massey rankings.

If you just look at the rankings, you might think the difference between 1 and 2 is like 6 versus 7 etc.

A graph tells a different story:



As you can see, there's a big difference between Connecticut and Baylor, a comparable difference between Baylor and South Carolina and a smaller but still significant difference between South Carolina and Florida state.

After that, note the almost insignificant differences between Florida State Washington Maryland Mississippi State and Notre Dame. Each of those teams is almost interchangeable in terms of the overall strength. Then there's another drop off to the next group of three and then modest drop-offs until Arizona State the name big drop off to Ohio State.

Absent a major upset, the first three are likely to stay in the same order but the next group of five might shuffle, even if they all win because of different margins of victory.

The selection committee is likely to know this information even though they may not officially admit it. This could mean for example that geography or other considerations might move Notre Dame up as far as fourth and some fans will protest but that's not much of a move in terms of actual strength. I think Florida State's in the drivers seat, but there's a small margin so again they might literally win the rest of the games but if they win some close ones they might slip back a bit.

 

[Alydar]

Huh? I was referring to Creme's article in which he gave his projected ranking of the top 16 teams (Which teams are worthy of a top-16 seed?). This ranking would be prior to any modifications to the S-curve for bracket placement.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I saw my error after I was able to edit. In any case, the committee has many exceptions to a pure S curve and seems to change their priorities in siting teams on a yearly basis. I have given up trying to predict where teams will go. What I'd to know is who sets the priorities? By the time the committee actually meets those priorities have been set. By whom? Because once the priorities are set here is little wiggle room for the committee. It used to be geography was the prime factor but lately the policy of separating top 16 teams from the same conference has superseded geography, as we saw last year when Notre Dame got Lexington.

My suspicious nature makes me wonder if avoiding certain match ups influences which "policies and procedures" will be emphasized in any given year. But then I see conspiracy everywhere.

 

[Carnac]

I'm trying to follow here. So you don't have a problem with Maryland's placement at #9, but your complaint is that Mississippi State wasn't also placed lower by the committee because you feel that MSU's resume is no better than Maryland's?

Maryland has played almost half of its schedule against teams outside the top 150. That's a big deal. MSU, by contrast, has played 75% of its games against teams ranked 110 or higher. I hear you saying that a team in the 50s or 60s should be considered just as bad as a team in the 200s or 300s, but the committee doesn't see it that way (and neither do I). Top-100 teams do matter to a resumé in a way that sub-200 teams don't. And it's also clear that the committee did consider MSU's schedule relatively weak (though not nearly as weak as Maryland's), because they placed an undefeated MSU behind two teams that each had a loss.

To your point(s) plebe, BEFORE I get excited (impressed) about a team's record of 10-12 wins, and 0 losses to begin the season, first I (ALWAYS) look at who they played. If they did not play a top 100 team, but instead a bunch of sub 200 teams (cupcakes/Twinkies), I don't give an ounce of credence to their record. Any coach can line up a bunch of "tin cans" or Twinkies to begin the season, to give the false illusion that their team is formidable.

I've never understood the philosophy of how playing weak teams early in the season, help you prepare for the stronger teams you'll face later on. If you really want to be perceived as one of the best, and be respected in WCBB, then go on a diet (remove the sugar from your schedule), and play no team outside of the top 40 in your out of conference schedule. There should be 1-2 top 10 teams scheduled as well. I think more teams are beginning to lean towards this type of scheduling. There are things to be learned from a loss to a superior team. A superior will expose weaknesses in your team's play. Nothing can be learned from blowing out a cupcake.

Last year, the Lubbock Christian Lady Chaps played UConn in the first exhibition game of the season on November 2. They absorbed a crushing defeat (95-39), BUT............they went on to win the Division 2 national championship.

A small excerpt from a news article read: "It was nearly impossible to talk to players in Lubbock Christian’s locker room after its 78-73 win over Alaska-Anchorage on Monday at Banker’s Life Field house.

Every few seconds, as players, coaches, and staff members entered and exited the room, new screams of excitement and laughter would ripple through the entire group. No one could blame them. It’s the school’s first Division II national championship and a perfect 35-0 season. Even more impressive, however, is the fact that the Lady Chaps won the title in their first year of NCAA eligibility after completing the transition from the NAIA".

Needless to say, they learned some things from that game with UConn. They saw up close and in person what near perfect execution, unselfishness and relentless hustle looks like. Watching film is NOT the same as being there.

A poster just this past week comment that he attended a game (he had great seats close to the floor), and how impressed he was with the chatter and communication the Huskies were doing the entire game (he was close enough to hear them, and what they were saying). He also mentioned how impressive Gabby was in-person. Some things just don't come across on TV.

 

[Carnac]

I'm trying to follow here. So you don't have a problem with Maryland's placement at #9, but your complaint is that Mississippi State wasn't also placed lower by the committee because you feel that MSU's resume is no better than Maryland's?

Maryland has played almost half of its schedule against teams outside the top 150. That's a big deal. MSU, by contrast, has played 75% of its games against teams ranked 110 or higher. I hear you saying that a team in the 50s or 60s should be considered just as bad as a team in the 200s or 300s, but the committee doesn't see it that way (and neither do I). Top-100 teams do matter to a resumé in a way that sub-200 teams don't. And it's also clear that the committee did consider MSU's schedule relatively weak (though not nearly as weak as Maryland's), because they placed an undefeated MSU behind two teams that each had a loss.

To your point(s) plebe, BEFORE I get excited (impressed) about a team's record of 10-12 wins, and 0 losses to begin the season, first I (ALWAYS) look at who they played. If they did not play a top 100 team, but instead a bunch of sub 200 teams (cupcakes/Twinkies), I don't give an ounce of credence to their record. Any coach can line up a bunch of "tin cans" or Twinkies to begin the season, to give the false illusion that their team is formidable.

I've never understood the philosophy of how playing weak teams early in the season, help you prepare for the stronger teams you'll face later on. If you really want to be perceived as one of the best, and be respected in WCBB, then go on a diet (remove the sugar from your schedule), and play no team outside of the top 40 in your out of conference schedule. There should be 1-2 top 10 teams scheduled as well. I think more teams are beginning to lean towards this type of scheduling. There are things to be learned from a loss to a superior team. A superior will expose weaknesses in your team's play. Nothing can be learned from blowing out a cupcake.

Last year, the Lubbock Christian Lady Chaps played UConn in the first exhibition game of the season on November 2. They absorbed a crushing defeat (95-39), BUT............they went on to win the Division 2 national championship - It was nearly impossible to talk to players in Lubbock Christian’s locker room after its 78-73 win over Alaska-Anchorage on Monday at Banker’s Life Field house. Every few seconds, as players, coaches, and staff members entered and exited the room, new screams of excitement and laughter would ripple through the entire group.

No one could blame them. It’s the school’s first Division II national championship and a perfect 35-0 season. Even more impressive, however, is the fact that the Lady Chaps won the title in their first year of NCAA eligibility after completing the transition from the NAIA. Needless to say, they learned some things from that game with UConn. They saw up close and in person what near perfect execution, unselfishness and relentless hustle looks like. Watching film is NOT the same as being there.

A poster just this past week comment that he attended a game (he had great seats close to the floor), and how impressed he was with the chatter and communication the Huskies were doing the entire game (he was close enough to hear them, and what they were saying). He also mentioned how impressive Gabby was in-person. Some things just don't come across on TV. Sometimes, you just have to be there.

 

[Vowelguy]

I've never understood the philosophy of how playing weak teams early in the season, help you prepare for the stronger teams you'll face later on. If you really want to be perceived as one of the best, and be respected in WCBB, then go on a diet (remove the sugar from your schedule), and play no team outside of the top 40 in your out of conference schedule. There should be 1-2 top 10 teams scheduled as well. I think more teams are beginning to lean towards this type of scheduling. There are things to be learned from a loss to a superior team. A superior will expose weaknesses in your team's play. Nothing can be learned from blowing out a cupcake.
.

You do realize that before UConn was in the AAC it used to play a bunch of cupcakes every year?
Always played good teams to be sure, but this notion that UConn never played any chumps, let alone multiple ones, is fantasy.