First Committee Top 16

[Plebe]

MD beat Ariz St on a neutral court and beat Louisville on the road. And they stayed within 10 against UConn. Miss St beat Texas at home and lost the only quality team they faced on the road. They both beat everyone else and IMO all those games are meaningless in determining who is the better team. Massey ranks MD 6th and Miss St 7th virtually tied by the numbers. They use an algorithm so there is no prejudice toward any conference. Now I am not saying how each should be seeded but making MSSt a one seed while making MD a three seed is way too big a gap.

SOS is not much of a measure of a team's strength. It's fine to break a tie between two teams but my eyes tell me that MD is a better team than even S Carolina, never mind Miss St. Don't let a close game between two SEC teams fool you. MD's offense would defeat Miss St's defense. Remember, most everyone thought they had a dominant defense last year, mostly based on the rest of the SEC not being able to score against them. But we all saw that paper tiger exposed in the S16.

Many are buying what ESPN said, that MD was downgraded because of their schedule. But remember that ESPN has a vested interest in seeing SEC teams in the spotlight and little interest in having teams whose games are on BTN or the PAC12 Network be in the spotlight.

SOS by itself is not meant to be a measure of a team's strength, obviously. No one is saying that it is. But it is a major factor in evaluating the strength of a team's résumé, which is what the committee does. You may not agree that it should be a factor, but it is.

I simply don't buy this notion that the selection committee is intentionally bending its decisions to ESPN's commercial interests in certain conferences over others. There is absolutely no evidence of this. If that were the case, how did Maryland land a #1 seed in 2015? (Hint: Maryland's nonconference SOS that year was #9, and its overall SOS #16, to go with a 30-2 record.)

 

[StephStorrs]

I do have one question, and I mean no harm when I ask. (I'm not nearly as well informed on the ins and outs of the selection and seeding process for the tournament as other posters on the yard, so I'm simply trying to gain a bit of insight.) If a team, such as MD, schedules an extremely weak nonconference schedule and faces no serious competition during conference play, why should they be rewarded with a #1 seed even if they only have say, one loss to a team ranked above them? I'm assuming that the record is important, but are the teams beaten equally as important as the record itself?

 

[mudcat]

C'mon ETT! Baylor is a legitimately strong contender in their own right. You don't need to puff them up by reminding us of how much they whooped that powerhouse known as the Winthrop Five.

Seriously, your quip has to make the Top Ten funny posts list this year.

I think he meant it to

 

[warbler1055]

I do have one question, and I mean no harm when I ask. (I'm not nearly as well informed on the ins and outs of the selection and seeding process for the tournament as other posters on the yard, so I'm simply trying to gain a bit of insight.) If a team, such as MD, schedules an extremely weak nonconference schedule and faces no serious competition during conference play, why should they be rewarded with a #1 seed even if they only have say, one loss to a team ranked above them? I'm assuming that the record is important, but are the teams beaten equally as important as the record itself?

MD might be a very strong team in this example, but because of its weak SOS, its RESUME as Plebe called it, the selection committee ranked MD as a 9 seed. What other measures do they have to consider at this time?

 

[CocoHusky]

MD beat Ariz St on a neutral court and beat Louisville on the road. And they stayed within 10 against UConn. Miss St beat Texas at home and lost the only quality team they faced on the road. They both beat everyone else and IMO all those games are meaningless in determining who is the better team. Massey ranks MD 6th and Miss St 7th virtually tied by the numbers. They use an algorithm so there is no prejudice toward any conference. Now I am not saying how each should be seeded but making MSSt a one seed while making MD a three seed is way too big a gap.

SOS is not much of a measure of a team's strength. It's fine to break a tie between two teams but my eyes tell me that MD is a better team than even S Carolina, never mind Miss St. Don't let a close game between two SEC teams fool you. MD's offense would defeat Miss St's defense. Remember, most everyone thought they had a dominant defense last year, mostly based on the rest of the SEC not being able to score against them. But we all saw that paper tiger exposed in the S16.
Many are buying what ESPN said, that MD was downgraded because of their schedule. But remember that ESPN has a vested interest in seeing SEC teams in the spotlight and little interest in having teams whose games are on BTN or the PAC12 Network be in the spotlight.

This is still women's basketball we are talking about, which hardly moves the needle in terms of any of the networks you mentioned. Many of us were talking about the Maryland cupcake schedule before the latest announcement of the seeding. The ranking of 9th is also significant and deliberate, indicating that MD has no shot at moving up to a number 1 seed regardless of how the rest of the season plays out. I do not agree that MSU should have also been penalized along with MD because MSU success this season was unexpected and MD's was more likely. MSU got blasted in tournament by UCONN where as MD played UCONN closely having a lead late in the game that ended up being a two possession game. Add the number 1 rated recruiting class to MD and they should have been championship contenders and played an appropriate schedule.

 

[ochoopsfan]

I am not 100% sure, but I thought I read that Stanford can't host the first round(s) of the NCAA Tournament due to a conflict with either the Pac12 Gymnastic Championships or the NCAA Gymnastic tournament. That is why Creme has them as a #3 seed but at #6 seed Texas A & M. Seems like TaM gets a big benefit as a non deserving host, vs adding in the 17th ranked team as a host.

 

[Vowelguy]

I simply don't buy this notion that the selection committee is intentionally bending its decisions to ESPN's commercial interests in certain conferences over others. There is absolutely no evidence of this. If that were the case, how did Maryland land a #1 seed in 2015? (Hint: Maryland's nonconference SOS that year was #9, and its overall SOS #16, to go with a 30-2 record.)

There you go again. Presenting a clear, fact-based, reason argument.

 

[chuck.r]

I am not 100% sure, but I thought I read that Stanford can't host the first round(s) of the NCAA Tournament due to a conflict with either the Pac12 Gymnastic Championships or the NCAA Gymnastic tournament. That is why Creme has them as a #3 seed but at #6 seed Texas A & M. Seems like TaM gets a big benefit as a non deserving host, vs adding in the 17th ranked team as a host.

According to Creme, Stanford venue is already committed on the dates of the opening rounds, so you are correct, Stanford's seed-group plays at next highest seed venue. This occurred last year most notably when #4 MichSt was unable to host due to schedule conflicts at their venue, and their group played at #5 seed MissSt. I remember MichSt coach threw a hissy at the post presser about NCAA policy after they lost in a squeaker to MissSt.

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.

 

[Plebe]

I am not 100% sure, but I thought I read that Stanford can't host the first round(s) of the NCAA Tournament due to a conflict with either the Pac12 Gymnastic Championships or the NCAA Gymnastic tournament. That is why Creme has them as a #3 seed but at #6 seed Texas A & M. Seems like TaM gets a big benefit as a non deserving host, vs adding in the 17th ranked team as a host.

But you can't just add the #17 team as a host because it has to be a team from Stanford's group of 4 teams that hosts. If Stanford is a 3-seed, then it'll be the 6-seed in its "pod" that gets dibs on hosting.

 

[Vowelguy]

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.

I believe they can, but if there's not another arena on campus, where else are they going to go? And keep in mind that most of these schools get only a few thousand, if that, for on-campus games.

 

[ochoopsfan]

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.

 

[chuck.r]

I believe they can, but if there's not another arena on campus, where else are they going to go? And keep in mind that most of these schools get only a few thousand, if that, for on-campus games.

I was also thinking of potential off-campus venues, at say the nearest large city. But as soon as I say that, the logistics of making such arrangements with a commercial venue on such short notice make that possibility very unlikely. It could be arranged more easily in advance for schools whose teams are locks for a top-16 bid (1, 2 & maybe even high 3 seeds), but some 3 & 4 seeds won't know their top 16 seeding until selection day.

 

[Alydar]

... I simply don't buy this notion that the selection committee is intentionally bending its decisions to ESPN's commercial interests in certain conferences over others. There is absolutely no evidence of this. If that were the case, how did Maryland land a #1 seed in 2015? (Hint: Maryland's nonconference SOS that year was #9, and its overall SOS #16, to go with a 30-2 record.)

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.

 

[Alydar]

This is still women's basketball we are talking about, which hardly moves the needle in terms of any of the networks you mentioned. Many of us were talking about the Maryland cupcake schedule before the latest announcement of the seeding. The ranking of 9th is also significant and deliberate, indicating that MD has no shot at moving up to a number 1 seed regardless of how the rest of the season plays out. I do not agree that MSU should have also been penalized along with MD because MSU success this season was unexpected and MD's was more likely. MSU got blasted in tournament by UCONN where as MD played UCONN closely having a lead late in the game that ended up being a two possession game. Add the number 1 rated recruiting class to MD and they should have been championship contenders and played an appropriate schedule.

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? Your opinion is yours to make but I look at it another way. MD beat ASU on a neutral court and beat Louisville on the road, both of whom are in the top 16. MSSt beat Texas at home and lost the only other elite level game they played, at S Car. I would make both teams 2 seeds and if I had to make either a one seed it would be the Turtles. Just my opinion.

 

[triaddukefan]

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

 

[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.