First Committee Top 16

[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.

 

[Alydar]

While I don't want to defend weak OOC schedules there are other factors that have to be considered. First, public colleges can find themselves under pressure to play other public schools in their state. MD played U of MD Eastern Shore & U of MD Baltimore County. I have no idea why but it's possible that Brenda was "strongly advised" to play them. They also played Mt St Mary's, and Loyola of MD, both in-state schools. Again, I have no information but it's conceivable that some bean-counter in the MD administration doesn't want to fund travel all over the country. UConn fans are blessed that their team has the budget and freedom to play whomever they choose.

 

[Carnac]

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.

Vowelguy, Where exactly did I say or suggest this notion that "UConn never played any chumps", let alone multiple ones, is fantasy?. Read my post again. I never suggested that UConn never played nay chumps.

My reference was to today's teams, not yesterday's. My focus is on now....2017 and beyond. What happened yesterday/yesteryear, is not part of my narrative. To your point, yes, I'm aware of that, BUT, they got away with it. IF you can do that, and not suffer any repercussions, so be it.

I completely understand why teams that have multiple ranked teams in their conference are reluctant to schedule more top ranked opponents on to what is already a challenging schedule. A forward looking coach now realizes how closely and how much credence the selection committee weighs strength of schedule now.

Admittedly, If UConn was is a P5 conference, they would not have to front load their schedule with as many top 10 teams.Their SOS would be made up during their conference play.

However my posture relative to playing teams that can't help you improve remains steadfast. You can't improve your team's play and execution (and weaknesses will not be exposed) playing cupcakes. That goes for any team. Iron sharpens iron. If your team was ranked #30 (and I assume you had aspirations of breaking into the top 25), would you learn and benefit more from playing UConn or a sub 200 team?

 

[Plebe]

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.

It's fine to believe whatever you want, but over the years the committee has been quite consistent in "penalizing" (for lack of a better word) teams with an abysmal SOS ranking and "rewarding" teams that have challenged themselves in their schedule.

And if you think that the teams ranked 51 to 100 are no better than the teams in the 200s and 300s, I would look no further than Maryland's struggle to put away Washington State, a 51-100 team, in a neutral-court game that was tied midway through the 4th quarter. MSU also had a difficult time in true road games at Iowa State (one of the most difficult places to win for visiting teams) and at Southern Cal, both of which are also in the 51-100 range.

 

[Plebe]

While I don't want to defend weak OOC schedules there are other factors that have to be considered. First, public colleges can find themselves under pressure to play other public schools in their state. MD played U of MD Eastern Shore & U of MD Baltimore County. I have no idea why but it's possible that Brenda was "strongly advised" to play them. They also played Mt St Mary's, and Loyola of MD, both in-state schools. Again, I have no information but it's conceivable that some bean-counter in the MD administration doesn't want to fund travel all over the country. UConn fans are blessed that their team has the budget and freedom to play whomever they choose.

Oh, so the committee should just assume that Brenda was forced to play all the weak in-state teams and therefore give her a pass on her crummy SOS. Or maybe they should commission an independent fact-finding team to conduct a thorough investigation in order to determine whether administrative coercion was a factor. Sounds totally reasonable.

 

[Vowelguy]

Vowelguy, Where exactly did I say or suggest this notion that "UConn never played any chumps", let alone multiple ones, is fantasy?. Read my post again. I never suggested that UConn never played nay chumps.
?

But you implied that in order to be successful, a team should not be scheduling any weak opponents. And yet UConn won more than a half dozen titles with such a schedule!
But you want no other school to follow the same formula now.

 

[Alydar]

It's fine to believe whatever you want, but over the years the committee has been quite consistent in "penalizing" (for lack of a better word) teams with an abysmal SOS ranking and "rewarding" teams that have challenged themselves in their schedule.

And if you think that the teams ranked 51 to 100 are no better than the teams in the 200s and 300s, I would look no further than Maryland's struggle to put away Washington State, a 51-100 team, in a neutral-court game that was tied midway through the 4th quarter. MSU also had a difficult time in true road games at Iowa State (one of the most difficult places to win for visiting teams) and at Southern Cal, both of which are also in the 51-100 range.

I never said that. My point is that for a top 8 team a win over a 50-100 team is no more deserving of an reward than a win over a 100-300 team.

In an admittedly absurd but apt example, if I won an arm wrestling contest over a 10 year old and you won one over a 6 year old, my victory would IMO have no more value than yours, even though the 10 year old was much stronger than the 6 year old. But under the NCAA's SOS formula I would get more credit than you for my win.

 

[Plebe]

I never said that. My point is that for a top 8 team a win over a 50-100 team is no more deserving of an reward than a win over a 100-300 team.

In an admittedly absurd but apt example, if I won an arm wrestling contest over a 10 year old and you won one over a 6 year old, my victory would IMO have no more value than yours, even though the 10 year old was much stronger than the 6 year old. But under the NCAA's SOS formula I would get more credit than you for my win.

If you had it your way, and wins over teams in the 51-100 range were considered worthless in the way that sub-150 wins are, then the top teams would have absolutely no incentive to ever schedule anyone in the 51-150 range, even though (as we have seen countless times in this season alone) those teams can in fact pose stiff challenges to — and even sometimes beat — some of the top teams.

 

[Alydar]

If you had it your way, and wins over teams in the 51-100 range were considered worthless in the way that sub-150 wins are, then the top teams would have absolutely no incentive to ever schedule anyone in the 51-150 range, even though (as we have seen countless times in this season alone) those teams can in fact pose stiff challenges to — and even sometimes beat — some of the top teams.

If you go back and reread my numerous posts on this topic you would see that I am completely in favor of penalizing elite teams that lose to a weak team. What I would disregard, or at least minimize the relevance of, are the wins over that sort of team.

 

[CocoHusky]

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.

There is an occasional chump. there are sometimes multiple chumps, and then there is what Maryland did this year.
With all due disrespect to UMass Lowell (3-18 ), Maryland Eastern Shore (8-8) , Mount St. Mary's (5-14) , Niagara (5-14), UMBC (9-11) , Towson (11-7) , Saint Peter's (3-16) & Loyola (Md.) (8-11) I would be willing to bet none of those schools have ever gotten a single call from a top 10 WCBB program besides MD. Maryland Scheduled all of them in the same season. If you want to know why the committee was pissed look at the records in ( ) after each school.

That would be like UCONN scheduling Central Connecticut, Fairfield, Hartford, Quinnipiac , Sacred Heart, Yale, St. Bonnaventure , & Huston Baptist. Actually I take that back, UCONN would not be as penalized as much because Quinnipiac is at the top of their conference and St. Perter's is at the bottom of the same conference AGAIN!

 

[Plebe]

If you go back and reread my numerous posts on this topic you would see that I am completely in favor of penalizing elite teams that lose to a weak team. What I would disregard, or at least minimize the relevance of, are the wins over that sort of team.

And again, you would thereby set up a situation where top teams would avoid the 51-150 teams like the plague, and instead double up on the teams outside the top 200, since history has shown that the former are often tough to beat, unlike the latter.

 

[Carnac]

But you implied that in order to be successful, a team should not be scheduling any weak opponents. And yet UConn won more than a half dozen titles with such a schedule!
But you want no other school to follow the same formula now.

Other programs can follow whatever formulas they wish. If they want to prepare themselves to play the elite teams in March, so as to have a chance to beat those teams, then yes, I expect them to play as many competitive teams in their OOC as they can, and lay off the sugar. Now, that being said, I'm only talking about top ranked teams that have a legitimate chance of getting to the final four, and possibly winning it all. I'm not referring to teams that have absolutely no chance of getting that far.

Those teams can schedule whomever they wish. In their case, it's not going to make any difference. Example: Rutgers, Iowa State, Virginia, Green Bay, Kansas State, etc.......those schools are not going to win a championship. They can schedule whatever program they wish. In their case, it won't matter. They will not be in the conversation at the end of February. vowelguy, please understand that I am a UConn homer, and as such, my comments lean in that direction. I make no apologies for that. To be honest, I really don't care what other programs do. I only care what UConn does.

There are several dynamics here you may be over looking in your above statement.
1. UConn was already at the top of the leader board. They weren't trying to "catch" or over take another team. They were the team that the others were trying to over take. And as you said, they were winning championships while doing so. It's hard to argue with success.
2. There were/are a lot of teams that don't want to play UConn at any time (except for the national championship). Let's face it, If you schedule UConn, that's almost a guaranteed loss. Most coaches like to schedule teams they at least have a chance to beat. They make their schedule to build a positive winning momentum going into their conference portion of their schedule. When you suffer a blowout loss, you have to go back to square one and try and fix some things. Any momentum you had is gone.

I say it every year. No team wants to be in UConn's region in the NCAA tournament. Why??? UConn ALWAYS comes out of its region. Sometimes Geno will play a smaller program as a favor to the coach. He gets requests from smaller programs every year to schedule a game. It's not unusual for teams to refuse UConn's overtures to schedule a home and home series. Syracuse refused UConn's request to play a homecoming game in the Carrier Dome for Breanna Stewart last year, remember? UConn had to turn to Colgate (38 miles further away) for the local hometown game they wanted for her in her hometown of Syracuse. Colgate was very happy to oblige. They considered it an honor to host UConn in their tiny 1700 seat gym. Every UConn fan got their wish last year for UConn to finish the season the way they did, by exacting a small amount of revenge by blowing out Syracuse with relative ease and winning the NC at their expense.

My comments were in reference to the other programs that are trying to win a championship TODAY. The reasons I've given are clear. No team can improve by playing weaker teams. How did Baylor's blow out win (140-32) win over hapless Winthrop help them? Did they learn more from their loss to UConn, or that win over Winthrop? Which game do you think exposed any weaknesses they had? I can't say it any plainer that that. If you (a team) want to bolster your won-loss record at the expense of lesser talented teams in the beginning of the year, that's your prerogative.

How far back are you willing to go with respect to what UConn did to make your point? A person's outlook can change over time. We are suppose to learn from the past (or we're doomed to repeat it). I fail to see any relevance in your query about what UConn did 5-10 or 15 years ago. The point I was making is in reference to TODAY, not last year, not 10 years ago. IMO, teams outside of the top 15, don't have a snowball's chance in He** of winning a NC. They are ranked outside of the top 15 for a reason.

Lest I remind you what Bill Parcells said with respect to your won-loss record and your status. That was/is a true statement. You cannot argue THAT point. If you don't agree with my take on this, that's OK. I have absolutely no problem with that. The fore going is MY opinion, and I stand by it.
If I make a statement that is factually incorrect, that's something else.

 

[Alydar]

And again, you would thereby set up a situation where top teams would avoid the 51-150 teams like the plague, and instead double up on the teams outside the top 200, since history has shown that the former are often tough to beat, unlike the latter.

I doubt that. But it might also mean that teams that are looking for high seeds will start scheduling more elite level teams in their OOC schedules because they would no longer be assured of a high seed by beating the 40th-80th ranked teams in their own conference. And if teams like MD and MSSt stated having 8-10 elite games on their schedules instead of 2 or 3, we, as fans would have something better to watch than what we have now.

 

[Plebe]

I doubt that. But it might also mean that teams that are looking for high seeds will start scheduling more elite level teams in their OOC schedules because they would no longer be assured of a high seed by beating the 40th-80th ranked teams in their own conference. And if teams like MD and MSSt stated having 8-10 elite games on their schedules instead of 2 or 3, we, as fans would have something better to watch than what we have now.

Oh, so 40th-80th is your arbitrary cutoff range? Okay then. Mississippi State's regular season includes 12 games against the RPI top 40 (even better than your ideal of 8-10 such games). Maryland's regular season only includes five top-40 games.

So I'm glad we can finally agree that MSU's strength of schedule is clearly better than Maryland's.

 

[triaddukefan]

There is an occasional chump. there are sometimes multiple chumps, and then there is what Maryland did this year.
With all due disrespect to UMass Lowell (3-18 ), Maryland Eastern Shore (8-8) , Mount St. Mary's (5-14) , Niagara (5-14), UMBC (9-11) , Towson (11-7) , Saint Peter's (3-16) & Loyola (Md.) (8-11) I would be willing to bet none of those schools have ever gotten a single call from a top 10 WCBB program besides MD. Maryland Scheduled all of them in the same season. If you want to know why the committee was pissed look at the records in ( ) after each school.

That would be like UCONN scheduling Central Connecticut, Fairfield, Hartford, Quinnipiac , Sacred Heart, Yale, St. Bonnaventure , & Huston Baptist. Actually I take that back, UCONN would not be as penalized as much because Quinnipiac is at the top of their conference and St. Perter's is at the bottom of the same conference AGAIN!

Actually Duke did schedule UMass-Lowell in the 2014-15 season. But we werent a top 10 team that year.... hovered between 11- 15 most of the year.

Some of our other OOC opponents that year were #1 South Carolina, #2 UCONN, #7 TAMU, #8 Kentucky, #12 Nebraska.... and Oklahoma.

 

[Alydar]

Oh, so 40th-80th is your arbitrary cutoff range? Okay then. Mississippi State's regular season includes 12 games against the RPI top 40 (even better than your ideal of 8-10 such games). Maryland's regular season only includes five top-40 games.

So I'm glad we can finally agree that MSU's strength of schedule is clearly better than Maryland's.

Once again, (and I'm tired of having to repeat it to you), I'm not defending MD's weak schedule. I'm pointing out that MSST has played exactly 2 quality opponents. My point (and you help me with your comment) is that a lot of MSST's RPI and SOS ranking comes from teams ranked 22-71 and almost nothing from playing teams ranked 1-20. Here are MSST's in-conference opponent's Massey ratings. I bolded all the games against top 20 teams.

3, 22, 25, 25, 29, 33, 34, 34, 47, 53, 60, 71, 71, 86, 95, 108

You can add one top 20 OOC opponent (#9 Texas) to MSSt's resume. This is the basis for MSSt's RPI and SOS and IMO it's not even close to the level of competition that should earn a team a one seed. Washington has 6 top 20 conference games on their schedule and you can add Massey No 6 Notre Dame to that.

And I'll go further and say that it's the reason the SEC gets so many teams into the tournament but very few past the second round. he RPI was instituted for the men's game and it works better there because of the vast depth of talent compared to the women's game.

What I can't understand is how people who say MD doesn't deserve a higher seed because of their schedule (and I think that's a legitimate POV) can then think that MSSt is deserving of a 1 seed.

 

[Plebe]

Once again, (and I'm tired of having to repeat it to you), I'm not defending MD's weak schedule. I'm pointing out that MSST has played exactly 2 quality opponents. My point (and you help me with your comment) is that a lot of MSST's RPI and SOS ranking comes from teams ranked 22-71 and almost nothing from playing teams ranked 1-20. Here are MSST's in-conference opponent's Massey ratings. I bolded all the games against top 20 teams.

3, 22, 25, 25, 29, 33, 34, 34, 47, 53, 60, 71, 71, 86, 95, 108

You can add one top 20 OOC opponent (#9 Texas) to MSSt's resume. This is the basis for MSSt's RPI and SOS and IMO it's not even close to the level of competition that should earn a team a one seed. Washington has 6 top 20 conference games on their schedule and you can add Massey No 6 Notre Dame to that.

And I'll go further and say that it's the reason the SEC gets so many teams into the tournament but very few past the second round. he RPI was instituted for the men's game and it works better there because of the vast depth of talent compared to the women's game.

What I can't understand is how people who say MD doesn't deserve a higher seed because of their schedule (and I think that's a legitimate POV) can then think that MSSt is deserving of a 1 seed.

Because — and you're not the only one with repetition fatigue — while MSU's strength of schedule may not be great, Maryland's strength of schedule is much worse, flagrantly so. And since strength of schedule is something that matters to the committee (always has, in fact), Maryland's resume was judged more severely than MSU's. I get that you don't agree with that, but most people would agree that playing Massachusetts-Lowell in College Park is nowhere near as challenging as playing Iowa State in Ames.