How close are the top 4 seeds to being locked?

[huskiemaniac]

Even UConn is not quite a lock. Remember a couple of years ago when we lost to Marquette and Saint John’s right at the end of the season? If something like that were to happen… we would get bumped to the 2 line imo.

That’s not happening this season…

 

[BobbyJ]

Can’t watch an entire UCLA game. Close needs to sit her behind still. Makes me dizzy. Can’t imagine a player in a tight game looking for some steady confidence and then see her pacing the sidelines like a tiger in a cage. Help!!!!!!

I actually hope she can stay there long term, she very entertaining for me. I giggle watching her because all I can see is Chris Farley as motivational speaker Matt Foley.

 

[oldude]

I believe you are incorrect - I believe all things being possible, they don't want 1/2 seeds meeting before the FF, but we will see what happens this year - If they have a by-chalk bracket with an E8 between two SEC teams or between two BigTen teams, I am sure we will hear the howls

I stand corrected. The way it is specified is that the first 4 seeds from the same conference are placed in different brackets. So, for instance, if the top 4 seeds from the SEC are TX, SC, LSU & Vandy, and they are seeded as a (1), (1), (2) & (3) they can not possibly meet until the FF.

 

[packwrap]

Highly unlikely, but if LSU won out from here they would be SEC league and tourney champ with 4 combined wins over SC & TX.

Despite how much we hate their OOC schedule, that would get them a #1 speed.

Same even for Vandy, Miss and even Tenn.

Still 80% likely none of this happens, and SC and Texas emerge as the two teams.

 

[visitingcock]

Time for a spin-off thread of “What are the attributes of a highly successful coach?”
Should it be in this forum or the General?

 

[Phil]

This is going to be the first of what will likely be a new age of bracketing work for the committee because we now have two super-conferences in the SEC and BigTen and regardless of the team names, those two conferences are going to pack the 16 teams that get their home court for the first weekend of the tournament. The first consideration for the committee is getting the seeding lines correct, the second is to try and make sure teams from the same conference do not play each other before the FF and if that isn't possible to make sure at least 1 and 2 seeds from the same conference don't meet up before the FF.

I think this is an excellent observation (subject to the minor corrections to the exact terms as discussed in subsequent threads).

I always love reading the armchair experts (AE) criticizing the seedings for the tournament. One common observation goes something like this:
- AE: this could easily be improved by swapping teams A and B, Their current placement makes no sense
- Response: It's not that simple because swapping them means B and team C, from the same conference could meet too early
- AE: Not a problem I'll just swap team C and D
- Response: That fixes the problem with team C but creates a new problem with team D and team E
- AE: exasperated, Well then just move team E somewhere?
- Reponse: where? , there is no other good option
- AE: really exasperated, well then YOU fix it.
- Response: - I did, That's what you are criticizing

Before conference realignment this was a real but modest problem. Now with the two super conferences in the large number of teams that will come from those two conferences, this secondary consideration may become primary. The selection committee's job has always been tough, but this year it could be ratcheted up to a new level.

 

[Bigboote]

Not sure I get the anti-Cori sentiment. I don't know off the top of my head historically how UCLA has fared with her as the HC with games they should have won, but lost. I'm guessing that's where some of the "underperforming" comments come from. This season, the only loss was 11 points to Texas. They were down 20 at the half but outplayed Texas in H2, just not by enough to make the gap closer or win. They also beat Tennessee by 22, and were up 10 at halftime, better than we did that first half.

Like Bone Dog, I'm not anti-Cori. I said she's a good coach. I thought Dawn Staley was a good (not great) coach till she won a NCAA championship. I'm on the Dawn bandwagon now. I'll be on the Cori bandwagon if she wins a natty too.

 

[ConnMotors]

It really comes down on who would you rather play. UConn, UCLA, South Carolina and Texas if now would be your 1 Seeds. I think that Vandy is going to drop to a 3 Seed. Louisville is a dark horse and can become the top 2 Seed. LSU and Michigan will both be a 2. That leaves one more team. Will it be Ohio State or the Big 12 tournament winner. UConn will make it to the Final Four playing either OSU or whomever the final 2 seed is. Then which who if the Finals? If UC plays four quarters like they played in the first last night no one will beat them. I would rather them face Texas in the SFs and then UCLA in the Finals.

 

[ucmiami2]

Perhaps I should have said”” “who cares where you are seeded among the one seeds?”

The basis of what is “accurate and correct” is what the committee decides based on the criteria that included SOS. Let’s say a mid -major like Princeton for example - plays three quad 1 teams and goes undefeated with the 200th rated schedule. Would they deserve the top overall seed?

BTW I have never said that UConn won’t deserve it if they run the table. I would give them my vote. However, if UCLA RUNS THE TABLE and ends up with 20 quad one wins and a lone loss to a top 4 team , they would certainly not be undeserving. Strength of schedule does matter and it should.

There is no difference in being the top overall seed and the second overall seed. Negligible difference between 1and 3 and the only difference among top 4 is that number 4 has to play number 5.

UCLA and SCar being the 1 and 2 Seeds last year didn’t give them a championship! UConn
won the last game.. that ‘s what matters ers

The difference between which of UCLA and Uconn is the better one seed is important at this moment in time because, right now there are 2 SEC one seeds and 1 SEC two seed and that is the most likely final bracket with them being ranked as the 3,4,5 best teams in the committee's eyes and in everyone else's. That means UCLA and Uconn are the only teams that would get the SEC two seed in their bracket and the one ranked higher would not get that match-up.
Does it matter, meh, you have to beat 6 teams for an NC, and three of them will be very good. But, everyone currently sees a big gap between the #5 and #6 ranked teams, so yeah, being ranked higher than UCLA is a good thing. Every year the gap in the top 8 teams is different and sometimes there are two or three gaps and some years it isn't clear at all. This year and at this moment it appears clear and puts more importance on how the #1 seeds get ranked.

 

[ucmiami2]

Time for a spin-off thread of “What are the attributes of a highly successful coach?”
Should it be in this forum or the General?

Sounds like a good thread for the off-season, not an in-season thread at least on the Uconn side.

 

[Bone Dog]

The difference between which of UCLA and Uconn is the better one seed is important at this moment in time because, right now there are 2 SEC one seeds and 1 SEC two seed and that is the most likely final bracket with them being ranked as the 3,4,5 best teams in the committee's eyes and in everyone else's. That means UCLA and Uconn are the only teams that would get the SEC two seed in their bracket and the one ranked higher would not get that match-up.

I may have confused the S curve in how I’m reading this.

If you’re thinking an SEC 2-seed would be 5th or 6th overall, wouldn’t that mean neither UConn nor UCLA would face them? The overall #1 and #2 would matchup with the overall #7 an #8, wouldn’t they?

Unless you mean to suggest that the extra SEC 2 seed would be lower than an overall 5 or 6. Or that UConn or UCLA might end up as the overall 3 or 4.

 

[ucmiami2]

I may have confused the S curve in how I’m reading this.

If you’re thinking an SEC 2-seed would be 5th or 6th overall, wouldn’t that mean neither UConn nor UCLA would face them? The overall #1 and #2 would matchup with the overall #7 an #8, wouldn’t they?

Unless you mean to suggest that the extra SEC 2 seed would be lower than an overall 5 or 6. Or that UConn or UCLA might end up as the overall 3 or 4.

Based on the committee rules, they will not assign two SEC teams to the same bracket if they are rated as a 1 seed and a 2 seed, so in the current situation with SC and TX as 1 seeds, and LSU as the top #2 seed, while the S curve would place LSU in a bracket with TX or SC, they would move LSU into the bracket with either UCLA or Uconn which ever is not the overall #1 seed.

Because of so many BigTen and SEC schools likely in the top 16, this years S curve is going to be dictated more by conference alignment than strict S curve.

We will see, starting tonight, just how big a problem the committee will have. With a the SEC and BigTen having the end of the season being the hardest stretch for most of the top teams. Any of the SEC top teams could have 3 losses in the next month and will look very different from today.

 

[ucmiami2]

So, last night:
Louisville - played a terrible Q1 against a scorching Duke, and could not quite recover - no chance for a 1 seed now, but Duke made a case for 4 seed, with recency bias a recognized part of committee deliberation.

TX - got their revenge against LSU, solidified their 1 seeding and have, for an SEC team, a relatively easy closing stretch home to KY, at Vandy and at TN being as tough as it gets. LSU's chance of a 1 seed took a hit.

OleMs - took a hit and will need to fight for a 4 seed.

Iowa - took a hit to their chance of a 2 seed.

Vandy and TN won in unconvincing fashion (TN up by 3 in the final seconds, fouled a 3 point shooter, to go into OT!) Don't think either helped their causes (Vandy for a 2 seed, TN for a 4 seed) but they didn't hurt themselves either.

Generally a good night for WCBB with tight games with big implications for March.

 

[YKCornelius]

So, last night:
Louisville - played a terrible Q1 against a scorching Duke, and could not quite recover - no chance for a 1 seed now, but Duke made a case for 4 seed, with recency bias a recognized part of committee deliberation.

TX - got their revenge against LSU, solidified their 1 seeding and have, for an SEC team, a relatively easy closing stretch home to KY, at Vandy and at TN being as tough as it gets. LSU's chance of a 1 seed took a hit.

OleMs - took a hit and will need to fight for a 4 seed.

Iowa - took a hit to their chance of a 2 seed.

Vandy and TN won in unconvincing fashion (TN up by 3 in the final seconds, fouled a 3 point shooter, to go into OT!) Don't think either helped their causes (Vandy for a 2 seed, TN for a 4 seed) but they didn't hurt themselves either.

Generally a good night for WCBB with tight games with big implications for March.

ucmiami, first let me start off by saying I am in general agreement with your assessment of rankings/seedings at this point in time. That said, I think Vandy actually DID help their cause by beating #16 Kentucky on the road. Especially with two presumptive #2 seeds (LSU and Louisville) losing.

Notwithstanding that minor quibble, I specifically agree that if the seeding and bracket were determined today, that LSU and Vandy (as #2 seeds) would be paired off in some fashion with UConn and UCLA. They would not be paired with the other two #1 seeds (S. Carolina and Texas) since all four come from the SEC. For similar reasons, Louisville and Michigan (as the other presumptive #2 seeds) would be paired with the Gamecocks and Longhorns, in either order. The NCAA bracketing guidance is very clear:

• Each of the first four teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regional pods if they are seeded on the first four lines.

I don't understand why Charlie Creme doesn't acknowledge this condition in his Bracketology projections, which currently show LSU in South Carolina's region. If he maintains UConn as overall #1, then he should put LSU (overall #5) in with UCLA (overall #2), and thus Vandy paired with UConn. IMO, it is a clear miss on Charlie's part.

The same issue occurs again on the #3 line. Simply put, if one accepts Charlie's identification of #3 teams, TCU has to be paired with UCLA, since all of the other three #3 seeds are Big Ten teams. The same NCAA principle above applies. This is another Charlie miss on what amounts to a simple LSAT logic problem.

Which brings us to a fascinating point of order: As long as both the SEC and the Big Ten maintain four teams in the #1, #2, or #3 seed lines, it would behoove TCU to drop to a #4 seed in order to maximize the odds of playing two miles away in the FT Worth Regional - even if it means possibly facing off against UConn in the Sweet Sixteen.

Again, good seeding/bracketing insight.

 

[YKCornelius]

Upon further review, I want to correct my statement in my previous post saying that TCU has to be paired with UCLA if all presumptive #3 seeds remain as today.

In actuality, the Horned Frogs could also be placed in whatever bracket has Michigan. If Michigan is placed in the same bracket as Texas, TCU could be there as well as the #3 seed in the non-UConn FT Worth region.

Mea culpa.....

 

[ucmiami2]

Vandy needs to keep winning the games they should win, a loss to TX would be OK, and a win would make them a solid 2 seed but they will have the worse SOS of any of the SEC teams in contention for the top 16 teams (worse than LSU) so any stumble against a lesser team will look bad. That is why squeaking past KY does not really enhance their claim though a loss would have hurt.

TCU/Baylor - just not buying their resumes as anything but borderline 4 seeds - signature win for TCU is West VA, signature win for Baylor is I guess Duke to open the season before Duke figured it out. They will play each other twice and that would be the signature win for either of them. They both lost to TxTech. If one wins both games and the tournament they would be a solid 4 seed and a borderline 3 seed. If they split, then the winner of the tourny would be a 4 seed.

 

[Phil]

ucmiami, first let me start off by saying I am in general agreement with your assessment of rankings/seedings at this point in time. That said, I think Vandy actually DID help their cause by beating #16 Kentucky on the road. Especially with two presumptive #2 seeds (LSU and Louisville) losing.

Notwithstanding that minor quibble, I specifically agree that if the seeding and bracket were determined today, that LSU and Vandy (as #2 seeds) would be paired off in some fashion with UConn and UCLA. They would not be paired with the other two #1 seeds (S. Carolina and Texas) since all four come from the SEC. For similar reasons, Louisville and Michigan (as the other presumptive #2 seeds) would be paired with the Gamecocks and Longhorns, in either order. The NCAA bracketing guidance is very clear:

• Each of the first four teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regional pods if they are seeded on the first four lines.

I don't understand why Charlie Creme doesn't acknowledge this condition in his Bracketology projections, which currently show LSU in South Carolina's region. If he maintains UConn as overall #1, then he should put LSU (overall #5) in with UCLA (overall #2), and thus Vandy paired with UConn. IMO, it is a clear miss on Charlie's part.

The same issue occurs again on the #3 line. Simply put, if one accepts Charlie's identification of #3 teams, TCU has to be paired with UCLA, since all of the other three #3 seeds are Big Ten teams. The same NCAA principle above applies. This is another Charlie miss on what amounts to a simple LSAT logic problem.

Which brings us to a fascinating point of order: As long as both the SEC and the Big Ten maintain four teams in the #1, #2, or #3 seed lines, it would behoove TCU to drop to a #4 seed in order to maximize the odds of playing two miles away in the FT Worth Regional - even if it means possibly facing off against UConn in the Sweet Sixteen.

Again, good seeding/bracketing insight.

My recollection, which is admittedly vague, is that Charlie has addressed this in the past. I think he is claimed that he doesn't know all the rules about conference meetings, but creating a bracket that addresses all of those concerns is a royal pain, and not worth it for bracket that's probably going to change in a few days anyway given the twice weekly updates. I think he intends on addressing those issues in the last bracket prior to the selection committee meeting.

In addition to being a royal pain to implement, it can also lead to pain reactions that aren't fun to field. "How on earth can you place my favorite team as a three seed they obviously have a better body of work than every other three seed and better than some of the two seed so they ought to be at least a two seed". His response might be that they naturally qualify as a two seed but something's got to give due to conference makeups and it was his judgment that moving them from a 2 to a 3 was the best option to accommodate the conference meet up rules.

It's also possible I'm thinking about how I would construct brackets if I had to do them twice a week, but it might be worth getting some clarification from him figure out whether he's not incorporating it because he blundered or whether he is not incorporating it because he doesn't plan to deal with that until the end. He might argue that he's prepared to address any questions about seeding levels in terms of strength but not the movements necessary for conference makeup rules.

 

[HuskylnSC]

You heard it here. The top four is a lock. Texas' beat down of LSU confirmed the seeds. If they beat up on each other, somebody gets a 'good' loss which will not harm them with the NCAA committee. The only question is who has to be the #4 seed and face UConn in the Semis.