How the #1 Seeds Did against Top 16`

[Wbbfan1]

From a Rebecca Lobo Tweet.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ESO7yiJWsAAUeF1?format=jpg&name=large

 

[Wbbfan1]

Maryland is 2-4 against Top 16.

 

[jonson]

Quite telling in my "unbiased" view. Especially the road games. Kind of surprising that the committee doesn't seem to take into account win/loss records among their own seedings.

 

[Plebe]

Quite telling in my "unbiased" view. Especially the road games. Kind of surprising that the committee doesn't seem to take into account win/loss records among their own seedings.

No single statistic presents a complete picture.

What if the statistic were record vs. other #1 seeds?
S. Carolina 2-0
Baylor 0-1
Oregon 0-0
Maryland 0-1

That looks a little different, right?

 

[domerduck]

No single statistic presents a complete picture.

What if the statistic were record vs. other #1 seeds?
S. Carolina 2-0
Baylor 0-1
Oregon 0-0
Maryland 0-1

That looks a little different, right?

How about records against teams that were ranked top 4 in the country some time this season, considering if you beat them they drop places. and don't end up being a 1 seed. Teams ranked top 4 in either poll ths year: SC, Baylor, Oregon, UConn, Stanford, Oregon State, L'ville, NC State, and Maryland (only once in the AP preseason poll as #4 where L'ville is #4 now and never in the coaches poll including this week where UConn is #4, still somehow they have a #1 seed).

S. Carolina 3-0
Baylor 1-1
Oregon 5-1
Maryland 0-2

That looks a little different, right?

 

[Plebe]

How about records against teams that were ranked top 4 in the country some time this season, considering if you beat them they drop places. and don't end up being a 1 seed. Teams ranked top 4 in either poll ths year: SC, Baylor, Oregon, UConn, Stanford, Oregon State, L'ville, NC State, and Maryland (only once in the AP preseason poll as #4 where L'ville is #4 now and never in the coaches poll including this week where UConn is #4, still somehow they have a #1 seed).

S. Carolina 3-0
Baylor 1-1
Oregon 5-1
Maryland 0-2

That looks a little different, right?

Indeed, this is why cherry-picking your facts is the bread and butter of PR specialists, propagandists and fan bases.

Then there's number of losses to teams outside the RPI top 25:
SC 0
Baylor 0
Oregon 1
Maryland 0

If only Oregon hadn't lost that game, they'd easily be the overall #1 seed. But they did. That's also a part of the complete picture.

 

[Floridaduck]

I have no problem with SC as the #1 overall seed. But Baylor's weak conference and so so ooc should hurt them vis a vis Oregon. SC - UO - BAY - MD unless dramatic conference tournament changes.

No reason to jump on Lobo... it was the Top 16 reveal and she was simply noting how each of the Top Four did within that group. Those are the numbers, like it or not.

 

[Plebe]

I have no problem with SC as the #1 overall seed. But Baylor's weak conference and so so ooc should hurt them vis a vis Oregon. SC - UO - BAY - MD unless dramatic conference tournament changes.

It's always a judgment call to pinpoint exactly where Team A's advantage in significant wins begins to outweigh Team B's advantage in significant losses.

In this instance I would agree that Oregon should have been moved ahead of Baylor, despite the one relatively bad loss to Arizona State. But it's a judgment call and a reasonable argument can be made either way.

What's disturbing is that the committee wasn't consistent from one judgment call to another. If Baylor's "clean" sheet was the reason for keeping them ahead of Oregon, then Northwestern's "better" losses certainly should've put them ahead of Stanford (who lost to Texas) and UCLA (who lost to Washington and USC). The same goes for Indiana vs. DePaul and Oregon State.

 

[domerduck]

Indeed, this is why cherry-picking your facts is the bread and butter of PR specialists, propagandists and fan bases.

Then there's number of losses to teams outside the RPI top 25:
SC 0
Baylor 0
Oregon 1
Maryland 0

If only Oregon hadn't lost that game, they'd easily be the overall #1 seed. But they did. That's also a part of the complete picture.

And you cherry picking facts with your RPI thinking it is somehow factual. For me I trust the coaches and the sportwriters with their top 25 rankings every week more than some silly RPI that oversells lousy conferences like the Big 10.

So # losses to teams currently ranked outside the top 25 ranked in both polls, 0 for all 4 teams. When Oregon lost to Arizona State, they weren't ranked and them beating Oregon got them ranked. When Maryland lost to those 2 Big 10 teams (Northwestern & Iowa) they also weren't ranked at the time and that victory moved them into the rankings. To me it's about the games and how they play which obviously is how those professional writers and coaches see it as they rank the teams, not some mathematical RPI formula.

For me (similar to Florida Duck), I don't care who gets the overall #1 seed, but I think it's a "travesty" (using your word with NW not being a 2 seed) that currently 6th ranked Maryland in both polls gets a 1 seed over UConn or L'ville. That may have been as much the point of Lobo's tweet vs. the title on the ESPN slide which show the facts associated with the current seed projections.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Lobo tweeted she would have South Carolina 1 and Oregon 2 on the seed lines.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

I don't get to watch the Pac 12 a whole bunch.

I guess it is likely South Carolina might have to go through 2-3 Pac 12 teams to win it all, so I'll probably have a better idea.

My general observation is that I saw Stanford play a pretty even game with Miss State and UCLA struggle at Georgia.

I sometimes wonder if we are just having to take the Pac 12s word for some of those teams being really good.

In general women's basketball tends to be pretty simple. If you're really good you don't lost much at all and there aren't that many really good teams.

So when you ask me to believe you've got 6 national level teams in one conference based on them beating each other up...I'm not sure how likely that is.

But at the very least those teams are playing a lot of tough games and that probably means they are pretty tough themselves.

 

[domerduck]

Lobo tweeted she would have South Carolina 1 and Oregon 2 on the seed lines.

Thanks, the linked attachment in the original post only has the picture.

 

[nwhoopfan]

I sometimes wonder if we are just having to take the Pac 12s word for some of those teams being really good.

Ironic, that's how I always feel about the SEC.

 

[Plebe]

And you cherry picking facts with your RPI thinking it is somehow factual. For me I trust the coaches and the sportwriters with their top 25 rankings every week more than some silly RPI that oversells lousy conferences like the Big 10.

So # losses to teams currently ranked outside the top 25 ranked in both polls, 0 for all 4 teams. When Oregon lost to Arizona State, they weren't ranked and them beating Oregon got them ranked. When Maryland lost to those 2 Big 10 teams (Northwestern & Iowa) they also weren't ranked at the time and that victory moved them into the rankings. To me it's about the games and how they play which obviously is how those professional writers and coaches see it as they rank the teams, not some mathematical RPI formula.

For me (similar to Florida Duck), I don't care who gets the overall #1 seed, but I think it's a "travesty" (using your word with NW not being a 2 seed) that currently 6th ranked Maryland in both polls gets a 1 seed over UConn or L'ville. That may have been as much the point of Lobo's tweet vs. the title on the ESPN slide which show the facts associated with the current seed projections.

The word factual doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. The polls, RPI, Massey, EPI, Sagarin, NET and Dick Vitale's Bald Dome Index are equally "factual." Your assessment of their validity or reliability is a separate question.

Notre Dame was ranked #16 / #14 in the preseason polls. Does that mean a win over Notre Dame should be considered more prestigious than a win over any other similarly situated sub-.500 scrub team?

But let's run with your premise that polls are gospel and that poll ranking at the time of the game is more valid than current ranking. Well, it just so happens that ASU was unranked in the polls at the time they beat Oregon. So this means that Oregon's loss to ASU should be considered even more grievous than it actually looks now -- and by far the worst loss among any of the #1 seeds.

Hey, if the "professional writers and coaches" didn't think ASU was a top 25 team before they beat Oregon, who are we to doubt their judgment now? Don't you dare.

 

[Plebe]

I don't get to watch the Pac 12 a whole bunch.

I guess it is likely South Carolina might have to go through 2-3 Pac 12 teams to win it all, so I'll probably have a better idea.

My general observation is that I saw Stanford play a pretty even game with Miss State and UCLA struggle at Georgia.

I sometimes wonder if we are just having to take the Pac 12s word for some of those teams being really good.

In general women's basketball tends to be pretty simple. If you're really good you don't lost much at all and there aren't that many really good teams.

So when you ask me to believe you've got 6 national level teams in one conference based on them beating each other up...I'm not sure how likely that is.

But at the very least those teams are playing a lot of tough games and that probably means they are pretty tough themselves.

Let's just put it this way. South Carolina wouldn't be 18-0 if they were in the Pac-12.

 

[nwhoopfan]

My general observation is that I saw Stanford play a pretty even game with Miss State and UCLA struggle at Georgia.

Hey while we're cherry picking a couple games, the last place team from the Pac 12 beat Arkansas and nearly beat Kentucky, so there's that.

 

[Plebe]

Hey while we're cherry picking a couple games, the last place team from the Pac 12 beat Arkansas and nearly beat Kentucky, so there's that.

Oh let me try. I saw South Carolina struggle to beat Temple. That must mean they’re overrated right?

Overgeneralizing from a sample size of one. It’s not logically sound but it sure is convenient.

 

[UcMiami]

The fact is that with geography playing a fairly big role in the women's bracket and the location of the regionals, the top three teams are going to their natural locations regardless and the teams on the 2 line are likely going to their natural sites as well. The biggest question is who gets the 4th #1 seed, not the order the committee assigns to the other three #1 seeds.

The second issue in my mind is with the Pac12 likely getting 5 teams in the top 4 seed lines why would you penalize the 2 or 3 seeded team by sending them across the country rather than sending at least one of them to Portland. You are going to end up with at least one elite 8 possible match up and yet they are going to penalize one #2 seed by sending them across the country to Portland and another by sending them across the country to Greenville or Fort Wayne?

 

[Plebe]

The fact is that with geography playing a fairly big role in the women's bracket and the location of the regionals, the top three teams are going to their natural locations regardless and the teams on the 2 line are likely going to their natural sites as well. The biggest question is who gets the 4th #1 seed, not the order the committee assigns to the other three #1 seeds.

The second issue in my mind is with the Pac12 likely getting 5 teams in the top 4 seed lines why would you penalize the 2 or 3 seeded team by sending them across the country rather than sending at least one of them to Portland. You are going to end up with at least one elite 8 possible match up and yet they are going to penalize one #2 seed by sending them across the country to Portland and another by sending them across the country to Greenville or Fort Wayne?

Except for Louisville, no one on the 2 line has a “natural” region to go to. UCLA and Stanford can’t go to Portland because the top 4 teams from a conference must go to separate regions if they’re in the top 4 seed lines.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Hey while we're cherry picking a couple games, the last place team from the Pac 12 beat Arkansas and nearly beat Kentucky, so there's that.

If you want to say the PAC 12 less Oregon is pretty comparable to Arkansas and Kentucky that's your business. : )

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Oh let me try. I saw South Carolina struggle to beat Temple. That must mean they’re overrated right?

Overgeneralizing from a sample size of one. It’s not logically sound but it sure is convenient.

About as logically sound as your bringing South Carolina into it.

 

[nwhoopfan]

If you want to say the PAC 12 less Oregon is pretty comparable to Arkansas and Kentucky that's your business. : )

Did you miss the part about it being the last place team? Care to compare to Ole Miss?

 

[TheFarmFan]

Let's just put it this way. South Carolina wouldn't be 18-0 if they were in the Pac-12.

I am skeptical that South Carolina beats Oregon twice, including in an away game at Matthew Knight. But more generally, I think it's much harder to escape from the PAC-12 unscathed, all other things equal. Here's why:

1. The PAC-12 has fewer "rest on your laurels" games in part because three of the worst teams in recent years (WSU, Utah, and Colorado) are in relatively exhausting locations to travel to, as well as at higher elevation, and are therefore are more physically demanding visits. I was not surprised, but impressed, to see that Stanford WCBB has started chartering a plane for those games because the wear and tear in a short weekend traveling to some of the more remote locations is non-trivial.

2. Speaking of which, PAC-12 schedules tend to feature Friday night games and Sunday midday games, which is a much shorter turnaround than, for example, Thursday-Sunday/Monday schedules SEC teams play. In part, this is because PAC-12 teams try to reduce lost class time more than any other major conference I am aware of (unsurprisingly, Ivies are the most focused on avoiding lost class time). This is especially so for teams visiting the Oregon and Arizona schools this year (and in a prior iteration, Stanford and Cal), where they have to scout and confront two really good teams with boisterous fans within 36 hours. I am not aware of any other conference with those kind of regularly scheduled death trap weekends.

3. Many of the PAC-12 schools are on the quarter system (Stanford, UCLA, UW, Oregon, and OSU, that I know of). That schedule is far worse for basketball, in particular, because in many large lecture classes you'll have 1-2 midterms before conference play is over and a final before March Madness even begins. Many semester calendars require facing one mid-term before March Madness. Some semester-calendar schools play three weeks of conference play in January before classes even begin! (This can be offset a bit by carrying larger fall and spring quarter loads and doing a more minimal winter class load, but many student-athletes have majors requiring intensive year-long sequences that cannot be avoided to graduate on time.)

These are all relatively imperceptible to fans, but remember that we're talking about 18-22-year-olds still figuring out how to manage school and athletics, and they help explain why a team might inexplicably just now show up on a given day. I had several friends who were varsity athletes while I was at Stanford and while Stanford has the $$$ to offset many of these disadvantages to meaningful degree (through private travel, tutors, physio staff, etc.), none of the schools in the PAC-12 are as well endowed, and even some of the Stanford athletes thought these were non-trivial issues in terms of affecting on the field/court performance.

Yes, this is something of a tangent, but I do think it's harder to be consistently excellent week in, week out, given these issues. So no, I don't think South Carolina would go 18-0. Finis.

 

[Jorislove]

Dawn Staley was not happy

 

[Gamecockfan77]

To be clear, this has nothing to do with Oregon.

I have said and still think they are the team to beat.

I think healthy Stanford Is plenty good too.