CL82
James Breeding sucks
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 63,735
- Reaction Score
- 250,157
Apparently the replay got 50,000 less viewers.
It's supposed to be difficult.
- Thread starter RedStickHusky
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2021
- Messages
- 2,513
- Reaction Score
- 6,576
You're right, I made a mistake about Michigan being #5 when they're #8.
The Feb. 28th reveal sent the weakest #2 seed Michigan (8) and the strongest #3 seed UConn (9) to the #1 region overall.
But what the committee did does seem to balance out the Greensboro region and could help UConn with an easier path to the Elite 8.
Committee touts South Carolina, Stanford, NC State and Louisville as top seeds in final reveal
Fourteen days from Selection Sunday, the NCAA Division I Women’s Basketball Committee named South Carolina, Stanford, NC State and Louisville as the four No. 1 seeds as part of the committee’s final top-16 reveal of the season. The four teams have combined to win 42 straight games going into March.
www.ncaa.com
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 7,168
- Reaction Score
- 28,519
One factor with viewer comparisons is when the game was played. Was the game on when the NFL was playing or after the NFL season. Was it a noon game or a 4PM game (1pm on the west coast) or maybe it was a 9pm game in California (midnight on the east coast).
Lets wait and see the numbers for the NCAA tournament now that all the games are viewable live in their entirety. That would be a fairer measurement.
Lets wait and see the numbers for the NCAA tournament now that all the games are viewable live in their entirety. That would be a fairer measurement.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 551
- Reaction Score
- 1,714
Not picking on you MD#12Fan, you are just one of many who point out the unfairness to Dawn (or any of the other high seeds that might face us as a lower seed). I can't remember a year in the last 20 years where the seeding was totally "fair". It doesn't matter, you just need to be the last team standing. In the games for the final four you're almost always going to be facing a good team: If you're a team that knows you won't win it all and is just trying to get to let's say the sweet 16, seedings matter; if you're trying to win it all, you're going to have to play them anyway.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2013
- Messages
- 7,403
- Reaction Score
- 20,038
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2013
- Messages
- 7,403
- Reaction Score
- 20,038
But the poster I replied to paraphrase said "that you have to throw out the metrics to grant UCONN . . ." Yet aren't you agreeing with me that there is metrics? That was my point.
As for perfection, which metrics is perfect? And which metric can you cite that accounts for injuries other than some form of an injury metric? Especially what UCONN went through? Regardless of how you felt they should have performed without 6 other players the fact is they didn't have them. That should count. And it should count enormously when it's a former NPOY that was ,missing and is now back. That's not a "normal" addition to the team (and to WCBB).
So we're supposed to throw out the metrics that can be favorable to UCONN and minimize the injury situation because some fans want to stick out their chest and say "So what, we're UCONN?"
I have to say - I have a little of that in me too. Though I'm not so into that FF streak other than to argue with some on here that make comments like "Geno has jumped the shark. . . which was said on here and some (Note I say "some" not "all) other over-the-top criticisms. Instead, I'm looking at it like UCONN is playing with house money. If they get a 3 seed so be it. I think it very silly as of this moment. But maybe after BE I won't. But this stinks for SC. I know this is a UCONN board and we don't give a damn about nearly any other team, but imo I'm only trying to be fair. I know some (maybe you as well) don't think that I am.
But imo one issue is SC deserves better. It has nothing to do with them "being scared." Just remember if in a few years from now if the shoe were on the other foot and a similar swap happened and UCONN gets stuck with a team potentially like UCONN is in our region, then no one can tell me "You were pretty silent when UCONN was a 3 seed . . . so you have nothing to complain about."
So if SC beats UCONN now and Boston whips us. But next year she is hurt along with 5 other core players from SC while UCONN's next season they don't have much a center but are awesome number 1 -and SC comes back healthy and Boston is back and it appears they are peaking - and they put SC in our region; then yeah I'll probably complain again about the selection process.
.-.
My post is specifically responding to the Net ranking system and not relating to the original poster. In my personal opinion, the NET model needs to be recalibrated to reconsider its weights on margin of victory. I suspect (without trying to review the raw numbers feeding to the models) UCONN, NC, and other's teams have many games with large victory margin against more weaker team are skewing their relative position more than it should. I believe the committee realizes that and added their subjective view of how they would seed teams. Unfortunately, no one can exactly know how they did it unless you are part of the group. If NET or any ranking system is perfect, we wouldn't need the committee anymore
.Injury assessment has always been difficult to assess. While committee should consider it, but it really should weight its consideration more on actual game they can observe because that is less subjective than these hypothetical scenarios people are constructing. UConn looks great the last few games. But how would they react to a significantly better defense from a team like Louisville, where the players are more athletic, organize, and deep relative to the BE teams? How would these player coming back (I don't assume they are back to 100% yet) handle this kind of pressure the entire game? Louisville might be very inconsistent on its offense, their defense is top notch and consistent. These are things Q3 and Q4 defense will not be able to expose. Thus using them as eye test is not conclusive.
Lastly, regarding to the case of fairness, I think the biggest unfairness is to place one team with home court advantage against another team that is higher and close in seeding. I understand the economic reasoning, but it does not make it fair. I personally think a compromise can be make to elevate UCONN to a 2 seed, but I hope they are not in Bridgeport. I rather see them show up at Final Four because they are really that good and without any advantage. I rather put my focus on watching a beautiful game of basketball between two teams on neutral setting.
UCONN being a 3 seed and not playing at Bridgeport due to past injuries isn't a bad things. It developed player more so than they would otherwise and gives player opportunity to learn to be more fluid and creative with their role. It also exposes some development weaknesses in the system. UCONN's bench typically consists of players ranks higher than most other team's starter (Yes, even the two freshman that hardly see the court). It is not unreasonable for people to expect more (maybe even the committee). Geno will probably get alot out of this as I don't think he ever has to deal with something like this before. Maybe he will modify his system to integrate new players earlier. I honestly believe it is good for the team as a whole. At the end of the day, this team's ceiling is so super high, every team has to go through SC to get the title. Playing them in the regional is not so bad. Also Stanford and other top seeds are well coached as well. Any of them can still give us a great final.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2013
- Messages
- 7,403
- Reaction Score
- 20,038
This is a good post but you do agree with me that the NCAA has a metric at its disposal to use, right? You may not like the metric but the NCAA has adopted it, so they could use it how they see fit, right?My post is specifically responding to the Net ranking system and not relating to the original poster. In my personal opinion, the NET model needs to be recalibrated to reconsider its weights on margin of victory. I suspect (without trying to review the raw numbers feeding to the models) UCONN, NC, and other's teams have many games with large victory margin against more weaker team are skewing their relative position more than it should. I believe the committee realizes that and added their subjective view of how they would seed teams. Unfortunately, no one can exactly know how they did it unless you are part of the group. If NET or any ranking system is perfect, we wouldn't need the committee anymore
Injury assessment has always been difficult to assess. While committee should consider it, but it really should weight its consideration more on actual game they can observe because that is less subjective than these hypothetical scenarios people are constructing. UConn looks great the last few games. But how would they react to a significantly better defense from a team like Louisville, where the players are more athletic, organize, and deep relative to the BE teams? How would these player coming back (I don't assume they are back to 100% yet) handle this kind of pressure the entire game? Louisville might be very inconsistent on its offense, their defense is top notch and consistent. These are things Q3 and Q4 defense will not be able to expose. Thus using them as eye test is not conclusive.
Lastly, regarding to the case of fairness, I think the biggest unfairness is to place one team with home court advantage against another team that is higher and close in seeding. I understand the economic reasoning, but it does not make it fair. I personally think a compromise can be make to elevate UCONN to a 2 seed, but I hope they are not in Bridgeport. I rather see them show up at Final Four because they are really that good and without any advantage. I rather put my focus on watching a beautiful game of basketball between two teams on neutral setting.
UCONN being a 3 seed and not playing at Bridgeport due to past injuries isn't a bad things. It developed player more so than they would otherwise and gives player opportunity to learn to be more fluid and creative with their role. It also exposes some development weaknesses in the system. UCONN's bench typically consists of players ranks higher than most other team's starter (Yes, even the two freshman that hardly see the court). It is not unreasonable for people to expect more (maybe even the committee). Geno will probably get alot out of this as I don't think he ever has to deal with something like this before. Maybe he will modify his system to integrate new players earlier. I honestly believe it is good for the team as a whole. At the end of the day, this team's ceiling is so super high, every team has to go through SC to get the title. Playing them in the regional is not so bad. Also Stanford and other top seeds are well coached as well. Any of them can still give us a great final.
Net Rankings is a system that they are using. If they are using it, it has value. If they felt as you suggest then they wouldn't be using it. or would have had another system or would have modified this before implementing it in which they exclude margin of victory. But they felt margin of victory was important, didn’t they? It’s your personal opinion that is flawed. But again what system isn't flawed?
And they do include injuries, which means they are open to being subjective. If you are going to be subjective, then what is more apparent than what happened to UCONN? The point of having a committee and looking at injuries also means that you are going to be subjective.
The point is- if you are going to say injuries count which means you are being subjective, and you are going to adopt a metric that you have promoted as part of your new evaluation system which probably better evaluates injuries than any other, now all of a sudden these factors are to be minimized?
And part of my argument is that it is not fair to SC. If you want UCONN out of Bridgeport, fine.
But as you say economics is part of it. So because this one part of playing at home is unfair then we should also make other things unfair such as making it harder for SC? "Two" wrongs don’t make a right.
And Quality and Efficiency is superior to any other metric they have when it comes to injury. Otherwise which metric is superior? They can't arbitrarily not use it. They adopted it and did not exclude margin of victory. Thus it is a metric they should value.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2017
- Messages
- 2,249
- Reaction Score
- 12,206
It's also rather interesting that the NET and the Committee rankings are mirror images for #s 1-4... then they get to UCONN at #5 NET and they no longer match... I am not suggesting anything underhanded but it sure is odd...
Just sayin'
Last edited:
RedStickHusky
formerly SeoulHuskyFan
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 4,827
- Reaction Score
- 19,659
I posted this thread to kick the selection committee around while killing time before Saturday. It's been fun with an interesting diversity of opinions... Speaking for myself, I do not think it is the committee's job to predict who's going to play better in the tournament than they have all season. They have to fashion a bracket that reflects the season. Yes, they have metrics but like any self-respecting committee they claim the space to make some subjective decisions. Additionally, the requirement to separate conference mates forces some deviation from the baseline metrics. It's a tall task, one I don't envy them. Of the three arguments I see being made the most here, injuries, fairness, and economics, I'd say that injuries is the one that gives them the most opportunity to make adjustments. That being said, if I was on the committee my view would be that injuries might excuse a dip in performance, but they can't be used to assume a level that hasn't been demonstrated. If a team is performing at a certain level and falls off for a game or games due to injury, I can see giving them a pass on those losses. I can't see saying that a player coming back that hasn't played for most of the year is going to lift them to a level that they have not shown; and it shouldn't matter at all what that player did last season. Fairness? It's in the eye of the beholder... Are you going to punish Louisville to be fair to SC? Economics? I'm sure they don't want to be seen as giving somebody an advantage for the sake of box office; besides, the Bridgeport tickets are already sold.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2015
- Messages
- 1,499
- Reaction Score
- 4,892
A team will never play all 4 one seeds.
4 seed: 13, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1 should be 13, 5, 1, 2, 1, 1
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 7,168
- Reaction Score
- 28,519
It's not the sole FACTOR but it is the sole metric mentioned in their seeding rules and they say quite a bit about it while never mentioning any other measure or even poll.
.-.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2013
- Messages
- 7,403
- Reaction Score
- 20,038
Well we don't agree here obviously.
1--- It is the committee's job imo to project who is going to play better or worse. They do it when they seed at some level. And -injuries shouldn't be used one way that you can only project downward. Who says it should only be used to push a team downward while at the same time give no consideration to a team's additions such as last year's NPOY as an example?
2--- And I think to not take into account a NPOY of last year in which she was sensational this year before being hurt and then when she comes back the team is showing sensational performances not seen the entire year, I think it wrong then to not include that or minimize the effect.
3--- In terms of performance, isn’t that what Net Rankings is measuring? Isn't that why NCAA identified it as a factor to use? If it is measuring performance, then how can there be any comment of "UCONN has not performed?" Otherwise, we arbitrarily throw out Net Rankings when we feel like it? It's "telling us" that UCONN "has performed," isn't it?
What I'm suggesting is that imo Net Rankings combined with injuries tell a logical story. A logical story that the NCAA should have no problem using. Same with Charlie. This UCONN team is different. Logic tells us that through the use of Net Rankings and Injuries. Add in the economics; it's wrong at this moment (the moment could change) to not make UCONN a 2 seed and not penalize South Carolina.
4-- As for fairness, yes it is in the eye of the beholder but it doesn't mean we should give up trying to be fair. They employ the S-Curve in some manner to try to be fair. So they are to wash their hands of any further attempts to trying to be fair? Again that’s a computer talking imo.
I just looked up because I was never cared that much before but am I right in what I see?--: SC got 30 of 30 1st place votes? Is that true?
5--- If UCONN falters a bit in the BE Tourney then great put them back to a 3 or even 4.
RedStickHusky
formerly SeoulHuskyFan
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 4,827
- Reaction Score
- 19,659
That's right. Thanks.
RedStickHusky
formerly SeoulHuskyFan
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 4,827
- Reaction Score
- 19,659
We agree on that.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2013
- Messages
- 7,403
- Reaction Score
- 20,038
Thanks for the conversation. Enjoyed.