Monday's Bracketology and Explanation

[Wbbfan1]

http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/bracketology

Charlie Creme Column: http://espn.go.com/womens-college-b...hip-week-produces-plenty-bracketology-changes

Stanford still have the easiest bracket. Duke may have played ND tough, but no way are they competitive enough to reach the Final Four, never mind the elite 8.

While I think Geno's team is too strong defensively, don't like North Carolina in the bracket. They're a dangerous 4 seed.

 

[jdubct]

http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/bracketology
.

While I think Geno's team is too strong defensively, don't like North Carolina in the bracket. They're a dangerous 4 seed.

North Carolina does not have the defensive intensity to beat Uconn.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Technically, a bad loss is one outside of the top 100, but as Charlie knows, potential #1 seeds are evaluated differently than would the bubble teams. Defeats to the #72 rated Sagarin team for Stanford or even the #65 team for Baylor are indeed ones that will make evaluators hold their nose. If you lose to a team outside of the top 50 you just should not be in the discussion for a #1 seed. But I guess this year the case is being made that those types of losses are entirely acceptable and even understandable as these teams were just feeling a little down or something.

 

[ndmb]

Technically, a bad loss is one outside of the top 100, but as Charlie knows, potential #1 seeds are evaluated differently than would the bubble teams. Defeats to the #72 rated Sagarin team for Stanford or even the #65 team for Baylor are indeed ones that will make evaluators hold their nose. If you lose to a team outside of the top 50 you just should not be in the discussion for a #1 seed. But I guess this year the case is being made that those types of losses are entirely acceptable and even understandable as these teams were just feeling a little down or something.

More to the point, there have to be four #1 seeds and only two don't have a bad loss AND have some good wins. Stanford has Washington and USC, Tennessee has Vandy, Baylor has Kansas, WVU has OSU, and Louisville's best win is against Rutgers. Interestingly, South Carolina has good wins and no bad losses, but lost two out of their last three, which likely puts them out of contention.

As for North Carolina, I agree that we shouldn't want them in our bracket. When facing lower-seeded teams, you want to play the team that is most consistent. We don't care if our four seed falls apart or not (as UNC is more likely to), because we'd beat them anyways. However, UNC plays like a top-five team when their shots are falling, and I'd rather not have the small chance of a competitive game in the Sweet Sixteen.

 

[semper]

Hate to say it, but this UNC group (whom I dislike on the gut level...and find my distaste for them hard to understand), is going to be hard to beat when they are seniors. For now...OK...but they will improve and the raw talent is just sick.

 

[UcMiami]

Dobbs - I also find the dismissal of the BIG12 as being suspect while praising the SEC to be comical - as far as I am concerned there is only one power conference in WCBB this year and it is the ACC. The SEC and Big12 are full of mediocre teams that mostly played joke OOC schedules, followed by the Pac and Big10 that have no distinguishing features, followed by the AAC that at least has two very good teams and a pair of mediocre teams, followed by the new BE that is just mediocre teams, followed by the traditional mid majors. What stands out to me in the discussion of a team like TN is that they still only have one win against a team ranked in the top 10 in the last x number of years - their win against SC which is beginning to look suspect as well - I am guessing that by the final year end rankings SC will reside outside the top 10 again.

 

[UcMiami]

Hate to say it, but this UNC group (whom I dislike on the gut level...and find my distaste for them hard to understand), is going to be hard to beat when they are seniors. For now...OK...but they will improve and the raw talent is just sick.

Agree that the talent is very good but ... while individual skills may improve I haven't seen anything from UNC over the years to suspect that discipline which is what makes a great team will improve in three years. UNC coaches have never cared about defense or turnovers - not a recipe for a great team, but for a team that can play great today and stink tomorrow. The NCAA with three or four competitive games in a row calls for consistency as well as talent.

 

[DobbsRover2]

It's certainly not easy this year to sort out the 3-8 or so teams. It's especially tough when the one who has the third best resume is a Duke team that won't get a #1 look because it won no conference championships and has had late season injuries.

In the end as many have noted, it may not really matter since the difference between being a #1 or #2 is probably not that huge, especially since the #2 seeds in recent years have often gotten to play a lot of low seeds. It's the #3 seed you don't want to get stuck with if recent history is an indicator. Once the tourney starts, no one will care anymore and everyone will just be focusing on their next matchup.

 

[baggerbob]

To have Stanford still a 1 seed after losing in their tournament before the final game is beyond believe. South Carolina dropped as they should to a 2 seed, but at least lost to a ranked team. His really dumb move was West Virginia, who closed season fast , and is in the Big 12 championship game trending down to a 3 seed. Apparently he threw darts at a board, and came out wrong, his logic is terrible, and can't be explained. He had an original matrix, and doesn't want to deviate from it. Lunardi tears his original brackets apart by this time, with all the changes he makes.

 

[NickyNewark]

Hate to say it, but this UNC group (whom I dislike on the gut level...and find my distaste for them hard to understand), is going to be hard to beat when they are seniors. For now...OK...but they will improve and the raw talent is just sick.

I've made the same observation. Some young thoroughbreds there!

 

[DobbsRover2]

Charlie also has Florida hanging out as a #12 seed, a spot almost always reserved for mid majors. Only once in the last 8 years and 32 #12 selections has one of them been a major conference team, and that team had 13 losses. If the Gators need to make the tourney in Charlie's brackets, they really should be down in an 11th slot.

 

[Icebear]

Hate to say it, but this UNC group (whom I dislike on the gut level...and find my distaste for them hard to understand), is going to be hard to beat when they are seniors. For now...OK...but they will improve and the raw talent is just sick.

They should be but if nothing happens to better organize them and bring them discipline in there game they will remain beatable.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

As I've stated several times before this will be the most athletic talented team that NEVER reaches a Final 4! Sylvia Hatchell ("I don't care if we have 100 turnovers as long as we play fast!") will make this team underachieves! If it wasn't for Sylvia Crawley's 3 pointer with 1 sec. left vs GA Hatchell would have no NC! She is among the worst game coaches in the USA! Even though she's on the sidelines her staff thru her will screw it up! UCONN with the best defense in Div. I would beat NoCar. by 20+ pts.

 

[Patrick Lilly]

I find it hard to believe that there are 12 teams better than North Carolina right now. To me, they should be a 3 seed.

 

[Vowelguy]

They should be but if nothing happens to better organize them and bring them discipline in there game they will remain beatable.

The level of schadenfreude about UNC blows my mind.
The team is pretty much all frosh + 1 soph. They have no upperclassmen leadership, a substitute coach, and -again- they're pretty much all frosh. What they accomplished this year was pretty impressive.

 

[doggydaddy]

The level of schadenfreude about UNC blows my mind.
The team is pretty much all frosh + 1 soph. They have no upperclassmen leadership, a substitute coach, and -again- they're pretty much all frosh. What they accomplished this year was pretty impressive.

Not really. With the talent they have, even young talent, they did about as good as expected.

So far.

 

[DobbsRover2]

The level of schadenfreude about UNC blows my mind.
The team is pretty much all frosh + 1 soph. They have no upperclassmen leadership, a substitute coach, and -again- they're pretty much all frosh. What they accomplished this year was pretty impressive.

All true, but they have had some pretty wild swings in performance which leave many people uncomfortable, as we prefer teams that we can get a good handle on and can place in a tidy spot in the ratings and rankings. Personally I would not want my team going up against them if it was a top team simply because you never know when a young team is going to pull it all together, play some defense, and go on a big run. The Heels may still be more likely to implode, but they are something of a wild card, and wild cards are frightening.

 

[Zorro]

Agree that the talent is very good but ... while individual skills may improve I haven't seen anything from UNC over the years to suspect that discipline which is what makes a great team will improve in three years. UNC coaches have never cared about defense or turnovers - not a recipe for a great team, but for a team that can play great today and stink tomorrow. The NCAA with three or four competitive games in a row calls for consistency as well as talent.

Sylvia has been squandering great talent since Heck was a pup, as my gram used to say. I strongly doubt that this group will be any different. My guess is that they will continue to play like an all-star team, combining great individual moves with a lack of teamwork and coordination.

 

[Tonyc]

The analysis is good saying the AAC is weak which it is but playing UConn 3 times makes the argument. Also everybody is talking about the AAC being so tuff. There is alot of talent in the threACC however imo defense is a problem. Watching ND run through the conference with pretty much ease makes me wonder if the conference isnt a little over rated. Again the ACC has alot of talent but to me its alot of one on one and poor defense.

 

[UConnCat]

One the unanswered questions during Creme's Bracketology discussion is whether the selection committee will apply the G-curve this year given the geography of 3 of the sites and seeded teams hosting at on-campus venues. Unlike the men's selection committee, which changed its rules/principles over the summer and identified those changes both in an August press release and during its Feb mock selection process with the media, it's been the sounds of silence from the women's committee. Some here have wondered whether Creme has inside info from the committee that says the same principles will apply. Based on a twitter exchange with Doris Burke last week it seems Creme knows as much as the rest of us.

Doug Feinberg ‏@DougFeinberg Mar 3
It would be flat out wrong to have @UConnWBB and @UofLWBB be in same regional

Charlie Creme ‏@CharlieCreme Mar 3
@DougFeinberg I agree that's as it should be,Doug, but it would go completely against the principles application for the last few yrs.

Doris Burke ‏@heydb Mar 3
@DougFeinberg @CharlieCreme @RebeccaLobo @UConnWBB @UofLWBB Charlie- do you think they will have the chops to do it?

Charlie Creme ‏@CharlieCreme Mar 3
@heydb @DougFeinberg @RebeccaLobo @UConnWBB @UofLWBB I hope UConn and LV are separated, but didn't stop RU-UConn or A&M-Baylor.

Charlie Creme ‏@CharlieCreme Mar 3
@heydb @DougFeinberg @RebeccaLobo @UConnWBB @UofLWBB It is what keeps me up at night trying to figure out if the thinking will change

 

[Phil]

If it wasn't for Sylvia Crawley's 3 pointer with 1 sec. left vs GA Hatchell would have no NC!

I assume you mean Charlotte Smith, who hit one of the greatest shots in NCAA Tourney history.

 

[Phil]

Some here have wondered whether Creme has inside info from the committee that says the same principles will apply. Based on a twitter exchange with Doris Burke last week it seems Creme knows as much as the rest of us.

Charlie confirmed that with me recently.

If the committee has not updated the Principles and Procedures to reflect the substantial changes, they are guilty of malpractice.

If they have updated them, and refused to share them with the public or even insiders, they are guilty of a lack of transparency. I fervently hope it is the latter.

 

[huskybill]

I assume you mean Charlotte Smith, who hit one of the greatest shots in NCAA Tourney history.

And wasn't the game against LA Tech?

 

[UConnCat]

Charlie confirmed that with me recently.

If the committee has not updated the Principles and Procedures to reflect the substantial changes, they are guilty of malpractice.

If they have updated them, and refused to share them with the public or even insiders, they are guilty of a lack of transparency. I fervently hope it is the latter.

I too hope it's the latter, but I find the former more plausible. I find it difficult to believe that the committee would change its principles and procedures and not announce those changes before the season begins. That's exactly what the men's committee did and it's the only way to avoid the appearance that the changes are result-oriented.

 

[DobbsRover2]

And wasn't the game against LA Tech?

Oh the niggling little details. It at least was a three-pointer -- for Charlotte Smith of UNC for the win over LA Tech. And it was Sylvia Crawley who later interviewed Smith about the shot. So leave the poor reference alone.