Well that may be your opinion but I can most certainly assure you it's not the committee's.
Hummmmmmmm
Exactly, the list must be followed unless they don't want to. However no matter what they do to try and control things, the games are decided on the court, by the teams.
Nan, I know you’ve watched these seeding determinations play out over many seasons, as have I. I have never seen a top 5 team get beaten at home in February as badly as SC was beaten yesterday and still retain their seeding advantage. If I’m wrong we’ll know in a few weeks and you can tell me, “I told you so.”
www.espn.com
The thing is, you could end up being right for the wrong reason. The Committee isn’t going to use one game to determine seeding but let’s imagine the Committee members wake up in a good mood and decide to bestow a #1 seed on UConn. It happens. i didn’t use the word capricious without reason or history to back it upNan, I know you’ve watched these seeding determinations play out over many seasons, as have I. I have never seen a top 5 team get beaten at home in February as badly as SC was beaten yesterday and still retain their seeding advantage. If I’m wrong we’ll know in a few weeks and you can tell me, “I told you so.”
Flip the statement around. In the many seasons I've watched, I've never seen a team with a clearly superior resume get seeded below a team with a clearly inferior resume solely on the basis of one head-to-head result.Nan, I know you’ve watched these seeding determinations play out over many seasons, as have I. I have never seen a top 5 team get beaten at home in February as badly as SC was beaten yesterday and still retain their seeding advantage. If I’m wrong we’ll know in a few weeks and you can tell me, “I told you so.”
So you’re suggesting that UConn could still be a #1 seed even if they lost to SC yesterday?
And the explanation is an easy one: "We base our seeding decisions on the entire season, not just one game."
UConn’s resume is hardly clearly inferior as their NET ranking makes clear. Let’s all put a cork in this until the final seedings are completed and made public.
A NET ranking is not a resume. A resume is who you've beaten and who you've lost to.
Here's a question I can't answer, but maybe somebody has time to research: In the relatively short window where the selection committee has provided "reveals", have there even been any Top Five teams receiving anything close to such a loss at home and retain (or improve) the seeding they had in the first reveal?Nan, I know you’ve watched these seeding determinations play out over many seasons, as have I. I have never seen a top 5 team get beaten at home in February as badly as SC was beaten yesterday and still retain their seeding advantage. If I’m wrong we’ll know in a few weeks and you can tell me, “I told you so.”
Sorry @oldude it's the BY, no way that's gonna happen. In fact when the Week 16 AP is announced any minute now, let's see what that thread leads to.
You’re bouncing back and force. First it was UConn’s resume is “clearly inferior.” Now we have to use a “holistic assessment” of quality wins. So again I suggest that rather than bouncing back and forth on this, let’s see what happens between now and the end of the season.
But interestingly, at the left this shows our NET ranking has just gone from 2 to 1 and SC fell from 1 to 2. Not sure how I can claim this is "our" ranking, I should say it the the team's ranking. I know my rooting for them is vitally important to their winning, but still I am not a person who counts for the team limit of 15 players. I am not even a coach.
Here it is, hot off the press - The NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Committee revealed its top 16 seeds Sunday afternoon. Four hours later the list was ready for the shredder. While UConn's stunning win over South Carolina doesn't change the seed for either team. Apology accepted!
I’ve been doing my daily affirmations and manifestations this season.
You are cherry-picking a comment from ESPN’s WBB pundits, none of whom are on the Selection Committee. But since you want to go that route, please carefully read Charlie Crème’s analysis under the subheading, “The number 1 seeds are still fluid.” Creme makes many of the same points that I have made. UConn is not a number 1 seed yet, but they’ve “closed the gap.” They will need help, but that help may exist. He points out that both USC & UCLA were losing yesterday deep into the 4th qtr. He also confirms my opinion that LSU is no longer in the running for a #1 seed.
You would flunk high school debate. There is an ocean of space between "absolutely no bearing" and "absolutely determinative".
I love how folks jump in here with a non-sequitur that has little relationship to the original discussion. For the record, my sarcastic use of the term “absolutely no bearing” relates to my being described as misinformed for suggesting that “head to head” competition, a factor confirmed to be part of the NCAA Selection Committee’s criteria, did in fact have a bearing on their selections.
You didn't just suggest that head to head competition has "a bearing" (which of course it does). You stated emphatically that it trumps everything else. Where do you see that in the Selection Committee's criteria?