NCAA tournament seeding - facts and myths

[Vowelguy]

Quad 1 Record (undefeated against Q2-Q4 unless noted)

Texas 11-2
SoCar 10-3
UCLA 9-1
USC 8-2

ND 5-2
LSU 5-2
TCU 5-3
UConn 4-3

UNC 4-2 -- Also has 2 Q2 losses
Kentucky 4-3 -- Also has a Q3 loss
OklaSt 4-2 -- Also has a Q2, Q3, and Q4 loss

 

[cordarone]

Charlie obviously doesn't read the 'yard:

While UConn's stunning win over South Carolina doesn't change the seed for either team,...

ESPN Latest Bracket Projection

 

[Crossover]

Please show me where I supposedly said, “emphatically that it trumps everything else?” I actually sited 4 Selection Committee criteria that all supported UConn’s position ahead of SC. Again, you’re getting creative in your argument.

Honestly, I have no problem going back and forth with you on this. But let’s stick to the facts.

I'm not deeply invested in this conversation, and will happily bow out. However, I will pay you the respect of answering your question.

In post #6 in this thread you said: "At an absolute minimum, UConn's statement win yesterday in Columbia vaults the Huskies ahead of SC in the overall seeding determination for the Big Dance."

The italicized phrase is what I take to be your claim that the Huskies head to head victory is a trump card. That said, it may be that you view the UConn's demolition of SC as giving the Huskies an edge on all four of the criteria you cite -- early performance vs. late, head to head outcomes, observable component, and significant wins. However, at an absolute minimum, that is double counting, if not triple or quadruple. While the win is both a head to head victory and a significant win, the former necessarily entails the latter whenever the opponent is worth talking about.

As for the "observable component" criterion, it is vague and nebulous, and not something that anyone can make an "absolute" judgment about. One of my non-absolute "observable" judgments is that SC got caught up in the Game Day madness, the fan adoration, and the media-reinforced belief that the Huskies are on the decline, and forgot that it needed to play basketball. The teams spent hours before the game being distracted by nonsense. That will not happen again. Re early performance versus late, that can't be determined until the completion of the regular season plus conference tournaments. I don't believe that a single game, even if it is the most recent, reveals much about trajectory.

For what it is worth, I agree with you that UConn's victory should, and probably will, account for more than "little to nothing" in the seedings. However, I disagree that it will "at an absolute minimum" vault the Huskies past the Roosters in the overall seeding. My quarrel is less with your overstated analysis than it is with your dismissiveness and sarcasm, which borders on the puerile. However, you do you. Peace. Out.

 

[Plebe]

Hypothetically, suppose that South Carolina loses its upcoming regular season game to #8 Kentucky, but then wins everything else including the SEC Tournament. Would two "bad losses" (to UConn because of the MOV and to Kentucky as a lower-NET team) knock it off the #1 seeding line in the tournament?

I would think so, provided that none of the other contenders for a #1 seed stumble along the way. And that is despite the quality wins earlier in the SEC season.

There are any number of scenarios and hypotheticals that are fun to contemplate, and if SC's performance yesterday was any indication, they very well might be vulnerable to a team of Kentucky's or Vandy's or Ole Miss's caliber (their 3 opponents to end the regular season). That would at least make the decision interesting for the committee. It would still only be a loss roughly comparable to UConn's loss to Tennessee.

 

[Plebe]

Quad 1 Record (undefeated against Q2-Q4 unless noted)

Texas 11-2
SoCar 10-3
UCLA 9-1
USC 8-2

ND 5-2
LSU 5-2
TCU 5-3
UConn 4-3

Seeing these Quad 1 records really drives home why the committee ranked Texas as highly as they did (at #3 overall). And after yesterday's results, they're sitting even better.

UNC 4-2 -- Also has 2 Q2 losses
Kentucky 4-3 -- Also has a Q3 loss
OklaSt 4-2 -- Also has a Q2, Q3, and Q4 loss

So nice of you to use red to honor my Coogs!

 

[icednct]

UConn should be a #1 seed period.
They are #1 in the net
They beat #2 in the net (also #14,30,36)
They have no bad loses, 3 loses (#4,6&11 NET)
If they don't get a #1 seed you are punishing them for scheduling hard.
Most importantly as OP stated INJURIES Factor.
They are finally playing healthy. Look what AZZI did against the #2 NET team in the nation!!

 

[Skeets]

Guys, read the NCAA item I linked above. This is how the seeding is done. We can’t make up our own methodology.

How the field of 68 DI women’s teams is picked for March Madness

The NCAA’s guide to how the 68 teams are chosen, seeded and bracketed for the Division I women's basketball tournament.

www.ncaa.com

View attachment 107072

Nan, please consider that you are the victim of NCAA propaganda. Basically they can do what they want and they have done some bizarre things in the past. All the "soft" criteria are for CYA purposes. License to do what they want. Often they can't explain what they did or their explanations ring very hollow. Remember several years ago after explaining their (very weak) rational for a particular seeding it was pointed out that UConn had beaten the other team. The chairperson was speechless. So much for science. Nice.

 

[Skeets]

You have to compare the entire resume, not one game. So Carolina has more good wins than UConn. Head to head helps but it’s not THE determining factor

View attachment 107077

That is not 100% UConn's fault. It says more about the rest of the BE than what it says about the strength of UConn's team. Is it fair and righteous to punish UConn because the rest of the BE sucks and can't get into Quad 1? What is also telling are the lack of Quad 2/3/4 losses. But everyone has very few of those.

 

[Husky fanatic]

For me, I just want them to be in the Birmingham bracket. That’s where I have tickets and I would like to see them there regardless of where they’re seeded.

 

[Skeets]

For me, I just want them to be in the Birmingham bracket. That’s where I have tickets and I would like to see them there regardless of where they’re seeded.

Last year I had Albany tickets, but I was able to sell them at a nice profit. If I recall correctly CC was in Albany which probably helped the resale price.

 

[Zarathustra]

Well that may be your opinion but I can most certainly assure you it's not the committee's.

The committee is going to look at the resumes holistically. The committee is not made up of 9 UConn homers who post daily on the team's fan forum. Which means they're not going to cherry pick a single data point while disregarding the rest.

There is something called "THE EYE TEST". What I saw on SUNDAY
was a visual "EYE TEST". I believe that among the elite teams that
"On any given day". etc. But "ON" Sunday, and UCONN was "ON", and
the "EYE" test is (IMHO) "ON" UCONN's side. Of course, like a
jury, the opinion of the NCAA "committees" is "OUT" until selection
Sunday. Their OPINION is still "IN" the future... remains to be determined
by them. Most of the BONEYARD's "opinion" is well recorded on the
Blog. I'm happy that "Plebe" has confidence in the committee's
guidelines. But for myself, I'm VERY happy about 87 - 58, MOV 29. GO HUSKIES!

 

[PacoSwede]

intriguing discussion ... very entertaining/funny at times

in the end, the seeding won't count for much. no team will reach the final goal unless it's victorious in the final six games and winning vs. losing in each depends on how well the team plays that day regardless of its opponent. the huskies can win any WCBB game -- or lose -- depending on their own performance. i think their chances are good against all comers. we shall see. that's what makes the tourney exciting/nerve wracking for all.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

For those young pups that don't know about the NCAA WBB Division I Committee in 2001, here's the facts!
UConn lost to ND during the season and ND entered the Big East Tournament as the #1 seed.
UConn was the #2 seed'
With the score tied 76 all with just seconds left in the BE Finals Sue Bird goes the length of the court hitting the game winner!UConn wins the BE Tournament!
The next week the Division I WBB Seeding Committee, chaired by Sue Donohoe, meets and makes ND the #1 overall seed with UConn the #2 seed!
In the TV interview presenting the brackets on Selection Monday the Committee Chairwoman Sue Donohoe tells how they reached their seeding and was asked, "How was ND picked as the #1 seed over UConn?" Sue replied "Because they beat UConn twice, one during the season and in the BE Finals!" The reporter says, "No, UConn beat ND on Sue Birds buzzer beater!"
Sue replies (with a shocked look on her face), oh did they?

 

[Vowelguy]

What is also telling are the lack of Quad 2/3/4 losses. But everyone has very few of those.

None of the top 8 have quad 2-4 losses.

 

[Vowelguy]

For those young pups that don't know about the NCAA WBB Division I Committee in 2001, here's the facts!
UConn lost to ND during the season and ND entered the Big East Tournament as the #1 seed.
UConn was the #2 seed'
With the score tied 76 all with just seconds left in the BE Finals Sue Bird goes the length of the court hitting the game winner!UConn wins the BE Tournament!
The next week the Division I WBB Seeding Committee, chaired by Sue Donohoe, meets and makes ND the #1 overall seed with UConn the #2 seed!
In the TV interview presenting the brackets on Selection Monday the Committee Chairwoman Sue Donohoe tells how they reached their seeding and was asked, "How was ND picked as the #1 seed over UConn?" Sue replied "Because they beat UConn twice, one during the season and in the BE Finals!" The reporter says, "No, UConn beat ND on Sue Birds buzzer beater!"
Sue replies (with a shocked look on her face), oh did they?

That is not what happened.

 

[Vowelguy]

That is not 100% UConn's fault. It says more about the rest of the BE than what it says about the strength of UConn's team. Is it fair and righteous to punish UConn because the rest of the BE sucks and can't get into Quad 1?

Which is why the committee makes a big deal out of your non conference schedule, because you have control over that.

 

[JoePgh]

In my observation, Charlie Creme's final bracket before Selection Sunday every year is usually a reliable predictor of what the actual bracket would look like IF the NCAA followed its own rules / guidelines. The reason why Charlie never gets it quite right is that the NCAA never does follow its own rules, and thereby deviates from what Charlie has predicted.

Regarding the 2001 UConn-Notre Dame situation that was mentioned earlier in this thread, I do not recall all the details, but I am quite sure of the following:

UConn and Notre Dame tied for the regular season Big East title, with each of them winning one game against the other. UConn did win the Big East Tournament final game against ND on Sue Bird's buzzer-beater. A normal person would expect those facts to result in a higher seed for UConn than for Notre Dame. However, the Committee chose not to see it that way, and when asked by reporters to explain its decision, the spokesperson said that "Notre Dame won the regular season Big East title". That was not true -- the two teams tied for the regular season title. But even if it were true, shouldn't the tournament outcome (which also resulted in a 2-1 advantage for UConn in the season series) be the obvious tiebreaker?

 

[Vowelguy]

Regarding the 2001 UConn-Notre Dame situation that was mentioned earlier in this thread, I do not recall all the details, but I am quite sure of the following:

UConn and Notre Dame tied for the regular season Big East title, with each of them winning one game against the other.

No they did not.

Uconn - ND played once during the season. ND won.

ND lost to Rutgers, so yes they were ‘tied’, but ND got the top seed in the BET because of the head to head win.

 

[SandrasGuy]

I don’t know anything about seeding, so I am loving the discussion. But I do know condescension when I read it.

 

[BBallF]

Oldude, I agree with you and disagree with HuskyNan. Not just one big game, but a blowout big game; an out-of-conference big game against a (currently) #1 seeded opponent big game; on the opponent's home court in front of 18,000 people big game;
and in a nationally televised, College Game Day big game.

This is precisely the kind of big game that can/should/will impact seeding. To imply this win will not move the Huskies higher than their current #7 overall seed is simply incorrect for the criteria you stated. Will they move up to become one of the four #1 seeds? Probably not, but still possible. Other things need to fall into place.

Here's the bottom line: the selection committee has a bit of a "situation" on their hands given what just happened on national television surrounding their initial reveal. Presuming the Huskies win out the rest of their regular season games, either the committee moves UConn up to an overall #6, #5 or even #4 at the end of the month for the second reveal, or they risk being discredited in the eyes of everyone who follows WCBB.

Can the NCAA selection committees as a whole be anymore discredited in the eyes of everyone who follows college basketball, not just the women? Last year's men's selection was farce, a chair who knew nothing about basketball, a clear bias in favor of a certain western conference who never had that number of teams in the tourney before (almost all lost in the first round), and a clear bias against the Big East, best shown by the exclusion of Seton Hall, who went 20-12 in the regular season, 13-7 in the conference and beat UCONN, the eventual national champion. By the way, Seton Hall won the NIT as well.

The committee, despite any guidelines, consists of human beings, replete with preconceived ideas, confirmation biases, and their own experiences. They are not full time members and can vanish into anonymity no matter what they do. They are held accountable for a few hours, nothing more, and that is a major defect in the system. These are not jurors in any sense and the idea of having supposedly objective, but not necessarily knowledgeable people make these decisions is always imperfect and at times, disgraceful.