NCAA women’s tourney seeding to use the quadrant system

[HuskyNan]

In other words, the same methodology that the men’s tournament uses. Now that we’ve gotten the gist of the women’s NET system, the NCAA is changing it so that men’s and women’s NET is calculated the same way

College basketball's NET rankings, explained

Here's everything you need to know about college basketball's NET ranking system.

www.ncaa.com

 

[HuskyNan]

 

[Alydar]

There are 45 Q1 teams in the mens game but more like 30 Q1 teams on the mens side. The depth of quality mens basketball programs dwarfs the womens game. The talent pool is so much bigger.

NET will still be needed to rank the teams.

 

[Forego]

Maybe I am completely missing an understanding of the change. But, Riddle me this:

If a computer generated ranking will be used seed the tournament teams, why is it necessary to maintain a selection committee?

I imagine that data entries will be entered continuously during the season. So why would subjective, weekly sports media polls or coaches ranking polls be necessary when the objective rankings are accessible on line?

Does this mean that Charlie Creme’s ranking updates have become a victim of technology and are now obsolete?

Does this change benefit the P4 conferences or am I just being overly suspicious?

 

[CL82]

Does this change benefit the P4 conferences or am I just being overly suspicious?

Somewhat, since P* conference members are more likely to be in higher quadrants. Those in non-P4 conferences will be forced to schedule more highly ranked nonconference for, something UConn has been doing for years.

 

[Plebe]

Maybe I am completely missing an understanding of the change. But, Riddle me this:

If a computer generated ranking will be used seed the tournament teams, why is it necessary to maintain a selection committee?

I imagine that data entries will be entered continuously during the season. So why would subjective, weekly sports media polls or coaches ranking polls be necessary when the objective rankings are accessible on line?

Does this mean that Charlie Creme’s ranking updates have become a victim of technology and are now obsolete?

Does this change benefit the P4 conferences or am I just being overly suspicious?

I believe you've misunderstood the announced changes. The quadrant system will be similar to the men's, but that's only used to categorize a team's opponents on its "team sheet" which the committee uses. The committee still has to do the rest (seed teams 1-68 and place them into the bracket), just as the men's committee still does.

 

[hoopsnloops32]

There are 45 Q1 teams in the mens game but more like 30 Q1 teams on the mens side. The depth of quality mens basketball programs dwarfs the womens game. The talent pool is so much bigger.

NET will still be needed to rank the teams.

Isn’t Net the basis for the quadrants?

 

[Alydar]

Isn’t Net the basis for the quadrants?

Maybe I am completely missing an understanding of the change. But, Riddle me this:

If a computer generated ranking will be used seed the tournament teams, why is it necessary to maintain a selection committee?

I imagine that data entries will be entered continuously during the season. So why would subjective, weekly sports media polls or coaches ranking polls be necessary when the objective rankings are accessible on line?

Does this mean that Charlie Creme’s ranking updates have become a victim of technology and are now obsolete?

Does this change benefit the P4 conferences or am I just being overly suspicious?

Good question. Actually there is a two-fold process. First, the committee comes up with their 64-(68?) teams and when that is done then the seeding is done. What the NCAA has done is to make several tweaks to the traditional seeding process (1 vs 64, 2 vs 63). Top teams from the same conference are separated into different regionals. Teams are "sometimes" also put into regional sites with consideration for travel. There are good reasons for doing that and also there are drawbacks. The main criticism is that those teaks are applied unevenly, especially the geographical factors. Where their rules confict they are prioritised byt the priorities change from year to year. The critical issue that is never addressed is who actually designs and approves the committee rule changes from year to year. Despite my searching I can't find out who actually makes the rules that the committee is compelled to follow. My suspicious mind wonders why that is kept a secret along with why the committee head holds only a 90 second ESPN-led "press conference" to explain their bracket.

I also suspect P-4 bias.

 

[CL82]

Isn’t Net the basis for the quadrants?

Good question. Actually there is a two-fold process. First, the committee comes up with their 64-(68?) teams and when that is done then the seeding is done. What the NCAA has done is to make several tweaks to the traditional seeding process (1 vs 64, 2 vs 63). Top teams from the same conference are separated into different regionals. Teams are "sometimes" also put into regional sites with consideration for travel. There are good reasons for doing that and also there are drawbacks. The main criticism is that those teaks are applied unevenly, especially the geographical factors. Where their rules confict they are prioritised byt the priorities change from year to year. The critical issue that is never addressed is who actually designs and approves the committee rule changes from year to year. Despite my searching I can't find out who actually makes the rules that the committee is compelled to follow. My suspicious mind wonders why that is kept a secret along with why the committee head holds only a 90 second ESPN-led "press conference" to explain their bracket.

I also suspect P-4 bias.

Also quadrants change based upon location. For example a team that is a quadrant I team when you play them on the road might only be a quad II team when you play them at home.

The idea is to reward teams who play a more challenging schedule.

 

[Alydar]

Also quadrants change based upon location. For example a team that is a quadrant I team when you play them on the road might only be a quad II team when you play them at home.

The idea is to reward teams who play a more challenging schedule.

True. And I like that. Last season UConn was a top 3 SOS team on multiple stat sites until the conference tournaments when the P-4 tournaments are played and the top teams end up playing each other. The odd thing is that the committee often won't penalize a top team that loses early in their tournament. It seems every year I read "U of Z lost to an unranked U of X in the 1st round of the AB conference tournament but that won't change their seeding according to the committee". Why should a loss in a conference tournament in March count less than a loss in November? The NCAA could do a big favor for the conferences if they counted conference tournament games double regular season games. I can remember when the ACC mens tournament was better than the NCAA's.

I suppose seeding with a field of 350+ and very little in the way of common opponents is never going to appear fair. I played in a lot of seeded golf tournaments but the seeding was determined in a qualifying round. Good players who had a bad qualifying round still whined about their seed but it was fair.

 

[nwhoopfan]

The idea is to reward teams who play a more challenging schedule.

Wasn't that already the idea with RPI, NET, etc?

 

[CL82]

Wasn't that already the idea with RPI, NET, etc?

Yes

 

[Plebe]

Why should a loss in a conference tournament in March count less than a loss in November?

No one ever said it counts less. The opposite is the common fallacy. Most fans are poster-children for recency bias and think that one game should count more than all the other approximately 30 games of the season.