Odds of winning the 2012 national championship

[easttexastrash]

The tourney may not want ND and UConn on a collision path two years in a row unless it is in the finals.

However, Baylor has beaten ND and UCONN already this year. After putting TAMU in Baylor's region last year I have a feeling that the committee will have a very difficult time justifying putting ND or UCONN on their side of the bracket.

Should be very interesting to watch. Mulkey may come unglued if Baylor gets to the FF and is paired against the 2nd or 3rd overall seed instead of the 4th seed...or lower.

This is assuming that all of these teams make it to Denver. But I think the chances are good.

 

[easttexastrash]

10% better.

It's 33.1% to 36.5%. I'm all for putting a positive spin on things, but that is not a big enough difference to go from being a weakness to not being a weakness. Now, if UCON were shooting 40% plus, then I would say it is.

Against Baylor, UCONN actually shot above their average at 37.9%, which was still not sufficient to win. Baylor obviously doesn't take as many threes, as they were 4 of 8 against UCONN. If Baylor relied on the three point shot to win, I would be a little more worried, but with Baylor, it's all about scoring in the pain. No need to jack up a lot of threes with BG in the paint and Williams really coming into her own lately.

 

[doggydaddy]

It's 33.1% to 36.5%. I'm all for putting a positive spin on things, but that is not a big enough difference to go from being a weakness to not being a weakness. Now, if UCON were shooting 40% plus, then I would say it is.

Against Baylor, UCONN actually shot above their average at 37.9%, which was still not sufficient to win. Baylor obviously doesn't take as many threes, as they were 4 of 8 against UCONN. If Baylor relied on the three point shot to win, I would be a little more worried, but with Baylor, it's all about scoring in the pain. No need to jack up a lot of threes with BG in the paint and Williams really coming into her own lately.

Sorry, but the 3% difference is much bigger than you are making it out to be.

 

[uconnbaseball]

It's 33.1% to 36.5%. I'm all for putting a positive spin on things, but that is not a big enough difference to go from being a weakness to not being a weakness. Now, if UCON were shooting 40% plus, then I would say it is.

Against Baylor, UCONN actually shot above their average at 37.9%, which was still not sufficient to win. Baylor obviously doesn't take as many threes, as they were 4 of 8 against UCONN. If Baylor relied on the three point shot to win, I would be a little more worried, but with Baylor, it's all about scoring in the pain. No need to jack up a lot of threes with BG in the paint and Williams really coming into her own lately.

Poor 3 point shooting teams shoot around 30% from beyond the arc. Great 3 point shooting teams shoot around 40%. 3.4% isn't a HUGE difference, but it's a statistically significant one. Baylor's outside shooting isn't a weakness, and I never said it was. I'm saying that UConn is a little better in that regard.

 

[cardfan]

The one thing that's kind of to Baylor's detriment is how front-loaded their schedule was. They played two contenders at home, a solid team (Tennessee) on the road (and didn't play all that well), and the rest of their OOC schedule was pretty terrible. Meanwhile, the second-best team in the Big XII is probably A&M. So they're kind of in a similar position as Stanford, i.e., playing a bunch of teams that don't really make them better or better prepared for the Tourney. And before anyone starts talking about conference RPI, yes, I'm well aware of the fact that the Big XII is well-rated, but the problem with that is it doesn't really matter to a legit contender that the middling conference teams are better than other conferences' middling teams. What matters is having other contenders or fringe contenders to play

Imho, the NCAAs are about match-ups, the health of the team, location, and a bit of luck, more so than conference play. We've made F4s with conference losses (2008) as well as undefeated ones (2011) - just to name two examples. Last year, we matched up well with ND and UConn (and even Baylor), but not A&M. None of those facts had anything to do with our conference. Tara has done pretty well in the Pac 10 for 26 years, she will know how to get her team ready for any opponent. Our biggest issues are youth and lack of dept in the back court, not the conference we play in.

 

[alexrgct]

Imho, the NCAAs are about match-ups, the health of the team, location, and a bit of luck, more so than conference play. We've made F4s with conference losses (2008) as well as undefeated ones (2011) - just to name two examples. Last year, we matched up well with ND and UConn (and even Baylor), but not A&M. None of those facts had anything to do with our conference. Tara has done pretty well in the Pac 10 for 26 years, she will know how to get her team ready for any opponent. Our biggest issues are youth and lack of dept in the back court, not the conference we play in.

For a team trying to forge an identity, being tested against contending teams helps. It helped Notre Dame and A&M break through last year, for instance. Stanford last season or the season before that had a clear identity already, so it was less important. Ths season, it'd be nice for them to have a tough conference foe (or an late-season OOC game) to use as a measuring stick. Baylor is kind of in the middle, where they have a clear identity but will have made it to Denver without having played anyone particularly good in a hostile or neutral environment. UConn and ND, meanwhile, will have been tearing each other apart and playing in a very tough, physical league. May not be enough to beat Baylor because neither team has someone like Brittney Griner, but it is going to help them.

 

[speedoo]

Imho, the NCAAs are about match-ups, the health of the team, location, and a bit of luck, more so than conference play. We've made F4s with conference losses (2008) as well as undefeated ones (2011) - just to name two examples. Last year, we matched up well with ND and UConn (and even Baylor), but not A&M. None of those facts had anything to do with our conference. Tara has done pretty well in the Pac 10 for 26 years, she will know how to get her team ready for any opponent. Our biggest issues are youth and lack of dept in the back court, not the conference we play in.

The NCAA's are also about being prepared to play teams with different styles of play. Geno has frequently spoken about the value of playing a variety of styles of play, from defense-oriented, slow the game down teams like Rutgers, to wide open anything goes teams like UNC, to great perimeter defense teams like Notre Dame, to big, physical teams like Stanford, etc. I can't comment as to whether or not the Pac 12 offers this kind of variety, but if they don't, it's a disadvantage for Stanford because if they don't play that kind of variety during the last 2.5 months of the season it can't prepare them for variety in the NCAA's.

 

[cardfan]

For a team trying to forge an identity, being tested against contending teams helps. It helped Notre Dame and A&M break through last year, for instance. Stanford last season or the season before that had a clear identity already, so it was less important. Ths season, it'd be nice for them to have a tough conference foe (or an late-season OOC game) to use as a measuring stick. Baylor is kind of in the middle, where they have a clear identity but will have made it to Denver without having played anyone particularly good in a hostile or neutral environment. UConn and ND, meanwhile, will have been tearing each other apart and playing in a very tough, physical league. May not be enough to beat Baylor because neither team has someone like Brittney Griner, but it is going to help them.

We did have tough game vs. Cal, an athletic and big team (leading rebounding team in US). Stanford can't win, if Pac 12 is too easy, we suck, and if we lose a game or have close game, we suck. There are plenty of different styles in the Pac 12 to prepare us for many teams, and no one watch more game film and scouts team than Tara.

There's just not enough talent across all of women's bball for conference to have that much weight. Look at the Big XII years ago when they had 8 or so teams in NCAA, yet they all lost early, and only 1 made (maybe) made it to the S16. Being tested each night didn't help them. It's about balanced scoring, guard play and key AA player.

 

[jsloanjr]

The new play of Kiah changes the odds in UCONN's favor and playing in Denver with cause some teams to lose it in the 2nd half........30% or higher for UCONN.....

 

[cardfan]

The NCAA's are also about being prepared to play teams with different styles of play. Geno has frequently spoken about the value of playing a variety of styles of play, from defense-oriented, slow the game down teams like Rutgers, to wide open anything goes teams like UNC, to great perimeter defense teams like Notre Dame, to big, physical teams like Stanford, etc. I can't comment as to whether or not the Pac 12 offers this kind of variety, but if they don't, it's a disadvantage for Stanford because if they don't play that kind of variety during the last 2.5 months of the season it can't prepare them for variety in the NCAA's.

we do, there are 11 teams that have very different styles, but unfortunately, it is a down year due to many injuries to almost every team and new coaches. That said, each team brings their A vs. us, which you guys know all too well.

 

[semper]

You know, if Tiff Terriff keeps it up...I might change my mind...we actually might...naw...

 

[easttexastrash]

We did have tough game vs. Cal, an athletic and big team (leading rebounding team in US). Stanford can't win, if Pac 12 is too easy, we suck, and if we lose a game or have close game, we suck. There are plenty of different styles in the Pac 12 to prepare us for many teams, and no one watch more game film and scouts team than Tara.

There's just not enough talent across all of women's bball for conference to have that much weight. Look at the Big XII years ago when they had 8 or so teams in NCAA, yet they all lost early, and only 1 made (maybe) made it to the S16. Being tested each night didn't help them. It's about balanced scoring, guard play and key AA player.

Very good point. The Big 12 has had years when they had a lot of teams in the tourney and very few had good success.

The Big East typically performs better in the tourney than the Big 12 does. I don't have stats on that...just seems to be the case based on watching the results each year.

 

[easttexastrash]

If Griner can play with the passion that she played with tonight against OU, Baylor will be very tough to beat. If she would just get a little meaner and keep the fire in her belly like tonight she would be virtually unstoppable.

I truly believe that Griner holds back with her aggression. Like they said tonight during the broadcast, Mulkey has said that if Griner did get mean that she could hurt someone, and she doesn't mean punching...no jokes please. But Griner could play at an athletic level that no woman ever has and I guarantee you that when she does she is going to get ripped for doing it. Like when she trailed on the break tonight and hung on the rim. We may not get to see it until she enters the WNBA. If she decides to let it all go and truly play up to the level that she can, I don't care how many recruits anyone brings in, Baylor will be unbeatable.

 

[Icebear]

However, Baylor has beaten ND and UCONN already this year. After putting TAMU in Baylor's region last year I have a feeling that the committee will have a very difficult time justifying putting ND or UCONN on their side of the bracket.

Should be very interesting to watch. Mulkey may come unglued if Baylor gets to the FF and is paired against the 2nd or 3rd overall seed instead of the 4th seed...or lower.

This is assuming that all of these teams make it to Denver. But I think the chances are good.

Yes, but potentially having ND play UCONN four times two years in a row prior to a championship game is even less desirable and having Baylor have to play through both on a neutral court instead of at home let's Baylor prove they weren't just lucky to be playing at home.

 

[triaddukefan]

Yes, but potentially having ND play UCONN four times two years in a row prior to a championship game is even less desirable.

So its definitely Raleigh vs Kingston, and Fresno vs Des Moines?

 

[Icebear]

No, it is Raliegh / Des Moines. I'm just suggesting what is best for the sport.

If Creme's brackets hold to form the match ups are UConn-Stanford and Baylor-ND.

 

[Sonny44]

Sorry, but the 3% difference is much bigger than you are making it out to be.

It could amount to 3 - 6 points per game.

 

[rjp172]

No, it is Raliegh / Des Moines. I'm just suggesting what is best for the sport.

If Creme's brackets hold to form the match ups are UConn-Stanford and Baylor-ND.

According to Creme it's not. Regional match-ups aren't pre-determined. It's determined when the committee ranks the teams. He's just filling in brackets not playing out the tourney.

 

[Icebear]

According to Creme it's not. Regional match-ups aren't pre-determined. It's determined when the committee ranks the teams. He's just filling in brackets not playing out the tourney.

OK I was simply going by his brackets.

 

[doggydaddy]

if UConn beats ND by double digits at home, then I'd be willing to say ND and UConn would be evenly matched on a neutral court.

?????

UConn takes ND to OT on the road.

If UConn wins by DD at home they are equal on a neutral court?

Makes no sense to me.

 

[meyers7]

Very good point. The Big 12 has had years when they had a lot of teams in the tourney and very few had good success.

The Big East typically performs better in the tourney than the Big 12 does. I don't have stats on that...just seems to be the case based on watching the results each year.

Win/lost percentages of the leagues in NCAA tourney. I didn't do 2010 for some reason???

2011
Big East .679
Pac 10 .667
Big 12 .647
ACC .600
SEC .600
Big 10 .500

2009
Pac 10 .750
Big East .714
Big 12 .667
Big 10 .615
ACC .571
SEC .462

 

[UcMiami]

Cardfan - no need to defend Tara and Stanford's record to me. I do think it is good to have at least one and better two competitive teams in your conference or your team can get complacent and may stop listening to the coach - with Tara and a good mix of upper classmen, that doesn't apply to Stanford.
On conference win percentages - I never pay much attention to them - a conference getting 8 teams in, is always going to have a hard time keeping a high win percentage vs. a conference that gets a couple of good teams in. The bottom half of the 8 teams in are likely to have about a .400 win percentage at best and that drags down whatever the top half does

 

[meyers7]

Cardfan - no need to defend Tara and Stanford's record to me. I do think it is good to have at least one and better two competitive teams in your conference or your team can get complacent and may stop listening to the coach - with Tara and a good mix of upper classmen, that doesn't apply to Stanford.
On conference win percentages - I never pay much attention to them - a conference getting 8 teams in, is always going to have a hard time keeping a high win percentage vs. a conference that gets a couple of good teams in. The bottom half of the 8 teams in are likely to have about a .400 win percentage at best and that drags down whatever the top half does

You may want to pay attention. 2011, Big East had 9 teams and still had the highest percentage. They had 7 in 2009 and had 2nd highest. It's how well the conference does in the tourney. Doesn't necessarily matter how many teams are in it. (although a good run by 1 team can offset a little bit a small contingency).

 

[UcMiami]

You may want to pay attention. 2011, Big East had 9 teams and still had the highest percentage. They had 7 in 2009 and had 2nd highest. It's how well the conference does in the tourney. Doesn't necessarily matter how many teams are in it. (although a good run by 1 team can offset a little bit a small contingency).

All I am saying is what happens in the first round for a conference with 8 teams can have a huge difference in win percentage - generally you don't expect much out of teams 3-8 in such instances. If they go 0 fer, what your top two teams do is not going to move the needle much unless they both make the finals. In that case the conference record would still just be 11/7 - .611 and if they bost lost in the semis it would be 8/8 - .500 - but still a pretty good year for your conference with two teams at the FF.

 

[meyers7]

All I am saying is what happens in the first round for a conference with 8 teams can have a huge difference in win percentage - generally you don't expect much out of teams 3-8 in such instances. If they go 0 fer, what your top two teams do is not going to move the needle much unless they both make the finals. In that case the conference record would still just be 11/7 - .611 and if they bost lost in the semis it would be 8/8 - .500 - but still a pretty good year for your conference with two teams at the FF.

Not really if all the other teams go 0 fer. That's kinda the point percentages show you.