Official Bracket Thread

[wallman]

Wow and I thought Miss Won, sorry couldn't resist.

 

[SCGamecock]

Did you get a chance to hear Dawn's comments on her placement in the brackets...if so what are your thoughts?

I did. I think she makes a valid point. Dawn is a leader of a big flock and as a coach, she wants that flock to have an opportunity to follow her.

A few people have tried to whittle this down to Dawn just not wanting to play UConn when that’s not the case at all.. Dawn has been advocating for how she feels her fans have been handicapped the last few years and that was even with a bracket that avoided UConn. The past few years, she probably feels like the bracket was made in order for ND fans to get to games. This year, it’s clear the bracket was made to get Oregon fans to games... so she feels slighted, and I understand that. So she’s thinking, “when is our turn?”. Not sure what Oregon has done to deserve this preferential treatment (they don’t have a single win as good SC’s win over MSU) but that’s a topic for another thread..

The NCAA tournament is what it is.. no matter who you are, the moment that bracket is announced with your name in it you’re destined to play teams that COULD or SHOULD beat you. As a team, your responsibility is to do whatever you can on the court to control that outcome.

Every time Dawn stepped in front of a media mic this season (in particular) she was coaching. She’s placing the chip on this team’s shoulder. She wants them to feel disrespected, disregarded and vengeful. Young people are motivated by opposition. She knows how to push the buttons of her team. Most good coaches do.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Ironic that Staley is basically complaining about "geography" and her team not getting to play close to home, when it's "geography" that messed up the bracket for other teams (like Baylor). Oregon going to Spokane, WA is all about geography. This is where Baylor should have gone, IMO, based on the S-curve. If the committee doesn't make sending Oregon to Spokane a top priority, you get:

UConn / Texas
Miss. State / Oregon
Louisville / South Carolina
Notre Dame / Baylor

Will be very curious to see how many Oregon fans actually travel to the regional.

Given how many adjustments are made to the seeding, it's pretty clear that S-Curve isn't a particularly important matrix for the NCAA.

Sure, they didn't want Oregon to have to travel too far as a #2 seed. That's reasonable. Sort of like it would have been reasonable not to want South Carolina to travel to Stockton, CA or Sioux Falls, SD or Stanford, CA for that matter.

We're just general purpose bitching. We'll go where we are sent, but we've been 2,000 miles away from home three of the last four years. We have a lot of fans who might appreciate being placed close to home occasionally.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Yes, once the committee decided to keep Oregon in Spokane, the die was cast for the rest of the #2 seeds.

The South Carolina folk (not all, but many) have made their moaning a yearly ritual. I'm still convinced that two years ago, when their grousing veered into downright insulting comments about South Dakota, their Sweet 16 loss to Syracuse was a direct result of bad karma.

Can't insult South Dakota. the spirits don't like that.

 

[CTtransplant]

Last night there was a discussion questioning SF in the Albany region. The spokeswoman said the rules did not prohibit this. However, the question that was never answered was " why " did they place SF in that region . So, the " real " question was never addressed . Then there was discussion as to bracket imbalance regarding Baylor and Miss. St. , but swapping sites between SC and Texas was never even brought up ! SC could have been sent to Kansa City, with Texas placed in Albany. How that would have created an imbalance is totally beyond me.

Albany is 883 miles from Columbia, SC. Kansas City is 993 miles away. That would place a greater burden on Dawn's fans. Although there might be tickets available in Kansas City.

 

[JordyG]

Isn’t that sort of the same thing I said?

I kinda have them there 2 rounds earlier.

 

[southie]

Maybe Dawn just doesn't understand how seeding and the bracket works, and just likes to complain or herself speak (ever season).

Back in 2016, Crème had South Carolina slated for the Lexington regional. But, it never made sense to me as to why the committee would place SC in Lexington, and send Kentucky elsewhere. Let's be honest, even though Rupp Arena is the home the men's team, and UK women play in Memorial Coliseum, that is clearly the city of the university as a whole. The only way the local fans were gonna turn out for a women's hoops regional was if Kentucky was one of the four teams placed there. So, Dawn can blame Notre Dame, but that committee's rationale was all about keeping Kentucky at home in Lexington. So, SC had to go elsewhere as two SEC teams weren't allowed to be in the same region.

As for the 2017 bracket, how can any SC fan complain (today) about being sent to Stockton, CA when it resulted in a national championship? You can't claim that the end result would have been the same had you been sent closer to home; any single variable could have led to SC not being the national championship if the bracket was different.

With this year's bracket, the committee gave Oregon preferential geographic treatment; no two ways about it. What the committee could have done was take the highest #2 seed (Baylor), and place them closest to home (Kansas City) or with the fourth-ranked #1 seed (Notre Dame). They did neither. That had a trickle down effect and impacted Louisville, Baylor, and South Carolina the most.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Maybe Dawn just doesn't understand how seeding and the bracket works, and just likes to complain or herself speak (ever season).

Back in 2016, Crème had South Carolina slated for the Lexington regional. But, it never made sense to me as to why the committee would place SC in Lexington, and send Kentucky elsewhere. Let's be honest, even though Rupp Arena is the home the men's team, and UK women play in Memorial Coliseum, that is clearly the city of the university as a whole. The only way the local fans were gonna turn out for a women's hoops regional was if Kentucky was one of the four teams placed there. So, Dawn can blame Notre Dame, but that committee's rationale was all about keeping Kentucky at home in Lexington. So, SC had to go elsewhere as two SEC teams weren't allowed to be in the same region.

As for the 2017 bracket, how can any SC fan complain (today) about being sent to Stockton, CA when it resulted in a national championship? You can't claim that the end result would have been the same had you been sent closer to home; any single variable could have led to SC not being the national championship if the bracket was different.

With this year's bracket, the committee gave Oregon preferential geographic treatment; no two ways about it. What the committee could have done was take the highest #2 seed (Baylor), and place them closest to home (Kansas City) or with the fourth-ranked #1 seed (Notre Dame). They did neither. That had a trickle down effect and impacted Louisville, Baylor, and South Carolina the most.

The complaint isn't that it is unfair for competition, it is that it is inconvenient and repeated.
Go figure, fans would actually like the opportunity to see their team in person.

You don't think its a little absurd that the NCAA would bend its bracket around letting the #4 seed play on its home court?

The whole purpose of having "neutral sites" was that coaches did not want to play on other team's home floors in front of hostile crowds. How fair was it that a 4 seed that had earned nothing got to stay home?

I mean it really doesn't matter that much, but it makes no sense.

Can I assume that the entire bracket next year is going to be bent towards getting South Carolina into Greenville, no matter what the seeding?

That's a lot better proposition for attendance than putting UK in Lexington, but there you go.

 

[southie]

The complaint isn't that it is unfair for competition, it is that it is inconvenient and repeated.
Go figure, fans would actually like the opportunity to see their team in person.

You don't think its a little absurd that the NCAA would bend its bracket around letting the #4 seed play on its home court?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but do you not understand how NCAA women's tourneys (in all sports) work? There are no such things as "neutral" sites. If that's what the committee wanted, they wouldn't be selecting CT and NY every other season, nor have given Kentucky three consecutive regionals.

So, as far as Lexington is concerned, the committee's first priority was always going to be to seed Kentucky in the region, and "fit" the other teams around UK's seed. So, that basically prohibits all other SEC teams from being in the Lexington regional unless UK failed to be seeded or make the field (which was the case this season). I think it came down to Tennessee or Ohio State being the #3 seed in Lexington, and the Lady Vols' fan base made it an easy choice.

 

[southie]

Can I assume that the entire bracket next year is going to be bent towards getting South Carolina into Greenville, no matter what the seeding?

That's a lot better proposition for attendance than putting UK in Lexington, but there you go.

Yes, assuming they are a Top 16 seed. The only teams who could mess that up for SC would be Georgia or Tennessee.

And, I believe Portland, OR was given 2 or 3 regionals beginning next season. No doubt that's to place rising Oregon or Oregon State there each time.

 

[Bronx23]

No Lexington? I mean the three years it's been there SC (the best team in the SEC for the past 5 years) has been sent elsewhere. I know I'm getting a lot of grief from fans for "whining" about our placement but I really just want an explanation.

Yes I think they have had a rough time over the last few years with their placement in the tournament. And yes they are and have been the SEC champs for quite a few years in a row.
But they have lost SIX games. They got whooped in the loss to U Conn. They couldn't possibly be higher than the #7 overall team, and that would have been quite a reach. As stated here and I'm sure numerous other places they weren't going to be put into same region as MS.
So would you be happier if they were a #3 seed in some region.
Yes they clearly won the NC but they've yet to demonstrate they are truly a top program on a consistent basis.
That's my answer and probably not one you will like.
Bronx23

 

[Gamecockfan77]

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but do you not understand how NCAA women's tourneys (in all sports) work? There are no such things as "neutral" sites. If that's what the committee wanted, they wouldn't be selecting CT and NY every other season, nor have given Kentucky three consecutive regionals.

So, as far as Lexington is concerned, the committee's first priority was always going to be to seed Kentucky in the region, and "fit" the other teams around UK's seed. So, that basically prohibits all other SEC teams from being in the Lexington regional unless UK failed to be seeded or make the field (which was the case this season). I think it came down to Tennessee or Ohio State being the #3 seed in Lexington, and the Lady Vols' fan base made it an easy choice.

Do you know what the phrase "neutral site" means? Just asking. It doesn't seem like you do.

I think most people define "neutral site" as a game played at a venue that is not the home stadium of either team. You know that the men's tournament, I believe, expressly prohibits teams from playing on their home floor if it is a regional site?

Out of curiosity is it that you know the Committee's #1 priority was to seed #4 Kentucky in Lexington. Do you think that's a good idea? rewarding a #4 seed with home court through the Final Four?

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Yes I think they have had a rough time over the last few years with their placement in the tournament. And yes they are and have been the SEC champs for quite a few years in a row.
But they have lost SIX games. They got whooped in the loss to U Conn. They couldn't possibly be higher than the #7 overall team, and that would have been quite a reach. As stated here and I'm sure numerous other places they weren't going to be put into same region as MS.
So would you be happier if they were a #3 seed in some region.
Yes they clearly won the NC but they've yet to demonstrate they are truly a top program on a consistent basis.
That's my answer and probably not one you will like.
Bronx23

We've more than established that the NCAA doesn't care about matching up #1 with #8 and that's its primary concern is apparently to spare travel and spur attendance. Or #2 with #7.

Personally, I don't really care if we are a #2 seed or a #3 seed. There isn't really much difference. I'd much rather play close to home if you are giving choices.

Again, it's not that we are in Albany, NY this year. Or Stockton, California the year before, or South Dakota three years ago, or Stanford, CA four years ago.

It's being assigned to the least convenient regional in three of five years and being assigned to most convenient regional only once. Can you understand that it becomes annoying, or do you just want to go on lecturing us why we didn't "deserve" to be placed close to home because of some nebulous argument that the NCAA in reality could care less about.

 

[Alydar]

Is it just a coincidence or is there a correlation between absence of a regional from a southeast location and the fall of both UNC and Duke from the elite level of WCBB? It does seem strange that the traditional hotbed of women's basketball hasn't hosted a regional in several years. And those years have been coincident to S Carolina's rise and the fall of their N Carolina rivals.

 

[SCspur]

Yes I think they have had a rough time over the last few years with their placement in the tournament. And yes they are and have been the SEC champs for quite a few years in a row.
But they have lost SIX games. They got whooped in the loss to U Conn. They couldn't possibly be higher than the #7 overall team, and that would have been quite a reach. As stated here and I'm sure numerous other places they weren't going to be put into same region as MS.
So would you be happier if they were a #3 seed in some region.
Yes they clearly won the NC but they've yet to demonstrate they are truly a top program on a consistent basis.
That's my answer and probably not one you will like.
Bronx23

Thanks for your insight. But if we're being honest, SC should have been one of the best if not the best teams in the country if it weren't for injuries and players leaving. Gray and Davis themselves would've made SC top tier this year but to also lose Cuevas-Moore (a senior leader & program mainstay), Lindsay Spann (a sharp shooter who was shooting 50% from 3), and not getting Cooper eligible was a big bullet for us. So to only have 6 losses after that with only 3 upperclassmen on the roster is impressive to say the least. Some posters here just don't like to give credit when it's due but it's fine. SC will be fine and will only get better as a program.

 

[Plebe]

I've complained in the past about UCONN's bracket, but I think this year's is fair. Of course, they gave Louisville a poor deal in order to advantage Muffet. I also think the committee might have figured out that if ND has any chance, they have to play UCONN in the semifinal. Because we do not lose championship games.

ND is in UConn’s half of the bracket because UConn is #1 overall and ND is #4. No conspiracy necessary.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

We're going to get snow up here again tonight and tomorrow. But I got to tell you, even for upstate NY, we've had more than our share of snow this year. I'm ready for spring.

We didn't get much snow this winter, so that will suit me.

 

[Vowelguy]

Four ACC schools in one region. Looks like they could have spread it out a little more.

The requirement is for them to not meet before the regional semis.

Again the issue is do you keep more teams closer to home or impose the expense and lack of fans further away?

The ACC had a further challenge: Lou & ND were #1 seeds and Miami & Syracuse were #8s, They can't face each other in the 2nd round, so if the seeds are maintained they had to be placed in the other 2 regions. Yes, you could move teams off their seed line, but then then you start to compromise the integrity and balance of the brackets. And do you want to do that just to prevent a regional matchup that only happens if there are (highly unlikely) upsets? The 4 ACC teams in the Albany region only meetup if we have sweet 16 matchups of #8 vs #5 or #3 vs #10.

In the 23 years since the tourney went to 64 teams (23 yrs x 4 regions = 92 regions):

• There has never been a #5 vs #8 game
• #10 seed has made the sweet 16 three times. I have not tracked down if they faced a 3 seed each time. At most it has happened 3/92 times.

In other words, yes there are 4 conference teams in one region. Their likelihood of facing each other is extremely low.

I don't think it's fair to penalize the committee for failing to prevent low probability events from having the chance to occur.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

Beat Notre Dame this year, and ND is probably a #2 Seed with Baylor as the #1 Seed in the Spokane Region. Then I think So Carolina ends up in Lexington. The two losses to the Lady Vols also hurt your chances to be the #1 two seed which also would have put your team in Lexington. Balancing the Bracket which is a committee responsibility put Baylor in Lexington as the #1 two seed. Albany was the closest Region after Baylor was put in Lexington. Got to win the Games you're supposed to. I know A'ja was hurt for one of the two Lady Vol losses.

How do you place the team with the best attendance in an already sold out Regional? Not sure what SC has done to the NCAA but it is clear they don't like us, especially after send us west the past 3 years and now placing us agaisnt the #1 team.

A'ja was out for both losses to Tennessee, though I don't think that was a factor for the committee. Surely you can understand why our fans are upset, especially those without financial means to travel long distances. In the last 7 seasons we've been in Albany, Stockton, Sioux Falls, Greensboro, Seattle/Palo Alto, Boulder/(didn't get to Norfolk) and West Lafayette/Fresno. I understand if we were the top 1 seed every year this wouldn't have happened, but the NCAA should be able to do a better job than that.

 

[Vowelguy]

Is it just a coincidence or is there a correlation between absence of a regional from a southeast location and the fall of both UNC and Duke from the elite level of WCBB? It does seem strange that the traditional hotbed of women's basketball hasn't hosted a regional in several years. And those years have been coincident to S Carolina's rise and the fall of their N Carolina rivals.

1) You can only have a regional where locations bid.
2) UNC and Duke were not successful bc of their rabid fan bases. Hardly. When Duke has hosted the opening weekend, they typically had among the most abysmal attendance. Last year: 2300 for one game and 1900 for the other.
I'm not sure why I have 2010 stats, but that year - with predetermined sites - Durham averaged 3900. That was 6th best out of the 9 sites that included a home team. Even Norfolk VA and Pittsburgh had better attendance despite not having the host school playing. (Norfolk had UConn and Pitt had Ohio St)

Btw, Greensboro NC (2019) and Greenville SC (2020) will be hosting in coming years.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

Where were your fans in Nashville?

I was in Nashville; we had the 3rd largest contingent of fans after UT and MSU; it is almost 500 miles from Columbia to Nashville.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

Wear Gamecock clothing and sit with Uconn fans! I went to Giants game and sat 4 rows up on 40 yard line in my Raiders gear and my team Won!

I may end up doing that; I have no problem with UCONN fans. Heck, my ex sister-in-law got her MSW there.

 

[Vowelguy]

Do you know what the phrase "neutral site" means? Just asking. It doesn't seem like you do.

For the NCAA, it means a site that you have not played more than 3 home games. (I think it's 3.)

As I've said many times before, if you think bracketing teams is easy, I suggest you try it yourself. One of the reasons I enjoy it is that it's like a puzzle -- there are tons of moving parts, and every placement has a ripple effect through the bracket.

Saying the S curve doesn't matter is just silly. Of course it does. But it is not the sole criteria. And the committee is trying to balance multiple issues from the "Policies & Procedures." Those policies are set before each March. It is the committee's job to just try to hit as many of them as possible.

And by the way, there was NO way the committee was not going to put Kentucky in the Lexington regional. None.

 

[cbraarj]

I'm twice retired, now I hope you're not implying that I stay that long in the bathroom, although my wife might tend to agree with you. Once I wake up, I stay up, it's a military thing I guess. I always watch the whole game when it comes to UConn, there is something about them that reminds me of my basic training. You drill and drill till you get it right, then you drill some more!

A short stay and once I am up. I stay up too,lol!

 

[triaddukefan]

The requirement is for them to not meet before the regional semis.

Again the issue is do you keep more teams closer to home or impose the expense and lack of fans further away?


In other words, yes there are 4 conference teams in one region. Their likelihood of facing each other is extremely low.

I don't think it's fair to penalize the committee for failing to prevent low probability events from having the chance to occur.

I was trying to make the top 5 of whines in this thread

I may try again later

 

[cbraarj]

Thanks for your insight. But if we're being honest, SC should have been one of the best if not the best teams in the country if it weren't for injuries and players leaving. Gray and Davis themselves would've made SC top tier this year but to also lose Cuevas-Moore (a senior leader & program mainstay), Lindsay Spann (a sharp shooter who was shooting 50% from 3), and not getting Cooper eligible was a big bullet for us. So to only have 6 losses after that with only 3 upperclassmen on the roster is impressive to say the least. Some posters here just don't like to give credit when it's due but it's fine. SC will be fine and will only get better as a program.

Uconn lost the first 3 picks of the draft in 2016 and were 36-1 last year! So dont use Gray and Davis because you dont see this board saying only if Morgan stayed! This time of year injuries are a given and SC didnt lose half as much as Notre Dame did.

 

[Bronx23]

I am going to go out on what I think is a reasonably strong limb and say there is a very legitimate chance USF will meet UConn in Albany. It appears to me that Jose (a la Geno) has his team peaking at exactly the right time.

I believe they can beat SC. They only lost to UConn by 16 in the AAC Tournament final in UConn's home away from home, Mohegan Sun. UConn beat SC by 15, but it was at SC's house and every UConn sub played in that game(albeit for just a few minutes) whereas no (I repeat, NO) subs played in the last USF game. ND beat USF by 16; they beat SC by 7 - both early in the season. My "eye test" on the AAC final was that USF is starting to charge. And while their shot at SC in Albany may be a bit of a long one, at this point in time I think SC may be within their range.

I think your whole assumption is wishful thinking. Has USF ever beaten a top ranked team or program?
That's a huge additional hurdle beyond point spreads and match ups. Also while they last game with U Conn was not a blowout they also were never a true danger to win.
I'll be shocked it they get close to as far as you think might happen!
Bronx23

 

[Vowelguy]

I was trying to make the top 5 of whines in this thread

 

[oldude]

I think your whole assumption is wishful thinking. Has USF ever beaten a top ranked team or program?
That's a huge additional hurdle beyond point spreads and match ups. Also while they last game with U Conn was not a blowout they also were never a true danger to win.
I'll be shocked it they get close to as far as you think might happen!
Bronx23

Do the Buckeyes count as a top ranked program?

 

[triaddukefan]

Ha.... I had to google that.... I was thinking that looks like Magic Johnson's kid... and I was correct.