Performance since the last reveal

[Glenn]

Besides South Carolina, 3 teams went undefeated since the last reveal--UConn, Iowa, and VTech. They were ranked 7-8-9, and the teams in front of them lost. They also beat other top 16 teams during that period. So the question is how high will they move? Finally, UConn also got back Azzi Fudd. I think the news would propell Iowa in front of the other two and to a 1 seed because I am putting some extra weight on recent performance, and could keep UConn in front of VTech--because of the Azzi news. Both would move above LSU and Maryland, the other two current 2 seeds. Indeed, with LSU's loss, I would move them down to a 3 seed.

Elsewhere at the top, Utah and Stanford possibly move down to 2 seeds--their records are very close and they split games this season., but their overall records are similar to UConn, Iowa and VTech. So moving them down and the others up, reflects putting more weight on recent games and tournament results.

Arizona and Michigan will drop out of the top 16. With Miles out, I would drop ND to a 4 seed.

 

[hoopsnloops32]

UConn is number 2 Net, most top 25 wins in Net And only five losses against the number 1 SOS in the country. I’d say we are securely a one seed and most likely the third one seed.

 

[todbo]

IMO, given ND's lopsided loss in their league tournament and the loss of their strong point guard, in a rational world, they'd drop out of the top 16.

 

[SLY63]

Please match us with Va Tech

 

[visitingcock]

UConn is number 2 Net, most top 25 wins in Net And only five losses against the number 1 SOS in the country. I’d say we are securely a one seed and most likely the third one seed.

SHOULD be, , The committee is given discretion to depart from NET (and did so wildly in the last reveal.) The should stay as close as possible to it but adjust only slightly to achieve desired matchups in the regional.

To me, it is an abuse of discretion to raise or lower a team more than 3 places from their NET rank.

 

[hoopsnloops32]

SHOULD be, , The committee is given discretion to depart from NET (and did so wildly in the last reveal.) The should stay as close as possible to it but adjust only slightly to achieve desired matchups in the regional.

To me, it is an abuse of discretion to raise or lower a team more than 3 places from their NET rank.

It not just NET ranking though. It's the return of Azzi since the last reveal when no one knew if she was even coming back, it's the eye test improvement, and it's in ratings like Massey and its all the teams above us faltering. We were around 6 or 7 in Massey ratings at the last reveal and now we are back at #2. If UConn had announced that Azzi was planning to return for the BET I'm not sure UConn would have dropped to a 2 seed in the last reveal.


Just my opinion on how UConn will be seeded, but you never do know.

 

[The CDR-Ret]

Besides South Carolina, 3 teams went undefeated since the last reveal--UConn, Iowa, and VTech. They were ranked 7-8-9, and the teams in front of them lost. They also beat other top 16 teams during that period. So the question is how high will they move? Finally, UConn also got back Azzi Fudd. I think the news would propell Iowa in front of the other two and to a 1 seed because I am putting some extra weight on recent performance, and could keep UConn in front of VTech--because of the Azzi news. Both would move above LSU and Maryland, the other two current 2 seeds. Indeed, with LSU's loss, I would move them down to a 3 seed.

Elsewhere at the top, Utah and Stanford possibly move down to 2 seeds--their records are very close and they split games this season., but their overall records are similar to UConn, Iowa and VTech. So moving them down and the others up, reflects putting more weight on recent games and tournament results.

Arizona and Michigan will drop out of the top 16. With Miles out, I would drop ND to a 4 seed. View attachment 84826

If the NCAA Women's Tournament Selection Committee follows their own directives, the NET should matter. With more than half of the Conferences being completed through the final Championship game by the evening of the 7th of March, 2023, the following table [NET rankings] should be fairly accurate at this point [ESPN does not have this on their Women's Basketball site....]:

NET rankings Through Games Mar. 07 2023
Rank	Previous	SCHOOL	CONFERENCE	RECORD	ROAD	NEUTRAL	HOME
on 3/7/23	ranking	Team	Conference	Record	Road	Neutral	Home
1	1	South Carolina	SEC	32-0	13-0	4-0	15-0
2	2	UConn	Big East	29-5	10-3	6-0	13-2
3	3	LSU	SEC	28-2	8-1	5-1	15-0
4	4	Stanford	Pac-12	28-5	9-3	3-1	16-1
5	5	Indiana	Big Ten	27-3	8-2	3-1	16-0
6	6	Iowa	Big Ten	26-6	7-2	4-1	15-1
7	7	Utah	Pac-12	25-4	9-2	2-1	14-0
8	8	Notre Dame	ACC	25-5	8-2	4-1	13-2
9	9	Virginia Tech	ACC	27-4	8-3	5-0	14-1
10	10	Duke	ACC	25-6	10-3	2-2	13-1
11	11	Texas	Big 12	23-8	7-4	2-2	14-2
12	12	Villanova	Big East	28-6	13-1	4-3	11-2
13	13	Maryland	Big Ten	25-6	11-2	3-2	11-2
14	14	Iowa St.	Big 12	19-9	4-7	2-1	13-1
15	15	Tennessee	SEC	23-11	6-4	3-3	14-4
16	16	Ohio St.	Big Ten	25-7	10-2	4-1	11-4
17	17	NC State	ACC	20-11	5-7	3-1	12-3
18	18	Creighton	Big East	22-8	12-3	1-1	9-4
19	19	Oregon	Pac-12	17-14	3-7	3-3	11-4
20	20	Louisville	ACC	23-11	9-5	3-3	11-3
21	21	North Carolina	ACC	21-10	5-6	3-2	13-2
22	22	UCLA	Pac-12	25-9	6-5	6-1	13-3
23	23	Colorado	Pac-12	23-8	9-5	2-1	12-2
24	24	Florida St.	ACC	23-9	7-5	3-3	14-1
25	25	Ole Miss	SEC	23-8	7-4	2-2	14-2
26	26	Michigan	Big Ten	22-9	7-4	5-1	10-4
27	27	Arizona	Pac-12	21-9	7-5	2-1	12-3
28	28	Middle Tenn.	C-USA	25-4	10-3	1-1	14-0
29	31	Washington St.	Pac-12	23-10	9-4	5-1	9-5
30	29	Alabama	SEC	20-10	8-4	1-2	11-4
		Team	Conference	Record	Road	Neutral	Home

I only included the top 30, as they [Selection Committee] should have the Top 16 teams who will be hosts for the first two rounds within the top 30 regardless of what happens up to the selction reveal on Selection Sunday [four days from now].

So with Glenn's data and the NET rankings, let the INFORMED arguing begin!!!

I say, if UCONN is an overall seed of 2, 3, 6, or 7, LIFE is GOOD to face South Carolina in the NCAA Final Game! Final Answer!!!

Go HUSKIES!!!!

 

[UcMiami]

Besides South Carolina, 3 teams went undefeated since the last reveal--UConn, Iowa, and VTech. They were ranked 7-8-9, and the teams in front of them lost. They also beat other top 16 teams during that period. So the question is how high will they move? Finally, UConn also got back Azzi Fudd. I think the news would propell Iowa in front of the other two and to a 1 seed because I am putting some extra weight on recent performance, and could keep UConn in front of VTech--because of the Azzi news. Both would move above LSU and Maryland, the other two current 2 seeds. Indeed, with LSU's loss, I would move them down to a 3 seed.

Elsewhere at the top, Utah and Stanford possibly move down to 2 seeds--their records are very close and they split games this season., but their overall records are similar to UConn, Iowa and VTech. So moving them down and the others up, reflects putting more weight on recent games and tournament results.

Arizona and Michigan will drop out of the top 16. With Miles out, I would drop ND to a 4 seed. View attachment 84826

Thanks for posting. 1 question: DePaul is counted as a Quad 1 for Uconn and a Quad 2 for Nova - is that a mistake or is the quad designation based on quad at the date of the game?

 

[MSGRET]

Here is the current D1 WBB Net Ranking as of 3/7/23.

DI Women's Basketball Rankings - NCAA Women's Basketball NET Rankings | NCAA.com

Get NCAA women's college basketball rankings from the Associated Press, USA Today/WBCA and NCAA committee.

www.ncaa.com

 

[Bone Dog]

SHOULD be, , The committee is given discretion to depart from NET (and did so wildly in the last reveal.) The should stay as close as possible to it but adjust only slightly to achieve desired matchups in the regional.

To me, it is an abuse of discretion to raise or lower a team more than 3 places from their NET rank.

This is exactly how I think about it. Whatever statistical measure the committee uses -- right now it's the NET -- is how they shield themselves from accusations of favoritism. It's not just an abuse of discretion to depart too far from the NET. It's also a failure to shield themselves from criticism.

As for the early reveals, those aren't exactly "discretion." They're more like warning shots to get everyone prepared for the idea that they don't have to follow NET rankings exactly. In the final seeding, they'll rein it in. But the fact is, they need the leeway to depart from it a little bit to respond to geographical and intraconference issues.

 

[Glenn]

Thanks for posting. 1 question: DePaul is counted as a Quad 1 for Uconn and a Quad 2 for Nova - is that a mistake or is the quad designation based on quad at the date of the game?

It's based on home versus away or neutral. The net ratings assume a team is always the same quality over time. But they update that level with each game.

 

[Glenn]

FYI: A good source for material based on net ratings and quadrants is
Www.warrennolan.com/basketballw/2023/net-nitty

 

[visitingcock]

FYI: A good source for material based on net ratings and quadrants is
Www.warrennolan.com/basketballw/2023/net-nitty

I second what Glenn says.

I read the nitty gritty every morning with my second cup of coffee:

Glenn: Did you see the Alexis Phillipou tweet last week saying that the women's committee, unlike the men's, does not use the Quad records? I'm still not sure what she meant by that, but I'm somewhat outraged by the tweet (without knowing its full meaning). Do they not look at them at all? Do they only give them a cursory look?

I don't think the men's committee and women's should use different reviews though. Seems wrong.

 

[DefenseBB]

So while NET is supposed to be the starting point for the Committee discussions (it is supposed to incorporate Wins, Losses, Strength of Schedule and expected wins from that), they also are supposed to place higher ranking on regular season conference title, tournament title, key injuries and the expected return and consideration of the injuries and the player returning. Current playing is supposed to be given only a slight nod over the overall effort of the season.

With all that said, the Committee Chair will have to explain any of the deviations like UConn being a #2 seed vs. #1 seed given their relative resume to Stanford, Iowa, Virginia Tech, Maryland and Utah. I am agreeing that SC and Indiana have earned their #1 seeds based on their cumulative body of work.

VaTech, while on a nice win streak just doesn't have the full resume to surpass UConn as their SoS was #30 vs. UConn #2, they came in 3rd in the ACC and while Ashley Owusu is now back and healthy, she is not a contributor for VPI whereas Azzi is.

What drives me nuts in Charlie Creme's predictions is his lack of explanation on why, given the metrics and criteria stated by the committee, he has UConn so far behind Stanford given their similar records. I don't agree with @Glenn that Iowa jumps from #9 to #3 as the whole body of work does matter and while the committee may or may not use Quad1 games, the 11-6 stands out as a negative for Iowa. They are not a #1 seed but a solid #2.

So my tweaking has #1-SC, IN, Stan, UConn (Stanford over UConn due to the bad Quad 2 loss to SJU). #2-VaTech, Iowa, Utah, MD, #3-LSU, ND, tOSU, Texas (if they win the Big12), #4 Duke, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Villanova.

 

[Ralph]

Does the NET have some kind of actual number value, like 4.8 or 14.2 so you can see how teams compare. Is UConn number 2 by a large margin over number 3, or a small margin. would be interesting to see if the scores were SC 9.8 UConn 9.4, Indiana 8.2 or 9.3, makes a big difference to me. Committee might appropriately have discretion to move a team up or down .6 of a point, but not 1.4 except for unusual circumstances, like losing your starting back court, or being 5-5 with 4 people out with injuries, 16-2 with everyone back, or 15-5 when people are out, 9-0 when everyone was available and they are now available. That said for us, CD and Azzi are still questionable not 100% and as we know nothing about Miles for sure, we now also don't know too much yet about Aubrey. We hope she is 100% in two days, but with her back history, we don't know. So some discretion for the committee, but not unlimited.

 

[hoopsnloops32]

So while NET is supposed to be the starting point for the Committee discussions (it is supposed to incorporate Wins, Losses, Strength of Schedule and expected wins from that), they also are supposed to place higher ranking on regular season conference title, tournament title, key injuries and the expected return and consideration of the injuries and the player returning. Current playing is supposed to be given only a slight nod over the overall effort of the season.

With all that said, the Committee Chair will have to explain any of the deviations like UConn being a #2 seed vs. #1 seed given their relative resume to Stanford, Iowa, Virginia Tech, Maryland and Utah. I am agreeing that SC and Indiana have earned their #1 seeds based on their cumulative body of work.

VaTech, while on a nice win streak just doesn't have the full resume to surpass UConn as their SoS was #30 vs. UConn #2, they came in 3rd in the ACC and while Ashley Owusu is now back and healthy, she is not a contributor for VPI whereas Azzi is.

What drives me nuts in Charlie Creme's predictions is his lack of explanation on why, given the metrics and criteria stated by the committee, he has UConn so far behind Stanford given their similar records. I don't agree with @Glenn that Iowa jumps from #9 to #3 as the whole body of work does matter and while the committee may or may not use Quad1 games, the 11-6 stands out as a negative for Iowa. They are not a #1 seed but a solid #2.

So my tweaking has #1-SC, IN, Stan, UConn (Stanford over UConn due to the bad Quad 2 loss to SJU). #2-VaTech, Iowa, Utah, MD, #3-LSU, ND, tOSU, Texas (if they win the Big12), #4 Duke, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Villanova.

The womens' commitee doesn't use Quads, as a reminder.

 

[hoopsnloops32]

I second what Glenn says.

I read the nitty gritty every morning with my second cup of coffee:

Glenn: Did you see the Alexis Phillipou tweet last week saying that the women's committee, unlike the men's, does not use the Quad records? I'm still not sure what she meant by that, but I'm somewhat outraged by the tweet (without knowing its full meaning). Do they not look at them at all? Do they only give them a cursory look?

I don't think the men's committee and women's should use different reviews though. Seems wrong.

I think they don't use quads because of the differences in parity. The Quads where were created specifically for mens teams but they aren't reflective of the same quality of wins or losses in the women's game. They'd likely have to figure out a different quad calculation.

 

[Darwin]

If the NCAA Women's Tournament Selection Committee follows their own directives, the NET should matter. With more than half of the Conferences being completed through the final Championship game by the evening of the 7th of March, 2023, the following table [NET rankings] should be fairly accurate at this point [ESPN does not have this on their Women's Basketball site....]:

NET rankings Through Games Mar. 07 2023
Rank	Previous	SCHOOL	CONFERENCE	RECORD	ROAD	NEUTRAL	HOME
on 3/7/23	ranking	Team	Conference	Record	Road	Neutral	Home
1	1	South Carolina	SEC	32-0	13-0	4-0	15-0
2	2	UConn	Big East	29-5	10-3	6-0	13-2
3	3	LSU	SEC	28-2	8-1	5-1	15-0
4	4	Stanford	Pac-12	28-5	9-3	3-1	16-1
5	5	Indiana	Big Ten	27-3	8-2	3-1	16-0
6	6	Iowa	Big Ten	26-6	7-2	4-1	15-1
7	7	Utah	Pac-12	25-4	9-2	2-1	14-0
8	8	Notre Dame	ACC	25-5	8-2	4-1	13-2
9	9	Virginia Tech	ACC	27-4	8-3	5-0	14-1
10	10	Duke	ACC	25-6	10-3	2-2	13-1
11	11	Texas	Big 12	23-8	7-4	2-2	14-2
12	12	Villanova	Big East	28-6	13-1	4-3	11-2
13	13	Maryland	Big Ten	25-6	11-2	3-2	11-2
14	14	Iowa St.	Big 12	19-9	4-7	2-1	13-1
15	15	Tennessee	SEC	23-11	6-4	3-3	14-4
16	16	Ohio St.	Big Ten	25-7	10-2	4-1	11-4
17	17	NC State	ACC	20-11	5-7	3-1	12-3
18	18	Creighton	Big East	22-8	12-3	1-1	9-4
19	19	Oregon	Pac-12	17-14	3-7	3-3	11-4
20	20	Louisville	ACC	23-11	9-5	3-3	11-3
21	21	North Carolina	ACC	21-10	5-6	3-2	13-2
22	22	UCLA	Pac-12	25-9	6-5	6-1	13-3
23	23	Colorado	Pac-12	23-8	9-5	2-1	12-2
24	24	Florida St.	ACC	23-9	7-5	3-3	14-1
25	25	Ole Miss	SEC	23-8	7-4	2-2	14-2
26	26	Michigan	Big Ten	22-9	7-4	5-1	10-4
27	27	Arizona	Pac-12	21-9	7-5	2-1	12-3
28	28	Middle Tenn.	C-USA	25-4	10-3	1-1	14-0
29	31	Washington St.	Pac-12	23-10	9-4	5-1	9-5
30	29	Alabama	SEC	20-10	8-4	1-2	11-4
		Team	Conference	Record	Road	Neutral	Home

I only included the top 30, as they [Selection Committee] should have the Top 16 teams who will be hosts for the first two rounds within the top 30 regardless of what happens up to the selction reveal on Selection Sunday [four days from now].

So with Glenn's data and the NET rankings, let the INFORMED arguing begin!!!

I say, if UCONN is an overall seed of 2, 3, 6, or 7, LIFE is GOOD to face South Carolina in the NCAA Final Game! Final Answer!!!

Go HUSKIES!!!!

I would just say that the recent NET rankings with LSU as #3 is just wrong. Tell me which currently ranked opponent they have beaten this season let alone teams. It amazes me a team could schedule like they did and remain relevant in the top 10, especially since they were destroyed by the only truly ranked team they played. Same for Villanova whose best win is likely against Princeton, they don’t belong in the top 12ish area. I understand wanting another BE team to be relevant, but tell me the quality wins for Nova vs legit ranked opponents…I’ll hang up and listen.

 

[visitingcock]

I would just say that the recent NET rankings with LSU as #3 is just wrong. Tell me which currently ranked opponent they have beaten this season let alone teams. It amazes me a team could schedule like they did and remain relevant in the top 10, especially since they were destroyed by the only truly ranked team they played. Same for Villanova whose best win is likely against Princeton, they don’t belong in the top 12ish area. I understand wanting another BE team to be relevant, but tell me the quality wins for Nova vs legit ranked opponents…I’ll hang up and listen.

And Oklahoma at 36 is just wrong too. Especially with Iowa State in the top 16

 

[Glenn]

I second what Glenn says.

I read the nitty gritty every morning with my second cup of coffee:

Glenn: Did you see the Alexis Phillipou tweet last week saying that the women's committee, unlike the men's, does not use the Quad records? I'm still not sure what she meant by that, but I'm somewhat outraged by the tweet (without knowing its full meaning). Do they not look at them at all? Do they only give them a cursory look?

I don't think the men's committee and women's should use different reviews though. Seems wrong.

While the Committee does not explicitly use the Quadrant system, they effectively use something similar. They explicitly say they look at bad losses and significant wins--that sounds like the quadrant system to me in an informal way. I agree that the men's quadrants are not appropriate for the women, where talent falls off much more quickly. I used the men's quads this time out of laziness--and the demands of my day job. In addition, the Committee explicitly takes into account injuries (which will affect UConn, Texas, and ND the most) and they explcitly take into account "early competition versus late competition." I read the latter as giving a boost to Iowa and VTech, who have done well of late.

I also suspect they are influenced by the AP poll--even if it is not one of their criteria. I say this because, unlike the Massey ratings, the committee is composed of human beings, and they will be influenced by lots of stuff, withthout them knowing it. By contrast, i do not think they are influenced by Charlie Creme, because I suspect they try not to read any bracketology, to avoid being influenced subliminally.

Here is their procedure:

https://www.ncaa.com/_flysystem/public-s3/files/2022-10/NCAA-DI-womens-basketball-principles-procedures-2023.pdf

 

[Rowdy831]

Charlie is a Click Baiter and what better way to get clicks than insult the team with the most vocal blog in all of Women's Sports? UCONN will not be in the same bracket as SC and they certainly won't be put somewhere that puts them or another high profile team out of the tournament too early. Unlike the men's game the women need their top programs to win to keep the stands full and that is the number 1 priority for the NCAA.

 

[visitingcock]

Charlie is a Click Baiter and what better way to get clicks than insult the team with the most vocal blog in all of Women's Sports? UCONN will not be in the same bracket as SC and they certainly won't be put somewhere that puts them or another high profile team out of the tournament too early. Unlike the men's game the women need their top programs to win to keep the stands full and that is the number 1 priority for the NCAA.

And TV sets tuned in

 

[visitingcock]

Just for fun, let’s look at a hybrid ranking of a human poll (AP) and an algorithm (NET)

TEAM……..NET/AP…….average rank
1. SCar….,,….1/1……………..1
2. Indiana ……5/2…………..,,,3.5
3. Iowa……….6/2…………..…4
4. Stanford……4/5…………….4.5
…UConn………2/7…………….4.5
6. LSU…………3/9…………….6
7. VaTech……..9/4……………..6.5
8. Utah………..7/8………………7.5

9. Villanova…,,12/20…………….11
10. Duke………10/13……………11.5
11. Maryland….13/11…………...12
12. TEXAS……..11/15……………13
13. Ohio St…….16/12……………14

Those above are ranked top 16 in both polls. Of course, Texas is still in play. Here are three more that are ranked top 16 in one poll but not the other. Iowa St and Oklahoma are still in play

14. Tennessee.,,,,15/23……………19
15. IOWA ST……14/26……………20
16 OKLAHOMA…36/14……….,.,,,25

I could live with that top 16 seeds

I’LL LEAVE IT TO Y’ALL TO STRAIGHTEN OUT THE TIE FOR 4th.

 

[Glenn]

Just for fun, let’s look at a hybrid ranking of a human poll (AP) and an algorithm (NET)

TEAM……..NET/AP…….average rank
1. SCar….,,….1/1……………..1
2. Indiana ……5/2…………..,,,3.5
3. Iowa……….6/2…………..…4
4. Stanford……4/5…………….4.5
…UConn………2/7…………….4.5
6. LSU…………3/9…………….6
7. VaTech……..9/4……………..6.5
8. Utah………..7/8………………7.5

9. Villanova…,,12/20…………….11
10. Duke………10/13……………11.5
11. Maryland….13/11…………...12
12. TEXAS……..11/15……………13
13. Ohio St…….16/12……………14

Those above are ranked top 16 in both polls. Of course, Texas is still in play. Here are three more that are ranked top 16 in one poll but not the other. Iowa St and Oklahoma are still in play

14. Tennessee.,,,,15/23……………19
15. IOWA ST……14/26……………20
16 OKLAHOMA…36/14……….,.,,,25

I could live with that top 16 seeds

I’LL LEAVE IT TO Y’ALL TO STRAIGHTEN OUT THE TIE FOR 4th.

You seem to be trolling the BY. You forgot ND and this mysterious tie for 4th.

While i could imagine an argument for putting more weight on the poll--the pollees take the information from the net and add in other info like injuries, the actual pollees do not appear to use all the information available--at least not how i would do so. For example, moving down a team that loses a close game to a better team seems dumb. So I would give more weight to the NET, and low and behold UConn becomes the fourth number 1 seed.

 

[visitingcock]

You seem to be trolling the BY. You forgot ND and this mysterious tie for 4th.

While i could imagine an argument for putting more weight on the poll--the pollees take the information from the net and add in other info like injuries, the actual pollees do not appear to use all the information available--at least not how i would do so. For example, moving down a team that loses a close game to a better team seems dumb. So I would give more weight to the NET, and low and behold UConn becomes the fourth number 1 seed.

Not gonna do all that work just to “troll.” Don’t know how I missed ND. Subconscious Influence of board prejudice??? I don’t do spreadsheets, I just type on my phone while drinking coffee. I admit my mistake - not intent to troll.

Would love to see a (accurate) spreadsheet of NET/RPI/AP/coaches averaged out but was too lazy and time limited to do all four before work.

What’s mysterious about the tie for fourth? I identify it but make no decision. You did . If I made a decision , I would go to a Quad analysis which I believe UConn still wins.