Predicting the committee 16 | The Boneyard

Predicting the committee 16

Vowelguy

Vowelguy

Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
26,059
Reaction Score
70,656
To be announced Thursday night during halftime of SC game.

First and foremost, I assume they will incorporate all results through tonight. BUT if they dont, then things will look nutty.
  1. SC (#1 last time)
  2. Stan (2)
  3. NC St (3)
  4. Lou (5)
  5. Mich (9)
  6. Ariz (8)
  7. Indi (6)
  8. Bay (13)
  9. Iowa St (10)
  10. Tenn (4)
  11. UConn (11)
  12. Okla (-)
  13. Tex (7)
  14. Fla (-)
  15. LSU (12)
  16. Ore (14)
close: ND, Ga, Oh St

Bracket:
NC: 1 SCar // 8 Bayl // 11 CT // 16 Ore
WA: 2 Stan // 7 Indi // 9 IaSt / 15 LSU
CT: 3 NCSt // 6 Ariz // 10 TN // 13 Tex
KS: 4 Loui // 5 Mich // 12 OK // 14 Fla
 
Yes, I think last night’s will be incorporated. Your list is pretty solid. I would probably flip Baylor and Iowa state based upon the Joen’s sisters absence from two of their losses (including Baylor)

Good job
 
visitingcock said:
Yes, I think last night’s will be incorporated. Your list is pretty solid. I would probably flip Baylor and Iowa state based upon the Joen’s sisters absence from two of their losses (including Baylor)

Good job
Expand ...
Ashley played against Baylor.
 
Could see us as the highest 4 seed in Wichita with Louisville.
 
[Trying again, since my first post had some screwups.]

My stab:
  1. SC
  2. Stanford
  3. NC State
  4. Louisville
  5. Arizona
  6. Michigan
  7. Indiana
  8. Baylor
  9. Iowa State
  10. Tennessee
  11. Texas
  12. UConn
  13. Oklahoma
  14. LSU
  15. Oregon
  16. Georgia
Bubble: Notre Dame, Kansas State, Georgia Tech, Maryland

Regional placements:
Greensboro: 1 SC, 2 Baylor, 3 UConn*, 4 Oregon​
Spokane: 1 Stanford, 2 Indiana, 3 Iowa St, 4 LSU​
Bridgeport: 1 NC St, 2 Michigan, 3 Tennessee, 4 Oklahoma​
Wichita: 1 Louisville, 2 Arizona, 3 Texas, 4 Georgia​
​
*In this ranking scenario, the committee would have no choice but to put UConn in Greensboro, since each of the other 3 seeds (ISU, TN, TX) would be barred due to conference affiliation.​
 
.-.
I actually think that they will put some injury consideration into our placement. Yes, Villanova played great, we struggled, and lost-but they can't ignore the blatant fact that our two best players since Paige has been out are Caroline and Olivia, two kids that will be back. I wouldn't be surprised if we were #9 overall seed and the 3-seed in Bridgeport.
 
visitingcock said:
I wonder if this will jack our SCar /Kentucky tv viewership?
Expand ...
It should. I'll be at the Louisville-UVA game but am recording SCar-UK just for that reason.

Not much positive happening over in Lexington. I'm sorry to see that. The Walz-Mitchell matchups were always interesting. I hope that Elzy can turn things around.
 
Plebe said:
[Trying again, since my first post had some screwups.]

My stab:
  1. SC
  2. Stanford
  3. NC State
  4. Louisville
  5. Arizona
  6. Michigan
  7. Indiana
  8. Baylor
  9. Iowa State
  10. Tennessee
  11. Texas
  12. UConn
  13. Oklahoma
  14. LSU
  15. Oregon
  16. Georgia
Bubble: Notre Dame, Kansas State, Georgia Tech, Maryland

Regional placements:
Greensboro: 1 SC, 2 Baylor, 3 UConn*, 4 Oregon​
Spokane: 1 Stanford, 2 Indiana, 3 Iowa St, 4 LSU​
Bridgeport: 1 NC St, 2 Michigan, 3 Tennessee, 4 Oklahoma​
Wichita: 1 Louisville, 2 Arizona, 3 Texas, 4 Georgia​
​
*In this ranking scenario, the committee would have no choice but to put UConn in Greensboro, since each of the other 3 seeds (ISU, TN, TX) would be barred due to conference affiliation.​
Expand ...

Let me rumble through my closet :p
 
southie said:
NET rankings:

NET Ranking - Women's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com

2022 Women's College Basketball NET Ranking: NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) a ranking of teams based on five factors, team value index, net efficiency, winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage, and scoring margin.
www.warrennolan.com www.warrennolan.com
Expand ...
But the selection committee looks at MUCH more. The NET is merely a guide.

For instance, look at Texas’ team sheet. You will see 2 losses to quad two teams. That will drop them a good deal. Note how high the NET has UNC. The committee will not have them near that level
 
.-.
visitingcock said:
But the selection committee looks at MUCH more. The NET is merely a guide.

For instance, look at Texas’ team sheet. You will see 2 losses to quad two teams. That will drop them a good deal. Note how high the NET has UNC. The committee will not have them near that level
Expand ...
Texas had those 2 losses prior to the first reveal. and the committee ranked them at #7 overall. Not sure where Kansas and Texas Tech were ranked then compared to now.
 
ucbart said:
I actually think that they will put some injury consideration into our placement. Yes, Villanova played great, we struggled, and lost-but they can't ignore the blatant fact that our two best players since Paige has been out are Caroline and Olivia, two kids that will be back. I wouldn't be surprised if we were #9 overall seed and the 3-seed in Bridgeport.
Expand ...
I'm skeptical that the committee would completely overlook the Villanova loss to move UConn up to #9 as of today, but even if they do, their ability to place UConn in Bridgeport could still be hamstrung depending on who are the teams around them on the 2 and 3 seed lines. The requirement to separate conference rivals could figure prominently in where everyone ends up.
 
ucbart said:
I actually think that they will put some injury consideration into our placement. Yes, Villanova played great, we struggled, and lost-but they can't ignore the blatant fact that our two best players since Paige has been out are Caroline and Olivia, two kids that will be back. I wouldn't be surprised if we were #9 overall seed and the 3-seed in Bridgeport.
Expand ...
Injuries typically get factored in IF the player is back and playing well , thus the missed game was an aberration. We know nothing about CD nor ONOs status.
 
ESPN loving us as usual, wrote up the game, how well Villanova played, how we lost, then at the end mentioned "oh yeah, Liv and CD did not play. No big deal." I think someone else missed the game. Dorka's foot, what foot???
 
.-.
Ralph said:
ESPN loving us as usual, wrote up the game, how well Villanova played, how we lost, then at the end mentioned "oh yeah, Liv and CD did not play. No big deal." I think someone else missed the game. Dorka's foot, what foot???
Expand ...
Your characterization of the article is a bit distorting.

The discussion of player absences begins pretty much right in the middle of the article. And the first half of the piece was about much more than Villanova; it also recounted a lot of the historical stats related to UConn's streak of conference dominance, including how our last loss in a conference game to ND preceded our beating them in the national semis and then starting a run of 4 national titles in a row. That was pretty ancillary to the news of the loss and hardly portrayed UConn in a negative light.

People are so oversensitive to every little article. Be glad a UConn loss is considered newsworthy, because the alternative would surely not be preferable.
 
Plebe said:
I'm skeptical that the committee would completely overlook the Villanova loss to move UConn up to #9 as of today, but even if they do, their ability to place UConn in Bridgeport could still be hamstrung depending on who are the teams around them on the 2 and 3 seed lines. The requirement to separate conference rivals could figure prominently in where everyone ends up.
Expand ...
6:00 PM Thursday, Feb. 10: UCONN NOT a #2 any more
 
Plebe said:
Your characterization of the article is a bit distorting.

The discussion of player absences begins pretty much right in the middle of the article. And the first half of the piece was about much more than Villanova; it also recounted a lot of the historical stats related to UConn's streak of conference dominance, including how our last loss in a conference game to ND preceded our beating them in the national semis and then starting a run of 4 national titles in a row. That was pretty ancillary to the news of the loss and hardly portrayed UConn in a negative light.

People are so oversensitive to every little article. Be glad a UConn loss is considered newsworthy, because the alternative would surely not be preferable.
Expand ...
Butthurt is the new American way
 
So I missed the halftime of the Ky-SC game, and I am now watching the third quarter. Did they show the 2nd Top 16 reveal at halftime? If so, where was UConn placed? If not, did they say when it will be shown? Why is no one talking about it?
 
JoePgh said:
So I missed the halftime of the Ky-SC game, and I am now watching the third quarter. Did they show the 2nd Top 16 reveal at halftime? If so, where was UConn placed? If not, did they say when it will be shown? Why is no one talking about it?
Expand ...
UConn was #11 again
This time as 3 in bridgeport
 
.-.
A few mild surprises to me. I expected Oklahoma to be in the top 16, but they rocketed all the way to #9 overall. Texas drops like a rock from #7 to #15.

These are justifiable decisions based on resumes, but as in other years I fee that their decision-making rationales are not consistent from one reveal to the next.

 
JoePgh said:
MilfordHusky said:
VG got the top 4 and 15 of the 16. ND is in instead of Florida.

We are in Bridgeport as a 3, with NC State, Michigan, and Texas.
Expand ...

.
Expand ...
Actually I got the top 6 but who’s counting ?
:)
 
Michigan #2 in Bridgeport lost tonight to Michigan State. And North Carolina State won in overtime against Boston College. Bridgeport as currently configured would be a good for the Huskies.
 
How far does Michigan fall with its loss to Michigan State, a team that lost to Minn (#78 Massey), Purdue (#60 Massey), West Virginia (#78 Massey), Fordham (#74 Massey), and St. Francis BK (#243 Massey)? They also didn't have 3 of their top 4 players sitting out either.
 
Last edited:
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,520
Messages
4,580,326
Members
10,490
Latest member
7774Forever


Top Bottom