Preliminary Seedings

[alexrgct]

Maybe I haven't read the right article yet, but I still don't get it. Why announce #1 seeds now? The top four teams mattered in CFB, but WCBB has a completely different playoff system. What's more, why do I care who top five-seeded teams are as of now in a field of 64? Why does it matter?

Basically, is this just a ploy to drum up more interest and discussion in the sport? I'm very interested in the sport, and my response to all of this hoopla is, quite simply, "Who gives a ?".

Again, if anyone can point me in the direction of anything refuting what I've said by explaining the clear purpose of this, I'd be most appreciative.

 

[Vowelguy]

Yes, I think the point is to drum up interest. I have no problem with that.

And I like this. Gives an early peak into how the committee is thinking and evaluating performance so far. Provides some insight into what might happen with final selections.

I also think it's nice that the top 20 teams can start suggesting to their fans - "hey, we might host!"

 

[Intpseeker]

I don't understand the point of this exercise, especially from the NCAA Committee.

This is fubar practice for them. Mucking stuff up ain't easy, y'all. You have to work at it.

 

[CocoHusky]

Early seedings seem like a pointless thing: the committee wanting to make itself useful for more than just March, maybe.

With UConn on the outside looking in (with respect to conferences), and given how much enthusiasm surrounds marquee OOC matchups in February, I would like to wave a magic wand and accomplish the following:

1. A mandatory rearranging of conference schedules. All conference schedules start in early-mid December. Then, there's a two week period in February in which conference games cannot take place.

2. Here's where the committee can make itself useful. Have them rank the teams using a mixture of polls, previous year results, and eye test. The number 1 team plays the next four teams down (not including any conference teams within that block). The number 2 team plays the number 1 team, plus the next three teams down. And so forth, all the way down to the 10th or even 20th rank. Try to set it up so that most or all teams get two home and two away games.

The main drawback? There would probably be more interesting matchups in all of that than there would be in the NCAA tournament itself.

Interesting idea.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Maybe I haven't read the right article yet, but I still don't get it. Why announce #1 seeds now? The top four teams mattered in CFB, but WCBB has a completely different playoff system. What's more, why do I care who top five-seeded teams are as of now in a field of 64? Why does it matter?

Basically, is this just a ploy to drum up more interest and discussion in the sport? I'm very interested in the sport, and my response to all of this hoopla is, quite simply, "Who gives a ?".

Again, if anyone can point me in the direction of anything refuting what I've said by explaining the clear purpose of this, I'd be most appreciative.

It appears to be mainly a hype and another one of those statistical markers like the polls by which you can say in the years ahead, how many times have teams that were a #1 in the early seeds fall completely out of the top 16 or 20 teams in the March selections? Doesn't really mean much of anything, just another fan toy to play with and discuss.

Creme pooh-poohs it because he's got his Bracketology already doing something just as pointless in January and early February. And because of his dumb set up, we have now seen two Ivy League schools "crash and burn" as they lost their ridiculous place in his too-early brackets as first Cornell and then Yale have "moved out" of the lists to be finally replaced by Princeton as the Ivy representative. So he certainly knows about pointless stuff.

 

[UcMiami]

This is the first year of top 16 teams hosting first two rounds so the committee decided to do this preview of the twenty teams most likely to get one of those 16 places and be hosting. Interestingly, both Louisville and ASU home courts are already booked for that first weekend so if they are a top 16 team two other teams will be selected to host ... and I do not think how those two other teams are chosen has actually been defined.

Given the new structure it is probably a good idea to make this announcement a month out. It will also spark a few days of discussions (outrage?) so WCBB will get a little more face time.

 

[Vowelguy]

. Interestingly, both Louisville and ASU home courts are already booked for that first weekend so if they are a top 16 team two other teams will be selected to host ... and I do not think how those two other teams are chosen has actually been defined. (.

Seeding will be done as normal.
In the Lou and ASU brackets, the host will be the next highest seed. So, if ASu is a 3 seed, then the host will be the 6 seed in their bracket. Simple as that.

 

[UcMiami]

On general principles I have a hard time thinking the Pac12 deserves 5 places in the top 20.
By Conference:
Pac - 5
ACC - 5
Sec - 4
Big 10 - 2
Big 12 - 2
AAC - 1
Atlantic 10 - 1

GW just got thumped so this is probably already outdated. I could see them being replaced by another SEC team? Or some other mediocre power 5 team.

I think the Pac12 has finally realized if they trade wins with each other during the conference schedule then they all look better. Something that the Big 12 and SEC learned long ago. They all get 'good' wins to go along with their less than stellar losses?!

 

[hussybulldog]

One more question!

I just watched the interview with the committee chair. Stanford is in solely becasue they are the only team to beat UCONN.

Ok. If that is the thought,

Where is Miami (who beat Notre Dame--later in the season may I add) and Chattanooga who beat Tennessee (why aren't they in the top 20)?

Just wondering!

Agree! Chattanooga has wins over stanford and Tennessee which I guess does not mean much!

 

[hussybulldog]

On general principles I have a hard time thinking the Pac12 deserves 5 places in the top 20.
By Conference:
Pac - 5
ACC - 5
Sec - 4
Big 10 - 2
Big 12 - 2
AAC - 1
Atlantic 10 - 1

GW just got thumped so this is probably already outdated. I could see them being replaced by another SEC team? Or some other mediocre power 5 team.

I think the Pac12 has finally realized if they trade wins with each other during the conference schedule then they all look better. Something that the Big 12 and SEC learned long ago. They all get 'good' wins to go along with their less than stellar losses?!

Very interesting point! Uconn should lose a game to usf and Tulane or even just lose all the games left in the conference so that they can look good. I checked CAL 's schedule, other thean they split with ASU, they do not have any quality win. Wonder why they got in while say Chattanooga was left out( they did defeat supposedly no 1 seed Tenn)

 

[tomcat]

Sorry, but is there a point to this? Is this something like, "If the tournament were held tomorrow, here's how the seedings would work?" And according to whom? It's kinda fun for BYers and other to speculate as individuals, but since when did this level of meaninglessness rate a tv appearance?

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Sorry, but is there a point to this? Is this something like, "If the tournament were held tomorrow, here's how the seedings would work?" And according to whom? It's kinda fun for BYers and other to speculate as individuals, but since when did this level of meaninglessness rate a tv appearance?

It is from the same committee that will seed the real tournament. I thought the best point I read was from Charlie Creme of all people (I usually avoid him completely). His point was that some of the picks gave some possible insight into how the committee is thinking about this season - specifically, that they appear to be rewarding stronger scheduling OOC above only win / loss record. He then acknowledged that this wasn't shocking.

I'm sure for some fans this will increase interest.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

Charlie Creme's % of picks that are right on is about 10 to 20% out of placing 64 teams! He is supposed to be the big cheese in predicting and he's usually wrong except #1's and they can be picked ahead of time by all most everyone! During last years NCAA Bracketing show I had Creme's last Bracket and he had 3 #2, #3, or #4 seeds right! He is almost always wrong WHERE the schools are going for Regionals!

 

[hussybulldog]

Charlie Creme's % of picks that are right on is about 10 to 20% out of placing 64 teams! He is supposed to be the big cheese

Stinky, stale cheese......long passed expiration date.

 

[UcMiami]

I actually find Cream interesting because he really does study the 75 or so schools in the running for spots and dives pretty deep into their schedules which is something I certainly do not do. Getting the top end of the seeding mostly right (top 20 or so) is not that hard getting the regional assignments is impossible as the committee creates and throws out rules by whim it seems.

At the end of the day the best teams have a weekend of cakewalks, a weekend with one cakewalk and one very challenging game, and then the final four. And everyone else is just trying to get to the second weekend or the 4th game.

 

[Frodo]

If South Carolina beats the Lady Vols in their match up, I don't see the Lady Vols getting a#1 seed. If Baylor and/or Maryland run the table, they'll get a #1 seed. Don't know what the committee will do if both run the table. There's also a possibility that Notre Dame could lose a conference game.

Chairperson also said the B12 has the strongest conference RPI. I don't know how they continue to do this as they're not the strongest conference for WBB.

Whenever I hear a committee member site the RPI, I cringe. Watching this interview was just painful. All I could think was either a) this woman was just the face for a lot of people who don't really follow basketball and was in an impossible position or b) doesn't actually know anything about basketball herself. I think Charlie Creme's analysis is pretty accurate when he says that "top-25 poll voters usually are the the only culprits in succumbing to tradition. It appears that somehow happened to the committee here." (sic) Hancock says at one point that they put Tennessee over Baylor and Maryland because...and then she only mentions Baylor having fewer top 50 wins than Tennessee. For starters I wish these people would stop talking about 'top 50'. Women's basketball isn't yet men's basketball and 'top 50' includes a lot of pretty mediocre basketball teams. The depth of the women's game just doesn't go that far yet. Secondly, Tennessee got the nod because they have 10 wins over top 50...Maryland has 11. Sounds like they were cherry picking the stats they wanted to get the results they wanted.

With her reply to the question about Mississippi State vs Texas A&M, Hancock just embarrassed herself. Non-conference schedule was cited here and the fact that they "just didn't have as many opportunities to win big games against teams in the top 50". Mississippi State has 5 wins against top 50 while A&M has 3. (I hate mentioning top 50, but it's a criteria they use) as well as a better overall record, better conference record and a win in head-to-head with A&M.

The Stanford and Oklahoma discussion was equally painful. Stanford, despite their 7 losses gets the nod largely because of an early win over UConn..."a big, big factor" according to Hancock...(so early season games count), but Oklahoma gets the nod despite the fact that they "started a little bit slow" (so early season games don't count). Again, cherry picking the stats they want to get the results they want. At this point to quote Charlie Creme, Oklahoma " just isn't top-five seed material". I'd go a little further and say that, in spite of their current 2nd spot in the Big 12, they aren't even a lock to be in the tournament. There is a chance that going into their conference tournament they could be 17-12 or 18-13 overall. An early exit from the conference tournament and they probably don't deserve a bid, much less a top 20.

vowel guy said "Gives an early peak into how the committee is thinking and evaluating performance so far. Provides some insight into what might happen with final selections." Scary thought. I can only hope that when the final tournament seedings are done, and in spite of the evidence against it happening, that the committee does an exponentially better job at the end of the year than this preliminary go.

 

[trisailin]

Why don't they just say it - POLITICS does the picking. And the RPI gives them cover to do whatever they darn well please. When RPI doesn't quite pass the eyeball test (which is never does), then they resort to completely subjective/political choosing.
They do nothing of the sort of picking the "strongest/most DESERVING/best" to get in to the tourney.
I maybe could understand politics determining seeding/playing locations - but NOT something as basic as even getting in to the tourney.

This whole notion of strength of schedule - could one of the defenders of RPI please explain it to me?

 

[RockyMTblue2]

<<<<<shaking head>>>>>

Didn't we try this Tennessee/South Carolina as #1 seed situation last year? And how did that turn out?

I realize its a new season but I don't get the SEC love. Oh well! Its just "as of right now" and i have no doubt it will sort itself out in the tourney

The NCAA power structure is an SEC enclave - leads to things like refusing to rule on clear violations until a certain QB can play the defacto Nat'l championship game. The women's committee has the same bias.

 

[Orangutan]

You can apologize to me too. I think i said something similar

But I didn't quote you directly...

So no apologies but many kudos

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

The icing on the NCAA Seeding cake is back in 2001 ND got the overall #1 seed because in the interview the chairwoman Jeremiah said ND beat UCONN 2x and won Big East regular season and Tournament Championships and Robin Roberts told her no UCONN won the Tournament Championship (on Sue Bird's buzzer beater) and ND won the regular season! And the chairwoman said "oh they did?" They shouldn't have met in the semi's where ND won they should have met in the finals!

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

Overall I enjoy Creme's Bracketology even tho it's impossible after 1st seeds to pick seeds & sites! The committee has no set rules or policies in place that they can depend on from year to year!

 

[baylorprof]

From the cheap seats at the Ferrell Center, . . . Frodo is right.

Chair of Committee making yesterday's announcement needs NEVER to have a mike or camera any where near her again. Deer in headlights as a spokesperson.

The women's game and its fans deserves much better from the NCAA.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

Early seedings seem like a pointless thing: the committee wanting to make itself useful for more than just March, maybe.

All conference schedules start in early-mid December. Then, there's a two week period in February in which conference games cannot take place.

Early seedings also help the schools and facilities prepare to host and are not left scrambling at the last minute.

There is more time off in December because that is when students are taking their final exams.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

Charlie Creme's % of picks that are right on is about 10 to 20% out of placing 64 teams! He is supposed to be the big cheese in predicting and he's usually wrong except #1's and they can be picked ahead of time by all most everyone! During last years NCAA Bracketing show I had Creme's last Bracket and he had 3 #2, #3, or #4 seeds right! He is almost always wrong WHERE the schools are going for Regionals!

Part of the reason why he is wrong is because the NCAA Women's Selection Committee often changes the rules or violates their own rules regarding geography, conference affiliation in certain brackets, etc. Not exactly fair for him to be able to predict the incredibly inconsistent selections and bending of rules.

 

[Vowelguy]

The committee has no set rules or policies in place

No true. There is a detailed procedure document.