Preliminary Seedings

[mikejays]

Boosting the profile of women's basketball with an early reveal is a good thing. However, there appear to be a number of misses by the committee here. Tennessee ahead of Baylor and Maryland. Texas A&M a top 20, but not Mississippi State. Stanford and Oklahoma in the top 20.

Hopefully the buzz about the apparent flaws will be a positive in changing the committee's perception of some teams when the only selection that matters occurs at the end of the regular season.

 

[j66kicker]

Boosting the profile of women's basketball with an early reveal is a good thing. However, there appear to be a number of misses by the committee here. Tennessee ahead of Baylor and Maryland. Texas A&M a top 20, but not Mississippi State. Stanford and Oklahoma in the top 20.

Hopefully the buzz about the apparent flaws will be a positive in changing the committee's perception of some teams when the only selection that matters occurs at the end of the regular season.

IS there any buzz? (besides here, where we have nothing to complain about)

 

[mikejays]

IS there any buzz? (besides here, where we have nothing to complain about)

Good point. Maybe 'soft hum' would have been better than 'buzz'. But there is at least some small noise on the subject beyond that on the Boneyard.

There are questions as respects, if not outright criticisms of, the selection preview results on ESPNW and women's basketball related social media. I suspect that the committee members see much of that. Maybe not as much as I do -- as I confess to spending way too much time on the internet now that I am retired. Or perhaps what I am is dumb, as they often tell me at breakfasts at a local diner.

P.S. If I did not thank you at the time, a belated thanks for directing me to the source I used for UConn at Notre Dame tickets.

 

[j66kicker]

Good point. Maybe 'soft hum' would have been better than 'buzz'. But there is at least some small noise on the subject beyond that on the Boneyard.
There are questions as respects, if not outright criticisms of, the selection preview results on ESPNW and women's basketball related social media. I suspect that the committee members see much of that.
P.S. If I did not thank you at the time, a belated thanks for directing me to the source I used for UConn at Notre Dame tickets.

I assume you enjoyed the game - be sure to bookmark that source.

Re. seeding "buzz", I see where Mulkey (having been left out of the four #1 seeds, while being ranked #3 in both polls) just questioned why they're doing the "pre-selection" thing in the first place. And she had to be asked - not exactly throwing a fit. The other team who kinda got screwed was Miss St - better record and head-to-head win vs Texas A&M, but A&M got in top 20 and they didn't. But I don't have any antenna up in their direction - ??

 

[VFLfan]

As a LV fan...I can understand why MD would be upset with the LVs being out ahead of them but I don't understand the Baylor argument. The LVs have played 6 top 10 teams and won 4 (with one of their losses being a game played without Harrison) and Baylor has played only 2, winning 1. IMHO, The LVs should still be in the conversation with MD as the last #1 seed. Just remember...the USC/TN game hasn't been played yet. If we can beat them, I think we deserve the last #1. Now if we lose another game, then all bets are off but we'll cross that bridge when and if we get there.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

No true. There is a detailed procedure document.

vowelguy- - - If that's true (and it most likely is) why do they change the ground rules every year? Location, SOS, RPI, Conference Record, early season wins or loses, late season wins or loses, injuries to key personnel, What Conference you're in counts more than who you played and beat or lost to, past reputation of the head coach or the school, and on and on and on!

 

[Vowelguy]

[QUOTE="RSHERMVIKES, post: 1224411, member: 2251" What Conference you're in counts more than who you played and beat or lost to, past reputation of the head coach or the school [/QUOTE]

Not true.

 

[DobbsRover2]

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!

Absolutely right despite what the RPI lovers will try to state about set policies. In fact, if they took the time to actually read the procedures, the selection committee apologists would see that there is a grab bag of factors that can all be used to justify almost any type of seeding, including giving UConn a #2 or #3 seed by the final RPI if they could get away with it. One year a team will be left out because they went an unimpressive 3-7 in their last 10 games, the next year a team that went 2-8 is fine because they play in the SEC. It's just a mess of rules that can be pulled out for whatever move is needed.

 

[DobbsRover2]

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!

Not quite but close. UConn won the Big East Tournament and was co-champions for the regular season since both teams had 1 loss. ND got the top seed in the BET, but they were co-champions in regular play. So yeah, that was a classic of how ignorant the old-girl committees were.