Seeding thoughts-

[DefenseBB]

The first thought that comes to mind for most of us is the "eye test" when compared to the AP rankings then compared to the Brackets. This brings forth the issue of
1. Is ND really a #1 seed with 4 losses? The eyes say no, the AP rankings say no but the scheduling to validate a team does say yes. The committee has been pretty consistent on this at the top half of the brackets for seeding, not so much for the bubble teams. See below. If Baylor would actually play people outside of Texas and prove their might, we would know their true skills. Yes, they play UConn next year in Waco, but who else? Come on Kim, let this be a wake up call for you.
2. The next questions are what were the remaining rankings and how much of a premium is placed on placating teams for travel-

ND being a #1 seed in Spokane and Baylor being the # 5 seed in Lexington, where, frankly if the committee followed the true S curve, Baylor would be in Spokane, Oregon would be in Lexington, SC would be in KC and Texas would be in Albany.​

3. The attendance issue is a problem that the committee and NCAA gloss over when discussing but actually try to address in the seeding. The last few years have only seen one regional sold out (Albany/Bridgeport) and that is due to everyone knowing that UConn will be placed there. That aside, Ok City/Dallas have not done great as a regional host even with Baylor there (or planned to be there is they won). Stockton last year was a disaster (3,134). Lexington for all it's MCBB charm has also been abysmal for the women ('17-2,527 & '16-3,349) so why it is regularly put there is beyond me. Maybe this year will be different with MSU/Texas fans making the KC trek and the Louisville contingent heading to Bluegrass country to face Baylor in battle, part 3. Hopefully, Oregon and it's legions make the drive to Spokane. We only know Albany is sold out (7,900), which is good and bad as many other fans will be limited to getting tickets to see their team. Side note to our SC brethren- 2015 SC was #1 seed in Greensboro and only 6,364 went to the final for SC vs. Florida St so please stop complaining as you didn't travel 183 miles.
4. The Committee has on it some interesting people on it-ND Associate AD, A-10 Associate Commissioner, SEC Assistant Commissioner among others, which may explain some of the quirks we see. Yes, the rules state that the affiliated committee member must step out when their school/schools are discussed but if you don't think influence occurs within a small committee, you're nuts. This, to me, explains quite a few of the items noted here on the BY:
a. ND being a #1 seed despite 4 losses where if this were any other team with 4 losses Baylor would be the other #1 even with their RPI. Overall, we expected this but we would have not batted an eyelash if BU was the #1. I definitely think the committee was staunch in keeping ND #1 due to this committee member.
b. Dayton getting into the tournament with their pathetic rating. As @Plebe has pointed out, more deserving teams were overlooked, this was definitely influenced by their member on the committee.
c. I am not a conspiracy person per se', but seeing the SEC Asst. Commish on this committee does have me wonder where she thought SC should go. I suspect the SEC office is sort of tired of all the SC drama from Dawn's Cooper lobbying, her criticism of ND getting Shepard, here Mizzou AD spat, and I am sure there are few others that have frustrated this conference. Optically, the SEC member would want SC in a different region than MSU to see if both teams could reach the final four. But was that really the case-especially with an ND associate athletic director on the committee who definitely is not a Dawn fan?
d. The Sagarin ratings for each bracket were posted on McGraw's bench and the scoring for each region is as follows:
Albany-388.96/97.24 average minus the #1 seed score is 91.45 average
KC-382.61/95.65 average minus the #1 seed score is 93.34 average
Spokane-381.64/95.41 minus the #1 seed score is 93.40 average
Lexington-389.39/97.35 average minus the #1 seed score is 96.63 average.

The brackets point to Spokane being the easiest due to Oregon being bumped up to #5 going with a questionable ND at #1. KC is next easiest region as Texas was bumped up from #8 to #7.

So UConn would have the easiest road to the FF over the other #1 seeds. That should keep the wolves at bay from this forum.
Lexington is the hardest for either Baylor or Louisville as the difference in their Sagarin ratings is minuscule when compared to the other #1 vs. #2 scores in the other regions.
KC is the next easiest for MSU after Albany.
Spokane is third easiest for ND.

What does this all mean, the brackets are fairly balanced considering the schism of the top 10 teams or less in the rankings. My view and the ratings bear it out is the top 6 are significantly better than the next few 7-10, which are significantly better than the next after them 11-14 and then throw a blanket over the next 15 schools to make the last 2/3 sweet 16 slots.

Just my opinion so let me know.

 

[BostonCanuck]

You're point about Balylor and the eye test is a good one. They look terrific in games. But how do we really know, given that they don't play the top teams? The committee has been crystal clear about the importance of strength of schedule in recent years, so Kim has only herself to blame for being a two-seed. I wonder why they did not play UConn this year, did we have to give that one up to make room for one of the homecoming games?

I agree that UConn has the easiest road to Columbus. Having said that, South Carolina won't be as easy to overcome as one might think. And I hope to god we don't have to face USF again. They're just too good, and they've played us too many times to be taken for granted.

The other 1 seed with an easier road to the Final Four is probably Mississippi State, followed by Baylor and finally Notre Dame. I have Notre Dame vs. Oregon as a pick'em right now. That game figures to be a knock-down, drag-out affair, and may well be the highlight of the tournament to that point.

But yes, a solid job by the committee this year, except for them putting USF in our region yet again for the third or forth year in a row.

 

[TWG236]

I don't believe being a one or two seed really isn't a big difference. In most years both the one and two seeds make it to the elite eight games. But, I do believe that if ND is a one seed, it should have been the 4th #1 seed. As such, Baylor should have been the 1st #2 seed and so they should have been paired in the same bracket with ND. But being a #2 seed is solely on the shoulders of Baylor's coach. She schedules easy games, most at home, and seems to care only about her overall win and lose record. I guess she hasn't figured out that her team never appears to be prepared for the tournament and as such, even with their great winning percentages, they seldom win a National Championship. I really like our bracket and am really looking forward to our trip to Albany. Go UCONN

 

[LoTrader]

As the Oregon State Fan on this site, even though most everyone believes the Lexington bracket is the "toughest", I like where the Beavers got placed in the Lexington bracket. Getting past the 1st game is always tough, but should OSU get past Western Kentucky, then OSU will likely face Tennessee. Tennessee at home is a tough 2nd round game, but I've watched multiple UT games, and, given what I've seen, I believe a disciplined defensive/offensive team like Oregon State can stay with the Vols. Should the Beavers get past the Vols, then it is likely that Beavers will face Baylor, in Texas. Baylor has only played one (1) PAC12 team this year, and that was UCLA early this season. Oregon State hasn't played any BIG12 teams this year, however, Coach Rueck had a team a few years back, that beat Baylor (in Texas). Recognizing it is still a long shot for the OSU Beavers, I still like the bracket placement, and the opportunity for Coach Rueck and his OSU Beavers.

 

[nwhoopfan]

LOTRADER, Baylor beat Stanford fairly easily during OOC this year. That was when McPhee was out and Stanford was losing to everybody.

 

[LoTrader]

LOTRADER, Baylor beat Stanford fairly easily during OOC this year. That was when McPhee was out and Stanford was losing to everybody.

Thanks nwhoopfan, I missed that game.

 

[oldude]

As the Oregon State Fan on this site, even though most everyone believes the Lexington bracket is the "toughest", I like where the Beavers got placed in the Lexington bracket. Getting past the 1st game is always tough, but should OSU get past Western Kentucky, then OSU will likely face Tennessee. Tennessee at home is a tough 2nd round game, but I've watched multiple UT games, and, given what I've seen, I believe a disciplined defensive/offensive team like Oregon State can stay with the Vols. Should the Beavers get past the Vols, then it is likely that Beavers will face Baylor, in Texas. Baylor has only played one (1) PAC12 team this year, and that was UCLA early this season. Oregon State hasn't played any BIG12 teams this year, however, Coach Rueck had a team a few years back, that beat Baylor (in Texas). Recognizing it is still a long shot for the OSU Beavers, I still like the bracket placement, and the opportunity for Coach Rueck and his OSU Beavers.

Coach Rueck and the Beavers will beat the Lady Vols in Knoxville, resulting in many happy people here on the BY.

 

[HGN]

I thought the committee did a good job overall. The only thing I didn't like was putting USF in UConn's bracket. I think anytime a conference
whether its the AAC , ACC , Big 10 , or whatever , only have 2 teams in the Tournament , they should not be placed in the same bracket.

JMHO.

 

[huskeynut]

I thought the committee did a good job overall. The only thing I didn't like was putting USF in UConn's bracket. I think anytime a conference
whether its the AAC , ACC , Big 10 , or whatever , only have 2 teams in the Tournament , they should not be placed in the same bracket.

JMHO.

HGN - totally agree. Its my only grip with the committee. On a side note, I would have loved to have seen UCF get in. They may be offensively challenged but they are fighters and they play some serious defense.

 

[wire chief]

HGN - totally agree. Its my only grip with the committee. On a side note, I would have loved to have seen UCF get in. They may be offensively challenged but they are fighters and they play some serious defense.

UCF just knocked off Jacksonville St. in the also-ran tournament and needed overtime to win. Next for them is Alabama.

 

[TitleTown]

The first thought that comes to mind for most of us is the "eye test" when compared to the AP rankings then compared to the Brackets. This brings forth the issue of
1. Is ND really a #1 seed with 4 losses? The eyes say no, the AP rankings say no but the scheduling to validate a team does say yes. The committee has been pretty consistent on this at the top half of the brackets for seeding, not so much for the bubble teams. See below. If Baylor would actually play people outside of Texas and prove their might, we would know their true skills. Yes, they play UConn next year in Waco, but who else? Come on Kim, let this be a wake up call for you.
2. The next questions are what were the remaining rankings and how much of a premium is placed on placating teams for travel-

ND being a #1 seed in Spokane and Baylor being the # 5 seed in Lexington, where, frankly if the committee followed the true S curve, Baylor would be in Spokane, Oregon would be in Lexington, SC would be in KC and Texas would be in Albany.​

3. The attendance issue is a problem that the committee and NCAA gloss over when discussing but actually try to address in the seeding. The last few years have only seen one regional sold out (Albany/Bridgeport) and that is due to everyone knowing that UConn will be placed there. That aside, Ok City/Dallas have not done great as a regional host even with Baylor there (or planned to be there is they won). Stockton last year was a disaster (3,134). Lexington for all it's MCBB charm has also been abysmal for the women ('17-2,527 & '16-3,349) so why it is regularly put there is beyond me. Maybe this year will be different with MSU/Texas fans making the KC trek and the Louisville contingent heading to Bluegrass country to face Baylor in battle, part 3. Hopefully, Oregon and it's legions make the drive to Spokane. We only know Albany is sold out (7,900), which is good and bad as many other fans will be limited to getting tickets to see their team. Side note to our SC brethren- 2015 SC was #1 seed in Greensboro and only 6,364 went to the final for SC vs. Florida St so please stop complaining as you didn't travel 183 miles.
4. The Committee has on it some interesting people on it-ND Associate AD, A-10 Associate Commissioner, SEC Assistant Commissioner among others, which may explain some of the quirks we see. Yes, the rules state that the affiliated committee member must step out when their school/schools are discussed but if you don't think influence occurs within a small committee, you're nuts. This, to me, explains quite a few of the items noted here on the BY:
a. ND being a #1 seed despite 4 losses where if this were any other team with 4 losses Baylor would be the other #1 even with their RPI. Overall, we expected this but we would have not batted an eyelash if BU was the #1. I definitely think the committee was staunch in keeping ND #1 due to this committee member.
b. Dayton getting into the tournament with their pathetic rating. As @Plebe has pointed out, more deserving teams were overlooked, this was definitely influenced by their member on the committee.
c. I am not a conspiracy person per se', but seeing the SEC Asst. Commish on this committee does have me wonder where she thought SC should go. I suspect the SEC office is sort of tired of all the SC drama from Dawn's Cooper lobbying, her criticism of ND getting Shepard, here Mizzou AD spat, and I am sure there are few others that have frustrated this conference. Optically, the SEC member would want SC in a different region than MSU to see if both teams could reach the final four. But was that really the case-especially with an ND associate athletic director on the committee who definitely is not a Dawn fan?
d. The Sagarin ratings for each bracket were posted on McGraw's bench and the scoring for each region is as follows:
Albany-388.96/97.24 average minus the #1 seed score is 91.45 average
KC-382.61/95.65 average minus the #1 seed score is 93.34 average
Spokane-381.64/95.41 minus the #1 seed score is 93.40 average
Lexington-389.39/97.35 average minus the #1 seed score is 96.63 average.

The brackets point to Spokane being the easiest due to Oregon being bumped up to #5 going with a questionable ND at #1. KC is next easiest region as Texas was bumped up from #8 to #7.

So UConn would have the easiest road to the FF over the other #1 seeds. That should keep the wolves at bay from this forum.
Lexington is the hardest for either Baylor or Louisville as the difference in their Sagarin ratings is minuscule when compared to the other #1 vs. #2 scores in the other regions.
KC is the next easiest for MSU after Albany.
Spokane is third easiest for ND.

What does this all mean, the brackets are fairly balanced considering the schism of the top 10 teams or less in the rankings. My view and the ratings bear it out is the top 6 are significantly better than the next few 7-10, which are significantly better than the next after them 11-14 and then throw a blanket over the next 15 schools to make the last 2/3 sweet 16 slots.

Just my opinion so let me know.

Sagarin ratings place way too much emphasis on strength of schedule! Teams like Belmont and Mercer are legit Top 25 teams but are ranked #56 and #67 according to Sagarin. That is just absurd.

 

[HGN]

HGN - totally agree. Its my only grip with the committee. On a side note, I would have loved to have seen UCF get in. They may be offensively challenged but they are fighters and they play some serious defense.

Huskeynut , you have a point about UCF. The AAC is definitely getting stronger and stronger. Eventually the AAC is going to get the respect it deserves.

 

[Bear11]

Sagarin ratings place way too much emphasis on strength of schedule! Teams like Belmont and Mercer are legit Top 25 teams but are ranked #56 and #67 according to Sagarin. That is just absurd.

On what basis do you think they are top 25 teams? Between them they played 2 games against ranked competition, and both were 20 point losses. Winning 30 games against competition outside the top 100 does not make a team top 25 quality. Most power conference teams could go undefeated or nearly so in the Ohio Valley Conference.

 

[DefenseBB]

Coach Rueck and the Beavers will beat the Lady Vols in Knoxville, resulting in many happy people here on the BY.

@LOTRADER and you are a bit off on location-If OSU beats the LV's in Knoxville, they player the Sweet 16 Game in Lexington, not Texas or Tennessee. I am giving Rueck a punchers chance in both those games as he's pretty good with the x's and o's. Maybe we get to see another jacket toss by Kim!

 

[oldude]

@LOTRADER and you are a bit off on location-If OSU beats the LV's in Knoxville, they player the Sweet 16 Game in Lexington, not Texas or Tennessee. I am giving Rueck a punchers chance in both those games as he's pretty good with the x's and o's. Maybe we get to see another jacket toss by Kim!

Huh?

 

[TitleTown]

On what basis do you think they are top 25 teams? Between them they played 2 games against ranked competition, and both were 20 point losses. Winning 30 games against competition outside the top 100 does not make a team top 25 quality. Most power conference teams could go undefeated or nearly so in the Ohio Valley Conference.

Well because they are both ranked in the Top 25 in both the AP and Coaches polls.

 

[meyers7]

The first thought that comes to mind for most of us is the "eye test" when compared to the AP rankings then compared to the Brackets. This brings forth the issue of
1. Is ND really a #1 seed with 4 losses? The eyes say no, the AP rankings say no but the scheduling to validate a team does say yes. The committee has been pretty consistent on this at the top half of the brackets for seeding, not so much for the bubble teams. See below. If Baylor would actually play people outside of Texas and prove their might, we would know their true skills. Yes, they play UConn next year in Waco, but who else? Come on Kim, let this be a wake up call for you.

a. ND being a #1 seed despite 4 losses where if this were any other team with 4 losses Baylor would be the other #1 even with their RPI. Overall, we expected this but we would have not batted an eyelash if BU was the #1. I definitely think the committee was staunch in keeping ND #1 due to this committee member.

Well, first off, ND only has 3 losses. Not 4. And all 3 losses are to other #1 seeds. So yea, they do pass the eye test.

 

[CocoHusky]

The NCAA is sticking with the Friday Semi-finals and Sunday Finals format which was new last year.
I didn't like it last year because for a team that was used to being in the FF (say UCONN) breaking the routine was not helpful.
Still don't like it. Thoughts?

 

[meyers7]

The NCAA is sticking with the Friday Semi-finals and Sunday Finals format which was new last year.
I didn't like it last year because for a team that was used to being in the FF (say UCONN) breaking the routine was not helpful.
Still don't like it. Thoughts?

Same for every team.

 

[DefenseBB]

Huh?

Just ignore that comment, I forgot my meds this morning....

 

[Bear11]

Well because they are both ranked in the Top 25 in both the AP and Coaches polls.

I doubt the voters in those polls, especially the coaches, had much chance to see those teams play. They vote based on records, which in this case don't convey all the facts about these teams. They are strong mid-major programs, but when tested against legitimate ranked competition they fall flat. According to Massey (I use Massey instead of Sagarin because it's easier to view schedules there), Belmont and Mercer have combined for 4 wins over top 100 competition, with the highest ranked win being over #46 Gonsaga. Both of their conferences are made up of teams ranked 100 or lower, often much lower. Belmont has a home loss to Wright State, and Mercer has a loss to Western Kentucky. These are not the credentials of a legitimate top 25 team.

 

[southie]

The NCAA is sticking with the Friday Semi-finals and Sunday Finals format which was new last year.
I didn't like it last year because for a team that was used to being in the FF (say UCONN) breaking the routine was not helpful.
Still don't like it. Thoughts?

Back in the 80's and 90's, the Final Four for the women was always a Friday/Sunday schedule; actually, a few years, I believe it was a Saturday/Sunday schedule (no off day in between). It didn't change to Sunday/Tuesday until TV and ratings became an issue as ESPN tried to find a way for the women's tournament to not compete directly with the men's. So, that is why (maybe 15 years ago or so) women's sub-regionals and regionals switched their games to a Saturday/Monday and Sunday/Tuesday schedule; men don't have any games on Mondays or Tuesdays, except the championship game on the traditional Monday night.

 

[huskeynut]

Huskeynut , you have a point about UCF. The AAC is definitely getting stronger and stronger. Eventually the AAC is going to get the respect it deserves.

Yes I agree. The AAC will evolved just like to old Big East evolved for the women. Cincy showed promise this year as did Houston. Hopefully Temple will regain its winning form. That's 6 very decent teams.

 

[CocoHusky]

The first thought that comes to mind for most of us is the "eye test" when compared to the AP rankings then compared to the Brackets. This brings forth the issue of
1. Is ND really a #1 seed with 4 losses? The eyes say no, the AP rankings say no but the scheduling to validate a team does say yes. The committee has been pretty consistent on this at the top half of the brackets for seeding, not so much for the bubble teams. See below. If Baylor would actually play people outside of Texas and prove their might, we would know their true skills. Yes, they play UConn next year in Waco, but who else? Come on Kim, let this be a wake up call for you.
2. The next questions are what were the remaining rankings and how much of a premium is placed on placating teams for travel-

ND being a #1 seed in Spokane and Baylor being the # 5 seed in Lexington, where, frankly if the committee followed the true S curve, Baylor would be in Spokane, Oregon would be in Lexington, SC would be in KC and Texas would be in Albany.​

3. The attendance issue is a problem that the committee and NCAA gloss over when discussing but actually try to address in the seeding. The last few years have only seen one regional sold out (Albany/Bridgeport) and that is due to everyone knowing that UConn will be placed there. That aside, Ok City/Dallas have not done great as a regional host even with Baylor there (or planned to be there is they won). Stockton last year was a disaster (3,134). Lexington for all it's MCBB charm has also been abysmal for the women ('17-2,527 & '16-3,349) so why it is regularly put there is beyond me. Maybe this year will be different with MSU/Texas fans making the KC trek and the Louisville contingent heading to Bluegrass country to face Baylor in battle, part 3. Hopefully, Oregon and it's legions make the drive to Spokane. We only know Albany is sold out (7,900), which is good and bad as many other fans will be limited to getting tickets to see their team. Side note to our SC brethren- 2015 SC was #1 seed in Greensboro and only 6,364 went to the final for SC vs. Florida St so please stop complaining as you didn't travel 183 miles.
4. The Committee has on it some interesting people on it-ND Associate AD, A-10 Associate Commissioner, SEC Assistant Commissioner among others, which may explain some of the quirks we see. Yes, the rules state that the affiliated committee member must step out when their school/schools are discussed but if you don't think influence occurs within a small committee, you're nuts. This, to me, explains quite a few of the items noted here on the BY:
a. ND being a #1 seed despite 4 losses where if this were any other team with 4 losses Baylor would be the other #1 even with their RPI. Overall, we expected this but we would have not batted an eyelash if BU was the #1. I definitely think the committee was staunch in keeping ND #1 due to this committee member.
b. Dayton getting into the tournament with their pathetic rating. As @Plebe has pointed out, more deserving teams were overlooked, this was definitely influenced by their member on the committee.
c. I am not a conspiracy person per se', but seeing the SEC Asst. Commish on this committee does have me wonder where she thought SC should go. I suspect the SEC office is sort of tired of all the SC drama from Dawn's Cooper lobbying, her criticism of ND getting Shepard, here Mizzou AD spat, and I am sure there are few others that have frustrated this conference. Optically, the SEC member would want SC in a different region than MSU to see if both teams could reach the final four. But was that really the case-especially with an ND associate athletic director on the committee who definitely is not a Dawn fan?
d. The Sagarin ratings for each bracket were posted on McGraw's bench and the scoring for each region is as follows:
Albany-388.96/97.24 average minus the #1 seed score is 91.45 average
KC-382.61/95.65 average minus the #1 seed score is 93.34 average
Spokane-381.64/95.41 minus the #1 seed score is 93.40 average
Lexington-389.39/97.35 average minus the #1 seed score is 96.63 average.

The brackets point to Spokane being the easiest due to Oregon being bumped up to #5 going with a questionable ND at #1. KC is next easiest region as Texas was bumped up from #8 to #7.

So UConn would have the easiest road to the FF over the other #1 seeds. That should keep the wolves at bay from this forum.
Lexington is the hardest for either Baylor or Louisville as the difference in their Sagarin ratings is minuscule when compared to the other #1 vs. #2 scores in the other regions.
KC is the next easiest for MSU after Albany.
Spokane is third easiest for ND.

What does this all mean, the brackets are fairly balanced considering the schism of the top 10 teams or less in the rankings. My view and the ratings bear it out is the top 6 are significantly better than the next few 7-10, which are significantly better than the next after them 11-14 and then throw a blanket over the next 15 schools to make the last 2/3 sweet 16 slots.
Just my opinion so let me know.

You covered a lot of ground here, most of which I disagree. You question "some" of the people on the selection committee as having steered certain decision and this is contrary to my under standing of how the selection process works. My understanding is that if ND is being discussed and anyone affiliated (includes conference alignment) with ND must leave the room and essentially recuse themselves from those discussions. A second consideration is the payoff in this case the lack of one. The WCBB tournament as an entity is a money losing proposition. Steering certain teams to certain regions will help attendance. Does any specific school financially benefit from improved attendance in a particular region or is the tournament check for the school the same regardless of attendance?
Regarding the SEC Asst. influence, you conclude by saying "ND associate athletic director on the committee who definitely is not a Dawn fan? Why, and based on what?
Lastly I think you are over analyzing Dawn's reason for wanting to be in Mississippi St. region vs being in UCONN's. It is the same rationale for every team that has been in UCONN bracket for the past 5 seasons= UCONN is the favorite, don't want to see them until as late as possible in the tournament. + Mississippi state is a team that SC beat a few days ago.

 

[ScarlettB]

b. Dayton getting into the tournament with their pathetic rating. As @Plebe has pointed out, more deserving teams were overlooked, this was definitely influenced by their member on the committee.

I know I am a homer here as I am a UD alum, but I think the Flyers definitely deserved a bid. They were 23-6, regular season conference champs at 12-1, RPI 36, no bad losses. They were certainly more deserving then Creighton - 18-12, 4th in the Big East, RPI 51 or Oklahoma - 16-14, tied 3rd in the Big 12, RPI 35. I would even have put them in over RU and I am a season ticket holder who always supports the Knights. I wish UD had won their conference tournament as then I think RU would have made the field too, but no way the Flyers shouldn't be dancing!

 

[DefenseBB]

I doubt the voters in those polls, especially the coaches, had much chance to see those teams play. They vote based on records, which in this case don't convey all the facts about these teams. Belmont has a home loss to Wright State, and Mercer has a loss to Western Kentucky. These are not the credentials of a legitimate top 25 team.

Here is the list of the coaches who vote:

The USA TODAY Sports Board of Coaches is made up of 32 head coaches at Division I institutions. All are members of the Women's Basketball Coaches Association. The board for the 2017-18 season: Brian Boyer, Arkansas State; Bart Brooks, Belmont; Mary Burke, Bryant; Cara Consuegra, Charlotte; Bradley Davis, Pacific; Denise Dillon, Drexel; Brittney Ezell, East Tennessee; Bill Fennelly, Iowa State; Jose Fernandez, South Florida; Jason Flowers, Cal State Northridge; Brenda Frese, Maryland; Darrick Gibbs, North Florida; Lindsay Gottlieb, California; Kellie Harper, Missouri State; DeUnna Hendrix, High Point; Quentin Hillsman, Syracuse; Ali Jaques, Siena; Carolyn Kieger, Marquette; Belle Koclanes, Dartmouth; Greg McCall, Cal State-Bakersfield; Kimberly McNeill, Hartford; Regina Miller, Illinois-Chicago; Jon Newlee, Idaho; Brenda Nichols, Sam Houston State; Courtney Pruitt, Alcorn State; Aaron Roussell, Bucknell; Brady Sallee, Ball State; David Six, Hampton; Michael Shafer, Richmond; Joni Taylor, Georgia; Maren Walseth, North Dakota State; Ryun Williams, Colorado State.

This is a pretty diverse set so I think some do see the games.
Why you hatin on the mid-majors? All top 25 teams lose a conference game to lower ranked teams: Texas lost to TCU; Maryland lost to MSU; Tenn lost to Alabama; and I could go on. You can only win the games you play and if top teams, ahem, like Baylor won’t play strong mid-majors these schools are limited. Mercer did play quite a few P5 teams and did well. Let’s be honest about the Big12 which is not a deep conference so many of those wins are terrible as well.

 

[southie]

Notre Dame with 3 losses (and even if they had 4 losses) is not an issue for me as a #1 seed. Their SOS and RPI speak for themselves.

When the men's bracket was announced, I was stunned that a 25-10 North Carolina squad was a #2 national seed; and, not the last #2 as they were assigned to the Charlotte sub-regional while Duke, another #2 national seed, was sent to Pittsburgh. UNC was the #6 seed in the ACC tournament, and advanced to the championship game where they lost to #1 Virginia.

So, how can a 10 loss team be justified as a #2 national seed? Well, the men's committee is looking at something called "Quadrant 1" wins. I believe UNC had a bunch of Quadrant 1 wins, the 10 losses weren't really used against them.

Not sure the women's committee is doing this; but, if they are, I have no doubt Notre Dame is more than justified in getting the last #1 seed.

NCAA tournament 2018: What is a Quadrant 1 win?


The NCAA men's basketball tournament has new selection criteria this year.

In addition to RPI, the selection committee has long leaned on a given team's number of "good" wins to determine at-large bids. For the first time in 2018, those wins are divided into "quadrants."

A team's wins are divided into four categories, based on RPI standings and the site of the game. Generally speaking, the more of a team's wins that are in "Quadrant 1" (and the fewer that are in "Quadrant 4"), the better.

Here's the breakdown (numbers listed are the RPI ranking of the opponent):

Quadrant 1: Home 1-30; neutral 1-50; away 1-75

Quadrant 2: Home 31-75; neutral 51-100; away 76-135

Quadrant 3: Home 76-160; neutral 101-200; away 136-240

Quadrant 4: Home 161-plus; neutral 201-plus; away 241-plus

 

[TitleTown]

I doubt the voters in those polls, especially the coaches, had much chance to see those teams play. They vote based on records, which in this case don't convey all the facts about these teams. They are strong mid-major programs, but when tested against legitimate ranked competition they fall flat. According to Massey (I use Massey instead of Sagarin because it's easier to view schedules there), Belmont and Mercer have combined for 4 wins over top 100 competition, with the highest ranked win being over #46 Gonsaga. Both of their conferences are made up of teams ranked 100 or lower, often much lower. Belmont has a home loss to Wright State, and Mercer has a loss to Western Kentucky. These are not the credentials of a legitimate top 25 team.

Well, being a Baylor fan you should know what an overrated team because of a soft schedule looks like.

 

[Bear11]

Well, being a Baylor fan you should know what an overrated team because of a soft schedule looks like.

The difference is that Baylor actually won the games played over quality teams, even if there weren't as many as some would like.

 

[MSGRET]

On what basis do you think they are top 25 teams? Between them they played 2 games against ranked competition, and both were 20 point losses. Winning 30 games against competition outside the top 100 does not make a team top 25 quality. Most power conference teams could go undefeated or nearly so in the Ohio Valley Conference.

You should know, Baylor only plays teams that are in the same boat as Belmont or Mercer in their OOC schedule and most of those times ONLY in Texas.