Selection Sunday - General discussion (merged threads)

[triaddukefan]

An interesting chart comparing the budgets of the teams in the tournament. Some were a bit surprising to me. I would not have expected Iowa's to be higher than Texas' for example.

Bunch of greedy expletives at the top ... No offense intended to Texas, Lower Carolina, and Connecticut.

 

[Centerstream]

NCAA prioritizes teams that finish top 4 in the same conference being placed in different brackets. SC/Texas were both 1 seeds so they avoid putting Vandy/LSU in the same bracket with them, meaning UCONN was always going to get either Vandy or LSU. I think LSU is the more dangerous opponent.

And since the original PAC-12 dissolved and mostly joined the B1G and ACC and the top teams of the Big 12 moved to the SEC, this rule should be removed. The biggest conferences shouldn't be rewarded by the committee for having 20 teams (exaggeration).
Just wait until other teams move, ie Miami and FSU to the SEC???

 

[DRBackup]

Simply awful, especially focusing on the ACC. A P4 team that wins its conference and conference tournament titles--gets a 3 seed. An 11-loss team that got blown out by 35 by a Stanford team that wasn't even in the field gets an 8 seed ahead of two teams that beat them. A team that only beat one ranked team all year gets to host. Madness.


Because LSU and Vandy couldn't be placed in Texas' or South Carolina's bracket. Michigan and Iowa could not be placed in UCLA's bracket. This means that UConn could only face the SEC teams (because both Texas and South Carolina had to be paired with the Big Ten teams). The weaker of the two went to UConn, hence Vandy being paired with UConn and LSU being paired with UCLA.

South Carolina and Texas were paired with the Big Ten teams. Because Iowa was deemed to be stronger than Michigan, they were paired with the weaker 1 seed--South Carolina.

Besides, LSU is the toughest 2 seed.


This! The production was absolutely horrific.

Keep in mind that they will seed based on their S curve, but then any team can get moved up or down up to 2 seed lines to satisfy other criteria. Likely how Duke ended up a 3

 

[BRS24]

Oooh. I like who we got in Columbia. I was praying it wasn't Lobo because her UConn centric commentary gets annoying at times (I think she tries to not be biased but her commentary always goes back to a Geno quote or something UConn related). Peck's analysis is always off-center and I don't think she makes a great color analyst. Then Antonelli's ACC bias and general smugness about her own opinions always rubs me the wrong way. Anyways, I've always enjoyed Coach White's analysis the most so I'm glad they chose her for Columbia SC.

LOL. I agree somewhat on Lobo. However Antonelli, aka, I'm the savior and will save WBB just makes me wanna throw the remote at the tv, and I've been told that a new one is not in the budget this year. Peck is just Peck, a TN fan girl, and ... whatever.

 

[Phil]

I remember a few parties early on, but they are all choreographed by whoever is broadcasting the NCAAs or ESPN and they are monumentally cheesy and a waste of time for anyone who knows they are going to the Dance. But for whatever reason Conn may be the only school that doesn't do it, but I'm eternally grateful we don't engage in the silliness.

This might sound like I'm differing with you but we may be on at least a similar page. I enjoy watching the watch parties but mostly for schools that are new or relatively new or were on the cusp of getting in. Maybe even a team who gets a one seed for the first time in their history. But it is a little silly for some of the others and unhappy UConn took the lead on not doing it.

 

[Phil]

I’m sure they have their own private, low-key watch party

It might not have been low-key, but it wasn't public as is appropriate.

 

[Phil]

Yet another reason to discourage the formation of super conferences. Since a lot of this is driven by football, it’s worth considering decoupling the sports. Limit conferences to some smaller number and require home-and-home schedules, maybe encourage more OOC games. WCBB is beginning to be a competitive revenue source for some programs, which means this might be a moment for change.

This is one of my tilt at windmills positions. I suspect it's almost impossible to manage now that the damage has been done, but they should've decoupled football years ago. It is beyond idiotic that football decisions drive conference makeups for not just basketball but soccer, field hockey, volleyball, etc. etc. etc.

Conferences may make sense but make them regional possibly was some rivalry considerations for all sports other than football.

 

[fomalhaut]

Completely expected, but Connecticut officially passed Stanford for the second-longest streak of tournament appearances at 37. Still well behind Tennessee's 44, which covers the whole history of the NCAA tournament.

 

[Bone Dog]

This is one of my tilt at windmills positions. I suspect it's almost impossible to manage now that the damage has been done, but they should've decoupled football years ago. It is beyond idiotic that football decisions drive conference makeups for not just basketball but soccer, field hockey, volleyball, etc. etc. etc.

Conferences may make sense but make them regional possibly was some rivalry considerations for all sports other than football.

Yup. And one way we know it's actually possible to do this is the example of ND football from a few decades ago. They left their conference and went independent with some success. What I mean is, they had enough name recognition to attract their own TV contracts and their recruiting didn't suffer. WCBB, or W&MCBB, aren't the same as a a standalone football program. But the model could still fit the project of establishing a one-sport conference structure. And one way the NCAA as a whole could trigger it might begin with refusing to protect superconferences from adverse tournament scheduling. The super conferences were attracted by the lure of bigger payouts and didn't have to face the problem of tournament scheduling. That was an error on the part of the NCAA. And the geographical incoherence we see today is a symptom of the problem. Nothing links the schools in some conferences together besides the revenue sharing deals they've come up with.

I would also say they should get rid of the conference tournaments. It's another revenue source for the conferences and the networks. But they're bad for the sport. I'd think it would be worth exploring a flat distribution limited only to teams with a winning record in the new conferences. How winning could be determined year by year, and there could be a cap as well. No more than 'x' number of teams per conference. A typical conference has ~12 teams while the super conferences tend to be ~16-18. If the NCAA requires a home-and-home schedule and a cap of 13 teams, then conference schedules would yield 24 games. And additional 8-9 OOC games gives ~33 games per season. If the cutoff is teams with a >.500 record, that would yield ~130 teams. Make it .600 and you'll end up with something closer to 100 teams. And they could revive the idea of two tournaments. One rule I can imagine is that of the 5 or 6 teams in a conference with winning records, only the top 2 or 3 are eligible for the main tournament and the others are eligible for the second level tournament.

 

[BRS24]

Now that the bracket has dropped, here's a map look at where teams will have to travel. Red to pink, dark to light blue, and green for the final four.

 

[sivad40]

NCAA prioritizes teams that finish top 4 in the same conference being placed in different brackets. SC/Texas were both 1 seeds so they avoid putting Vandy/LSU in the same bracket with them, meaning UCONN was always going to get either Vandy or LSU. I think LSU is the more dangerous opponent.

UCLA and Minnesota finished the top 4 in the same conference and they are in the same bracket. They will meet in the S16 if the chalk holds up.

 

[ME Husky Fan]

In order for that to happen, the SEC would have to have at least 5 of the top 8 seeds in the country. It’s certainly possible, as they have 4 of the top 8 this season.

But I’ll answer that question as Geno would. It’s not the responsibility of the SEC to become less competitive so that other conferences can compete. It’s the responsibility of the other conferences to get better.

Geno himself said it’s BS about not wanting two SEC teams as #’s 1 and 2 and cited it’s always possible two teams from the same conference can face-off in the final eight game so why force this. He asked if Vandy is the the 8th ranked team in the country and found it hard to believe such.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

This might sound like I'm differing with you but we may be on at least a similar page. I enjoy watching the watch parties but mostly for schools that are new or relatively new or were on the cusp of getting in. Maybe even a team who gets a one seed for the first time in their history. But it is a little silly for some of the others and unhappy UConn took the lead on not doing it.

No, I don't disagree. It is funny to see the genuine joy of low seeds at their announcement. Incidentally, I don't know if you caught this but Notre Dame opted out too. Our kids take on a heavy burden of interviews of all sorts: they don't need to be tied up for hours to provide a production company with 15 seconds.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Geno himself said it’s BS about not wanting two SEC teams as #’s 1 and 2 and cited it’s always possible two teams from the same conference can face-off in the final eight game so why force this. He asked if Vandy is the the 8th ranked team in the country and found it hard to believe such.

He did pretty much say they got what they got to feed a story line somebody wanted.

 

[oldude]

Geno himself said it’s BS about not wanting two SEC teams as #’s 1 and 2 and cited it’s always possible two teams from the same conference can face-off in the final eight game so why force this. He asked if Vandy is the the 8th ranked team in the country and found it hard to believe such.

Look, I really don’t care about this. Last year UConn faced and beat 3 #1 seeds in a row. Whatever Geno said, he and his coaches are preparing only for UTSA and then the possibility of facing either Iowa st or Syracuse. Beyond that, the system that placed Vandy in UConn’s bracket has existed for many years.

This is like complaining about the weakness of the BE conference, only in reverse. If UConn wins the last game of the season. They are champions. That’s all I care about. If you want to complain about the bracket, then go ahead. But I’m not interested.

 

[WBBTakeover]

Oooh. I like who we got in Columbia. I was praying it wasn't Lobo because her UConn centric commentary gets annoying at times (I think she tries to not be biased but her commentary always goes back to a Geno quote or something UConn related). Peck's analysis is always off-center and I don't think she makes a great color analyst. Then Antonelli's ACC bias and general smugness about her own opinions always rubs me the wrong way. Anyways, I've always enjoyed Coach White's analysis the most so I'm glad they chose her for Columbia SC.

Yeah, this crew isn't too bad! I preferred Nell, but I'm good with the Lyle/White pairing.

 

[packwrap]

But if we're violating the S-curve to give the lowest 1-seed South Carolina one of the lower-ranked 2-seeds because the better 2-seeds are both SEC teams, then why must we adhere to the S-curve when it comes to the 3-seeds? Poor UCLA now has LSU and Duke in its bracket. Shouldn't they (or UConn) be awarded with TCU since they were given the two best 2-seeds?

LSU and Duke will possibly play each other in sweet 16 with UCLA facing only the winner in round of 8.

Spreading out conference teams is part of the bracket process since 1982, and for both men and women...sometimes it can even be your friend. 😁

If you don't do it you get this:

"Big10 overrated with 12 teams in and only 1 in final four"

"Well yeah, 10 of our teams knocked each other out in the first 3 rounds and the last 2 played each other in the round of 8. The other conferences were lucky to be spread out in their draw."

 

[ME Husky Fan]

Look, I really don’t care about this. Last year UConn faced and beat 3 #1 seeds in a row. Whatever Geno said, he and his coaches are preparing only for UTSA and then the possibility of facing either Iowa st or Syracuse. Beyond that, the system that placed Vandy in UConn’s bracket has existed for many years.

This is like complaining about the weakness of the BE conference, only in reverse. If UConn wins the last game of the season. They are champions. That’s all I care about. If you want to complain about the bracket, then go ahead. But I’m not interested.

I personally could give two craps about the bracket. I’m of the ‘I’ll play whomever you put in front of me’ mindset. The better the teams you stack against me and I beat, we’ll that’s the proof to the committee, I just don’t get their rationale at times and when Holly interviewed that election chair last night, her answers were weak, at best.

 

[Jonathan14]

LSU and Duke will possibly play each other in sweet 16 with UCLA facing only the winner in round of 8.

Spreading out conference teams is part of the bracket process since 1982, and for both men and women...sometimes it can even be your friend. 😁

If you don't do it you get this:

"Big10 overrated with 12 teams in and only 1 in final four"

"Well yeah, 10 of our teams knocked each other out in the first 3 rounds and the last 2 played each other in the round of 8. The other conferences were lucky to be spread out in their draw."

Because they only move away from the S-curve when they need to; they did so for the 2-seeds to avoid intra-conference pairings among the 1-seeds and 2-seeds. But, if there's no reason to move away from the S-curve for the 3-seeds, then they shouldn't.

You're both 100% correct, and I'm just being whiny (and on behalf of UCLA—why?). 🤓

I just wonder whether some of the policies designed when the SEC and Big 10 had 10 teams each and the ACC had 8 need to be reexamined now that they have 16, 18, and 18 teams, respectively. And if we're going to continue to hold to this policy of spreading out conference teams even though the entire makeup of the conferences has changed, then might the committee consider whether the S-curve should be adjusted to offset any advantage or disadvantage gained by the deviation from the S-curve? Time will tell.

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

UCLA and Minnesota finished the top 4 in the same conference and they are in the same bracket. They will meet in the S16 if the chalk holds up.

Not true. The NCAA Brackets has MN(15) as the 5th Big Ten team in the first four lines behind UCLA(2), Iowa(5), Michigan(6) and Ohio State (9), where () is the overall seeding.

Same situation as Oklahoma as the 5th in first four NCAAT lines of the SEC. Both MN and OK do not trigger the four-in-four same conference S-curve departure rule.

In a prior bracketology, UConn was whacked twice by this rule. But since there was only one Big Ten on the 3-seed line this time, UConn avoided meeting Duke (arguably the strongest peaking 3-seed) and instead got Ohio State (probably one of the weaker 3-seeds).

 

[cancontent]

UCLA and Minnesota finished the top 4 in the same conference and they are in the same bracket. They will meet in the S16 if the chalk holds up.

This was during conference play. Don't think it applies to how teams were ranked for the tournament.

Not true. The NCAA Brackets has MN(15) as the 5th Big Ten team in the first four lines behind UCLA(2), Iowa(5), Michigan(6) and Ohio State (9), where () is the overall seeding.

Same situation as Oklahoma as the 5th in first four NCAAT lines of the SEC. Both MN and OK do not trigger the four-in-four same conference S-curve departure rule.

In a prior bracketology, UConn was whacked twice by this rule. But since there was only one Big Ten on the 3-seed line this time, UConn avoided meeting Duke (arguably the strongest peaking 3-seed) and instead got Ohio State (probably one of the weaker 3-seeds).

Per my comment above, it sounds like conference play was confused with how the committee ranks teams for the tourney.

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

Yup. And one way we know it's actually possible to do this is the example of ND football from a few decades ago. They left their conference and went independent with some success. What I mean is, they had enough name recognition to attract their own TV contracts and their recruiting didn't suffer. WCBB, or W&MCBB, aren't the same as a a standalone football program. But the model could still fit the project of establishing a one-sport conference structure. And one way the NCAA as a whole could trigger it might begin with refusing to protect superconferences from adverse tournament scheduling. The super conferences were attracted by the lure of bigger payouts and didn't have to face the problem of tournament scheduling. That was an error on the part of the NCAA. And the geographical incoherence we see today is a symptom of the problem. Nothing links the schools in some conferences together besides the revenue sharing deals they've come up with.

I would also say they should get rid of the conference tournaments. It's another revenue source for the conferences and the networks. But they're bad for the sport. I'd think it would be worth exploring a flat distribution limited only to teams with a winning record in the new conferences. How winning could be determined year by year, and there could be a cap as well. No more than 'x' number of teams per conference. A typical conference has ~12 teams while the super conferences tend to be ~16-18. If the NCAA requires a home-and-home schedule and a cap of 13 teams, then conference schedules would yield 24 games. And additional 8-9 OOC games gives ~33 games per season. If the cutoff is teams with a >.500 record, that would yield ~130 teams. Make it .600 and you'll end up with something closer to 100 teams. And they could revive the idea of two tournaments. One rule I can imagine is that of the 5 or 6 teams in a conference with winning records, only the top 2 or 3 are eligible for the main tournament and the others are eligible for the second level tournament.

Great first-principles explainer. I wonder if a new system can do away with a lot of the bad incentives in and complaints about the current system:

• (a) Auto qualifiers come from the regular season only.
• (b) Cap number of At-Large qualifiers based on regular season conference play.
• (c) Replace current conference tournaments with by-invitation pre-NCAAT tournament(s) based on out-of-conference play. Award qualifiers (not in (a) or (b)) based on these tournament(s). Scheduling similar to the WNBA’s Commissioner’s cup.
• (d) the number of times in-conference members will meet each other in-conference will be limited, so there is no need for any P4 conference sensitivity for departures in the S-curve in the NCAAT.

The current system is self-preserving which for schools with limited budgets has a conference-affiliation-is-destiny straitjacket ring to it, which disincentivizes increase in investments, which is a dampener on growth in the sport.

• The new system above can remove the current P4 NET incentives for “Sisters-of-the-Poor” snoozefest OOC schedules.
• It also makes resumes more structurally comparable.

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

This was during conference play. Don't think it applies to how teams were ranked for the tournament.

Per my comment above, it sounds like conference play was confused with how the committee ranks teams for the tourney.

That’s the reason for my underlined text. It’s not top 4 in conference play (unfortunately the wording in the original post may attract this understanding).

 

[WBBTakeover]

UCLA and Minnesota finished the top 4 in the same conference and they are in the same bracket. They will meet in the S16 if the chalk holds up.

UCLA (1 seed, Sacramento 2), Iowa (2 seed, Sacramento 4), Michigan (2 seed, Fort Worth 3), Ohio State (3 seed, Fort Worth 1).

Minnesota (4, Sacramento) is the fifth-highest seed.