Selection Sunday - General discussion (merged threads)

[LwrcasefaN]

How did Nebraska make the field?

 

[southie]

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.

I've posted this a few times, but women's volleyball and softball do NOT adjust the bracket to avoid intra-conference matchups except for the first two rounds; they seed teams 1-32 (not all 64) and let the chips fall where they may. And, fans and coaches complain that they'd like to adhere to the women's basketball seeding principles to avoid those intra-conference matchups in the Sweet 16 and Elite 8. Just can't make everyone happy.

In 2009, three Big 12 volleyball teams (Texas, Iowa State, and Nebraska) in the Top 16 were all seeded in the same regional and, all advanced to the Round of 16. Fellow Big 12 school and unseeded Texas A&M upset SEC school LSU and joined the other three schools for an All Big 12 regional in Lincoln, NE. And, that was during a time when the Big 12 volleyball conference schedule had every team playing all other conference teams twice in the regular season.

 

[nwhoopfan]

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.

I saw this in another thread, and quite frankly I don't believe it. I would be shocked if Washington's spending for women's hoops really puts them near the upper tier in the whole country. Contrary to everything I've heard about the program.

 

[cancontent]

I saw this in another thread, and quite frankly I don't believe it. I would be shocked if Washington's spending for women's hoops really puts them near the upper tier in the whole country. Contrary to everything I've heard about the program.

See my response to your post in the "Follow the Money" thread.

 

[Bone Dog]

Does this include coaches’ salaries?

 

[nwhoopfan]

Washington's travel budget must be fairly high, but no more than Oregon, Stanford or Cal. I just can't see where the money is being spent. Again, I don't believe it.

 

[Stagnant]

If you believe UCLA is going to win. I can help fill out your bracket. I believe in the basketball gods. I believe in karma. More often than not; storylines come to fruition in sports. Some examples involving UConn are Maryland and Vanderbilt. Expect UConn to play both teams. Yep, Maryland is going to eliminate North Carolina.

The UCLA story involves UConn, Texas, and LSU. You can pencil UConn into the national title game, Texas into the final 4, and LSU into the elite eight if you believe UCLA is winning the title.

The LSU component is pretty simple. This has become a rivalry. These teams have met in the tournament two years in a row. This is the rubber match. Even the UCLA coach hinted that they wanted LSU at the team pep rally yesterday.

UCLA’s 1 loss the year came via Texas. That’s why they make the most sense as a final four opponent. UCLA will want to avenge that loss.

Speaking of avenging losses… UCLA wants another crack at UConn. They were embarrassed in the final four game last year. Even if they won the championship; I think it wouldn’t be as satisfying as possible without that redemption.

 

[TheFarmFan]

It's unfair non-SEC 1s have to play the SEC 2 seeds who are the toughest, and it's also unfair SEC teams got seeded too high because they are overrated.

Pick one.

Can't both be true? The strength of the top of the conference teams like LSU and Vandy inflate the NET ratings of the mediocre Middle of the pack teams like Tennessee?

 

[TheFarmFan]

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.

As a side note, I wonder if we should read into the regions with sideline reporters. Specifically I wonder why Michigan was chosen over Texas or UCLA. Like I think we can assume that the UConn, South Carolina and LSU regionals will have the higher viewing numbers so I understand the thought behind those choices, but Michigan feels kind of random. Do they possibly anticipate some of the bigger upsets and news stories to come out of that site (i.e., Tennessee beating NC State and Michigan)?

No question Lobo, Rucco and Rowe are the premiere broadcasting team in the country, and always my favorites. I guess I'm a little but of a UConn homer from my time living in Conn (at least any time they're not playing Stanford), but to my ears I think she calls it like she sees it with very little bias.

Also I happened to run into her at Goodnight and Good Luck on Broadway and she couldn't have been nicer. (Or taller! Hah!)

 

[TheFarmFan]

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.

View attachment 118247

Pretty striking how much the decimation of the Pac-12 also obliterated West Coast basketball generally. Can't recall another time only one team west of the Rockies hosted the first two rounds.

 

[GamecockFam]

No question Lobo, Rucco and Rowe are the premiere broadcasting team in the country, and always my favorites. I guess I'm a little but of a UConn homer from my time living in Conn (at least any time they're not playing Stanford), but to my ears I think she calls it like she sees it with very little bias.

Also I happened to run into her at Goodnight and Good Luck on Broadway and she couldn't have been nicer. (Or taller! Hah!)

I don't disagree but with Lobo particularly, all of her experience and knowledge is around the UConn program so she is always drawing from those experiences and it can get grating whenever she is constantly comparing something happening in a Non-UConn game to a UConn experience. It starts feeling like she is taking the focus away from the teams on the floor and onto the UConn program. I think she knows she does this and she tries her best to diversify but it always creeps through.

While I would deal with it in a standalone context (i.e., this is just a Lobo problem), I also feel like so many of the people supporting the WBB industry are UConn fans, former UConn players or just more knowledgeable about UConn's history so it adds up. For example, there is a ton of UConn media bias in Unrivaled that grates me a little. Like you see promotional material about former UConn players and the analysts are always pointing out that "so and so" is a former UConn alumni but never say that this other person is from Kentucky and that one from Ohio State. All in all, it gets a little grating with how UConn-centric WBB media can be, so Lobo's additions are the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.

 

[TheFarmFan]

I don't disagree but with Lobo particularly, all of her experience and knowledge is around the UConn program so she is always drawing from those experiences and it can get grating whenever she is constantly comparing something happening in a Non-UConn game to a UConn experience. It starts feeling like she is taking the focus away from the teams on the floor and onto the UConn program. I think she knows she does this and she tries her best to diversify but it always creeps through.

While I would deal with it in a standalone context (i.e., this is just a Lobo problem), I also feel like so many of the people supporting the WBB industry are UConn fans, former UConn players or just more knowledgeable about UConn's history so it adds up. For example, there is a ton of UConn media bias in Unrivaled that grates me a little. Like you see promotional material about former UConn players and the analysts are always pointing out that "so and so" is a former UConn alumni but never say that this other person is from Kentucky and that one from Ohio State. All in all, it gets a little grating with how UConn-centric WBB media can be, so Lobo's additions are the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.

The truth truly is in the eyes of the beholder - just about everyone on my Stanford board, like you, thinks the media and ESPN in particular is biased and in the bag for UConn. Huskies fans around here, by contrast, feel like everyone, including ESPN, is out to get them. I guess to me there's some evidence everyone could point to be net/net if Lobo is calling big games and top players, and making comps to other big games and top players, it really can't be surprising she has a ton of Huskies anecodes to draw from. But I'll take the expertise she has precisely because of that over many other commentators, and I guess I'd be curious to know who you like better. The only other one I'd put at the Lobo level is Kara Lawson, but alas she has better things to do in Durham than sit behind a mic all day.

 

[Bone Dog]

The truth truly is in the eyes of the beholder - just about everyone on my Stanford board, like you, thinks the media and ESPN in particular is biased and in the bag for UConn. Huskies fans around here, by contrast, feel like everyone, including ESPN, is out to get them. I guess to me there's some evidence everyone could point to be net/net if Lobo is calling big games and top players, and making comps to other big games and top players, it really can't be surprising she has a ton of Huskies anecodes to draw from. But I'll take the expertise she has precisely because of that over many other commentators, and I guess I'd be curious to know who you like better. The only other one I'd put at the Lobo level is Kara Lawson, but alas she has better things to do in Durham than sit behind a mic all day.

I’m with @GamecockFam too. The UConn-centric character of WBB broadcasting is both obvious and invisible to most UConn fans. This is sort of inevitable given the extraordinary success of the program. The closest thing to it is Tennessee’s. But during Pat’s time, WBB broadcasting was too small to really notice that sort of bias. Now that WBB is finally getting the attention it deserves, we’re seeing the consequences of UConn’s incredible record writ large. It’s what all the current talent mainly knows. Imagine if Anne Meyers were back in broadcasting. Then you’d hear a distinctly different voice.

And of course Geno’s personality plays a role. I think he may be the most charismatic voice among current coaches. Lots of coaches are earnest, sincere, forceful. But few combine that with his wit. One example: the sideline interview during the Oklahoma game last season, Holly asked him about Paige’s willingness to take shots. This is practically an old saw among analysts so not a surprising question (or even an interesting one) in itself. But Geno responded to it first with honesty (“I tell her, the other team knows you won’t shoot it… so shoot it.”) and then with startling humor. He said to Holly, “Maybe you should talk to her.” I can’t think of another coach who speaks like that to the media.

 

[VA Huskie]

I agree that the committee and the supposed rules or guidelines it operates under is terrible. The SEC,ACC and Big 10 teams we played this season ( all of whom were ranked when we played them) could not even give us a competitive game, with the notable exception of MICH yet those conferences got undeserving teams in the tournament for beating each other. These same conferences teams also benefit unfairly when it comes to seeding as they won’t put their top teams in the same regional so for example the # 1 and #2 teams ( UConn and UCLA this year) don’t get to play the true # 7 and # 8 seeds as they’ve earned and deserve and instead the SEC teams who aren’t as highly rated or seeded or deserving are slated to play lesser 2 seeds. These supposed big time conferences also have overrated teams that benefit from upsetting each other and getting highly ranked based on both these wins and losses because it artificially increases their strength of schedule. I know many will disagree but there’s no way TN, So Cal or Virginia should be in the tournament, they are terrible teams who lost too many games. TN is an especially egregious case as they get credit for their high strength of schedule yet they were badly beaten by the top tier teams they played and beat nobody really good and have 13 losses and have lost 7 straight and 10 of 12. The other 2 have 13 and 11 losses and were not competitive against any good teams. Something has to be changed and the conferences should not be protected by not having to play their own teams in the regions.

I agree with much of what you said. And as a UVA season ticket holder, agree that they probably shouldn’t be in the tournament. However, UVA was competitive against a couple of good teams. They beat Louisville and ND.

 

[Jonathan14]

I don't disagree but with Lobo particularly, all of her experience and knowledge is around the UConn program so she is always drawing from those experiences and it can get grating whenever she is constantly comparing something happening in a Non-UConn game to a UConn experience. It starts feeling like she is taking the focus away from the teams on the floor and onto the UConn program. I think she knows she does this and she tries her best to diversify but it always creeps through.

While I would deal with it in a standalone context (i.e., this is just a Lobo problem), I also feel like so many of the people supporting the WBB industry are UConn fans, former UConn players or just more knowledgeable about UConn's history so it adds up. For example, there is a ton of UConn media bias in Unrivaled that grates me a little. Like you see promotional material about former UConn players and the analysts are always pointing out that "so and so" is a former UConn alumni but never say that this other person is from Kentucky and that one from Ohio State. All in all, it gets a little grating with how UConn-centric WBB media can be, so Lobo's additions are the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.

I think the Lobo complaint and the Unrivaled complaint are different. In a normal broadcast, constant UConn comparisons can feel like they pull attention away from the teams actually playing. But with Unrivaled, UConn is genuinely central to the story: Stewart and Collier founded the league, Geno was an early investor, UConn supplied a huge chunk of the early player pool (7 in season 1; 6 in season 2), and the league’s revolutionary player-first benefits came out of the model those founders built. So maybe some of the coverage is repetitive, but calling the Unrivaled focus ‘bias’ undersells how central UConn alumni actually were to creating the league.

 

[WBBTakeover]

I agree with much of what you said. And as a UVA season ticket holder, agree that they probably shouldn’t be in the tournament. However, UVA was competitive against a couple of good teams. They beat Louisville and ND.

I would say that UVA isn't any less deserving of a bid than Nebraska, who went 7-11 in their conference (UVA went 11-7). UVA had 3 Q1 wins to Nebraska's 1 (that they got by one point late in February).