Selection Sunday - General discussion (merged threads)

[oldude]

Expert opinion is that Vandy should have been at 6, but they are 8 to suffer the exposure to to a game with UConn because its good theater. In other words the system that got Vandy where they are is not a system, but a manipulation. The who cares lets play attitude is Geno's and we all know why and love it.

Vandy was actually the 7 seed. They play UConn because they are the 4th best seed in the SEC, because seeding rules require teams from the same conference to be separated by region. There was absolutely no manipulation involved. IT’S THE RULES!

 

[Bone Dog]

Vandy was actually the 7 seed. They play UConn because they are the 4th best seed in the SEC, because seeding rules require teams from the same conference to be separated by region. There was absolutely no manipulation involved. IT’S THE RULES!

Those rules are the manipulation.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Vandy was actually the 7 seed. They play UConn because they are the 4th best seed in the SEC, because seeding rules require teams from the same conference to be separated by region. There was absolutely no manipulation involved. IT’S THE RULES!

No, they should have been in another #1's bracket and the committee could find another way to satisfy their conference separation "rule".

 

[oldude]

Those rules are the manipulation.

How exactly?

 

[iri10]

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

I'm sure they took selection very seriously, just as they do everything else. No tomfoolery, I am certain. 😅

 

[southie]

Did anyone come across the actual committee final rankings of the teams before the procedural "bumps" ?

 

[southie]

Those rules are the manipulation.

The rules which have been in place like for 10 years?

 

[GamecockFam]

Those rules are the manipulation.

How exactly?

I think it may be better to reset the terms we are using because, technically speaking, all seeding rules are manipulating the seeding order. I think it would be more accurate to say that we're discussing the fairness of the seeding rules in light of the evolution of the super conferences which makes it harder and harder to avoid conference foes.

Maybe we don't throw out the rule but tweak it. For example, we change the rule to only allow rearranging to prevent conference teams which have played 2 or more times during the regular season and conference tournament. This season, that would still prevent South Carolina from being paired with Texas, LSU, Kentucky or Alabama but not from being paired with any other SEC team in the tourney (Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Georgia). I think that would keep the spirit of the rule while giving the committee some more flexibility to pair conference teams that only played each other one time.

 

[TheFarmFan]

Those rules are the manipulation.

How exactly?

I think it may be better to reset the terms we are using because, technically speaking, all seeding rules are manipulating the seeding order. I think it would be more accurate to say that we're discussing the fairness of the seeding rules in light of the evolution of the super conferences which makes it harder and harder to avoid conference foes.

Maybe we don't throw out the rule but tweak it. For example, we change the rule to only allow rearranging to prevent conference teams which have played 2 or more times during the regular season and conference tournament. This season, that would still prevent South Carolina from being paired with Texas, LSU, Kentucky or Alabama but not from being paired with any other SEC team in the tourney (Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Georgia). I think that would keep the spirit of the rule while giving the committee some more flexibility to pair conference teams that only played each other one time.

This bickering-to-what/no-end is a clear sign the natives are restless and they have been deprived of major college hoops for t(w)oo long weeks. Hold it together for another two days, friends!

 

[Bone Dog]

How exactly?

The rules are designed to accommodate a perverse situation that was created by allowing super-conferences to form. This wasn’t necessary, and I think there’s no way to argue that the current arrangement is good for the sport. Instead of bending the selection process to serve the interests of the super-conferences — the current form of the manipulation — the ncaa might as well have chosen rules to favor the interests of all the other conferences. The mistake is to assume that any feature of the current situation can’t or shouldn’t be changed. It’s all nothing but choices and decisions that could be otherwise.

 

[southie]

The rules are designed to accommodate a perverse situation that was created by allowing super-conferences to form. This wasn’t necessary, and I think there’s no way to argue that the current arrangement is good for the sport. Instead of bending the selection process to serve the interests of the super-conferences — the current form of the manipulation — the ncaa might as well have chosen rules to favor the interests of all the other conferences. The mistake is to assume that any feature of the current situation can’t or shouldn’t be changed. It’s all nothing but choices and decisions that could be otherwise.

Not true at all. These "rules" were implemented as far back to at least 2016 if not earlier which was several years before any super-conferences (16+ member schools) formed.

 

[oldude]

The rules are designed to accommodate a perverse situation that was created by allowing super-conferences to form. This wasn’t necessary, and I think there’s no way to argue that the current arrangement is good for the sport. Instead of bending the selection process to serve the interests of the super-conferences — the current form of the manipulation — the ncaa might as well have chosen rules to favor the interests of all the other conferences. The mistake is to assume that any feature of the current situation can’t or shouldn’t be changed. It’s all nothing but choices and decisions that could be otherwise.

These rules, or something akin to them, have guided the Selection Committee long before the recent rise of the “super conferences.” Once again I point out the situation in 2013 with the Old Big East, that resulted in 3/4 teams making the Final Four. Nobody seemed to be complaining back then.

I suspect over time there will be changes to the seeding process. But I don’t think there will be major overhauls relative to P4 conferences. These conferences are the impetus for a 68 team tournament that makes tens of millions of dollars from the tournament. They want as many teams as possible to play as long as possible to maximize the revenue their conference earns.

If the other 250 or so schools pressure the P4 conferences to change March Madness in some way that might just lessen the benefit to the P4 conferences, they will do exactly what Football did, creating their own tournament leaving everyone else to battle for table scraps.

Who would that hurt the most? Likely any school not in a P4 conference with the wherewithal to actually compete with the P4 conferences in basketball. Now who might be in that position? 🤫

 

[oldude]

No, they should have been in another #1's bracket and the committee could find another way to satisfy their conference separation "rule".

Rocky, I’m scratching my head. TX & SC from the SEC were already #1’s. That left LSU and Vandy as the next 2 teams from the SEC. In the SEC Tournament, once Vandy had a bad loss to Ole Miss, while LSU beat up OK, that meant LSU was the 3rd best team in the SEC and Vandy was the 4th.

With UCLA being the 2nd overall seed they were matched up in their region with the better SEC team, LSU. UConn as the #1 overall seed, was matched up with the “worst” of the top 4 SEC seeds, Vandy.

I just don’t get what exactly the complaint is about playing Vandy? They are a good team with a great young coach that UConn will beat by double digits, assuming Vandy makes it to the Elite 8.

 

[sivad40]

Did anyone come across the actual committee final rankings of the teams before the procedural "bumps" ?

Are you talking about the final committee rankings?

 

[oldude]

By the way, if anyone has an axe to grind about the Selection Committee it’s St Johns on the men’s side. They beat up on UConn in the Conference Championship. UConn gets a 2-seed. St Johns gets a 5 seed and ends up in UConn’s Region! Now that’s some crazy sXXX. None other than Coach K commented that in all his years associated with the NCAA tournament, he has never seen that happen before.

 

[southie]

Are you talking about the final committee rankings?

yes

 

[Bone Dog]

Not true at all. These "rules" were implemented as far back to at least 2016 if not earlier which was several years before any super-conferences (16+ member schools) formed.

Yes, I used the term “super-conference” in a way that led you and @oldude to conclude I was only thinking of the P4. I was thinking of the former P5 as well. This problem is older than the recent collapse of the Pac12.

It’s true that the P4 have outgrown geography and this is quite distinctive. But that’s merely an inconvenience to the members and their students. The problem they pose for tournament seeding is that their reputation for being basketball powerhouses means they get special seeding treatment. Yes, the rules would protect lesser conferences too. But in my view, conferences that don’t typically get more than one or two teams into the tournament pose no threat to the sport.

 

[oldude]

Yes, I used the term “super-conference” in a way that led you and @oldude to conclude I was only thinking of the P4. I was thinking of the former P5 as well. This problem is older than the recent collapse of the Pac12.

It’s true that the P4 have outgrown geography and this is quite distinctive. But that’s merely an inconvenience to the members and their students. The problem they pose for tournament seeding is that their reputation for being basketball powerhouses means they get special seeding treatment. Yes, the rules would protect lesser conferences too. But in my view, conferences that don’t typically get more than one or two teams into the tournament pose no threat to the sport.

Something that’s easy to overlook here is the de facto bargain between the P4 conferences and the smaller conferences. The AIAW used to hold the national championship which consisted of 16 teams, that eventually grew to 24. The NCAA took over that role in 1982, increasing the number of teams to 32, which grew to 40, then 64 and now 68 since 2022.

When this process started out, there were lots of good teams and small conferences that never had the opportunity to compete in the tournament. The money and status largely generated by the P4 conferences allows every conference a seat at the table.

If you watched UTSA celebrate when their name was called on Selection Sunday, you had to feel good for an upstart 6th seed in the AAC that somehow managed to win 4 straight games to get to the Big Dance. Now they don’t have a bats chance in hell of beating UConn. They’ll probably lose by 60. But the players will have an experience they can tell their grandchildren about, and that’s largely do to the money and interest that the P4 teams + UConn generate.

 

[southie]

Yes, I used the term “super-conference” in a way that led you and @oldude to conclude I was only thinking of the P4. I was thinking of the former P5 as well. This problem is older than the recent collapse of the Pac12.

It’s true that the P4 have outgrown geography and this is quite distinctive. But that’s merely an inconvenience to the members and their students. The problem they pose for tournament seeding is that their reputation for being basketball powerhouses means they get special seeding treatment. Yes, the rules would protect lesser conferences too. But in my view, conferences that don’t typically get more than one or two teams into the tournament pose no threat to the sport.

It wasn't just P5. When UConn and Rutgers were both in the Big East, they met 3 teams in conference play and then were assigned the 1 & 2 seeds in the same East regional which UConn won. So, four times in one season. Then it happened again with Baylor and Texas A&M when both were in the Big 12. Both of those occurrences were probably what led to the committee implementing intra-conference rules a few years later.

 

[Bone Dog]

Something that’s easy to overlook here is the de facto bargain between the P4 conferences and the smaller conferences. The AIAW used to hold the national championship which consisted of 16 teams, that eventually grew to 24. The NCAA took over that role in 1982, increasing the number of teams to 32, which grew to 40, then 64 and now 68 since 2022.

When this process started out, there were lots of good teams and small conferences that never had the opportunity to compete in the tournament. The money and status largely generated by the P4 conferences allows every conference a seat at the table.

If you watched UTSA celebrate when their name was called on Selection Sunday, you had to feel good for an upstart 6th seed in the AAC that somehow managed to win 4 straight games to get to the Big Dance. Now they don’t have a bats chance in hell of beating UConn. They’ll probably lose by 60. But the players will have an experience they can tell their grandchildren about, and that’s largely do to the money and interest that the P4 teams + UConn generate.

I don’t disagree. The sport expanded to where it was in the late 90’s from a beginning in a smaller number of schools. Some of those early powerhouses have largely fallen by the wayside. Some may rise again. But the current situation seems to be anticompetitive for currently ‘lesser’ schools and conferences. This is the rules-based manipulation I spoke of earlier. There is very little disincentive even to further consolidation. Tournament seeding rules could serve as such a disincentive. This would be only one small change among the many that would be needed to strengthen nationwide competitiveness.

 

[Phil]

Expert opinion is that Vandy should have been at 6, but they are 8 to suffer the exposure to to a game with UConn because its good theater. In other words the system that got Vandy where they are is not a system, but a manipulation. The who cares lets play attitude is Geno's and we all know why and love it.

They were listed as 7 in the ranking,
but even if you make the case that they deserve sixth, that would move Iowa to number seven, with Michigan at number eight, both of whom played UConn during the season. That is something they like to avoid per written rules and I wouldn't call that "manipulation" which carries the stigma of breaking the rules to achieve some result. I don't doubt they were happy for the storyline, but it seems to follow with a straightforward application of their principles.

 

[sivad40]

yes

NCAA Division I Women’s Basketball Committee Top 16 Ranking – March 1, 2026*

1. UConn
2. UCLA
3. South Carolina
4. Texas
5. Vanderbilt
6. Iowa
7. LSU
8. Michigan
9. Louisville
10. Duke
11. TCU
12. Oklahoma
13. Maryland
14. Michigan State
15. Minnesota
16. Ohio State

Regional Assignments*

Fort Worth 1
1. UConn (1)
2. LSU (7)
3. Louisville (9)
4. Maryland (13)

Sacramento 2
1. UCLA (2)
2. Vanderbilt (5)
3. Duke (10)
4. Ohio State (16)

Fort Worth 3
1. South Carolina (3)
2. Michigan (8)
3. TCU (11)
4. Minnesota (15)

Sacramento 4
1. Texas (4)
2. Iowa (6)
3. Oklahoma (12)
4. Michigan State (14)

*Rankings and regional assignments based on games played through Saturday, February 28

These rankings was taken before the last regular games on March 1. That means March 1 games like Notre Dame defeating Louisville, North Carolina defeating Duke, Vanderbilt beating Tennessee, Ohio St defeating Michigan St., etc, wasn't factored in these rankings. I would assumed that Michigan's Feb 28 win over Maryland was factored in the their ranking.

 

[oldude]

I don’t disagree. The sport expanded to where it was in the late 90’s from a beginning in a smaller number of schools. Some of those early powerhouses have largely fallen by the wayside. Some may rise again. But the current situation seems to be anticompetitive for currently ‘lesser’ schools and conferences. This is the rules-based manipulation I spoke of earlier. There is very little disincentive even to further consolidation. Tournament seeding rules could serve as such a disincentive. This would be only one small change among the many that would be needed to strengthen nationwide competitiveness.

In the days of NIL, immediate transfer eligibility, player agents and big money tv deals, I don’t see how you put the genie back in the bottle. As I referenced earlier, if the P4, maybe some day P2 conferences don’t get taken care of, they’ll do the same thing the major football programs did by creating their own championship.

At present, more than half the AQ’s in the tournament don’t have a chance to win a game. They are in the tournament because it expanded to 68 teams. It expanded to 68 teams because of the money and interest that the P4 teams plus UConn generate.

The days when Old Dominion, Delta St and Louisiana Tech could win the national championship are long gone and they ain’t coming back.

 

[cancontent]

NCAA Division I Women’s Basketball Committee Top 16 Ranking – March 1, 2026*

1. UConn
2. UCLA
3. South Carolina
4. Texas
5. Vanderbilt
6. Iowa
7. LSU
8. Michigan
9. Louisville
10. Duke
11. TCU
12. Oklahoma
13. Maryland
14. Michigan State
15. Minnesota
16. Ohio State

Regional Assignments*

Fort Worth 1
1. UConn (1)
2. LSU (7)
3. Louisville (9)
4. Maryland (13)

Sacramento 2
1. UCLA (2)
2. Vanderbilt (5)
3. Duke (10)
4. Ohio State (16)

Fort Worth 3
1. South Carolina (3)
2. Michigan (8)
3. TCU (11)
4. Minnesota (15)

Sacramento 4
1. Texas (4)
2. Iowa (6)
3. Oklahoma (12)
4. Michigan State (14)

*Rankings and regional assignments based on games played through Saturday, February 28

These rankings was taken before the last regular games on March 1. That means March 1 games like Notre Dame defeating Louisville, North Carolina defeating Duke, Vanderbilt beating Tennessee, Ohio St defeating Michigan St., etc, wasn't factored in these rankings. I would assumed that Michigan's Feb 28 win over Maryland was factored in the their ranking.

There's another thread which had the actual ranking that was announced last Saturday. That list would have likely taken the March 1 games into consideration.

 

[fomalhaut]

Totally agree both about your comments about Rebecca and particularly about Kara who I found to be an amazing analyst

When Lobo and Lawson were working together, I didn't detect any bias either way from either, despite being from thw two most storied programs ever.