- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
- Messages
- 7,545
- Reaction Score
- 28,317
Geno:
Great Tweet with linked data to prove this,I noticed that as well. Wonder where we would have been had we not played the toughest schedule?
The reason the committee chair gave for why Stanford over us was crap. We have a better record, played a harder schedule, won our conference regular season and tournament, but because Stanford has one extra win against top-100 teams they get the last #1 seed? At the end of the day it doesn't really matter, but I hate how the women's tourney is taken less seriously than the men's.
I think the committee chair said something about Stanford having 20 wins vs top 100 teams (SOS). By my count, UConn has 18. But UConn had a stronger SOS, a better NET, finished the season stronger and has finally returned to full strength making the injury factor a plus heading into the post season.The reason the committee chair gave for why Stanford over us was crap. We have a better record, played a harder schedule, won our conference regular season and tournament, but because Stanford has one extra win against top-100 teams they get the last #1 seed? At the end of the day it doesn't really matter, but I hate how the women's tourney is taken less seriously than the men's.
I think Geno had it right when he said if they weren't called UConn they would have been a 1 seed. The link to the data that Sargassoc posted makes it pretty clear.I think the committee chair said something about Stanford having 20 wins vs top 100 teams (SOS). By my count, UConn has 18. But UConn had a stronger SOS, a better NET, finished the season stronger and has finally returned to full strength making the injury factor a plus heading into the post season.
In the end the committee is going to do whatever the hell they’re going to do when it comes to seeding teams. After that, they will often “cherry pick” any reason they can to justify their decision. I think that’s what happened with Stanford as a #1 over UConn.
With that said, I’m perfectly happy with UConn’s bracket. I can see a tough but realistic path to another FF, and if the Huskies get there, who knows?
You nailed it old dude. By the way us older folks can remember what happened the last time the committee awarded Stanford a number 1 seed in questionable circumstances. You would think that they would learn from their previous mistakes.I think the committee chair said something about Stanford having 20 wins vs top 100 teams (SOS). By my count, UConn has 18. But UConn had a stronger SOS, a better NET, finished the season stronger and has finally returned to full strength making the injury factor a plus heading into the post season.
In the end the committee is going to do whatever the hell they’re going to do when it comes to seeding teams. After that, they will often “cherry pick” any reason they can to justify their decision. I think that’s what happened with Stanford as a #1 over UConn.
With that said, I’m perfectly happy with UConn’s bracket. I can see a tough but realistic path to another FF, and if the Huskies get there, who knows?
Could it simply be an unstated bias in favor of P-5 teams? I think the seedings bear this out. Too many P5 teams are in and ranked artificially high. I wonder where Nova would be ranked if UConn was not in the big East to account for 3 losses. Or maybe having 3 good losses helped their seed? Seems the committee can find a way to justify whatever choices are made.I think the committee chair said something about Stanford having 20 wins vs top 100 teams (SOS). By my count, UConn has 18. But UConn had a stronger SOS, a better NET, finished the season stronger and has finally returned to full strength making the injury factor a plus heading into the post season.
In the end the committee is going to do whatever the hell they’re going to do when it comes to seeding teams. After that, they will often “cherry pick” any reason they can to justify their decision. I think that’s what happened with Stanford as a #1 over UConn.
With that said, I’m perfectly happy with UConn’s bracket. I can see a tough but realistic path to another FF, and if the Huskies get there, who knows?
You are so right.Geno will most definitely use the #2 seed as “tackling fuel” to motivate the team, something that VA Tech and every other team in the tournament should be concerned about.
I think a 2 seed in that greenville bracket, all things being the same, would be a more difficult than the bracket we got. 7/10 of NC State and Princeton is tougher than Baylor/Princeton. I think LSU is a more dangerous 3 seed than Ohio State and is less likely to get upset by their 6 seed. And Indiana is both less likely get upset before the elite eight than Virginia Tech and a much tougher match up if we did see them. Even the 4 seed is more difficult (Villanova vs Tennessee). I also think playing in Greenville would be much more of a road atmosphere than Seattle will be. I'm surprised Geno isn't pleasantly surprised by getting put in Seattle, assuming its the longer travel and time change that is the bummer but I think the positives should far out weigh them.I think Geno was more disappointed that UCONN is in a Seattle region. He probably preferred being in Indiana's Greenville 2 bracket.
There would be much less travel & UCONN would still avoid South Carolina until the Finals.
Exactly. The committee likes the criteria to be unclear so they can do just what you said, cherry pick reasons.In the end the committee is going to do whatever the hell they’re going to do when it comes to seeding teams. After that, they will often “cherry pick” any reason they can to justify their decision. I think that’s what happened with Stanford as a #1 over UConn.