Selection Sunday Geno and Player Reactions

[Rowdy831]

I noticed that as well. Wonder where we would have been had we not played the toughest schedule?

With LSU in the 3 line

 

[The CDR-Ret]

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.

Like the old philosopher Forest Grump said (quoting his mom), "Stupid is as stupid does!"

Different NCAA committee, same tendencies...{...what each member holds dear as opposed to following their own directives.]

But as I said before, #2, #3, #6 or #7 overall puts UCONN in the bracket opposite SC. I am sure that UCONN can take Virginia Tech, but it is still a "win the play in front of you" mentality that leads to winning one game at a time. And the women are fully capable of executing Geno's plan to near perfection...

I like the path they were given as opposed to the "reasoning" the committee was using (goes back the Forest Gump line). It is far better to be blessed than lucky or good, and UCONN is blessed with aggressive talent who are healthy at the right tme, and are thriving with outstanding coaching who know how to get it done, one game at a time.

Go Huskies!

 

[Blueberries]

Interestingly, this is the first time this math teacher was able to visualize how Stanford could be seen as having the stronger resume over UConn. I looked at numbers alone covering the school names and thought the first row did have the best resume, followed by the third column then second. It’s really the loss in Q2 that tipped it for me. Which team tell into that category but still made the dance? Theoretically normally they don’t get that low and still given a ticket to the dance as an at large….

 

[Littlemin]

Here is the criteria pulled directly from the NCAA site for the WCBB Tournament:
Criteria used by the Division I Women’s Basketball Committee to evaluate a team includes (alphabetically):
● Availability of talent (injured or unavailable players) (doesn't seem to be considered for MD, SC, SJU or Marquette losses for us)
● Bad losses (SJU was a bad loss even without Azzi)
● Common opponents (Iowa, ND, SC are common opponents)
● Competitive in losses
● Conference record
● Early competition versus late competition
● Head-to-head outcomes
● NET ranking (see below)
● Non-conference record
● Overall record
● Regional Advisory Committee region rankings
● Significant wins
● Strength of conference (Big East is #6 of 6 so the bottom dwellers of Xavier, Butler, PC and Georgetown hurt us!)
● Strength of schedule (see below)

Also, the 12 members submit a "top 8 numbered 1-8 and the highest number of ballots with the lowest number total (12) would be seeded 1-8 using the above criteria. As UConn came out with the number 6 overall seed.
That said here are the resumes of the 6 contenders for the 3-#1 seeds. I took a look at the criteria and applied it to the teams and listed them in my rank order. UConn should have been overall #3 (behind Indiana). Stanford would have edged out Virginia Tech not Iowa. I have the NET, SoS, Quad 1/2 wins (not sure why the committee arbitrarily chose top 100), the last 10 games played, Regular season conference title, Tournament title, any injuries during the season of note and the conference ranking. Yellow indicates conference title. So yeah, the logic the committee gave is not consistent with their criteria, it's close but not rigid enough. Keep in mind NET is already considering SoS which encompasses conference strength, wins and losses so to me, the committee is arbitrarily assigning higher criteria to unstated selected metrics.
View attachment 85068

As I stated in another thread, with 14 criteria, there is no criteria, just the means to manipulate as the committee chooses.
Clear cut example, injuries are a criteria, St. John’s made the tournament, yet is still seemingly a “bad” loss even though Fudd was unavailable but has since returned. Just manipulation, not logic.

 

[hoopsnloops32]

Interestingly, this is the first time this math teacher was able to visualize how Stanford could be seen as having the stronger resume over UConn. I looked at numbers alone covering the school names and thought the first row did have the best resume, followed by the third column then second. It’s really the loss in Q2 that tipped it for me. Which team tell into that category but still made the dance? Theoretically normally they don’t get that low and still given a ticket to the dance as an at large….

Imma need you to explain to me like I’m five how you came to that conclusion:


Team a: 5 loses, #2 Net, #2 SOS , 11 Top 25 Net wins (Last 10: 8-2), worst loss NET 55

Team b: 5 loses, #4 Net, #3 SOS, 9 Top 25 Net Wins (Last 10: 7-3), worst loss NET 68