Selection Sunday Geno and Player Reactions

[hoopsfan22]

Geno:

 

[hoopsfan22]

Caroline & Azzi:

 

[hoopsfan22]

Aaliyah & Nika:

 

[hoopsfan22]

Dorka & Lou:

 

[NEforceUConn]

Man we have really impressive women! I’m proud of the entire program.

Fingers crossed that the team gets to achieve their goals and experience the moment.

 

[AgStatesman]

Geno is so masterful. In his interview above, he sounds completely flummoxed at not being a one seed and yet entirely happy with a two seed at the same time. It was a virtuoso performance worthy of an Oscar.

 

[Bald Husky]

God bless them all. I would love for Dorka and Lou to get to Dallas, something I'm sure they didn't envision before they came to Storrs. I think they all gained a lot of maturity this season, and for them to make it to the final two games would be the highlight of their young careers.

 

[Bald Husky]

Geno is so masterful. In his interview above, he sounds completely flummoxed at not being a one seed and yet entirely happy with a two seed at the same time. It was a virtuoso performance worthy of an Oscar.

By not being a #1 seed, they avoid a possible date with SC before the NC game. Hope we can get there.

 

[hoopsfan22]

Geno is so masterful. In his interview above, he sounds completely flummoxed at not being a one seed and yet entirely happy with a two seed at the same time. It was a virtuoso performance worthy of an Oscar.

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

 

[Sargassoc]

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

Great Tweet with linked data to prove this,

 

[hoopsfan22]

Great Tweet with linked data to prove this,

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.

 

[oldude]

Geno is so masterful. In his interview above, he sounds completely flummoxed at not being a one seed and yet entirely happy with a two seed at the same time. It was a virtuoso performance worthy of an Oscar.

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.

 

[oldude]

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.

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?

 

[hoopsfan22]

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?

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.

 

[Forego]

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.

 

[Cornell Lt]

That committee chair seemed hard pressed to defend the committee's position on Stanford as the 1 seed.

 

[darkstar1]

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.

 

[tomcat]

Sounds to me as though Geno was just being transparent about his feelings. The competitive part of him always wants to be #1, but UConn's placement is pretty damn good, and I think he knows it.

 

[#12in21]

Thanks for posting these hoopsfan22, I enjoyed watching all of them. As everyone on here knows I am a huge Nika fan, so perhaps others don't get the same level of enjoyment seeing her pressers. I marvel at how she is just so natural and comfortable in those settings. Even at times if she mistakes something, or doesn't understand the question, she simply asks for clarification and it doesn't fluster her - usually just a little laughter and she moves on. You almost always get a glimpse of her personality rather than just responses to questions. Just a joy to watch and a great representation of herself and the program.

I loved what she had to say in recognition/praise of Geno's coaching. She has always been consistent, from her first preseason through the present, in acknowledging his genius and in her gratitude for being able to play for Uconn wcbb. I have no doubt that there have been numerous occasions when there has been tension and frustration in their relationship. But, I am equally sure that they both would take all of that along with the positives, that they will carry with them beyond Nika's time at UConn, rather than the alternative. IMO, they have each had an impact on each other, which I feel they both appreciate.

As with so many former players I think Nika and Geno's relationship will long surpass her time in Storrs. In a few years we can watch them in one of those reunion specials, reflecting on the story book season of 22-23 when UConn fought through adversity to reclaim their place at the apex of women's college basketball and begin the next dynasty in the storied history of UConn wcbb!

 

[jaydee602]

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.

 

[Jokerman619]

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.

You are so right.

 

[Jokerman619]

They are so amazing young women. And they are so much battle tested. To be a fly on the wall of the opponents of the first two games. And I truly believe that uconn can walk through this region. Such skilled and team support they all have. It's great to see them put the plans together. All will remember them. True family. And together they are unstoppable.
Go Huskies.

 

[hoopsnloops32]

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.

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.

 

[DefenseBB]

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.

 

[STLCardinal]

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.

Exactly. The committee likes the criteria to be unclear so they can do just what you said, cherry pick reasons.

 

[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