South Carolina a #1 Seed this Week

[Phil]

I have never seen a bracket that unbalanced even with the silly geographic strangleholds the committee places on themselves.

There has never been a situation in history where teams are allowed to host regionals, which adds to the complication. But the main culprit may turn out to be the site selection committee, who are not the bracket committee.

There's never been a year where the eastern most regional is Louisville. If you draw a map of where the strongest teams are, there are a lot east of or close to Louisville.

Which means if you give the highest seed the closest regional, you are going to have a lot of strong teams in Louisville's region.

That won't be the bracket selection committee's fault it will be the site selection committee's fault.

We've never seen brackets that look like this because we've never had such a geographical anomaly for regional locations.


None of which is Creme's fault.

 

[Phil]

My question about St John's was why so high. I didn't realize they had won 11 in a row, but knew all 5 of their losses were to unranked teams. They have 1 win over a ranked team - by 2 points over TX A&M.

Their resume isn't great, as you note, not much for quality wins. But their losses were early and the committee like what you've done lately. While they haven't played many good teams, they don't have all that many sucky teams, I assume because their RPI is 12th, which means they were moved down a notch. That why I (seriously) asked which direction, becasue some might see 12, think 3 seed and wonder what they did to drop down. I think they were moved down a bit based on some losses they shouldn't have lost, and the lack of decent wins.

 

[jdubct]

Tennessee still a two seed? I over Maryland?

Agree. Maryland seeded over TN. TN probably a 3 or 4 seed.

 

[triaddukefan]

Agree. Maryland seeded over TN. TN probably a 3 or 4 seed.

I cant see MD seeded over TN.. TN has better wins... no bad losses. MD best wins are UNC... Syracuse, and GaTech. With a bad blowout loss @ UVA

 

[Vowelguy]

Which means if you give the highest seed the closest regional, you are going to have a lot of strong teams in Louisville's region.

I do not believe there is any evidence to suggest that will happen.

In fact, the very first item listed in the bracketing procedures is this:

The committee will attempt to achieve relative balance in the bracket and provide comparable competition, while abiding by the remaining principles.

Much like the RPI, geography is not the be-all, end-all.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

I really believe that UCONN goes to Lincoln! I can't see the Committee screwing up the seeding more than having Stanford in Stanford, L'ville in L'ville and ND at ND! How stupid can the NCAA get? For one year let's go against ALL the coaches on the Val Akerman Committee to revamp the NCAA Tournament and have home Regional sites for 1 year! Then next year go to neutral sites! Why not go to neutral sites this year?
Forget closest sites BS and send UCONN to Nebraska!
By the way, the last 2 NCAA committee brackets Charlie Creme was wrong over 70% of his placements! He's guessing just like the rest of us!

 

[Phil]

I do not believe there is any evidence to suggest that will happen.

In fact, the very first item listed in the bracketing procedures is this:

The committee will attempt to achieve relative balance in the bracket and provide comparable competition, while abiding by the remaining principles.

Much like the RPI, geography is not the be-all, end-all.

Perhaps.

The rules generally distinguish between mandatory rules, and non-mandatory guides.

The mandatory rules typically have the unqualified term "will: while the non-mandatory rules typically have "will attempt".

Note the balance phrasing has the qualification:

The committee will attempt to achieve relative balance in
the bracket and provide comparable competition...(emphasis added)​

While the geographical rule starts with a qualification:

The committee will attempt to assign each team to the
most geographically compatible regional...(emphasis added)​

then follows with an unqualified rule:

When multiple teams are a similar distance from a site, the
team seeded higher in the s-curve will be assigned to
the closest geographical proximity site.(emphasis added)​

However, now that I am looking at the last rule closely, it is perplexing. Why the qualification "similar distance from a site". If they are not a similar distance, isn't it even more important to select the closer one? The rule suggests that if I am looking at PSU and MD, trying to decide which one to send to ND (supposing for a moment that is an option) the rules suggests that the shorter distance between PSU and ND means PSU goes there, this I get, but if looking at TAMU and PSU, then those distances are not similar so what, can I pick TAMU? That makes no sense.

 

[DobbsRover2]

By the way, the last 2 NCAA committee brackets Charlie Creme was wrong over 70% of his placements! He's guessing just like the rest of us!

No idea what that means, but as Phil noted on the previous page, Creme had the highest rating for bracketology projections for last year. That may well speak to a general low rate of accuracy for the various projectors, but it is a very inexact science trying to get inside the committee members' heads when they are notorious for using different criteria year-to-year, and guessing wrong for the criteria for one low-seeded team can jumble up your placements for many other teams.

As far as projecting which teams would be in the tourney, Creme in 2013 missed on only 1 of the 64 teams total and more specifically the 33 at-larges. That is a very good record, as projectors often get between 2 to 4 wrong. His miss was having Duquesne in instead of a surprise Kansas pick that went on to win 2 tourney games. He picked 7 of the 8 #1-#2 seeds, and understandably his #2 line got messed up when the committee placed Stanford and Cal as the first two seeds out west. Creme placed 27 of the 64 teams on the right seed level.

So I don't really think in his final bracketology before the selection that Creme will be guessing like the rest of us, but that he will be a little more clued in. But if you believe that without referring to his projections that you can do a better job at nailing the placements, go for it! Post yours up the day before the selection and we'll be able to see whether you should be replacing Creme as the new ESPN bracketologist.

 

[UcMiami]

Perhaps.

The rules generally distinguish between mandatory rules, and non-mandatory guides.

The mandatory rules typically have the unqualified term "will: while the non-mandatory rules typically have "will attempt".

Note the balance phrasing has the qualification:

The committee will attempt to achieve relative balance in
the bracket and provide comparable competition...(emphasis added)​

While the geographical rule starts with a qualification:

The committee will attempt to assign each team to the
most geographically compatible regional...(emphasis added)​

then follows with an unqualified rule:

When multiple teams are a similar distance from a site, the
team seeded higher in the s-curve will be assigned to
the closest geographical proximity site.(emphasis added)​

However, now that I am looking at the last rule closely, it is perplexing. Why the qualification "similar distance from a site". If they are not a similar distance, isn't it even more important to select the closer one? The rule suggests that if I am looking at PSU and MD, trying to decide which one to send to ND (supposing for a moment that is an option) the rules suggests that the shorter distance between PSU and ND means PSU goes there, this I get, but if looking at TAMU and PSU, then those distances are not similar so what, can I pick TAMU? That makes no sense.

I would guess that 'similar distance' would allow them with two teams on a seed line where the higher seed would be slightly closer to one regional than the other but the lower seed would be significantly closer to the first site than the second. It would allow them to justify sending Uconn to Louisville over South Bend (69 miles closer) for example if the second team on that seed line was DePaul that would be 150 miles closer to SB.

 

[Phil]

I would guess that 'similar distance' would allow them with two teams on a seed line where the higher seed would be slightly closer to one regional than the other but the lower seed would be significantly closer to the first site than the second. It would allow them to justify sending Uconn to Louisville over South Bend (69 miles closer) for example if the second team on that seed line was DePaul that would be 150 miles closer to SB.

I like your rule. It is something they should do, but I confess I don't see how to parse the words they used and come up with your rule.

 

[Vowelguy]

My bracketology this week:

ND: ND (@Tole), Tenn* ..., PnSt* .., Ky*
Lou:UConn* ..., Lou (@Ia), Md* ...., NCSt (@LSU)
NE: SC (@IaSt), Bay* ...., TAMU* .., UNC*
Stn:Stan (@LA), Duke* ..., WV (@WA), OkSt (@Pur)

 

[JRRRJ]

When multiple teams are a similar distance from a site, the
team seeded higher in the s-curve will be assigned to
the closest geographical proximity site.(emphasis added)​

However, now that I am looking at the last rule closely, it is perplexing. Why the qualification "similar distance from a site". If they are not a similar distance, isn't it even more important to select the closer one? The rule suggests that if I am looking at PSU and MD, trying to decide which one to send to ND (supposing for a moment that is an option) the rules suggests that the shorter distance between PSU and ND means PSU goes there, this I get, but if looking at TAMU and PSU, then those distances are not similar so what, can I pick TAMU? That makes no sense.

The last rule posits "are similar distance from a site" is true before you can apply the "higher-ranked on the s-curve" gets placed there part of the rule. The stipulation is false in the case of TAMU/PSU, so the placement decision does not depend on ranking, but remains with "geographically compatible" (whatever that is).

 

[easttexastrash]

I wouldn't hope to play UT unless you get KML and Banks back at near full strength. UT is very deep and foul trouble to a UCONN starter or two can give a UCONN/UT game a very different complexion.

 

[doggydaddy]

I wouldn't hope to play UT unless you get KML and Banks back at near full strength. UT is very deep and foul trouble to a UCONN starter or two can give a UCONN/UT game a very different complexion.

They aren't deep.

I know you have me on ignore, but maybe someone else can ask him why he thinks that.

Right now Massengale is out. They go 8 deep, some games. But Russell would see very little time against Uconn. She is just not ready. So 7 deep.

 

[DobbsRover2]

They aren't deep.

I know you have me on ignore, but maybe someone else can ask him why he thinks that.

Right now Massengale is out. They go 8 deep, some games. But Russell would see very little time against Uconn. She is just not ready. So 7 deep.

Vols have 9 players with more than 10 mpg, but one is Massengale who is trying to recover from apparent facial fractures\concussion, Russell shoots 44% from the FT line and has some severe limits for potential use in a big game, Jasmine Jones turns the ball over much of the times she touches the ball, and Reynolds has some decent stats but can't shoot the ball (37% on FGs). With depth like that, who needs thinness?

 

[DobbsRover2]

Plus, only two of the eleven teams listed in one of the two Top 10 rankings have negative turnover margins, and they're both from the SEC, and the worst margin by far is UTenn's. A lot of turnovers in the NCAA tournament doesn't bode well for going very far.

 

[doggydaddy]

Vols have 9 players with more than 10 mpg, but one is Massengale who is trying to recover from apparent facial fractures\concussion, Russell shoots 44% from the FT line and has some severe limits for potential use in a big game, Jasmine Jones turns the ball over much of the times she touches the ball, and Reynolds has some decent stats but can't shoot the ball (37% on FGs). With depth like that, who needs thinness?

ETT feels they would play a deep bench against Uconn. The more I think about it, I'm pretty sure that Jones and Reynolds would see very little time against Uconn. If Massengale is playing they will still only go 6-7 deep.

Deep? Nope.

 

[watanabe]

Do the teams create the brackets, or does the commitee create the brackets. My guess is that it is completely committee-centric. They create the reality but attempt to avoid as much controversy as possible so they still keep their jobs. Kinda like saying the sun revolves around the earth, but using words that allow for interpretation. Sometimes very hard to figure out.

 

[ScarlettB]

I guess St John's seeding will fall since they just lost to Georgetown.