Stanford Now #1 Seed? Seriously?

[Plebe]

I won't try to talk eye test about the PAC12 because I don't get the Network so I've seen maybe 2 or 3 games total. The UCLA game was my only look at UCLA.
Most conferences have played in a cocoon among themselves and in the PAC12 they started their season with 4 of the top 10AP teams. I believe that the pre-season polls carry an inertia and no matter how bad you play you only sink slowly.
My point is that we have little idea of how good these "pods" of conference teams are really until they start playing each other starting in the S16. The beauty of this is that the committee's own rules will force these interconference games and I'm expecting a lot of "upsets".

I'll just limit myself to noting that this was almost verbatim the narrative of choice on the Boneyard in 2016, with oft-repeated tropes such as: "the Pac-12 is overrated" [they were the #1 RPI conference that year]; "they haven't played any big OOC games"; "they don't look as good as their ranking"; "they'll never beat other good teams"; et cetera ad infinitum.

And then in the tournament lo and behold there were 4 Pac-12 teams in the Sweet 16, three in the Elite 8 and two in the Final Four. Well, so much for those Boneyard tropes.

 

[Golden Husky]

These aren't predictions. Massey & Vegas set a betting line based on data. I'm just quoting the point spread for interested parties.

The biggest difference between Massey and licensed bookmakers is that a statistician such as Massey suffers no penalty for his mistakes while bet takers can actually count their losses.

The making of a pointspread is part science and part art. While bookmakers have access to all relevant data and establish power ratings, there are other considerations--most of which can be placed in the category of "perception"--that go into line calculations. Thus, should UConn play a team such as Texas A&M and the statistical data support a line of UConn -6, bookmakers may issue a line of say, -10. Why? Because UConn is a brand name in women's college basketball, one that recreational bettors (squares) recognize, while Texas A&M largely is unknown to any but sophisticated bettors (sharps). So, there's apt to be a disproportionate amount of square action (dead money) on UConn. Bookmakers understand that if the number gets too high, sharps will buy back the underdog. It's a delicate equation.

Also, and this will probably come up again when lines become more prevalent later in the tournament, the purpose of the pointspread is to encourage an equal or near-equal amount of betting on each team. It is not a predictor of the game's outcome. In fact, if the final score of a game hits the pointspread, the game is said to "land," usually a horrible result for the house which can be "sided" (lose to one set of bettors and push with the other) or "middled" (lose to both sets of bettors) in that scenario.

 

[UcMiami]

I'll just limit myself to noting that this was almost verbatim the narrative of choice on the Boneyard in 2016, with oft-repeated tropes such as: "the Pac-12 is overrated" [they were the #1 RPI conference that year]; "they haven't played any big OOC games"; "they don't look as good as their ranking"; "they'll never beat other good teams"; et cetera ad infinitum.

And then in the tournament lo and behold there were 4 Pac-12 teams in the Sweet 16, three in the Elite 8 and two in the Final Four. Well, so much for those Boneyard tropes.

And the, oops, Uconn beat Oregon State by 29, Syracuse beat Washington by 21, and Uconn beat Syracuse by 31 - so ... OVERRATED!

Sorry, couldn't resist. That was a seriously wacky tournament with a record tying cumulative seed ranking of 14 in the FF (1,2,4,7.) That year certainly signaled a rebirth of a competitive Pac12. I am wondering if this year may represent the start of Stanford reestablishing dominance as other teams fall off. With Stanford's next class being really good, and nothing overly attractive in the pipeline for the other schools.

 

[Plebe]

And the, oops, Uconn beat Oregon State by 29, Syracuse beat Washington by 21, and Uconn beat Syracuse by 31 - so ... OVERRATED!

Sorry, couldn't resist. That was a seriously wacky tournament with a record tying cumulative seed ranking of 14 in the FF (1,2,4,7.) That year certainly signaled a rebirth of a competitive Pac12. I am wondering if this year may represent the start of Stanford reestablishing dominance as other teams fall off. With Stanford's next class being really good, and nothing overly attractive in the pipeline for the other schools.

Washington was also a 7 seed and beat a 2 seed Maryland in College Park and then 3 seed Kentucky in Lexington. And that was also the tournament where UConn beat Mississippi State by 60, so those point spreads are indicative of nothing.

Stanford was clearly the best in the conference this year, but they still lost two games. I agree their future looks the brightest, but I don't think they'll regain the same level of dominance they enjoyed for many years when they hardly ever lost a game, because I don't see the other teams falling off to the mediocrity of yesteryear.

 

[MdStang]

Washington was also a 7 seed and beat a 2 seed Maryland in College Park and then 3 seed Kentucky in Lexington. And that was also the tournament where UConn beat Mississippi State by 60, so those point spreads are indicative of nothing.

Stanford was clearly the best in the conference this year, but they still lost two games. I agree their future looks the brightest, but I don't think they'll regain the same level of dominance they enjoyed for many years when they hardly ever lost a game, because I don't see the other teams falling off to the mediocrity of yesteryear.

I've watched alot of WBB this year - Big East, Big 10, ACC, SEC, Big 12 and Pac 12. Among the top teams of each conference the Big East, ACC, and SEC have the best "eye test" defenses by far. Stanford has a deep team with many talented players but the defensive intensity is not there compared to SC, Texas A&M, NC State, UConn or even Marquette.

We have a really good offensive team and so does Stanford, but I'll take our defense everyday.

 

[Waquoit]

I don't think it's hate, it's UConn fatigue. People are tired of praising UConn and are trying to spread the love. The WBB columnist in the Athletic in particular has worked very hard all season to downplay UConn and as a result she has embarrassed herself all season. When was UConn ever 8th? Then again, the fact is Geno is the coach of the year again and the WBB press really hates that.

 

[Alydar]

I'll just limit myself to noting that this was almost verbatim the narrative of choice on the Boneyard in 2016, with oft-repeated tropes such as: "the Pac-12 is overrated" [they were the #1 RPI conference that year]; "they haven't played any big OOC games"; "they don't look as good as their ranking"; "they'll never beat other good teams"; et cetera ad infinitum.

And then in the tournament lo and behold there were 4 Pac-12 teams in the Sweet 16, three in the Elite 8 and two in the Final Four. Well, so much for those Boneyard tropes.

Your comment isn't about my post which was about the P-5's playing only among themselves and not about conference superiority. Here's my post as far as "conference superiority" :

My point is that we have little idea of how good these "pods" of conference teams are really until they start playing each other starting in the S16.

Explain how you read that and concluded I think the PAC12 is over-rated? Maybe your post is correct about other posters and even me in past years but it is simply wrong about the post I wrote here.

My point is that the rankings this season are based 50% on intraconference games only and 50% on preseason polls*. That makes predicting what would happen if S Carolina played Baylor or Stanford or Maryland guesswork because there simply aren't enough interconference games to make any reliable predictions.


* And for what it's worth UConn, with 3 OOC games against ranked teams, is about the only top 10 team with any meaningful OOC resume.

 

[npignatjr]

To your point, in the past few years the Pac-12 has earned a reputation as the top P-5 conference. That’s clearly not the case this season. The SEC is the top conference this season, and it’s not that close. UConn’s wins over SC & TN, and even the tough loss at Arkansas give the Huskies a pretty good case to make as the #1 overall seed.

Earned or was anointed. Last Pac 12 title 92 maybe.

 

[npignatjr]

Yes, agree. In any case, if UConn plays at its best, it might be UConn Vs Stanford for the championship. At this moment, I would take Stanford -3.

Based on which out if conference big win.

 

[npignatjr]

I'll just limit myself to noting that this was almost verbatim the narrative of choice on the Boneyard in 2016, with oft-repeated tropes such as: "the Pac-12 is overrated" [they were the #1 RPI conference that year]; "they haven't played any big OOC games"; "they don't look as good as their ranking"; "they'll never beat other good teams"; et cetera ad infinitum.

And then in the tournament lo and behold there were 4 Pac-12 teams in the Sweet 16, three in the Elite 8 and two in the Final Four. Well, so much for those Boneyard tropes.

And they both lost big. And the prior years? The following years?

 

[UcMiami]

Washington was also a 7 seed and beat a 2 seed Maryland in College Park and then 3 seed Kentucky in Lexington. And that was also the tournament where UConn beat Mississippi State by 60, so those point spreads are indicative of nothing.

Stanford was clearly the best in the conference this year, but they still lost two games. I agree their future looks the brightest, but I don't think they'll regain the same level of dominance they enjoyed for many years when they hardly ever lost a game, because I don't see the other teams falling off to the mediocrity of yesteryear.

We shall see - Oregon certainly had a good freshman class this year that hasn't really clicked so if they have a sophomore jump they should improve. And the coaching is much better than it was across the conference. But Stanford is the only one bringing in top 20 recruits (2) next year and there is some talent graduating - UCLA likely loses 3 senior starters, same with Arizona, etc.

And yeah Stanford lost twice, but it was sort of a freaky two game losing streak in the middle of their nomadic travels started by a loss to a weak Colorado team.

 

[Alydar]

I'll just limit myself to noting that this was almost verbatim the narrative of choice on the Boneyard in 2016, with oft-repeated tropes such as: "the Pac-12 is overrated" [they were the #1 RPI conference that year]; "they haven't played any big OOC games"; "they don't look as good as their ranking"; "they'll never beat other good teams"; et cetera ad infinitum.

And then in the tournament lo and behold there were 4 Pac-12 teams in the Sweet 16, three in the Elite 8 and two in the Final Four. Well, so much for those Boneyard tropes.

What you ignore are the posters who figured that the PAC12, with all those highly ranked teams would win the title that year. But the reality that year and the reality for the last 20+ years has been that a school from a mid-major won the title a lot more often that any P-5 conference team. There is no correlation between winning a title and being in a P-5 conference no matter how many top 10 teams it has.
All this BS about conference superiority has been a topic brought up by fans of various P-5 conferences who can't claim program superiority so they fall back on "nya nya our P5 conference is SO much better than the BE/AAC.

Show me one poster who brings his/her SEC Conference banner to a game or has a sweat shirt that says "GO ACC'".

 

[Plebe]

What you ignore are the posters who figured that the PAC12, with all those highly ranked teams would win the title that year. But the reality that year and the reality for the last 20+ years has been that a school from a mid-major won the title a lot more often that any P-5 conference team.

Now you're just making stuff up to suit your pet narrative. Show me one single post from that season that said a Pac-12 team would win the title. Everyone knew that UConn was far and away the dominant team that season.

 

[Plebe]

And yeah Stanford lost twice, but it was sort of a freaky two game losing streak in the middle of their nomadic travels started by a loss to a weak Colorado team.

I love it. All data points that don't fit the predetermined conclusion must surely be flukes.

 

[UcMiami]

I love it. All data points that don't fit the predetermined conclusion must surely be flukes.

How long was Stanford on the road? Probably the longest road trip in the history of WCBB. Tara's good teams don't usually throw that kind of clunker - sort of stands out, like that Uconn game they lost to unranked St Johns.

 

[ScuderiaDiU]

All that matters are matchups and even that is only relevant in terms of determining how far a non-championship team will go and/or the likelihood of getting upset.

The teams we want to face as late as humanly possible are Stanford, Baylor and South Carolina. The nightmare scenario is having to face Baylor as our #2 and then follow that up with South Carolina in the semifinals. Both teams are very good and both play physical D. If being the overall #1 means avoiding Baylor and South Carolina until the championship game, sign me up.

Beyond those teams, we want to avoid physical defensive teams. Just about ever time we got upset it was because we were man handled, the refs didn't call the fouls and we couldn't figure out how to adjust. Even the earlier loss against Arkansas fits the description. How did a team rated 168th defensively manage to turn us over that many times while committing so few fouls. (Hint: they were committing fouls)

 

[King Kong]

Based on which out if conference big win.

I would say, based on the last 2 games of each, Stanford is a 1/2 point favorite at this moment; It's a virtual tie - but UConn has looked powerful in its smothering defense & magical team chemistry of late. These two should meet in the final, & Paige should hit a high arcing 3 with about 1/10 of a second left.......

 

[GW15MJ4MM23]

I love it. All data points that don't fit the predetermined conclusion must surely be flukes.

Outliers
?

 

[GW15MJ4MM23]

All that matters are matchups and even that is only relevant in terms of determining how far a non-championship team will go and/or the likelihood of getting upset.

The teams we want to face as late as humanly possible are Stanford, Baylor and South Carolina. The nightmare scenario is having to face Baylor as our #2 and then follow that up with South Carolina in the semifinals. Both teams are very good and both play physical D. If being the overall #1 means avoiding Baylor and South Carolina until the championship game, sign me up.

Beyond those teams, we want to avoid physical defensive teams. Just about ever time we got upset it was because we were man handled, the refs didn't call the fouls and we couldn't figure out how to adjust. Even the earlier loss against Arkansas fits the description. How did a team rated 168th defensively manage to turn us over that many times while committing so few fouls. (Hint: they were committing fouls)

Other reasons include but not limited to :

Missed free throws.
Not enough defensive stops.
Empty offensive possessions.
Youth.

One of GA best interviews ever. Pure class.

 

[ScuderiaDiU]

Other reasons include but not limited to :

Missed free throws.
Not enough defensive stops.
Empty offensive possessions.
Youth.

One of GA best interviews ever. Pure class.

Missed free throws = Put the game in the hands of the refs (versus being far enough ahead for the refs to not matter)

Not enough defensive stops = Offense is Arkansas' strength so this was to be expected and does not explain the upset

Empty offensive possessions = The real issue and, by far, the biggest factor. It was due to fouls that were not called. I am not sure who needs to hear this but our team almost ALWAYS fares better in games where they refs don't just "let them play". It is even worse if they don't let us play but let the other team "play" (cough ND 2018 semifinal cough)

Youth = One reason why they were not able to compensate for the overly "physical" way the game was allowed to be played. But, honestly, even our older teams have struggled with this. We ARE a finesse team first and foremost.

 

[RogueDave]

Is the bracket seeding as important as the challenging bubble environment this tournament is played in ? With this team I hope they have the toughest bracket and opponents play best possible games against them, keep them focused, uphill the whole way...

This team is ready...Think 2011 Men’s team with Kemba Walker afraid of nothing!

 

[GW15MJ4MM23]

Is the bracket seeding as important as the challenging bubble environment this tournament is played in ? With this team I hope they have the toughest bracket and opponents play best possible games against them, keep them focused, uphill the whole way...

This team is ready...Think 2011 Men’s team with Kemba Walker afraid of nothing!

They. Will. Remember. Kemba.

 

[LoTrader]

I've watched alot of WBB this year - Big East, Big 10, ACC, SEC, Big 12 and Pac 12. Among the top teams of each conference the Big East, ACC, and SEC have the best "eye test" defenses by far. Stanford has a deep team with many talented players but the defensive intensity is not there compared to SC, Texas A&M, NC State, UConn or even Marquette.

We have a really good offensive team and so does Stanford, but I'll take our defense everyday.

Couldn't resist. I too have watched a lot of WCBB this season (what else was there to do), and Stanford's defense is the best of any Stanford team I've observed in the last 10 seasons. Not to say that other conferences' top teams defenses are not executing at a high level.

 

[ScuderiaDiU]

Baylor and South Carolina are both top 4 in Massey and NET. They should both be 1 seeds. It would be criminal to put NC State, Maryland or Texas Tech ahead of them. If your "eye" test says otherwise, you might need new eyes. None of those teams scare me as a 2 seed in our bracket. Baylor does.

 

[Plebe]

Baylor and South Carolina are both top 4 in Massey and NET. They should both be 1 seeds. It would be criminal to put NC State, Maryland or Texas Tech ahead of them. If your "eye" test says otherwise, you might need new eyes. None of those teams scare me as a 2 seed in our bracket. Baylor does.

Neither Massey nor NET are used to decide seedlings. Gotta have the resume.