Stanford Now #1 Seed? Seriously?

[Vowelguy]

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.

NET is just a tool. #4 in NET means little.
Baylor has 0 wins vs the last committee top 16.
Texas A&M has a much much much stronger resume. Not even close.
NC St stronger resume as well.

 

[jonson]

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.

I'd second this. In fact, unlike a poster above, I'd argue that Stanford is stronger defensively than offensively--with the former as good as anyone in the nation brings to the table. And I also think they would be a very tough match-up for UCONN if the two teams meet down the road. To me, their weaknesses are being turnover prone at times and scoring droughts (although both are much improved over past seasons).

As for the Pac12 generally, for the past 6 years or so it has mostly been a conference with a number of very good (and very different) teams but no "great" ones. So--final fours, elite eights, but no champion. I believe last year's Oregon team would likely have changed that, if they had had the opportunity, and I think Stanford has as good a chance to win as anyone this year, so that narrative may change. I also don't think any of the post-Stewie UCONN teams, including this one, would have made it through a regular Pac 12 season without losing a game or two (or more) and being challenged in some others.

The future? Well, it seems obvious to me that over the 6 seasons prior to this one the success of the Oregon schools, UCLA and, now, Arizona (to some extent at least) has awakened the tiger in Palo Alto. Whether the conference overall will be able to keep up is certainly an open question.

 

[ScuderiaDiU]

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

That's fine but what exactly does one DO with that resume? How is it analyzed? If the result of the analysis varies significantly from an unbiased, objective and logically developed algorithm like Massey's, I would question the quality of the analysis. If it is so clear cut that NC State or Texas A&M have a stronger resume, why does Massey's system so strongly disagree? I bet there are a lot of Baylor fans who see their resume much differently than anyone here does. And, for the record, I find Baylor fans to be obnoxious and I am actually defending their team here.

 

[UcMiami]

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.

The biggest difference with bookmakers is they continually adjust their numbers based on the money they are taking in - they do not care who wins or whether they are right, all they want to make sure of is whatever the result, they have more money coming in than going out after the game.

 

[Vowelguy]

That's fine but what exactly does one DO with that resume? How is it analyzed? If the result of the analysis varies significantly from an unbiased, objective and logically developed algorithm like Massey's, I would question the quality of the analysis. If it is so clear cut that NC State or Texas A&M have a stronger resume, why does Massey's system so strongly disagree? I bet there are a lot of Baylor fans who see their resume much differently than anyone here does. And, for the record, I find Baylor fans to be obnoxious and I am actually defending their team here.

1) No ranking measure is perfect. If it were, we wouldn't need a tournament. And to be clear I'm a very very quantitative person, so I understand the value of data and stats. But there are limitations.
I also have argued that WCBB, because the upper end is still very skewed is not measured as well by these stats as MCBB where there is much much more parity.
2) The NET (and the RPI before) do not include margin of victory, while Massey does. While, statistically, using MOV is better, there are good reasons why the NCAA would not want to include that. There are also other criteria (eg, scheduling quality non-conference opponents) that the committee has long deemed are worthy of reward.

The best team Baylor has played all year was Arkansas and they lost. To me, that doesn't inspire confidence.

The team sheets are what the committee reviews: http://www.warrennolan.com/basketballw/2021/net-teamsheets

 

[Longtime fan]

Bucknell should be #1 then,

Bucknell is a great choice. I hope they are highly ranked.

 

[visitingcock]

That's fine but what exactly does one DO with that resume? How is it analyzed? If the result of the analysis varies significantly from an unbiased, objective and logically developed algorithm like Massey's, I would question the quality of the analysis. If it is so clear cut that NC State or Texas A&M have a stronger resume, why does Massey's system so strongly disagree? I bet there are a lot of Baylor fans who see their resume much differently than anyone here does. And, for the record, I find Baylor fans to be obnoxious and I am actually defending their team here.

Massey's is not unbiased and objective. It has a bias toward the PAC built in to its algorithm and had it built in before the season began. That bias is reflected in the SOS of PAC teams who have played nobody out of conference.

Do you really think that an "unbiased, objective and logically developed" system could rank 8-loss Oregon as the 8th best team in the nation this year? They are even ranked by Massey four spots above 5-loss Arizona that played in the same conference and beat them twice by 16 and 20 points. The difference in Massey's SoS is negligible

Massey is seriously flawed.

Note: I think a case could also be made that Massey's overranks SCar for the same reasons. How can we be ranked so much higher than NC State and TxA&M who beat us? Granted, we played an excellent schedule against numerous top 16 conference teams, as well as two Top 5 teams and two top 25-ish teams out of conference. But it still makes a "human logic" curious. Does Massey's put any value on head to head?

 

[visitingcock]

1) No ranking measure is perfect. If it were, we wouldn't need a tournament. And to be clear I'm a very very quantitative person, so I understand the value of data and stats. But there are limitations.
I also have argued that WCBB, because the upper end is still very skewed is not measured as well by these stats as MCBB where there is much much more parity.
2) The NET (and the RPI before) do not include margin of victory, while Massey does. While, statistically, using MOV is better, there are good reasons why the NCAA would not want to include that. There are also other criteria (eg, scheduling quality non-conference opponents) that the committee has long deemed are worthy of reward.

The best team Baylor has played all year was Arkansas and they lost. To me, that doesn't inspire confidence.

The team sheets are what the committee reviews: http://www.warrennolan.com/basketballw/2021/net-teamsheets

I like the team sheets better than any of the human or computer rankings.

One thing that disgruntles me is that everybody seems to rank Baylor higher than Maryland.

Both have two losses - all in Quad one. Maryland's SoS is significantly higher - even in the team sheets. Maryland plays in a tougher conference. I would flip/flop those two teams

 

[Vowelguy]

Massey's is not unbiased and objective. It has a bias toward the PAC built in to its algorithm and had it built in before the season began. That bias is reflected in the SOS of PAC teams who have played nobody out of conference.

Do you really think that an "unbiased, objective and logically developed" system could rank 8-loss Oregon as the 8th best team in the nation this year? They are even ranked by Massey four spots above 5-loss Arizona that played in the same conference and beat them twice by 16 and 20 points. The difference in Massey's SoS is negligible

Massey is seriously flawed.

Note: I think a case could also be made that Massey's overranks SCar for the same reasons. How can we be ranked so much higher than NC State and TxA&M who beat us? Granted, we played an excellent schedule against numerous top 16 conference teams, as well as two Top 5 teams and two top 25-ish teams out of conference. But it still makes a "human logic" curious. Does Massey's put any value on head to head?

Massey does not have a bias to any conference and it’s silly to even suggest so. I bet if you emailed him intelligent questions about the formula he would explain it and give his thoughts on why Oregon comes out as high as it does.

It’s a statistical model. I’m sure he has spent many hours considering different specifications and ultimately decided on its current formula. Doesn’t mean it’s biased. Doesn’t mean it’s foolproof.

Models are data hungry. The more data, the more games, the better it will perform by and large. And particularly important for cross-country comparisons, you need a bunch of non-conference games to develop enough of a sense of relative strength of conferences.

For example, suppose the only non conference game that the Big East played was DePauls blowout loss to Louisville. Then the entire relative strength of the big east would be seen (computationally) through that lens. All big east teams would fare poorly because their only link to the rest of the NCAA would be through that one game.
the PACs limited non conference schedule meant it’s hard for any statistical model to pin down how it compares. My guess is that they performed well in those few games which enhances their status.

 

[Vowelguy]

One thing that disgruntles me is that everybody seems to rank Baylor higher than Maryland.

Committee doesn’t

 

[ScuderiaDiU]

1) No ranking measure is perfect. If it were, we wouldn't need a tournament. And to be clear I'm a very very quantitative person, so I understand the value of data and stats. But there are limitations.
I also have argued that WCBB, because the upper end is still very skewed is not measured as well by these stats as MCBB where there is much much more parity.
2) The NET (and the RPI before) do not include margin of victory, while Massey does. While, statistically, using MOV is better, there are good reasons why the NCAA would not want to include that. There are also other criteria (eg, scheduling quality non-conference opponents) that the committee has long deemed are worthy of reward.

The best team Baylor has played all year was Arkansas and they lost. To me, that doesn't inspire confidence.

The team sheets are what the committee reviews: http://www.warrennolan.com/basketballw/2021/net-teamsheets

I agree that no system is perfect but not for the reason you give. None of them would ever claim that they are perfectly predictive. We play the games for several reasons. First, actual results are statistical is nature. Teams evolve. Some days are simply better than others. Matchup issues introduces further uncertainty. And so on.

What these systems do very well is rate a team's resume. The good ones do it in a very complicated way that goes way beyond simple statistics. It is far more complicated than just looking at what the best team is that they played and beat or the worst team they played and lost to and so on. So, while they may not be perfect, they are no more imperfect than the algorithm any armchair expert uses in their head. There are only two decent systems rating the women. Massey and Moore. I believe both have Baylor ahead of NC State and well ahead of Texas A&M. You can't just look at W/L. You also have to look at MOV. Losing to Arkansas isn't a massive black mark if it was a close loss, for example. The good systems look at the quality of the opponent and the MOV. Some also integrate in factors for W/L.

 

[Centerstream]

So teams that play difficult schedules should be penalized and be discouraged from playing good out of conference opponents.

Where did I say that? I said if a team has lost to 3 teams that are being considered for the #1 seeds, then those teams should be rewarded with the #1 seeds.
Just like last season, UConn only lost 3 games, to teams that would have been #1 seeds and I would guess that if they had the tournament that UConn probably would have been a 2 seed.

 

[ScuderiaDiU]

Where did I say that? I said if a team has lost to 3 teams that are being considered for the #1 seeds, then those teams should be rewarded with the #1 seeds.
Just like last season, UConn only lost 3 games, to teams that would have been #1 seeds and I would guess that if they had the tournament that UConn probably would have been a 2 seed.

So you want to base seeds on one game? Not the whole body of work? What if team A beats team B by 1 point, in OT, on team A's home court, in November? Nothing else from the entire rest of the season matters? See, if a power rating system used that kind of logic, it would be awful. Massey is pretty good. The men are covered by even better systems but Massey is what we have. And, frankly, it is far better than any of the armchair experts I have ever encountered. If Massey says that Baylor is a 1 seed, they probably should be a 1 seed. They may not make it to the final four but, statistically speaking, they have a better shot than either NC State or Texas A&M. And just to add fuel to the fire, I will go on record as saying that Oregon may be an even more dangerous team than either NC State or Texas A&M. Yes, they have struggled to win games but they are a very dangerous team. They are solid on both ends of the floor and that makes them dangerous if they get hot. Maryland, in contrast, is too weak on D to win it all, as an example.

 

[visitingcock]

Where did I say that? I said if a team has lost to 3 teams that are being considered for the #1 seeds, then those teams should be rewarded with the #1 seeds.
Just like last season, UConn only lost 3 games, to teams that would have been #1 seeds and I would guess that if they had the tournament that UConn probably would have been a 2 seed.

The committee did make its seedings last year.
UConn WAS a number 2 seed.

 

[Vowelguy]

The committee did make its seedings last year.

Not true.

The committee released its rankings through the season as it did this year.
But it never issued a bracket. So we will never know what each team's tournament seeding would have been.

 

[ScuderiaDiU]

If they had, there would be another banner somewhere saying "#1 overall seed, 2020 NCAA Tournament".

 

[visitingcock]

Not true.

The committee released its rankings through the season as it did this year.
But it never issued a bracket. So we will never know what each team's tournament seeding would have been.

Dadgummit, I hate to admit being wrong.

i was (apparently) thinking about the "reveal" six days before selection day. That reveal was merely waiting on tourney results to confirm Baylor and Maryland. but it was:

Top 16​

• 1 SEEDS - Oregon, South Carolina, Baylor, Maryland
• 2 SEEDS - Louisville, UCLA, Stanford, UConn
• 3 SEEDS - Arizona, Northwestern, Mississippi State, N.C. State
• 4 SEEDS - Gonzaga, Oregon State, Iowa, DePaul

UConn had lost to all of (and only) the 1-seeds except Maryland during the season. Still had a stronger resume than anybody this year.

 

[LoTrader]

So you want to base seeds on one game? Not the whole body of work? What if team A beats team B by 1 point, in OT, on team A's home court, in November? Nothing else from the entire rest of the season matters? See, if a power rating system used that kind of logic, it would be awful. Massey is pretty good. The men are covered by even better systems but Massey is what we have. And, frankly, it is far better than any of the armchair experts I have ever encountered. If Massey says that Baylor is a 1 seed, they probably should be a 1 seed. They may not make it to the final four but, statistically speaking, they have a better shot than either NC State or Texas A&M. And just to add fuel to the fire, I will go on record as saying that Oregon may be an even more dangerous team than either NC State or Texas A&M. Yes, they have struggled to win games but they are a very dangerous team. They are solid on both ends of the floor and that makes them dangerous if they get hot. Maryland, in contrast, is too weak on D to win it all, as an example.

There are many "dangerous" teams this year. Will this will be a year when we see a team not seeded #1 or #2 that makes it to the Final 4?

 

[Vowelguy]

There are many "dangerous" teams this year. Will this will be a year when we see a team not seeded #1 or #2 that makes it to the Final 4?

The tournament has a weird way of upsetting conventional wisdom. So even though everyone agrees it’s a wide open year, It would be kinda funny if all 4 one seeds advance.

 

[UcMiami]

Massey does not have a bias to any conference and it’s silly to even suggest so. I bet if you emailed him intelligent questions about the formula he would explain it and give his thoughts on why Oregon comes out as high as it does.

It’s a statistical model. I’m sure he has spent many hours considering different specifications and ultimately decided on its current formula. Doesn’t mean it’s biased. Doesn’t mean it’s foolproof.

Models are data hungry. The more data, the more games, the better it will perform by and large. And particularly important for cross-country comparisons, you need a bunch of non-conference games to develop enough of a sense of relative strength of conferences.

For example, suppose the only non conference game that the Big East played was DePauls blowout loss to Louisville. Then the entire relative strength of the big east would be seen (computationally) through that lens. All big east teams would fare poorly because their only link to the rest of the NCAA would be through that one game.
the PACs limited non conference schedule meant it’s hard for any statistical model to pin down how it compares. My guess is that they performed well in those few games which enhances their status.

What they have is an historic bias - Massey and I think all other systems do not start a season with a blank slate. I have no idea what Massey uses, and how much history plays into the model, but at the start of every season the rankings are not based on the first game of that season only - otherwise those teams that are 1-0 would form the top half of the table and those at 0-1 would be at the bottom. By the end of the typical season I don't know how much previous years results are still baked into the model, maybe not at all, but I suspect there is still some inherent influence. This year with such limited OOC relevance is I am sure causing issues with the analytics.

And an historic bias can be perceived and in fact be a conference bias in any competition where significant changes in personnel through graduation, transfer, and recruiting occur and those changes are not evenly distributed across conferences. The fact that Oregon for example still has a Massey rating as #8 with 8 losses, no meaningful OOC and they just lost 2 in a row to Massey #18 Oregon St. suggests maybe there is still some hangover from the 2020 powerhouse team in the data.

 

[visitingcock]

What they have is an historic bias - Massey and I think all other systems do not start a season with a blank slate. I have no idea what Massey uses, and how much history plays into the model, but at the start of every season the rankings are not based on the first game of that season only - otherwise those teams that are 1-0 would form the top half of the table and those at 0-1 would be at the bottom. By the end of the typical season I don't know how much previous years results are still baked into the model, maybe not at all, but I suspect there is still some inherent influence. This year with such limited OOC relevance is I am sure causing issues with the analytics.

And an historic bias can be perceived and in fact be a conference bias in any competition where significant changes in personnel through graduation, transfer, and recruiting occur and those changes are not evenly distributed across conferences. The fact that Oregon for example still has a Massey rating as #8 with 8 losses, no meaningful OOC and they just lost 2 in a row to Massey #18 Oregon St. suggests maybe there is still some hangover from the 2020 powerhouse team in the data.

I would agree. That's why I noted above that some of the same could be said for SCar along with Oregon.

Perhaps, the historic bias could be eliminated by a full schedule. That did not get to happen this Covid year.

 

[Vowelguy]

What they have is an historic bias - Massey and I think all other systems do not start a season with a blank slate. I have no idea what Massey uses, and how much history plays into the model, but at the start of every season the rankings are not based on the first game of that season only - otherwise those teams that are 1-0 would form the top half of the table and those at 0-1 would be at the bottom. By the end of the typical season I don't know how much previous years results are still baked into the model, maybe not at all, but I suspect there is still some inherent influence. This year with such limited OOC relevance is I am sure causing issues with the analytics.

And an historic bias can be perceived and in fact be a conference bias in any competition where significant changes in personnel through graduation, transfer, and recruiting occur and those changes are not evenly distributed across conferences. The fact that Oregon for example still has a Massey rating as #8 with 8 losses, no meaningful OOC and they just lost 2 in a row to Massey #18 Oregon St. suggests maybe there is still some hangover from the 2020 powerhouse team in the data.

Yes Massey uses last year as a starting point. I’m 100% sure it is entirely phased out during the year. If you doubt it, ask him.

 

[Centerstream]

So you want to base seeds on one game? Not the whole body of work? What if team A beats team B by 1 point, in OT, on team A's home court, in November? Nothing else from the entire rest of the season matters? See, if a power rating system used that kind of logic, it would be awful. Massey is pretty good. The men are covered by even better systems but Massey is what we have. And, frankly, it is far better than any of the armchair experts I have ever encountered. If Massey says that Baylor is a 1 seed, they probably should be a 1 seed. They may not make it to the final four but, statistically speaking, they have a better shot than either NC State or Texas A&M. And just to add fuel to the fire, I will go on record as saying that Oregon may be an even more dangerous team than either NC State or Texas A&M. Yes, they have struggled to win games but they are a very dangerous team. They are solid on both ends of the floor and that makes them dangerous if they get hot. Maryland, in contrast, is too weak on D to win it all, as an example.

I am basing it on 3 of the 4 losses. Period. And you lost me with your opinion on Oregon. Wow.

 

[newfrontier]

Not 1 game. Stanford looked really good in the PAC tourney. They beat Oregon St, a team on par with Marquette, by 30+ and then UCLA, a team slightly ahead of Tenn, by 20.
It's close, but can easily make an argument that Stanford's total resume is stronger.

To be fair, when Oregon State played and lost to Stanford in the Pac-12 tournament, it was their 3rd game in 3 days and they were already dead tired by the second quarter. Evidence the fact that they probably shot more airball 3 pointers in this one game than the entire rest of the season combined. Legs go and then so does the shooting. If both teams had played when well rested, the game would have been closer...maybe a 10 to 15 point Stanford win.

 

[ScuderiaDiU]

I am basing it on 3 of the 4 losses. Period. And you lost me with your opinion on Oregon. Wow.

I get "wow" a lot. It is all part of walking the line of insanity and genius. I embrace it.

You seem to hate South Carolina. I don't love them either. But you can't just look at one game (in each case) and make a decision based on that. South Carolina could easily have turned around and beaten Texas A&M the next time they met them. Same with NC State. Decisions are made on the entire body of work. ALL of the wins and ALL of the losses and what the MOV was in each case all matter. This is why my opinion on Oregon surprises you. If they learn how to close out games they will be in the chase for the final four. Balanced teams are always dangerous. Our men's program has shown that in the past. You can't see the big picture when you focus on a game or two. South Carolina and Baylor BOTH deserve one seeds over NC State and Texas A&M. And Oregon is a classic bracket busting nightmare. They are the kind of team that can lose in the first round or go all the way. I want no part of them.

Having said that, it would not shock me to see Oregon as our 4 seed and Baylor as our 2 seed as well as ending up having to face South Carolina in the semifinals instead of whatever weak team gets the fourth 1 seed. The NCAA loves to make our path hell. Why not face the four most dangerous teams not named UConn to win it all.