Stanford Now #1 Seed? Seriously?

[Sanka541]

My argument is that if Stanford had been the overall 1 in the previous reveals and UConn as 2nd overall 1 seed behind them and therefore in opposite sides of the bracket, nobody would have complained. The part I dont understand is how UConn has been the overall 1 and yet because of a win against an ok UCLA team last night by 20 points all of a sudden they have overtaken UConn? That doesnt make sense to me. What has changed in the last few weeks that has now meant they deserve the overall 1 over UConn? UConn certainly hasnt done anything the last few games to lose the overall 1 seed and beating a UCLA team dominated by one player in Onyenwere (who they have both beaten and lost to already this season) just doesnt seem like such a big win it should take them ahead of UConn honestly?

 

[Alydar]

A beatdown of UCLA is far more enhancing to a resume than any win over Villanova. One is a top 10 team, the other is a bubble team at best.

Your right if you believe that UCLA is a top ten team. They certainly didn't look like one last night.

I don't mind having some other team as the overall top seed and Stanford has a good case to be it. Looking at matchups is useless because of inconsistency from game to game.

 

[Vowelguy]

an ok UCLA team

Sure if you consider the committee rank of #10 = "ok."

 

[Fairfield Fan]

It’s a year of small sample sizes, but Creighton (a middle of the pack BE team) ran Nebraska (a middle of the pack Big 10 team) totally out of the gym. Up 21 at the half and won by 16.

Michigan crushed Butler, but hard to glean much from that (we would similarly slaughter Wisconsin).

Two different seasons. November and December and part of January lots of teams had games cancelled, had athletes put in isolation, had to play with skeleton rosters. Connecticut looked horrible early in the season, as did a lot of teams. Only in February did WCBB really get it together. Same for Big East. We saw teams with lousy records suddenly get everyone together, begin playing together, and really challenge us and others. The last six weeks have been the real season, while before that it was the Keystone Cops around the nation.

Having said that, there are a half dozen teams that are now where we all thought they would be: playing powerful basketball. Connecticut is certainly one of them. Stanford, NC State, Maryland... Looking very tough.

 

[Plebe]

Your right if you believe that UCLA is a top ten team. They certainly didn't look like one last night.

I don't mind having some other team as the overall top seed and Stanford has a good case to be it. Looking at matchups is useless because of inconsistency from game to game.

People keep commenting along the lines of "such-and-such team didn't look like a top X team/an X seed in [insert one single cherry-picked game]."

First of all, it doesn't matter if you or I think UCLA is a horrible team that doesn't even deserve a WNIT bid. The committee has them in their top 10 and that's because their body of work supports such a ranking.

And even if they looked horrible in this one loss, it's still just one game. That's not going to override the entire body of work. UConn didn't look like an overall #1 seed when they lost to Arkansas, but fortunately for us, that was just one game. In my experience, people who reach for an "eye test" argument are just trying to substitute their own subjective (biased) opinion for an objective evaluation of resumes.

 

[oldude]

Stanford makes a lot of teams look bad because, just like UConn, they play really tough defense, forcing teams out of their comfort zone on offense. I think UConn has better offensive weapons than Stanford, but it’s close.

If the two teams ended up in the national championship, don’t be surprised if we end up with another ugly game, reminiscent of the 2010 championship, also in San Antonio, which UConn won 53-47. If the outcome is the same as 2010, I’m good with that.

 

[Vowelguy]

No, they should win those games and earn their ranking/seed ?

So if a team plays every team in the top 10 and goes 7-2, you'd penalize them for the 2 losses more than reward them for the 7 wins?

Quality non-conference games are good for the game and should be encouraged.
Not to mention it makes it easier for the committee to compare teams & leagues when they've played each other.
(And UConn relies on non-conference games.)

But if teams are going to be penalized for playing good opponents, they can go the route of Hatchell's UNC teams which would go 15-0 every year playing the bottom 100.

 

[tower1]

Massey currently has Stanford ranked ahead of UConn. So how would he have UConn as a favorite over Stanford?

Stanford has two losses and Uconn 1. Uconn has been rated #1 for a reason they just don't use a dumb formula that doesn't take into account who is the better team now. So stop falling in love with Massey !

 

[huskeynut]

This type of discussion has gone on for years. Some of the names have changed but its the same story.

As to Charlie Who and ESPN, ESPN sees themselves as king makers. Watch their story lines throughout the season. The pump up who they want to be on top. I trust everybody remembers the year of The Three To See. Didn't turn out to well for ESPN.

The NCAA selection committee will do what wants to do. If we are a #1 seed and THE #1 seed, fine. If we are a #1 seed that's just fine. SC will be a #1 seed, as I see it. And most likely A & M too. NC State will be a #2 seed and that is wrong but it is what it is.

 

[Cornell Lt]

So if a team plays every team in the top 10 and goes 7-2, you'd penalize them for the 2 losses more than reward them for the 7 wins?

Quality non-conference games are good for the game and should be encouraged.
Not to mention it makes it easier for the committee to compare teams & leagues when they've played each other.
(And UConn relies on non-conference games.)

But if teams are going to be penalized for playing good opponents, they can go the route of Hatchell's UNC teams which would go 15-0 every year playing the bottom 100.

UConn has lead the way in doing exactly what you are advocating for for many years.

The whole conference/team strength thing is mitigated this year by the fact that most OOC games were cancelled this year. So what you have this year for the most part is conference matchup's determining a teams "strength". Which conference is the toughest is a narrative built by the media not by the actual results and the relative strength of a a particular team is based off those perceptions.

 

[Kevin G]

Who cares?! Let’s just play and go from there.

 

[DefenseBB]

This has become such a trite narrative.

There is zero evidence that conference affiliation per se correlates to stronger or weaker performance in the NCAAs. There have been plenty of teams from "weaker" conferences that have knocked off teams from "stronger" conferences, even higher-seeded ones.

In a sense you're right to say "immeasurably": Among those who worship at the altar of the Poser 5, the allure of this claim lies partly in the fact that it's difficult to prove or refute quantitatively. But there's plenty of anecdotal evidence, if we care to look, that no such postseason advantage inheres in conference membership.

Let's look at the legitimacy of the P5 and the # of titles and Final Four appearance- 10 year perriod, shall we?
10 year period 2010-2019 saw
AAC 3 Titles, 3 Final Fours, 1 team
ACC 1 Title, 4 RU, 3 FF, 3 teams
BE 2 Titles, 3 RU, 3 FF, 3 teams
Big12 3 Titles, 2 FF, 3 teams
PAC12 0 Titles, 1 RU, 8 FF, 5 teams
SEC 1 Title, 2 RU, 1 FF, 2 teams

PAC12 was in the Final Four 9 times, followed by Big East-8 and ACC-8

Without question, the PAC 12 is the leader with 5 teams and 9 visits. The ACC was ND & Syracuse (both left over from the BigEast) and Maryland (now in the Big10).

I have the data for the past 20 years but it still shows that the Big10 is putrid...just not as bad as the last 10 years.

 

[Zinethar]

I am continuously amazed at UConn fans discounting the SEC this year. UConn played the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th SEC teams and all 3 games came down to the wire. If that didn't prove to you that the league is really good this season, I am at a loss for words.

The I guess you will continue to be. I didn't discount the SEC. I said they they are the deepest league. I think they have 4 very good teams and were by far the best conference I saw along with the Big East. I think the Big East has 4 or 5 very good teams also. UConn beat their #1 team. I would also think the next couple teams would be ahead of the Big east next couple. But then I think other Big East teams come in next. We will never agree on this and that is fine. I think you discount the good Big east teams because UConn came beat them perhaps handily. Yes I know I am biased but believe you are also. Doesn't mean I don't respect your opinion because I do.

 

[jaydee602]

Big deal! Massey had Louisville beating NC State in both of their head-to-head matchups and we see how that turned out. This is interesting...but nothing more. You can't use a computer to do the same analysis with team-to-team matchups. It's all about the matchups...and then execution.

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

 

[jaydee602]

Who cares?! Let’s just play and go from there.

Who cares?? LOL..this is a discussion forum where fans debate rankings, brackets, team strength, etc. Obviously, everybody on this site cares.

 

[jaydee602]

Charlie Creme has just declared that Stanford, UCONN, & Texas A&M are locked in as #1 seeds. The last #1 seed is between South Carolina & NC State. Since they both won their tournaments, it blocked Baylor & Maryland moving up from the #2 seed. Louisville is the last #2 seed. I'm surprised that Texas A&M's loss didn't jeopardize their #1 seed.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Stanford was very good and deserves to be rated highly but they have difficulty scoring

Averaged 78 ppg, that's really not struggling to score. While you can of course find teams w/ high scoring averages, they also held their opponents to just under 53 ppg. That's a nice balance of offense and defense.

 

[Gurleyman]

Averaged 78 ppg, that's really not struggling to score. While you can of course find teams w/ high scoring averages, they also held their opponents to just under 53 ppg. That's a nice balance of offense and defense.

Having watched them a couple times, Stanford is really dangerous - they can spread the floor with shooters and Williams can get her own shot any time she wants. Brink can score down low at 6-7, but she can also step out and open up driving lanes. Wilson is a total pest on defense but doesn’t score at all, so ideally you could play a one man zone against her (but they could counter that if they needed to by bringing in one of their shooters off the bench). I’d be lying if I said I’d be confident facing them head to head, but we won’t have to worry about that until the final weekend, so it’s a problem I wouldn’t mind having if it comes.

If it ever clicked for Haley Jones where she could turn it on and not settle for being a role player, they’d be scary.

 

[DefenseBB]

Averaged 78 ppg, that's really not struggling to score. While you can of course find teams w/ high scoring averages, they also held their opponents to just under 53 ppg. That's a nice balance of offense and defense.

How convenient it is for these fans to forget that Stanford was on the road for 9 weeks? What this team has done and how balanced they are is pretty impressive. My guess is all those complaining have not seen Stanford play a game or if they have it was like 1 game they saw. I have now watched this team for 15 games including every game of the PAC12 tournament. On all cylinders, I would love to see the UConn-Stanford match-up as it has some great storylines.

This team is deep and loaded with skill players. They do have a propensity to build big leads early and then squander them away. I think Tara has too deep a rotation at times trying to get playing time IN EVERY GAME for Belibi, Prectal, 2nd Hull and, Jump and that throws the team out of sync.

No one should be quibbling if Stanford is #1 and UConn #2 or vice versa, both are worthy. The debate is #4-7 as #3 is Texas A&M and #8 is Louisville.

 

[Zinethar]

Averaged 78 ppg, that's really not struggling to score. While you can of course find teams w/ high scoring averages, they also held their opponents to just under 53 ppg. That's a nice balance of offense and defense.

Guilty. I did not check the overall averages just relied on the games I actually watched and of course those were against the better teams so that could account for what I saw. And yes I am also guilty of being a die hard UConn fan posting on a UConn board so I would think other would expect a bit of bias .

 

[Alydar]

People keep commenting along the lines of "such-and-such team didn't look like a top X team/an X seed in [insert one single cherry-picked game]."

First of all, it doesn't matter if you or I think UCLA is a horrible team that doesn't even deserve a WNIT bid. The committee has them in their top 10 and that's because their body of work supports such a ranking.

And even if they looked horrible in this one loss, it's still just one game. That's not going to override the entire body of work. UConn didn't look like an overall #1 seed when they lost to Arkansas, but fortunately for us, that was just one game. In my experience, people who reach for an "eye test" argument are just trying to substitute their own subjective (biased) opinion for an objective evaluation of resumes.

Reductio ad absurdum? There's a wide gulf between that and "didn't look like a top ten team".

And when did our opinions here ever really "matter"? I'm not trying to convince anyone, just expressing an opinion.

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".

 

[VidNick]

The Massey & NCAA rankings are a crapshoot this year due to the lack of inter-conference games. Still, most of the usual suspects (Uconn, Stanford, SC, Baylor, Maryland) are around top of rankings. They all have a shot. Maybe a few more teams, but not many.

 

[DefenseBB]

So @Alydar as Plebe doesn't publish each individual's Top 25 votes (maybe he should and needs to evaluate how to do that! ), where exactly is UCLA in your poll, in fact who is in your top 10?
Here's mine:
Stanford
UConn
Texas A&M
NC State
SC
Baylor
Maryland
Louisville
UCLA
Georgia

 

[stamfordhusky]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion on this matter including you and me. Mie is totally different than yours. I saw tons of PAC12 games this year (I have the PAC12 network). They were not an outstanding league. Stanford was very good and deserves to be rated highly but they have difficulty scoring and should have trouble keeping up with UConn

UConn averaged 1.135 pts per possession this year. Stanford, against a tougher schedule, averaged 1.12 points per possession. Doesn't sound like Stanford has much difficulty scoring.

 

[jaydee602]

So @Alydar as Plebe doesn't publish each individual's Top 25 votes (maybe he should and needs to evaluate how to do that! ), where exactly is UCLA in your poll, in fact who is in your top 10?
Here's mine:
Stanford
UConn
Texas A&M
NC State
SC
Baylor
Maryland
Louisville
UCLA
Georgia

This is good! The only possible change is South Carolina & NC State flip flopping at 4 & 5. Maybe Maryland & Baylor switching at 6 & 7, but they are both locked into the #2 seed. The only caveat is that the #7 team plays #2 UCONN.

 

[Alydar]

Massey currently has Stanford ranked ahead of UConn. So how would he have UConn as a favorite over Stanford?

Don't want to join the debate but thought some Massey numbers might be useful. Here are the numbers used to rank the teams . Notice how the gaps vary and how some teams are in virtual ties.

1 - 9.57 gap:
2 - 9.52 .05
3 - 8.98 .54
4 - 8.89 .10
5 - 8.86 .03
6 - 8.51 .35
7 - 8.50 .01
8 - 8.34 .16

UConn and Stanford have been trading places for a while.

 

[Alydar]

Completely different parts of NCAA.
Transfers is determined by NCAA staff.
The committee is a group of university athletic directors.

True, but the committee is bound by the Policies and Procedures and the NCAA dictates those to the committee. No one ever mentions who has the final say on them.

 

[King Kong]

Don't want to join the debate but thought some Massey numbers might be useful. Here are the numbers used to rank the teams . Notice how the gaps vary and how some teams are in virtual ties.

1 - 9.57 gap:
2 - 9.52 .05
3 - 8.98 .54
4 - 8.89 .10
5 - 8.86 .03
6 - 8.51 .35
7 - 8.50 .01
8 - 8.34 .16

UConn and Stanford have been trading places for a while.

This morning the difference between UConn & Stanford is more than cut in half. Massey had hypothesized an 18 point UConn victory over Marquette, & it was 32 - so the difference went from .05 to .02 points, as Stanford's rating went down .01, & UConn's went up .02. At least one can see that Massey was impressed with UConn's through dismantling of Marquette.

 

[King Kong]

This morning the difference between UConn & Stanford is more than cut in half. Massey had hypothesized an 18 point UConn victory over Marquette, & it was 32 - so the difference went from .05 to .02 points, as Stanford's rating went down .01, & UConn's went up .02. At least one can see that Massey was impressed with UConn's through dismantling of Marquette.

Correction, margin of victory over Marquette was 34 points

 

[UcMiami]

Let's look at the legitimacy of the P5 and the # of titles and Final Four appearance- 10 year perriod, shall we?
10 year period 2010-2019 saw
AAC 3 Titles, 3 Final Fours, 1 team
ACC 1 Title, 4 RU, 3 FF, 3 teams
BE 2 Titles, 3 RU, 3 FF, 3 teams
Big12 3 Titles, 2 FF, 3 teams
PAC12 0 Titles, 1 RU, 8 FF, 5 teams
SEC 1 Title, 2 RU, 1 FF, 2 teams

PAC12 was in the Final Four 9 times, followed by Big East-8 and ACC-8

Without question, the PAC 12 is the leader with 5 teams and 9 visits. The ACC was ND & Syracuse (both left over from the BigEast) and Maryland (now in the Big10).

I have the data for the past 20 years but it still shows that the Big10 is putrid...just not as bad as the last 10 years.

Might as well point out the AAC with 6 FF is ahead of the Big 12 with 5 FF and the SEC with 4 FF - just cause you send different teams to the FF doesn't make you 'better.'