Stanford's #1 seed problem

[Vowelguy]

Don't pencil the Cardinal in as the #1 in Fresno just yet. I would say it's only about 50-50 they get it. And that number falls to <1% if they lose to Tennessee next week.

Despite what some of our west coast friends say, Stan's non-conference schedule isn't very strong this year. Their only really good win is at Texas. Victory over Gonzaga is pretty good. TN & Princeton are their only other solid non-conference opponents remaining.

And the PAC remains weak. Cal, USC, and Ariz St are all decent enough teams, and they may still rise. But their non-conference records have not been great either.
- Cal has a win over UVA, but losses to Texas and Rutgers.
- USC has a win over Gonzaga, but losses to Nebraska, Georgia, & NDame
- Ariz St has no quality wins, and a loss to Rutgers
Nothing there to make you think any of them are top 20 teams.

Each has a quality opponent in the next week: Ohio St (Cal), Tx A&M (USC), DePaul (ASU). If they win them all, then the PAC gets a bit of a boost. Lose all 3 and disaster -- even going undefeated in the PAC wouldn't be a major achievement for Stanford. If they beat Tenn, that means they are 1-1 against Top 20 competition. Is that worthy of a #1 seed? Borderline. A loss to the Vols and there's no way.

If they don't win the rest of their games, I see someone else - possibly the SEC or ACC champ -- getting a #1 seed over them.

 

[alexrgct]

At worst, though, they get a two seed and a spot in the Fresno bracket. Sweet 16 round may be a bit tougher, but overall, the difference between being a one and a two in a favorable location isn't great. Kind of like when UConn was a two in the Hartford regional in 2004.

 

[Vowelguy]

At worst, though, they get a two seed and a spot in the Fresno bracket. Sweet 16 round may be a bit tougher, but overall, the difference between being a one and a two in a favorable location isn't great. Kind of like when UConn was a two in the Hartford regional in 2004.

Actually if all the PAC teams lose this week, I'd say a #2 seed is even borderline.

 

[doggydaddy]

If they are 30-2 with their only losses to Tennessee and UConn, I can't see them not being a #1 seed.

 

[Vowelguy]

If they are 30-2 with their only losses to Tennessee and UConn, I can't see them not being a #1 seed.

So a team's best win can be Texas and get a #1 seed?
Where are the quality wins?

Wanna bet $10,000?

 

[doggydaddy]

So a team's best win can be Texas and get a #1 seed?
Where are the quality wins?

Wanna bet $10,000?

Hahaha!!! NO.....but then again, I'm not running for president!

Yes, a teams best win can be Texas if other schools have more losses.

If they end up ranked 3 or better, I don't see how they don't get a #1 seed. You might not think they should get it, but you don't have a vote.

 

[speedoo]

If they are 30-2 with their only losses to Tennessee and UConn, I can't see them not being a #1 seed.

I agree with VG. If their best win ends up being vs. Texas, they need a lot of breaks to get a 1 seed. Look at it this way, in terms of the other competition:

Baylor and UConn already have much higher quality wins (ND and Stanford) than Texas so they lead for 1 seeds. ND is very likely to end up with a couple of much higher quality wins than Texas (eg. Kentucky, and maybe UConn... do they play the LV's? If so, that's a very possible win).

So that's three. Then you have Maryland with already a win over Georgetown and multiple opportunities to get some quality wins in the ACC... Duke, Miami, etc. So that would be 4. Then you have Miami with a win over RU that is likely to trump a win over Texas. And you have Kentucky who could very well win the SEC. Or (gulp) the LV's themselves.

etc.

The key is the weak Pac 10 schedule and Tara's failure to schedule more than two tough OOC opponents.

 

[doggydaddy]

I agree with VG. If their best win ends up being vs. Texas, they need a lot of breaks to get a 1 seed. Look at it this way, in terms of the other competition:


Baylor and UConn already have much higher quality wins (ND and Stanford) than Texas so they lead for 1 seeds. ND is very likely to end up with a couple of much higher quality wins than Texas (eg. Kentucky, and maybe UConn... do they play the LV's? If so, that's a very possible win).


So that's three. Then you have Maryland with already a win over Georgetown and multiple opportunities to get some quality wins in the ACC... Duke, Miami, etc. So that would be 4. Then you have Miami with a win over RU that is likely to trump a win over Texas. And you have Kentucky who could very well win the SEC. Or (gulp) the LV's themselves.

etc.


The key is the weak Pac 10 schedule and Tara's failure to schedule more than two tough OOC opponents.

Quality wins are great. But they do look at losses and other than Baylor and UConn, every one of those other teams will end up with at least one more loss than Stanford. Maryland? They have played no one yet, so I'll reserve my judgement on how good they are.

 

[speedoo]

Quality wins are great. But they do look at losses and other than Baylor and UConn, every one of those other teams will end up with at least one more loss than Stanford. Maryland? They have played no one yet, so I'll reserve my judgement on how good they are.

They look at both quality wins and bad losses. I could be wrong, but I can't recall a one seed in recent years that did not have a quality win, and without a win over the LV's where does Stanford come up with a quality win? Texas won't do it IMO.

 

[cardfan]

Most knowledgeable Stanford fans i know do not care about 1 vs 2 seeds, esp in Dec. Tara certainly cares most about the team's health, region location and match-ups.

And no Stanford fan here said our non conf schedule was great. I said we were limited to the number of non conf games due to 25 games slotted for the PAC 12.

 

[cardfan]

I agree with VG. If their best win ends up being vs. Texas, they need a lot of breaks to get a 1 seed. Look at it this way, in terms of the other competition:

Baylor and UConn already have much higher quality wins (ND and Stanford) than Texas so they lead for 1 seeds. ND is very likely to end up with a couple of much higher quality wins than Texas (eg. Kentucky, and maybe UConn... do they play the LV's? If so, that's a very possible win).

So that's three. Then you have Maryland with already a win over Georgetown and multiple opportunities to get some quality wins in the ACC... Duke, Miami, etc. So that would be 4. Then you have Miami with a win over RU that is likely to trump a win over Texas. And you have Kentucky who could very well win the SEC. Or (gulp) the LV's themselves.

etc.

The key is the weak Pac 10 schedule and Tara's failure to schedule more than two tough OOC opponents.

Give me a break speedo. Scheduling is much more complicated process than picking up the phone and say lets play ball. We have 10 games to play non conf. We scheduled Xaiver when they were top ten. It's not Tara's fault they dropped off. There are contracts involved, and long standing dates with TN and some local teams. Fiscally, Stanford can't be traveling all over the country either, and they have required 2 weeks in Dec. when they cannot play due to finals. Go back and see the type of teams Tara has played and you'll see it's not much different than Uconn's.

 

[speedoo]

Give me a break speedo. Scheduling is much more complicated process than picking up the phone and say lets play ball. We have 10 games to play non conf. We scheduled Xaiver when they were top ten. It's not Tara's fault they dropped off. There are contracts involved, and long standing dates with TN and some local teams. Fiscally, Stanford can't be traveling all over the country either, and they have required 2 weeks in Dec. when they cannot play due to finals. Go back and see the type of teams Tara has played and you'll see it's not much different than Uconn's.

OK I should not have used the word "failure". Happy now? I know scheduling is not easy, so I really don't need to be reminded of that. However, Xavier did not suddenly drop off. Everyone could see them becoming a very so-so team after Harris and the other post graduated.

And this year, at least, UConn's OOC schedule is much, much tougher than Stanford's.

 

[cardfan]

Like recruiting, scheduling is cyclical. I was referring to overall years about scheduling, not just this yr. So, show me from mid Nov to mid Dec, minus 2 weeks for finals, who and where we play 10 non conf games (really 8 since we play you and TN) and consider we get one east coast and maybe one tourney every now and then.

 

[Vowelguy]

Yes, a teams best win can be Texas if other schools have more losses.

If they end up ranked 3 or better, I don't see how they don't get a #1 seed. You might not think they should get it, but you don't have a vote.

- The AP ranking is irrelevant. The committee doesn't look at it.
- The number of losses is only partially relevant. Seedings are certainly not done based on W-L record.
- I'm basing this not on personal feelings but how I think the committee will make decisions.

Here's the thing: if you don't beat any top 20 teams, how good are you? In theory any top-10/15 team should go unbeaten against that competition.

 

[rington]

- The AP ranking is irrelevant. The committee doesn't look at it.
- The number of losses is only partially relevant. Seedings are certainly not done based on W-L record.
- I'm basing this not on personal feelings but how I think the committee will make decisions.

Here's the thing: if you don't beat any top 20 teams, how good are you? In theory any top-10/15 team should go unbeaten against that competition.

Correct, If you don't beat any top 20 teams, you should not even be a #2. The 4 best teams should get #1 seeds, no matter in what region of the country they are located.

 

[MilfordHusky]

It's really early, but I expect them to get a 1 or 2 seed in Fresno. They would have to have a disappointing season to be lower. Other top teams with tougher schedules will likely have 2-4 more losses. I think there are 3 really top teams. Not sure where the regionals are, but ND should not be in Kingston. Baylor will be close to home. Stanford should clearly be a top 8 team, which will get them a 1-2 in their part of the country.

 

[speedoo]

Like recruiting, scheduling is cyclical. I was referring to overall years about scheduling, not just this yr. So, show me from mid Nov to mid Dec, minus 2 weeks for finals, who and where we play 10 non conf games (really 8 since we play you and TN) and consider we get one east coast and maybe one tourney every now and then.

Not clear to me what you are saying. If you are satisfied that Tara came up with the toughest possible OOC schedule this year, I guess we have nothing more to talk about.

By the way, I see 11, not 10 OOC games this year. Maybe you forgot about Seattle on 2/29.

 

[cardfan]

Not clear to me what you are saying. If you are satisfied that Tara came up with the toughest possible OOC schedule this year, I guess we have nothing more to talk about.

By the way, I see 11, not 10 OOC games this year. Maybe you forgot about Seattle on 2/29.

It's cyclical because you cannot control things after you sign the contract, and talent changes. For example, we played 3 top ten teams (TN, XU, Uconn) and 22nd ranked Depaul in a 16 day span last Dec., but becuase Xaiver and Depaul are not as good this year, we suffer. Still, we played 2 top ten non conf games this yr. while Uconn played 3.

I know Tara wants to play a competitive schedule just like Geno, Pat, etc, but due 2 week finals, long conf schedule, finances, and opponents who want to play us, she only has so much control, just like Geno. I also know there were many years we've had great non conf schedules that included TN every yr, and yrs we played Purdue, Okl, Duke, Ohio St, Etc.

I missed the Seattle game in Feb. We have one opportunity in Feb. to play another non conf the week we play Cal, the only week we do not have 2 conf games.

 

[VAUConnFan]

A few years ago, the committee sent Maryland out west as the #1 seed. So, the possibility of Stanford being a #2 seed is certainly possible.

One can hardly blame Stanford for their OOC schedule; Or criticize it. They play a few top teams and schedule some good mid-majors.

Stanford's schedule also appears unbalanced. They play 9 teams twice, and two teams once. With 10 non conference games prior to their conference schedule, is it possible that the Seattle game is an exhibition?

 

[cardfan]

A few years ago, the committee sent Maryland out west as the #1 seed. So, the possibility of Stanford being a #2 seed is certainly possible.

One can hardly blame Stanford for their OOC schedule; Or criticize it. They play a few top teams and schedule some good mid-majors.

Stanford's schedule also appears unbalanced. They play 9 teams twice, and two teams once. With 10 non conference games prior to their conference schedule, is it possible that the Seattle game is an exhibition?

As I mentioned before, the Pac12 is the only conf that requires to play each team twice, every yr. The PAC 12 has 2 team travel partners, e.g.,ariz schools, Oregons, NorCal. SoCal, etc, so the week of the schedule with your travel partner (for Stanford, it's Cal) we only have one game that week, so we can schedule one more which is usually Feb. Also, the conf tourney requires 3 games, so there will be 25 conf games next yr. This year we start conf play vs LA schools right after Xmas break.

 

[Icebear]

So a team's best win can be Texas and get a #1 seed?
Where are the quality wins?

Wanna bet $10,000?

As the top of the pile in the PAC10 and with Stanford's recent success in the tournament and 30-2, yes, I expect they would end up a #1 seed. At the absolute worst they are the #2 seed in Fresno with the effect of being a #1. As you say we'll see.

 

[triaddukefan]

A few years ago, the committee sent Maryland out west as the #1 seed. So, the possibility of Stanford being a #2 seed is certainly possible.

One can hardly blame Stanford for their OOC schedule; Or criticize it. They play a few top teams and schedule some good mid-majors.

Stanford's schedule also appears unbalanced. They play 9 teams twice, and two teams once. With 10 non conference games prior to their conference schedule, is it possible that the Seattle game is an exhibition?

That was 2008 when Maryland was the #1 seed in the west... and in 2009.. Duke was the #1 Seed in the west with Stanford the #2.

Actually, I think Stanford should have been a #2 last year... either them or Tenn. Duke had 12 wins over the top 25 RPI.... whereas Tenn only had 5... and Stanford had 6.... 3 of them were wins over a overrated UCLA squad. If they dont beat TENN... then they dont deserve a #1 seed this season. Even if they do... they probably dont deserve a #1 seed. The Pac 12 might be the 6th best conference this year...... maybe they are better than the Big 10... maybe.

 

[connboy77]

If they are 30-2 with their only losses to Tennessee and UConn, I can't see them not being a #1 seed.

agreed!

 

[connboy77]

They look at both quality wins and bad losses. I could be wrong, but I can't recall a one seed in recent years that did not have a quality win, and without a win over the LV's where does Stanford come up with a quality win? Texas won't do it IMO.

If that is the case then Tennessee is in trouble with a loss to unranked Virginia!

 

[doggydaddy]

- The AP ranking is irrelevant. The committee doesn't look at it.
- The number of losses is only partially relevant. Seedings are certainly not done based on W-L record.
- I'm basing this not on personal feelings but how I think the committee will make decisions.

Here's the thing: if you don't beat any top 20 teams, how good are you? In theory any top-10/15 team should go unbeaten against that competition.

Stanford has a reputation, they played UConn close and if UConn blows out the other top teams (I don't see that happening with Baylor or ND) like Duke, Oklahoma, UNC, then that loss looks pretty good.

Let's say that UConn, Baylor and ND are locks for a #1. If Tennessee, Duke, Maryland all have 5 losses, Stanford at 30-2 will not get the last one?

Long way to go.