The Official Bracketology Thread

[Zorro]

You think our last couple of games might throw a severe kink in the calculations?

 

[HuskylnSC]

Here's the most recent NET for what it's worth:

RANK	PREVIOUS	SCHOOL	CONFERENCE	RECORD	ROAD	NEUTRAL	HOME	NON DIV I
1	1	South Carolina	SEC	26-1	8-1	4-0	14-0	0-0
2	2	NC State	ACC	25-3	8-1	2-0	15-2	0-0
3	3	Stanford	Pac-12	24-3	9-1	2-1	13-1	0-0
4	4	Louisville	ACC	24-3	9-2	1-1	14-0	0-0
5	6	UConn	Big East	20-5	8-2	3-2	9-1	0-0
6	5	North Carolina	ACC	22-5	8-4	2-0	12-1	0-0
7	7	Texas	Big 12	20-6	9-3	1-0	10-3	0-0
8	10	BYU	WCC	24-2	8-2	2-0	14-0	0-0
9	8	Iowa St.	Big 12	23-4	7-3	3-0	13-1	0-0
10	9	Baylor	Big 12	22-5	7-3	3-1	12-1	0-0

 

[mhshuskies]

Here's the most recent NET for what it's worth:

RANK	PREVIOUS	SCHOOL	CONFERENCE	RECORD	ROAD	NEUTRAL	HOME	NON DIV I
1	1	South Carolina	SEC	26-1	8-1	4-0	14-0	0-0
2	2	NC State	ACC	25-3	8-1	2-0	15-2	0-0
3	3	Stanford	Pac-12	24-3	9-1	2-1	13-1	0-0
4	4	Louisville	ACC	24-3	9-2	1-1	14-0	0-0
5	6	UConn	Big East	20-5	8-2	3-2	9-1	0-0
6	5	North Carolina	ACC	22-5	8-4	2-0	12-1	0-0
7	7	Texas	Big 12	20-6	9-3	1-0	10-3	0-0
8	10	BYU	WCC	24-2	8-2	2-0	14-0	0-0
9	8	Iowa St.	Big 12	23-4	7-3	3-0	13-1	0-0
10	9	Baylor	Big 12	22-5	7-3	3-1	12-1	0-0

So by net ranking, if Lou’ville loses acc conference tournament, could UCONN slide in as a #1?

 

[visitingcock]

So by net ranking, if Lou’ville loses acc conference tournament, could UCONN slide in as a #1?

Definitely no if the loss is to NC State.

Probably no even if the loss is to someone else.

I see almost no chance of UConn reaching a one seed. But, I can’t see how they are not a two seed if they win out.

 

[SLY63]

I will stick to my prediction that if we stay healthy and play like we did yesterday, we will be the #2 in Bridgeport. Getting the returning PoY back and being at 100% with the team we have would easily be the 5th best team in the field. I would bet that we would be favorite by the odds makers against anyone but Stanford or SC at this point.

 

[npignatjr]

The big east down to one team plus UConn

 

[Vowelguy]

So by net ranking, if Lou’ville loses acc conference tournament, could UCONN slide in as a #1?

No
UConns best win is Tenn. best road win is creighton. That’s not going to cut it to be a 1.

SC, Stan, and NCSt/Lou winner get a 1.
The last one goes to NCSt/Lou loser, Baylor, or Michigan.

 

[visitingcock]

No
UConns best win is Tenn. best road win is creighton. That’s not going to cut it to be a 1.

SC, Stan, and NCSt/Lou winner get a 1.
The last one goes to NCSt/Lou loser, Baylor, or Michigan.

I don’t see Baylor or Michigan surpassing The Louisville/NC St loser. Now, if a lower ACC team beats one of them early in the conference tourney and there is no rematch . . . Somebody might surpass them.

Of course, Baylor is not set in stone as the top Big 12. - nor is Michigan set in stone in the Big Ten. Don’t be surprised if the traditional Big school, Maryland, doesn’t emerge as the highest seeded school from the Big 12.

From a “traditionalist’s” point of view, a top 8 containing 6 of these schools (in no particular order) would look unsurprising:

UConn
Stanford
Maryland
Baylor
SCar
Louisville

Add NCSt and a couple of conference number 2s and you’ve got your “traditionalist” top 8

 

[huskies29]

When the smoke clears and especially how Paige looked in her debut UConn will be no worse than a 2 seed in Bridgeport!

 

[BrianF]

I looked over the tournament selections for 2018, 2019, and 2021 and you are right. I somehow thought the mid level Pac 12 teams were being excluded, but that was not the case. I did have a problem with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State in the 2018 tournament and Tennessee and Indiana in 2019, but neither would have been replaced by a PAC 12. I guess my west coast preferences were prejudicing my memory.

This year I actually would tend to prefer Oregon State, UCLA, and Arizona State to Mississippi State, Boston College, and Miami. And if truth be told, I would put Villanova in and take Missouri out.

The Pac 12 got a lot of teams in from the mid-2010's on by using a technique pioneered by the MVC on the men's side about 10 years before. It goes like this: the bottom half of the teams in the conference schedule out of conference games at home against VERY beatable opponents.

Teams right above in the middle of the conference do the same thing, but throw in a marquee game (preferably at home or neutral). The top programs, like Stanford and Oregon (w/ Sabrina) schedule tough. The result is the bottom teams come into conference play with 11-0, 10-1 or 9-2 records, the good/mids are about the same, and the top teams, if they lose, it's to another top team.

Once you start conference play it's the virtuous circle- every game is against a team with a good record. Even as conference play stratifies teams into the good, the bad and the ugly, the non-conference records put a of LOT lipstick on those pigs.

Because the RPI was so prominent for years, gaming the system paid off. I had a conversation with Val Ackerman about this, and she expressed frustration that she couldn't get the lower level AAC teams to do this. They'd rather get the paycheck from being the patsy at Cal or UCLA (come here, you can go to LA!).

The RPI mindset lingers still. NET takes more into account, but it still favors a ninth ACC or SEC over a Rhode Island.

 

[Plebe]

Because the RPI was so prominent for years, gaming the system paid off. I had a conversation with Val Ackerman about this, and she expressed frustration that she couldn't get the lower level AAC teams to do this. They'd rather get the paycheck from being the patsy at Cal or UCLA (come here, you can go to LA!).

Just curious: In what capacity was Val Ackerman trying to influence AAC teams' approach to scheduling? I thought she's been with the new Big East since its inception in 2013.

I will say, Coach Abe at UCF is (or was) one of the most masterful gamers of the RPI in the women's game. A few years ago they had a top 20 RPI and it was almost certainly the only thing that got them into the tournament as the very last at-large team. This year her team is #4 in the RPI (as still published on Warren Nolan's site).

 

[shiverz45]

Will the committee use the resume or the eye test (when healthy) where they place UConn? It is too many reasons not to put UConn in the Greensboro region. For the growth of the game and economics are the two biggest.

 

[CL82]

I've always felt that the committee has to demonstrate to the country a
(seeming) independence from Storrs.

This might involve (this year)...
1. A lower ranking than Olde Dude suggests.
2. Sending us out of Bridgeport (which is essentially a home game (s) for
Southern Ct Fans).

Even if it means a financial hit to the NCAA coffers.

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if that transpires.

The woman’s basketball tournament doesn’t run at a profit. It would seem incredibly shortsighted to cut the legs out from what traditionally is one of, if not the, most popular profitable regions.

I think the stars would really have to align for us not to be in Bridgeport. Connecticut taking care of business down the stretch eliminates that possibility.

 

[CL82]

Definitely no if the loss is to NC State.

Probably no even if the loss is to someone else.

I see almost no chance of UConn reaching a one seed. But, I can’t see how they are not a two seed if they win out.

I’m inclined to agree, even if the other schools catch up to them in the lost column. Not making Connecticut a one seed is a statement that the NCAA can make without costing themselves money.

 

[BrianF]

From the ESPN WCBB Bracketology page...

View attachment 73756

I can't repeat on here what I said out loud when I saw this!

I didn't think NC State could hate the Tar Heels more than they do now. Putting the North Carolina logo up?

And oh yeah, let's put 4 of the last 5 national champions in the same region and seed them 1-4.

 

[BrianF]

I agree that Creme is just trying to stir the pot, but moving UConn out of the Bridgeport regional sort of makes sense, given his current seeds. The problem lies with the Big 12. Creme projects them with three 2-seeds (Baylor, Iowa State, and Texas) and one 3-seed (Oklahoma). Well, Oklahoma can't be sent to the regional that the other three Big 12 teams are in because they try to prevent those intraconference matchups from happening that early in the tournament. So the only choice is to send Oklahoma to Bridgeport (which is geographically far from the Big 12 2-seeds) and to send UConn as the 3-seed to one of the regionals with the Big 12 2-seeds.

In reality, I don't think the Big 12 ends up with four teams in the 12, so it's all a moot point.


Autumn Johnson of ncaa.com does a bracketology but it's not updated as much. 2022 NCAA women's basketball tournament bracket predictions, less than a month away from selections

She has conference matchups in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. Many of them.

 

[visitingcock]

I didn't think NC State could hate the Tar Heels more than they do now. Putting the North Carolina logo up?

And oh yeah, let's put 4 of the last 5 national champions in the same region and seed them 1-4.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[BrianF]

Just curious: In what capacity was Val Ackerman trying to influence AAC teams' approach to scheduling? I thought she's been with the new Big East since its inception in 2013.

I will say, Coach Abe at UCF is (or was) one of the most masterful gamers of the RPI in the women's game. A few years ago they had a top 20 RPI and it was almost certainly the only thing that got them into the tournament as the very last at-large team. This year her team is #4 in the RPI (as still published on Warren Nolan's site).

My bad. Barbara Jacobs. I see her more at UConn games now than when she was AAC commish.

 

[Skeets]

The woman’s basketball tournament doesn’t run at a profit. It would seem incredibly shortsighted to cut the legs out from what traditionally is one of, if not the, most popular profitable regions.

I think the stars would really have to align for us not to be in Bridgeport. Connecticut taking care of business down the stretch eliminates that possibility.

I'm pretty sure sponsors, TV, and advertisers turn a nice profit. Why would the committee want to spit on them?

 

[CL82]

I'm pretty sure sponsors, TV, and advertisers turn a nice profit. Why would the committee want to spit on them?

Nope, the tournament runs at a loss.
Not sure about spitting on anyone or how that’s relevant, but put me in the firmly opposed to spitting on others camp.

 

[undersized]

She has conference matchups in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. Many of them.

This is an oversight of Autumn Johnson's.

In Creme's bracket, there are zero pods (host sites for the first and second rounds) that have 2+ teams from the same conference. Additionally, all of the projected (meaning: no upsets) Sweet 16 matchups are between teams of different conferences.

 

[MSGRET]

Nope, the tournament runs at a loss.
Not sure about spitting on anyone or how that’s relevant, but put me in the firmly opposed to spitting on others camp.

The only reason why it's a loss is because of the way ESPN and the NCAA finagles the numbers. After last years debacle with the difference between the men's and women's championships it was noted that the reason why it's a loss is because of the way the NCAA has the women's game combined with the other NCAA Championships.

The study sited that if they separated the women's basketball championship from the others the NCAA would make at least $50,000,000. and that ESPN is making enough money to cover most of the other championships. I believe that the NCAA has stated that when this contract is over the women's game will be separated from the current package and be a standalone just like the men's.

Also I believe that starting this year the NCAA made the women's championship part of March Madness and that ESPN has to pay more for the name then what they did last year when it was the NCAA Women's Basketball Tournament.

 

[CL82]

The only reason why it's a loss is because of the way ESPN and the NCAA finagles the numbers. After last years debacle with the difference between the men's and women's championships it was noted that the reason why it's a loss is because of the way the NCAA has the women's game combined with the other NCAA Championships.

The study sited that if they separated the women's basketball championship from the others the NCAA would make at least $50,000,000. and that ESPN is making enough money to cover most of the other championships. I believe that the NCAA has stated that when this contract is over the women's game will be separated from the current package and be a standalone just like the men's.

Also I believe that starting this year the NCAA made the women's championship part of March Madness and that ESPN has to pay more for the name then what they did last year when it was the NCAA Women's Basketball Tournament.

I’d love to see whatever study or article you’re referring to. Because all of that is news to me. I find it highly unlikely, however, that ESPN in the NCAA are colluding to make women’s basketball look bad. But hey, I’ll read anything, if you link it.

This is my understanding of the numbers, however:

 

[VA Huskie]

I understand wanting UConn in Bridgeport - it’s a “home game” and our fans can go. However we need to remember that we only win the NC if we beat every team we play. So where we’re seeded isn’t that big a deal.

 

[MSGRET]

I’d love to see whatever study or article you’re referring to. Because all of that is news to me. I find it highly unlikely, however, that ESPN in the NCAA are colluding to make women’s basketball look bad. But hey, I’ll read anything, if you like it.

This is my understanding of the numbers, however:
View attachment 73787

That story was debunked and acknowledged by the NCAA that the reason why the tournament lost money is because it is not a standalone like the men's. Why do you think they tried to make it look like they were losing money. It was because they had a major problem with the men's tournament vs the women's. The optics was so bad they tried to make it a money issue when in reality the women's tournament was more of an afterthought because of Title IX. The NCAA commissioned a committee after this debacle because not only was it bad for them in the eyes of the people, but the US Government was asking questions that was not favorable too the differences the two tournaments were being treated. The first change was that both the men's and women's tournaments will be now referred as March Madness. I believe that this is the first time that all of the commercial time has been sold out in the women's. Could it be because of the name change from the Women's National Basketball Tournament to March Madness? Then it will be the new television contract once this one expires, the one that the NCAA committee stated that it would make at least $50,000.000 as a separate entity. This all came out sometime in late Summer or early fall, I can't remember if Congress did have a public hearing with the NCAA, but I do remember a lot of heat from them.

Here is two of the first stories that started the issues on the differences between the men's and women's https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr...k-uproar/RK=2/RS=9vOmRRwOSV3LguoGkXA4Fw4MsKQ-

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrEeBwKjxpi6y8Ayg4PxQt.;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzQEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1645936523/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.npr.org%2f2021%2f03%2f19%2f979395795%2fmens-and-womens-ncaa-march-madness-facilities-separate-and-unequal-spark-uproar/RK=2/RS=9vOmRRwOSV3LguoGkXA4Fw4MsKQ-

I will look to find the one's on the reason for changing the March Madness and the NCAA committee recommendations.