The Official Bracketology Thread

[mbr33ct]

I'm at peace with Charlie's latest Bracketology, knowing it will never happen the way he laid it out. As far as what seed UConn gets and where it's placed, again I'm at peace however I don't know how the other teams will feel about being in UConn's bracket and potential matchups within that region. Hey if UConn has to beat three SEC teams to get to the Final Four...so be it.

 

[Skins87]

Not arguing here but I have a question:

The NCAA also takes into account "The Injury Factor." Which means UCONN has lost three of it's core players in each of 4 of the 5 games UCONN has lost (one of which was the NPOY from the year before).

If you (The NCAA) are going to take injuries into account, and with a team this battered by them, am I wrong to assume that I'm not being bias in logically assuming that the single most dominant/important factor to use for UCONN in determining seeding would be NET Rankings?

I mean there wasn't just one injury. For UCONN it's been a constant steady stream of injuries to top tier players. Every one of the losses there were injuries (but even tossing the SC game aside) - the other 4 losses were significant injuries to three core players (One is the former NPOY) per game. It seems the criteria of Net Ranking would be the absolute best to use in this instance because it can still "calculate" "Quality."

It's not fair to South Carolina. UCONN is sort of playing with house money.

Will every team with injury situations get that same consideration?

 

[Skeets]

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.

Yes, you are correct. I'm sure TV broadcasts and advertisers advertise out of the goodness of their hearts. Probably out of solidarity with title IX or something. Certainly not a business decision on their parts.

Notice that I didn't say anything about NCAA or how they cook their numbers.

 

[BRS24]

Not arguing here but I have a question:

The NCAA also takes into account "The Injury Factor." Which means UCONN has lost three of it's core players in each of 4 of the 5 games UCONN has lost (one of which was the NPOY from the year before).

If you (The NCAA) are going to take injuries into account, and with a team this battered by them, am I wrong to assume that I'm not being bias in logically assuming that the single most dominant/important factor to use for UCONN in determining seeding would be NET Rankings?

I mean there wasn't just one injury. For UCONN it's been a constant steady stream of injuries to top tier players. Every one of the losses there were injuries (but even tossing the SC game aside) - the other 4 losses were significant injuries to three core players (One is the former NPOY) per game. It seems the criteria of Net Ranking would be the absolute best to use in this instance because it can still "calculate" "Quality."

It's not fair to South Carolina. UCONN is sort of playing with house money.

Well ... in 1998, Nykesha Sales was injured at end of season. UConn was seeded #2 in the East, and conversely, Stanford, with two players out (Nygaard, Folks) with (bad acronym here), however the school did not officially announce severity and possibility of whether they would play, was seeded #1, and then became the first #1 seed to lose to #16 Harvard. If memory serves, Geno was incredibly irate about the seeding, especially when the whole "injury" thing was brought up, but the optics were that it wasn't applied consistently to all teams.

1998 Bracket

 

[UConnCat]

Stanford, with two players out (Nygaard, Folks) with (bad acronym here), however the school did not officially announce severity and possibility of whether they would play, was seeded #1, and then became the first #1 seed to lose to #16 Harvard.

1998 Bracket

That's called karma.

 

[BRS24]

That's called karma.

And one of my favorite trivia questions.

 

[HopJim]

All the more reason UConn will end up as a #2 seed. They moved up to 5th in NET thru last night's games:

DI Women's Basketball Rankings - NCAA Women's Basketball NET Rankings | NCAA.com

Get NCAA women's college basketball rankings from the Associated Press, USA Today/WBCA and NCAA committee.

www.ncaa.com

P.S.-- I'm sympathetic to Villanova. They lost to Tournament darlings Princeton & Maryland out of the gate & had Maddie Siegrist, one of the Top 25 players in the country IMO, injured for the first part of their season. They beat UConn on the road, snapping our insane conference winning streak, swept Marquette, & split with projected Tournament entry Creighton & bubble team Depaul. Their NCAA bracket omission would be a tough pillow to swallow.

Is there any history of NCAA grading "on a curve" based on past injury history? If UConn can ignore the Villanova loss, wondering how high we would be rated. Ditto for Villanova and Siegrist's injury.

 

[CL82]

Yes, you are correct. I'm sure TV broadcasts and advertisers advertise out of the goodness of their hearts. Probably out of solidarity with title IX or something. Certainly not a business decision on their parts.

Notice that I didn't say anything about NCAA or how they cook their numbers.

Actually, you didn’t say much of anything at all.

 

[JoePgh]

Actually, you didn’t say much of anything at all.

I think the essential point is that while the women's tournament may not make a profit for the NCAA, it is profitable to someone (ESPN, CBS, or their advertisers) and is therefore "earning its keep". It is not being run as a sop to Title IX or as a "be nice to the girls" gesture.

To use your sugar/candy analogy, suppose you have a candy package that you could sell for $5, but you choose to bundle it into a huge product that you can sell for $1,000. Skeets buys your $1,000 product and chooses to re-sell the $5 throw-in product to me, making some money for himself. I then add some flavoring and sell the up-flavored candy to the public for $10, and make some money for myself in the process. You don't see any revenue from me, and you don't actually "see" any money from Skeets beyond the $1,000 that he paid for the blockbuster product package. But for some reason, you do incur some minor costs to help me sell my candy, and it suits your political interests to claim that since those costs exceed your revenue, you are losing money on the throw-in product and should be therefore applauded for your corporate good will.

In fact, if you sold your major product for $995 and your candy for $5 (unbundled), then you would have to acknowledge that the $5 is revenue from the candy product, and when that is added in, the candy is profitable to you on its own terms. But since you get $1,000 either way, you would rather plead that all of that revenue is attributable to your main product, and the candy is being sold only as a charitable obligation, so you can't be expected to support it in a reasonable way.

Back to the real world: if the NCAA were the direct recipient of the $34 million that ESPN paid for the broadcast rights to the women's tournament, it would be even harder for them to explain to the public why the gym facilities provided to the women were so inferior to those of the men. By packaging the men's and women's tournaments together, they can promote the fiction that the women's tournament loses money, so of course they can't expect to have remotely comparable facilities.

 

[CL82]

I think the essential point is that while the women's tournament may not make a profit for the NCAA, it is profitable to someone (ESPN, CBS, or their advertisers) and is therefore "earning its keep". It is not being run as a sop to Title IX or as a "be nice to the girls" gesture.

To use your sugar/candy analogy, suppose you have a candy package that you could sell for $5, but you choose to bundle it into a huge product that you can sell for $1,000. Skeets buys your $1,000 product and chooses to re-sell the $5 throw-in product to me, making some money for himself. I then add some flavoring and sell the up-flavored candy to the public for $10, and make some money for myself in the process. You don't see any revenue from me, and you don't actually "see" any money from Skeets beyond the $1,000 that he paid for the blockbuster product package. But for some reason, you do incur some minor costs to help me sell my candy, and it suits your political interests to claim that since those costs exceed your revenue, you are losing money on the throw-in product and should be therefore applauded for your corporate good will.

In fact, if you sold your major product for $995 and your candy for $5 (unbundled), then you would have to acknowledge that the $5 is revenue from the candy product, and when that is added in, the candy is profitable to you on its own terms. But since you get $1,000 either way, you would rather plead that all of that revenue is attributable to your main product, and the candy is being sold only as a charitable obligation, so you can't be expected to support it in a reasonable way.

Back to the real world: if the NCAA were the direct recipient of the $34 million that ESPN paid for the broadcast rights to the women's tournament, it would be even harder for them to explain to the public why the gym facilities provided to the women were so inferior to those of the men. By packaging the men's and women's tournaments together, they can promote the fiction that the women's tournament loses money, so of course they can't expect to have remotely comparable facilities.

If we want to further “refine“ the sugar analogy, I would say a better version of it is say you bought 100 pounds of sugar for $1000 and only needed 95 pounds to make your candies, so you sold the excess 5 pounds to someone else for $50 and then sold your candies for $5000. What’s the value of the 5 pounds you sold? It isn’t $5000, is it?

So, back to the real world. We know what the fair market value women’s basketball tournament rights are. It is the price that a willing seller would sell the rights to a willing buyer both being reasonably knowledgeable and not under any constraint. That price is $34 million. Those are facts, they aren’t disputable. So, if we’re talking about the real world, those are the real world numbers.

But let’s leave the real world for a moment and go to the adjacent world of consultant reports. The consultant believes that women’s basketball tournament rights may be at worth as much as $81 million-$111 million. That’s not the real world, it’s speculation, but let’s assume for a moment it’s reasonably informed speculation. That means that at the consultants highest estimate woman’s basketball tournament rights are worth 10 cents on the dollar of men’s basketball tournaments rights. Again, that’s not the facts, the facts are they’re currently worth $34 million, but even if we assume that’s the highest end of the estimate is true, they are worth pennies on the dollar of what the men’s tournament is worth. That’s according to the report that everyone was relying on.

Look, I’m a women’s basketball fan, and I suspect few on the board are any bigger one than I am. But math is math. And the simple truth is the women’s tournament is not worth anything that even vaguely approaches the juggernaut of what the men’s tournament is. Does that make the efforts of the players and coaches give their all to participate in the tournaments any less compelling? Not to me. But the math is the math and it’s really undeniable.

 

[hoophuskee]

Will every team with injury situations get that same consideration?

Does every team have the same situation as UCONN had? Or does for example a team that has one injury with one player equal what UCONN has with 6 in which 3 core players were out in 4 of the 5 losses?

And has every team lost the NPOY or near it for most of the season? Or is losing the NPOY the same as losing any other player especially a non-all american?

The committee can discuss the degree of injuries is my guess. They can't differentiate one injury vs 6? Can't differentiate 3 core players out which one is NPOY vs other?

 

[dabears17]

So, back to the real world. We know what the fair market value women’s basketball tournament rights are. It is the price that a willing seller would sell the rights to a willing buyer both being reasonably knowledgeable and not under any constraint. That price is $34 million. Those are facts, they aren’t disputable. So, if we’re talking about the real world, those are the real world numbers.

This conversation is driven by the fact when the NCAA was caught giving the women a much inferior weight room, less accurate Covid tests, and poorer food than the men, used the excuse that the women's tournament lost $2.8 million in 2019. The NCAA gender equity review report has several ideas to help increase revenue to address that revenue short fall.

Interestingly, the president of the NCAA made $2.9 million in 2019, $100,000 more than the women's tournament 'lost'.

The NCAA is a non-profit whose mission statement states 'The NCAA is a member-led organization focused on cultivating an environment that emphasizes academics, fairness and well-being across college sports.' They get the vast majority of their revenue from the NCAA men's tournament- around $800 million, and distribute around $600 million of that to member schools.

NCAA to pay entire $613 million revenue distribution to members if NCAA Tournament completed in entirety

The NCAA and its member institutions suffered significant cash shortfalls in 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic

www.cbssports.com

The women's tournament broadcast rights were bundled with 23 other sports and sold in 2010 in a deal that runs through 2024. I don't blame ESPN, they are a business that are trying to make a profit that cut a good deal to get product to show on their networks.

The way to determine the true market value of the women's basketball tournament would be to negotiate an extension of the contract. The men's tournament broadcast rights were originally from 2010 to 2024, like the women's. In 2016 the NCAA extended the men's contract through 2032 for more money. Why didn't they do that for the women?

We'll get to see in 2024 what the fair market price of the women's tournament is. Hopefully the NCAA uses some of the ideas from the gender equity review to increase revenue for women's basketball so they don't 'lose' money on the tournament.

 

[Skins87]

Does every team have the same situation as UCONN had? Or does for example a team that has one injury with one player equal what UCONN has with 6 in which 3 core players were out in 4 of the 5 losses?

And has every team lost the NPOY or near it for most of the season? Or is losing the NPOY the same as losing any other player especially a non-all american?

The committee can discuss the degree of injuries is my guess. They can't differentiate one injury vs 6? Can't differentiate 3 core players out which one is NPOY vs other?

No team has the same situation but there are top teams that have dealt with injures/sickness issues as well. They would also have to take into thought if the team that was missing the players still had more talent than the team that they were facing. As long as the committee is consistent with their evaluations then we should be happy. As far as your example this is a quick one

MD vs Baylor (Terps missing Benzan, Masonius, and Miller played 11min)
MD vs Stanford(Terps missing Benzan, Masonius, and Miller)
MD vs NCST(Terps missing Benzan, Masonius, and Miller)
MD vs SC(Terps missing Miller)
*Masonius out for the year with ACL

 

[hoophuskee]

No team has the same situation but there are top teams that have dealt with injures/sickness issues as well. They would also have to take into thought if the team that was missing the players still had more talent than the team that they were facing. As long as the committee is consistent with their evaluations then we should be happy. As far as your example this is a quick one

MD vs Baylor (Terps missing Benzan, Masonius, and Miller played 11min)
MD vs Stanford(Terps missing Benzan, Masonius, and Miller)
MD vs NCST(Terps missing Benzan, Masonius, and Miller)
MD vs SC(Terps missing Miller)
*Masonius out for the year with ACL

If no team has had the same situation then what is your point? My point has been no team has had what UCONN has had. And you apparently agree with that. That doesn't mean ignore everyone else.

 

[Skins87]

If no team has had the same situation then what is your point? My point has been no team has had what UCONN has had. And you apparently agree with that. That doesn't mean ignore everyone else.

Either your not comprehending or you aren't willing to. The point is other teams have had issues too so the committee should grade everyone on that same scale. You also leave out that in many of those games you still had more talent than the teams you were going against. I guess they need to think about that too right?

 

[hoophuskee]

Either your not comprehending or you aren't willing to. The point is other teams have had issues too so the committee should grade everyone on that same scale. You also leave out that in many of those games you still had more talent than the teams you were going against. I guess they need to think about that too right?

If the teams do not have the same injuries in terms of quantity and or talent then why should each be addressed the same manner?

Questions I asked before which you didn't answer were below in bold. Can you answer "any" of them? You gave me Maryland but who is the All-American at Maryland from last year that UCONN has lost this year? So your Maryland point didn't address my questions did it? Losing an All-American - former NPOY is equal to a player that MD lost???????

You are bringing up "more talent" and implying that UCONN should be penalized more because they have "more talent" than another team? Please show me where in the selection committee guidelines that it is a part of any criteria? I believe the point you are bringing up is nowhere referenced in the criteria, so why are you bringing it up?

Or does for example a team that has one injury with one player equal what UCONN has with 6 in which 3 core players were out in 4 of the 5 losses?

And has every team lost the NPOY or near it for most of the season? Or is losing the NPOY the same as losing any other player especially a non-all American?

 

[Alydar]

Will every team with injury situations get that same consideration?

Here's the horses mouth so to speak. The bolding is mine.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/basketball/d1/women/D1WBB_BracketPrinciplesandProcedures.pdf

"The NET is one of many criteria used by the Division I Women’s Basketball Committee in the selection of the 36 at‐ large teams and seeding of the 68 teams which make up the bracket for the Division I Women’s Basketball Championship. Criteria used by the Division I Women’s Basketball Committee to evaluate a team includes (alphabetically): ● Availability of talent (injured or unavailable players) ● Bad losses ● Common opponents ● Competitive in losses ● Conference record ● Early competition versus late competition ● Head‐to‐head outcomes ● NET ranking ● Non‐conference record ● Overall record ● Regional Advisory Committee region rankings ● Significant wins ● Strength of conference ● Strength of schedule D"

The bolded phrase means that the committee can reduce the effect of losses on a team in which significant player(s) are out injured. But it is contingent on those players returning to the lineup and contributing. They can also downgrade a team that has key players with late season injuries that make them out for the season.

 

[BRS24]

Did anyone see the graphics during the UConn game today where it predicted 9 (!!!!) SEC teams into the tourney, and only 2 Big East teams. Nine?

 

[Vowelguy]

Did anyone see the graphics during the UConn game today where it predicted 9 (!!!!) SEC teams into the tourney, and only 2 Big East teams. Nine?

Filling out a bracket is hard. It's easy to say conference X shouldn't have this many teams, but conferences don't get bids; teams do. And when you lay out all the teams, you realize that last 10 or so teams in all have very slim resumes. So 9 could happen.

That said, filling out a bracket is hard and I have no faith that CBSSN did a very good job on its, so I wouldnt put much stock in it. For all the knocks he takes around here, Creme actually does decent brackets and understands the process as well as anyone.

 

[Skeets]

Actually, you didn’t say much of anything at all.

CL, I've usually enjoyed your posts as being well thought out. But I'm having a little bit of a problem here...

1. the NCAA lost nothing. They sold the broadcasting rights for the M & W tournaments for 1.1 billion. It's a wonder how the NCAA didn't go chapter 11.

2. any transaction between CBS and ESPN did not involve the NCAA making or losing money. How such a transaction can be applied to the NCAA is beyond me. Please explain how the NCAA lost money because ESPN bought the broadcast rights from CBS.

3. when the broadcast rights were sold for $34M, that was probably the expected profit margin. Not the revenue. Would ESPN or anyone else pay $34M if they thought that was the maximum revenue the venture would bring in? Of course not. A business would only pay $34M (plus all of the production costs) if they were pretty sure the revenue would eclipse that and turn a nice profit. Again, none of this has anything to do with the NCAA.

4. I didn't say much of anything? Maybe, but I can't understand anything that you said.

 

[ProSkeptic]

To take the discussion in a slightly different direction, Michigan (ranked #6 and currently a projected 2 seed) lost bigly to Caitlin Clark and Iowa. Granted that UConn is beating inferior teams, but they’re not just beating them, they’re demolishing them. I still assume they’ll be the 2 seed in Bridgeport, assuming they plow through the BE tourney. The NCAA also likes to see full arenas, and few teams in WCBB can fill an arena like UConn.

 

[TC22]

To take the discussion in a slightly different direction, Michigan (ranked #6 and currently a projected 2 seed) lost bigly to Caitlin Clark and Iowa. Granted that UConn is beating inferior teams, but they’re not just beating them, they’re demolishing them. I still assume they’ll be the 2 seed in Bridgeport, assuming they plow through the BE tourney. The NCAA also likes to see full arenas, and few teams in WCBB can fill an arena like UConn.

Or SC.

 

[CL82]

1. the NCAA lost nothing. They sold the broadcasting rights for the M & W tournaments for 1.1 billion. It's a wonder how the NCAA didn't go chapter 11.

Agree, I’m not sure what your point is.

2. any transaction between CBS and ESPN did not involve the NCAA making or losing money. How such a transaction can be applied to the NCAA is beyond me. Please explain how the NCAA lost money because ESPN bought the broadcast rights from CBS.

The NCAA didn’t lose money. It made money from the sale of the $1.1B broadcast rights. Of which we know that 34 million is the fair market value of the woman’s broadcast rights because that is the price that was agreed-upon by CBS and ESPN for the sale of those rights. As explained ad nauseam above the price determined by a willing buyer in a willing seller it’s being reasonably knowledgeable and not in a constraint is fair market value, definitionally. If 34 million is the fair market value of the woman’s broadcast rates then the value of the men’s tournament is $1.066 billion. So, if it costs more than $34 million to put on the woman’s basketball tournament, it was a money loser for the NCAA because $34 million is what it contributes to the total purchase price.

3. when the broadcast rights were sold for $34M, that was probably the expected profit margin. Not the revenue

Maybe, but the why is irrelevant, right?

Yeah, I kind of feel like we’re talking past each other and I think the discussion is probably boring to everyone else, so if you really want to keep talking about it PM me. I’m not sure I have much to add, but I’m happy to talk to you about it for a little bit.

 

[Skeets]

Agree, I’m not sure what your point is.

The NCAA didn’t lose money. It made money from the sale of the $1.1B broadcast rights. Of which we know that 34 million is the fair market value of the woman’s broadcast rights because that is the price that was agreed-upon by CBS and ESPN for the sale of those rights. As explained ad nauseam above the price determined by a willing buyer in a willing seller it’s being reasonably knowledgeable and not in a constraint is fair market value, definitionally. If 34 million is the fair market value of the woman’s broadcast rates then the value of the men’s tournament is $1.066 billion. So, if it costs more than $34 million to put on the woman’s basketball tournament, it was a money loser for the NCAA because $34 million is what it contributes to the total purchase price.

Maybe, but the why is irrelevant, right?

Yeah, I kind of feel like we’re talking past each other and I think the discussion is probably boring to everyone else, so if you really want to keep talking about it PM me. I’m not sure I have much to add, but I’m happy to talk to you about it for a little bit.

You are right. We agree on two things, this is boring and Nika is a menace

 

[Gus Mahler]

Warren Nolan ELO: 8th

Electric Light Orchestra? [j/k]