Gus Mahler
Popular Composer
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2015
- Messages
- 5,037
- Reaction Score
- 18,959
Quite the mane, was it?LOL. Mine for one. It's white, not blue and I've lost some of it, but luckily I started with a lot.
The Official Bracketology Thread
- Thread starter browns
- Start date
- Status
Plebe
La verdad no peca pero incomoda
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2016
- Messages
- 20,020
- Reaction Score
- 73,877
If Electric Light Orchestra did a ranking it would be every bit as relevant as Warren Nolan's.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 2,474
- Reaction Score
- 6,606
Kristen Folkl did not get injured until after Selection Sunday. The only one who was injured before the brackets were finalized was Nygaard. Stanford appeared to have delayed her MRI and Tara did not answer her phone when called by the NCAA selection committee.
Harvard, by the way, did not deserve a 16 seed. That was a significant mistake by the committee..
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 24,147
- Reaction Score
- 63,257
Or was it?
JoePgh
Cranky pants and wise acre
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 3,927
- Reaction Score
- 23,801
@CL82: You say, "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." That's a big "if".
I can't imagine that the NCAA's own cost to put on the women's tournament is anything approaching $34 million. The NCAA does not pay to rent the venues where the games are played; on the contrary, the venues pay the NCAA for the privilege of hosting the games and collecting the ticket and concession revenue. The NCAA itself does not incur production costs (announcers, camera crews, travel); ESPN incurs those costs. The NCAA does pay for the teams to travel to the games, and that is probably its most significant expense. It also buys a limited amount of advertising for the women's tournament.
Let's say (and I suspect this is in the ballpark of reality) the NCAA's total direct expense for the women's tournament in a given year is $3 million. Its revenue from the venues is perhaps $1 million, so on that basis it can claim with a modicum of honesty to have "lost" $2 million. But that is not real, since it does not include any portion of the $1.1 billion that it was paid for the men's and women's tournament package. If the proper portion attributable to the women's tournament is $34 million (which sounds about right), then the NCAA actually made a profit of $32 million ($34 million + $1 million from venues minus $3 million for direct costs) on the women's tournament.
But the NCAA doesn't want to admit that, since it would then be hard to explain why it can't afford reasonable gym and exercise facilities. So it chooses to pretend that the entire $1.1 billion was for the men's tournament, and it wouldn't have gotten a penny less from CBS if it hadn't included the women's tournament in the package. That allows it to say that the women's tournament is a money loser. CBS (or ESPN, for that matter) has no commercial reason to correct this misapprehension publicly, and of course they don't want to antagonize the organization that offers them this gold mine every spring.
But that doesn't mean that we have to believe the NCAA on this subject, and we really shouldn't.
I can't imagine that the NCAA's own cost to put on the women's tournament is anything approaching $34 million. The NCAA does not pay to rent the venues where the games are played; on the contrary, the venues pay the NCAA for the privilege of hosting the games and collecting the ticket and concession revenue. The NCAA itself does not incur production costs (announcers, camera crews, travel); ESPN incurs those costs. The NCAA does pay for the teams to travel to the games, and that is probably its most significant expense. It also buys a limited amount of advertising for the women's tournament.
Let's say (and I suspect this is in the ballpark of reality) the NCAA's total direct expense for the women's tournament in a given year is $3 million. Its revenue from the venues is perhaps $1 million, so on that basis it can claim with a modicum of honesty to have "lost" $2 million. But that is not real, since it does not include any portion of the $1.1 billion that it was paid for the men's and women's tournament package. If the proper portion attributable to the women's tournament is $34 million (which sounds about right), then the NCAA actually made a profit of $32 million ($34 million + $1 million from venues minus $3 million for direct costs) on the women's tournament.
But the NCAA doesn't want to admit that, since it would then be hard to explain why it can't afford reasonable gym and exercise facilities. So it chooses to pretend that the entire $1.1 billion was for the men's tournament, and it wouldn't have gotten a penny less from CBS if it hadn't included the women's tournament in the package. That allows it to say that the women's tournament is a money loser. CBS (or ESPN, for that matter) has no commercial reason to correct this misapprehension publicly, and of course they don't want to antagonize the organization that offers them this gold mine every spring.
But that doesn't mean that we have to believe the NCAA on this subject, and we really shouldn't.
Harvard's Allison Feaster was an All American that year and scored 35 points, with 13 rebounds and 3 steals. The NCAA seeds for stories sometimes. I think the NCAA wanted the story of Standford vs. an Ivy league school in the first round, so under-seeded Harvard. In 2005 Stanford and Santa Clara meet in the first round in Fresno, CA. Partially because both schools could bus instead of fly there, but also because the older Kimyacioglu sister played for Stanford and the younger sister played for Santa Clara.
Harvard Crimson article
Nygaard was injured the day before the selection show. It does sound like Tara likely avoided the phone call from the committee and the committee was going to seed Stanford as a 2 if Nygaard was out. Stanford was also missing a senior center/forward Naomi Mulitauaopele who was injured that season and I don't believe played at all that year, so two freshman who averaged 7 minutes a game had to try to replace Folkl's minutes. Harvard was highly motivated because this was the 3rd year in a row they were seeded 16th. They were 21-4 in the regular season with losses to Maryland, South Carolina, Princeton, and Dartmouth. Losses to South Carolina and Princeton by 3.
2015 oral history of game
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 24,147
- Reaction Score
- 63,257
Yes I remember the game - I saw it! I was in grad school and remember driving back to campus after the game just so I could get online to discuss the shock.
My reference was whether Harvard was underseeded on purpose -- the committee had no basis to knock Stanford down with no info on Nygaard. But maybe they thought Harvard was a good hedge in case something wasnt right.
Or, as you note Ivy had been seeded #16 the two previous years, so maybe this was just what their resume was. (And a 3 pt loss to SC in 1997 was nothing to write home about!).
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2016
- Messages
- 6,499
- Reaction Score
- 23,315
BRS24
LisaG
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 5,293
- Reaction Score
- 34,288
Plebe
La verdad no peca pero incomoda
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2016
- Messages
- 20,020
- Reaction Score
- 73,877
Not really a surprise. Many of the other teams in contention for the final few top 16 spots fared worse in the past few weeks.
Plebe
La verdad no peca pero incomoda
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2016
- Messages
- 20,020
- Reaction Score
- 73,877
No, he almost certainly has us as the #9 overall, which by strict S-curve would put us in Greensboro.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2017
- Messages
- 1,902
- Reaction Score
- 14,820
You are right but I still don't get it. The overall #1 seed plays the worst #2 (8th overall) , but the best #3 ( 9th overall) ??
Plebe
La verdad no peca pero incomoda
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2016
- Messages
- 20,020
- Reaction Score
- 73,877
No, the worst #2 plays the best #3. The overall #1 only has to play one of them. This is the essence of the S-curve. Just like the best #2 plays the worst #3.
By the same token, the #8 seeds play the #9 seeds in the first round, not the #16 seeds.
Last edited:
UConn now ranked 5th in both NET & Massey, and 7th in both AP & Warren Nolan's ELO. ESPN's Michelle Voepel has UConn 7th & The Athletic's Chantelle Jennings 9th in their respective weekly rankings columns.
As I asserted in my initial 2/25 post within this thread (not the follow-up that still appears), I still think UConn ends up as the #2 seed in Wichita when the dust settles after conference tournament play.
Restating my argument: (1) The recent UConn bias allegation affecting media, recruiting, & national perception by a prominent WBB figure provided a spearhead for this notion that has gained traction apparent in follow-up such discussion, including on the #1 ranked team coach's podcast; (2) institutions like ESPN & the NCAA Committee are hyper-sensitive to such allegations & do not want to seem hamstrung by them, so my anticipation is that they are/will go out of their way to appear the opposite; (3) given player caliber/extent of UConn injuries & effect on its record, this is the year to have this UConn bias pendulum swing the other way to "disprove"; and (4) the most effective way of doing so is to remove UConn from the Bridgeport quadrant while still allowing the highest probability of having the 3 best teams on paper get to the Final Four (SC, Stanford, UConn). Since NC State has edged Louisville H2H & sits atop the ACC with a better overall record, I expect them to be the #1 seed in Bridgeport, sending Louisville to #1 in Wichita & a potential Elite 8 perennial titans season rematch.
Finally, three notable points in discussing anticipated Tournament draw:
1. ESPN owns & operates both the SEC & ACC Networks, so they have a vested interest in promoting both conferences. This may or may not influence Charlie Creme in putting 9 SEC teams & 8 ACC teams in his field. I personally think he is incrementally over-stating both at the expense of quality bubble teams in lesser conferences, e.g. Villanova;
2. Creme has not appeared to factor in Paige Bueckers absence nor return in his #3 UConn seeding in South Carolina's bracket. Yes, all teams have injuries, but this is the reigning NPOY & Top 5 player in ANY reasonable assessment. And UConn has suffered a litany of injuries on top of Paige, which has played into 4 of their losses. His oversight seems irresponsible, particularly given Committee seeding criteria clearly outlined within this thread;
3. Nolan's ELO rates UConn's old conference, the American AC, as better than the Big East, which seems counterintuitive & does not help the Huskies SOS optics. They are already fighting an uphill battle in this regard vis-a-vis elite Power 5 programs.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2019
- Messages
- 1,254
- Reaction Score
- 3,978
But what Charlie is doing is putting on paper what is happening NOW. He can't just put UConn on the 1 line because he thinks they are a top 4 team. I agree I think they can be a top 4 team but Paige hasn't played more than 13 minutes in a game in months and the teams they are beating won't even get chosen for the WNIT. I think they end up on the 2 line in the end but you have to be patient and let them earn their way back up.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2017
- Messages
- 1,902
- Reaction Score
- 14,820
got it, it changes based on who wins
TC22-- As stated above & supported empirically, my contention is that UConn should presently be a Top-8 ranked team & therefore a #2 seed in any reasonable Bracket projection.
My assertion was devoid of any #1 seed claim & also included moving UConn out of their comfortable, proximal Bridgeport quadrant.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2021
- Messages
- 1,676
- Reaction Score
- 7,800
Louisville was ahead after 1 period 31-3 against Notre Dame, in South Bend. That game was over before halftime. Talk about getting crunched!
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2021
- Messages
- 1,263
- Reaction Score
- 5,172
It would be laughable if he puts “UConn on the 1 line because he thinks they are a top 4 team”. Everyone knows that’s not true, and everyone knows who the top 4 teams are. Those teams records say they each get positioned on the top line, while UCONN’s record indicates a tilt off the mountain top this year.
Massey, who is the most accurate analyst in my view, also has the American ahead of the Big East. The Big East is dragged down badly by three teams worse than any in the American. (It's probably a mercy that Connecticut did not reschedule their postponed game against Butler; the way they are playing now they might have won by 70 or 80.)
From today's Braketology...
"... Iowa moved into the top 16, which now includes four teams from the Big Ten and four from the Big 12. That makes bracketing a challenge and is the main reason UConn was once again placed outside the geographically friendly Bridgeport Regional. The Huskies' best chance to be placed there is to improve their seed. UConn was No. 9 overall on the committee's list Monday after being No. 11 in the reveal two weeks ago. With Paige Bueckers back, the Huskies are big favorites in the Big East tournament. Don't be surprised if UConn is a No. 2 seed and in the Bridgeport Regional after Championship Week."
We may have keep out foot on the gas this weekend and run up the score as much as possible
"... Iowa moved into the top 16, which now includes four teams from the Big Ten and four from the Big 12. That makes bracketing a challenge and is the main reason UConn was once again placed outside the geographically friendly Bridgeport Regional. The Huskies' best chance to be placed there is to improve their seed. UConn was No. 9 overall on the committee's list Monday after being No. 11 in the reveal two weeks ago. With Paige Bueckers back, the Huskies are big favorites in the Big East tournament. Don't be surprised if UConn is a No. 2 seed and in the Bridgeport Regional after Championship Week."
We may have keep out foot on the gas this weekend and run up the score as much as possible
Agree-
Why would you have the only two fan bases that travel by the thousands, in the same region?
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2016
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction Score
- 16,637
Click bait by Creme (and based on the number of comments, appears to be working).
- Status