The real " Controversy" last night

[UcMiami]

Oh yeah - and everyone saying you should have used the 'eye test' to reward Baylor and MD in the seeding! Seems to me those using the 'eye test' were already salivating about that Stanford vs MD semifinal contest since MD was clearly unstoppable prior to the FF. Stanford has a little work to do yet to reach that game, but they aren't likely to see MD even with 20/20 on their eye tests!

And the 'eye test' on TX prior to the tournament ... Well it's Vic's first year. I am sure they will be better next year when he starts getting 'his players', but really sort of disappointing, Baylor and WV just manhandled them.

 

[dogged1]

I don't see a conspiracy. I see a committee struggling with a lack of data and preconceived notions of conference strength.
NCSt definitely had a resume of big wins to rate a #1 seed.
SEC and Pac12 were presumed to be cutthroat leagues so league losses were presumed to be strong and league wins stronger.
B10 and Big12 were presumed to be one team leagues with a bunch of patsies. (And WV sort of proved them right.)
ACC lost some cache because ND was obviously a dog so how tough could the league be now? (MsSt was obviously a dog now in the SEC but ...?)

In a year with lots of canceled big OOC games it just was really hard on everyone, and every computer program to make sense. And every win and loss in the tournament is open to misinterpretation as well as giving some completely new and unexpected data.

AZ in the FF is a great vindication of the Pac12, until you look at who they had to play to get there - #14 Stony Brook, #11 BYU (where they struggled), TA&M that barely survived against a #15 and a #7 IowaSt, and #4 Indiana - not exactly a murderers row. Great for them but their route was greased!

B10 was disrespected and MD was deserving of a #1 or at least the top of the #2 line - except there are no B10 teams in the FF this year and MD laid an egg in the S16.

SEC - TA&M was given a #1 seed by lots of people and top of the 2 seeds was not controversial until they started playing in the tournament. I didn't hear any cries about the SEC having 5 teams seeded to play in the S16 but only 2 made it and only 1 made the elite 8 when they were seeded for 2.

The Big12 - they exited as expected except WV left early and their 5th ranked conference team suddenly woke up and pulled two big upsets against a P12 and a B10 tea

There you go again, ruining a thoroughly entertaining conspiracy theory with reason and common sense. It was just so fun while it lasted, now just wrecked my day.
Some people!!!

 

[triaddukefan]

I think the true seeding should have been...

1. Stanford/ 8. Texas AM
2. Uconn/ 7. NC State
3. Baylor / 6. Louisville
4. South Carolina / 5. Maryland

But hindsight is always 20/20. The biggest blunder was having Texas AM and NC State in the same bracket. The upsets are allowing a lower ranked team to occupy a final four spot. Upsets are fun and good for the game, unless you prefer to see the true top 4 teams battling out the final four.

I don't think it was ever a conspiracy theory against Uconn. I just believe that the out of conference mishaps caused the media/committee to over value the SEC/ACC.

State seeded below a Louisville team that they beat twice? And below a south Carolina team they beat in Columbia? On what planet does that sound reasonable? Good gosh

 

[Cornell Lt]

As it turns out the bracket was just what UConn needed. They experienced a blow out with an injury thrown in there, a supposedly tough matchup with Syracuse (which it wasn't ), a "once in as lifetime matchup" between Paige and Caitlin with all kinds of media attention and then finally a matchup with an experienced and physical Baylor team. The Huskies are better prepared moving forward because of the bracket being seeded the way it was.

 

[jaydee602]

There you go again, ruining a thoroughly entertaining conspiracy theory with reason and common sense. It was just so fun while it lasted, now just wrecked my day.
Some people!!!

LOL..common sense is overrated! Actually, there was another conspiracy: The selection chairwoman is an athletic director at Duke. She seeded NC State as a #1 in support of the ACC, throwing off the rest of the top seedings. No evidence to verify that, but like you said, EVERYONE loves a conspiracy. ?

 

[jaydee602]

State seeded below a Louisville team that they beat twice? And below a south Carolina team they beat in Columbia? On what planet does that sound reasonable? Good gosh

You can easily flip flop NC State & Louisville or even move them to a 4 or 5. The main argument was Baylor's seeding. If UCONN was matched up against Louisville or Texas A&M, there is very little debate about the the seedings.

 

[Rb335]

State seeded below a Louisville team that they beat twice? And below a south Carolina team they beat in Columbia? On what planet does that sound reasonable? Good gosh

In hindsight, I was wrong and should have flipped NC State and Louisville. Was a little too heavy on the tournament results in my quick reseeding.

 

[Aluminny69]

Iowa had a 25% chance of being in our region. It's not like there was a 1 in 100 chance. They had to be placed somewhere. I had no idea people were so salty about how the brackets get drawn up. I usually just look at it and go OK this is the most likely path and assume all regions have their landmine games.

I would say 50%, since they are not going to be put in Maryland's bracket either.

 

[JordyG]

We all said this was a year in which there were 6 or 7 teams that had a legitimate shot at winning it. Assume they're all equals and someone has to be seeded 7th. It could have been A&M. Or Louisville. Or Maryland. There's no conspiracy here and hindsight is 20/20 when looking back at who has exited the tournament early and blaming the committee for getting it wrong.

Oh just stop it. You're making way too much sense.

 

[veryolddog]

Let's face it. The committee did not want UConn to advance to the final four. They were hoping that Baylor would demolish UConn and go on to make the Final Four more attractive without UConn and probably win the National Championship.

 

[Zanzman]

Well which is without UConn or more attractive can’t be both

 

[cohenzone]

Was Baylor seeded wrong. Seems so. Was last night the NC game. Nah. That is next weekend and if we get into the game and play Stanford, i wouidn’t say they are not better tan Baylor. .

 

[my2cents]

In professional golf they rank every golfer with the OWGR, Official World Golf ranking...this is used as an objective measurement for entry and priorities for tournaments.
Why wouldn't the NCAA just use a combo of NET and AP rankings, weighted however you want, to have a completely OBJECTIVE way to seed this tournament, easy peasy.

 

[bballnut90]

I don't see a conspiracy. I see a committee struggling with a lack of data and preconceived notions of conference strength.
NCSt definitely had a resume of big wins to rate a #1 seed.
SEC and Pac12 were presumed to be cutthroat leagues so league losses were presumed to be strong and league wins stronger.
B10 and Big12 were presumed to be one team leagues with a bunch of patsies. (And WV sort of proved them right.)
ACC lost some cache because ND was obviously a dog so how tough could the league be now? (MsSt was obviously a dog now in the SEC but ...?)

In a year with lots of canceled big OOC games it just was really hard on everyone, and every computer program to make sense. And every win and loss in the tournament is open to misinterpretation as well as giving some completely new and unexpected data.

AZ in the FF is a great vindication of the Pac12, until you look at who they had to play to get there - #14 Stony Brook, #11 BYU (where they struggled), TA&M that barely survived against a #15 and a #7 IowaSt, and #4 Indiana - not exactly a murderers row. Great for them but their route was greased!

B10 was disrespected and MD was deserving of a #1 or at least the top of the #2 line - except there are no B10 teams in the FF this year and MD laid an egg in the S16.

SEC - TA&M was given a #1 seed by lots of people and top of the 2 seeds was not controversial until they started playing in the tournament. I didn't hear any cries about the SEC having 5 teams seeded to play in the S16 but only 2 made it and only 1 made the elite 8 when they were seeded for 2.

The Big12 - they exited as expected except WV left early and their 5th ranked conference team suddenly woke up and pulled two big upsets against a P12 and a B10 team.

Bingo! Hindsight is 20/20 but no one at the time was even considering Baylor for a #1 seed. This season has been hard to critique since we've had very few marquee OOC matchups pre-NCAAs. On paper Texas A&M, Maryland and NC State all had much stronger resumes and the SEC looked a lot better than they performed in the tournament. UCONN played 3 games vs. SEC foes and all 3 were hotly contested and down to the final minute. Arkansas beat Baylor, and both Kentucky/Tennessee beat Indiana. At the time, winning the SEC appeared to be a big deal, and Texas A&M had many strong wins and just 2 losses. Given the limited criteria we were given this season, they deserved their high seeding. Same with NC State who had just 1 loss with Cunane in the lineup, and 3 wins vs. Louisville and South Carolina.

Baylor's only wins over top 25 teams all year were 3 over West Virginia. The Texas wins weren't recognized as strong since they didn't do a whole lot in the regular season. Given the limited season we had, I think all 6 teams ahead of Baylor deserved to be ahead of the Bears and the UCONN/Baylor regional made sense. Obviously we learned otherwise in the tournament as A&M, NC State, and Maryland all went out early but the committee got it right, and it wasn't some grand conspiracy despite it being a fun idea.

 

[lenbo]

I guess in the end it’s a matter of style or cachet, who gets to say they were a Final Four team. I guess that is meaningful to a coach’s resume or a college’s lore. Or our need to have the perfect ending to a story. Sometimes the best part of a book is in the middle chapters. But in the end, every 64-team tournament has one team finish 6-0, and by the transitive property has beaten somebody who has beaten somebody and so on, down to every other team in the tournament. Maybe a team gets lucky or unlucky with tougher matchups based on individuals or systems, but to be champion must overcome tougher matchups. Remarkably, 11 times a UConn team has gone 6-0, each time by the transitive property better in the tournament than the other 63 teams. Math. College. Power of two. Superstar.

 

[SECbbfan24]

A&Ms resume ended up being fools good considering how bad the SEC really is

 

[UcMiami]

In professional golf they rank every golfer with the OWGR, Official World Golf ranking...this is used as an objective measurement for entry and priorities for tournaments.
Why wouldn't the NCAA just use a combo of NET and AP rankings, weighted however you want, to have a completely OBJECTIVE way to seed this tournament, easy peasy.

In golf there are almost no 'match play' tournaments left so it is pretty easy to rank golfers as they all play a one on one game against the same golf courses everyone else is playing on - and the golf courses are 'ranked' as well against each other, based on 'par' and how the field plays against that 'par'. Golf courses do not change their defense for every opponent, and don't have off days.

Team sports are played with a varying cast of teammates against teams that play a varying cast of players and match ups matter and they can defend against shots - ever see a golfer block a putt in the modern game? Comparison is not a good one.

 

[KMac]

Both coaches mentioned it in their post game conferences. How did Baylor end up being a 7th seed and in Uconns bracket?
The NCAA Women's committee had two pre-tournament reveals where Uconn was listed as the overall #1 seed. The head of the Committee stated that unless something drastic happens to a team ( like losing a first round loss in a conf. tournament.) The list is solid.
Uconn blew through their tournament, so as stated, they should not have dropped from #1.
The NCAA also switched from using RPI, to use NET rankings. It's this ranking where Stanford was #1 and Uconn was #2. (AP had us number 1).
Here's where it gets interesting, Baylor was #3 in NET, and #5 in AP. How did they end up as a #7????
I believe it was a deliberate effort to prevent GA and Uconn from reaching 13 straight FF's. The committee knew nobody would buy Baylor as #8, playing a #1 Uconn in the same bracket, so they switched Uconn and Stanford's places. They didn't want Baylor as a #1 seed which would mean Uconn could only play them in the FF.
Its been pretty obvious that SC, TAMU, NC state, were all wrongly seeded to keep Uconn and Baylor from meeting in the Final Four.
Rumor has it that next year, all ALL #1 seeds will be placed in Uconn's bracket.

now that last statement was funny!!!

 

[my2cents]

In golf there are almost no 'match play' tournaments left so it is pretty easy to rank golfers as they all play a one on one game against the same golf courses everyone else is playing on - and the golf courses are 'ranked' as well against each other, based on 'par' and how the field plays against that 'par'. Golf courses do not change their defense for every opponent, and don't have off days.

Team sports are played with a varying cast of teammates against teams that play a varying cast of players and match ups matter and they can defend against shots - ever see a golfer block a putt in the modern game? Comparison is not a good one.

Huh? This last weekend they had a match play tournament where the seedings were based on their rankings. Points are accumulated based on results at tournaments, and based on the strength of the field.
Teams are ranked in the NET, and polls are based on votes by professionals who make their livings in WCBB. Its the subjective stuff that you bring up that makes no sense.

 

[BostonBay]

The committee was too focused on "analytics" & being transparent for teams not playing games & lost focus on the true goal of seeding. Sometimes, you need to bring in some face validity to what you're doing and ask yourself does this make sense! Ranking the defending national champs, who is stacked with talent, #7 was just idiotic on any level - I dont care what the analytics say.

 

[JoePgh]

Bear in mind that Baylor could easily have gone out of the tournament in the Sweet 16 against Michigan. That game could not possibly have been closer. If that had happened, the Boneyard might now be wondering how Baylor ever earned its #2 seed.

 

[Tonyc]

The Boneyard is THE WCBB Stage. Alot of fans come here and are welcome. Let the Boneyard make the seedings next year after all we know what we're doing better then anybody else and if there is a mistake nobody will be able to blame us because we all are part of the Boneyard. LOL only kidding

 

[fly2themoon]

Great analysis! This was close to Charlie Creme's reseeding & on the path to his bracketology BEFORE the committee's reveal. (He might have had SC 3rd & Baylor 4th). But why weren't the seedings questioned until UCONN met Baylor in the elite eight?

My thoughts exactly. BTW, what the heck is reseeding? Once a tournament seeding is set, there is no going back. It smells like a cover-up for predicting Uconn (#2 overall) and Baylor (#7 overall) in River Walk region and stating later that Baylor would win. Is it bias or incompetency, or both?

 

[Alydar]

In professional golf they rank every golfer with the OWGR, Official World Golf ranking...this is used as an objective measurement for entry and priorities for tournaments.
Why wouldn't the NCAA just use a combo of NET and AP rankings, weighted however you want, to have a completely OBJECTIVE way to seed this tournament, easy peasy.

Yeah, Why wouldn't the NCAA want 100% objective seeding?

 

[jaydee602]

My thoughts exactly. BTW, what the heck is reseeding? Once a tournament seeding is set, there is no going back. It smells like a cover-up for predicting Uconn (#2 overall) and Baylor (#7 overall) in River Walk region and stating later that Baylor would win. Is it bias or incompetency, or both?

I think Charlie Creme's "reseeding" was a jab at the selection committee without calling them out. His bracketology was close to the reseeding until the committee's first reveal was posted. Despite disagreeing with their seedings, he revised his brackets to match the committee.