The real " Controversy" last night

[mudcat]

I agree that Baylor was misplaced but it appears to me to be in error, not purposefully. Somehow Baylor did not get its due respect this year. Look at the refs for this game; not the names you expect for a 1 versus 3 battle.

In 2013, when Norte Dame met UConn in the semis, Doris Burke noted that the NCAA put their best crew on that game even though that meant none of those refs could appear in the final. Last night could have been perceived as a similar situation but no big name refs were assigned.

So, the NCAA seems to me to be in error by saying a UConn-Stanford or UConn-SC game is more important to this tourney. One can certainly say okay to Stanford but SC is significantly lower rated by Massey and Sonny Moore. And ESPN has been touting Baylor in their BPI ratings.

What happened NCAA???

I actually liked these refs: they let the players play. I thought they ignored a lot of pushing and shoving and minor fouls, but they did that to both teams. I thought it allowed the game to flow smoothly.

 

[triaddukefan]

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

You got me thinking.... Let me seed the 2022 Greensboro Region 1) NC State 2) High Point 3) Western Carolina 4) South Carolina

no biases here.

 

[mudcat]

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.

I get the method, but WITW makes you think that is objective???

 

[HuskyBaggins]

I totally disagree. No chance at all of some great conspiracy.

No, you're right. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. The NCAA has long since proven that they ARE incompetent.

 

[HuskyBaggins]

Kim's point in the post-game presser last night is well taken, that in an incomplete season like this where games that normally would have been played were not, the committee should have also used the eye test as part of the seeding criteria, rather than just going with the numbers from the abbreviated data set that they had. Do that as a reasonableness check on the results. It seems obvious enough, as anyone who actually saw the way Baylor was playing late in the season would realize that them being seeding seventh was indeed pretty ridiculous.

This also suggests that the NCAA should consider using reputable data rather than crap, which is what they DO use. RPI is and always has been junk. Massey had Baylor #3 overall and, yeah, they looked like it last night. There is literally nothing the NCAA can touch that they aren't likely to ruin in some way.

 

[bbfanLA]

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.

To piggyback on your comment, they’ve been doing articles like that for years on the men’s side. If women’s basketball fans want it to get as much publicity as the men’s, then they can’t complain when it does.

 

[HuskyBaggins]

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

Actually, yes. It doesn't work like that - NC St beat Louisville, therefore they're better. State also lost to UNC and VT. Louisville only lost to FSU other than State. Not sure how that supports one or the other being better, or maybe, it doesn't say anything. Not to mention NC St beat South Carolina nearly 4 months ago. The UConn men beat USC about the same time and they were bounced in round 1 and USC is about to play for a chance to go to the Final Four.

 

[HuskyBaggins]

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.

Anyone that claims polling is of any value at all should be completely ignored. "Voting" is not how you determine which team is better.

 

[jaydee602]

To piggyback on your comment, they’ve been doing articles like that for years on the men’s side. If women’s basketball fans want it to get as much publicity as the men’s, then they can’t complain when it does.

So true! For the men, ESPN has a panel of "experts" who scrutinize every pick & then grill the Men's selection chairman about why teams were snubbed. The Women's selection show is all fluff with little analysis of the brackets & a short softball interview with the selection chairwoman. ESPN preaches gender equality, but they shortchange the women every time.

 

[my2cents]

I get the method, but WITW makes you think that is objective???

because they assign you points based upon where you finish in a tournament