The real " Controversy" last night

[my2cents]

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.

 

[rollskies]

Still makes no sense to me. I don’t know how that happened. I think Baylor and UConn were the two best teams left in the field and it ended up being an elite 8 game.

The fact that the two elite 8 games were Baylor v UConn and Indiana v Arizona it just laughable, in my opinion. Maybe due to lack of non-conference games, but for some reason I think both the men’s and women’s tournaments were seeded strangely this year

 

[stamfordhusky]

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.

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

 

[tjhusky]

Still makes no sense to me. I don’t know how that happened. I think Baylor and UConn were the two best teams left in the field and it ended up being an elite 8 game.

The fact that the two elite 8 games were Baylor v UConn and Indiana v Arizona it just laughable, in my opinion. Maybe due to lack of non-conference games, but for some reason I think both the men’s and women’s tournaments were seeded strangely this year

Not that the next games will be easy, but that was your National Championship game right there.

 

[rollskies]

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

Yeah I definitely don’t think it was a conspiracy I just think it was poorly seeded. I am assuming the committee must have put a lot of weight on the Iowa State loss

 

[Gurleyman]

The Big 12 didn’t have a great non-conference resume, so Baylor didn’t have any great wins. If you did it now, Texas would be a lot higher because of their recent wins, so Baylor’s resume would be better since they swept them. But going in, WV and Iowa State were the best wins they had (and ISU was a split), and they lost to Arkansas. We did too, but made up for it with UT and SC, whereas it would be difficult to put Baylor above A&M since Baylor lost to the 7th place team in the SEC and A&M was 15-1 in league.

The teams above Baylor that underplayed their seeds were NC State (had an injury as an excuse for the tourney loss) and A&M (looked shaky the whole tourney, but had a great resume, so hard to fault the committee there). Maryland lost but nobody was questioning that one - and they throttled Arkansas so if you were splitting hairs with resumes (both rolled through their leagues with one hiccup), the common opponent factor would give the Terps a tiny bump.

 

[FanFromMaine]

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.

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???

 

[hoopsfan22]

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.

 

[Golden Husky]

The NCAA can't even spell NCAA, let alone hatch such a devious plan. Incompetence more than malevolence, I think.

 

[npignatjr]

The Big 12 didn’t have a great non-conference resume, so Baylor didn’t have any great wins. If you did it now, Texas would be a lot higher because of their recent wins, so Baylor’s resume would be better since they swept them. But going in, WV and Iowa State were the best wins they had (and ISU was a split), and they lost to Arkansas. We did too, but made up for it with UT and SC, whereas it would be difficult to put Baylor above A&M since Baylor lost to the 7th place team in the SEC and A&M was 15-1 in league.

The teams above Baylor that underplayed their seeds were NC State (had an injury as an excuse for the tourney loss) and A&M (looked shaky the whole tourney, but had a great resume, so hard to fault the committee there). Maryland lost but nobody was questioning that one - and they throttled Arkansas so if you were splitting hairs with resumes (both rolled through their leagues with one hiccup), the common opponent factor would give the Terps a tiny bump.

The problem with that is the love given to the Pac12. No OOC games, last NC 29 years ago. Baylor defending champs, with many players back from that team.

 

[DEpup]

I do agree. The real controversy was Baylor as #7. They should have been #4 or #5. And that is just because of their covid stuff. In a regular year with them playing a full schedule with no covid shutdown, they probably would have been the #2 or #3 overall seed.

I feel like the bball hacks are baiting and switching us. They'd rather talk about the refs and that call than their screw up in the seeding.

 

[Gurleyman]

The problem with that is the love given to the Pac12. No OOC games, last NC 29 years ago. Baylor defending champs, with many players back from that team.

Fair point. The one puzzling part of the computer rankings was how Oregon got so much love. That gave the other 3 in the PAC (UCLA, Stanford, Arizona) two quality wins each.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

Yeah I definitely don’t think it was a conspiracy I just think it was poorly seeded. I am assuming the committee must have put a lot of weight on the Iowa State loss

It's not as if the NCAA has exercised fairness when determining which transfers have to wait out a year, and which can zip right into the starting lineups. The NCAA does not enjoy a reputation for either decency or fairness.

And as we consider whether the NCAA was fair and objective in their seedings, doesn't it look funny that they figured out how to create the opportunity for Paige And Caitlin Clark to face each other? Was that just a random occurrence?

Doubt it.

 

[hoopsfan22]

It's not as if the NCAA has exercised fairness when determining which transfers have to wait out a year, and which can zip right into the starting lineups. The NCAA does not enjoy a reputation for either decency or fairness.

And as we consider whether the NCAA was fair and objective in their seedings, doesn't it look funny that they figured out how to create the opportunity for Paige And Caitlin Clark to face each other? Was that just a random occurrence?

Doubt it.

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.

 

[BostonCanuck]

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.

 

[JoePgh]

What is being overlooked is the significance of the scheduled Baylor - UConn game in January that was not played due to COVID (Kim Mulkey's positive test). If that game had been played, it would have benefitted both teams, regardless of who won.

If UConn had won, it would have rather clearly been the overall #1 seed, since that would have added another Top 10 victory to its resume. If it were the overall #1 seed, it would have played Louisville rather than Baylor in the Elite 8. With the loss to a Top 5 team (assuming it was not a blowout), Baylor would have enhanced its SoS. It would still have been a #2 seed, but probably #5 or #6 overall.

If Baylor had won, it would surely have become a #1 seed, probably #2 overall behind Stanford. UConn would probably still have been a #1 seed (#3 or #4 overall), again assuming that the loss was not a blowout. In this case also, a Baylor - UConn Elite 8 match would have been avoided.

So both teams can blame the virus for the fact that this match occurred in the Elite 8 rather than in the Final Four.

 

[victor64]

Baylor went into last nights' game with a 20 game winning streak without being seriously challenged. I would think the NCAA would have a least a few brain cells to realize that having UConn on TV is a guaranteed bump in ratings. What are the odds of them playing the late game Friday? My guess is really good.

 

[BostonCanuck]

Baylor went into last nights' game with a 20 game winning streak without being seriously challenged. I would think the NCAA would have a least a few brain cells to realize that having UConn on TV is a guaranteed bump in ratings. What are the odds of them playing the late game Friday? My guess is really good.

Yep, UConn always gets the late game in the national semi-final, even in years when they are the overall #1 seed and clearly should have played first.

 

[jaydee602]

Whether it was conspiracy or just an oversight, the selection committee deserves more scrutiny & accountability. Their 1st reveal was different than any of the pollls. The committtee chairlady was on ESPN's selection show, but the clueless panel asked softball questions & congratulated her on a "fine job". Charlie Creme asked her about placing the #1 & #2 seeds, but he got some double talk rhetoric from her.

 

[sno-cat]

UConn lost Niki before the Baylor game and Baylor lost DiDi during the game. The ref's let the teams play for the most part which was good (IMO); but "missed" some calls against both Baylor and UConn (after all they are human). Why all the "Controversy" unless you really wanted UConn to lose. I'm happy UConn won and sorry Baylor lost; but now is the time for all good UConn fans to help UConn win just two more games. I can then relax during the summer and watch the Boneyard experts self destruct arguing over which of the current starters should be benched in favor of certain members of the incoming and existing classes. It should be a fun summer!!!

 

[Rb335]

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.

 

[jabstep]

The Baylor conspiracy seeding is a mystery for us Boneyarders to solve. There have been lots of reasons put forth here. Including the NCAA not wanting Geno to get continuous final 4 appearances. The question is will we solve it before the next game. I might start a thread for all to give their final answer. We can email Debbie Antonelli for her answer.

 

[jdubct]

Whatever the committee's reason(s) for the Baylor ranking, call it rank stupidity. The committee ought to be ashamed.

 

[UcMiami]

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.

 

[jaydee602]

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.

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?