The Selection Committee did a great job

[Glenn]

• Top 2 seeds won quite easily, by 25 or more points. Let’s not focus on 1 versus 2, as it really does not matter, except for the #2 that has to face SC.
• The 3 and 4 lines also did well (even if tOSU was down double digits in the second quarter). ND looked legit, even without Miles.
• The 5 seeds did worse than expected, with 2 losing (Washington State and Iowa State) and Louisville winning only by 2. Only Oklahoma did well—supporting the argument that they should have been considered for a hosting 4 seed. Historically, 5 seeds have won 80%. It looks like Washington State was overseeded, perhaps because of too much weight on their PAC-12 Tournament performance, they were lower in the “metrics.” ISU also went out early, but they were a legitimate 5 seed, according to the metrics.
• 6 seeds: 3 out of 4 won and historically the record is 68%. So the normal amount of upsets. Creighton lost by a lot, but in terms of the metrics (NET ratings and Massey), they were properly seeded.
• Of the 7 seeds, two lost: NC State and Florida St. Both had key injured players, whose injury status was not known in advance. And typically only 65% of the 7 seeds advance, so good job committee.
• Half of the 8 seeds lost, as is usual.
• The P-5 do not appear to be over-represented, except perhaps the B10. The SEC has advanced 6 out of 7; the ACC has 5 out of 8 (with injuries hurting them), P12 has 5 out of 7. The B10 has 5 out of 8.

 

[HuskyNan]

Except for the whole FGCU screwup.

 

[Glenn]

Except for the whole FGCU screwup.

I agree, FGCU should probably have been a 9 seed, rather than a 12. That said, FGCU only had one victory over a top 100 team--Kenntucky at home, and they had losses to Stanford and Duke by more than 20 points. So their body of work makes it hardr to to rnak them. You would have had to put a lot of weight on the fact that they beat "bad" teams by a lot--which is what the computers do to put them around a 9 seed. At the end of the day, the "double srewup" put them in a better place. Beating a weak WSu, and facing a 4 seed (Villanova), is better than beating an 8 seed and facing a 1 seed now.

 

[HuskyNan]

I agree, FGCU should probably have been a 9 seed, rather than a 12. That said, FGCU only had one victory over a top 100 team--Kenntucky at home, and they had losses to Stanford and Duke by more than 20 points. So their body of work makes it hardr to to rnak them. You would have had to put a lot of weight on the fact that they beat "bad" teams by a lot--which is what the computers do to put them around a 9 seed. At the end of the day, the "double srewup" put them in a better place. Beating a weak WSu, and facing a 4 seed (Villanova), is better than beating an 8 seed and facing a 1 seed now.

They’re 33-3 with a win over Washington State (NET 30) and Kentucky (NET 81) and losses to Liberty (early), Duke, and Stanford. Their NET is 36 but playing in a weak league hurt them

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

 

[Glenn]

They’re 33-3 with a win over Washington State (NET 30) and Kentucky (NET 81) and losses to Liberty (early), Duke, and Stanford. Their NET is 36 but playing in a weak league hurt them

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

I think we are in agreement--Of course, the win over WSU was not known at the time of seeding--so i did not include it

 

[FridaFriend]

I think 6 of 8 ACC advanced

 

[BRS24]

I think 6 of 8 ACC advanced

After first round games:
ACC - 6/8
Pac12 - 5/7
SEC - 6/7
Big10 - 5/7
Big 12 - 3/6

 

[Rowdy831]

Every year a mediocre team or two from each of the P5 conference gets in and then loses in the first round. It would be nice to see the Mid Majors with the better records get a shot to play. Sure the result would be the same but at least a team would be rewarded for having a great season, not for being weak in a good conference.

As far as the upsets go I think the teams that have pulled those upsets were seeded too low. I did get Creighton wrong but the others I was on. I also think the game between Michigan and LSU should have been a next weekend match up. LSU didn't get a good seeding and then they ended up playing the best 6 seed in the tournament. The committee got the top correct but really they only won a first round game so far.

 

[DEpup]

I thought the title of this thread was sarcastic.. Obviously the committe got the 5 seeds really messed up. I think they still have a hard time evaluating perennial midmajor teams like Florida Gulf Coast. How many more years are they going to saddle them with the traditional 12 seed?