Top 10 seeds announced (merged thread)

[CL82]

Who ever creates a 'Top Eight' list of anything?

I think the whole 'ten' thing came down from Mt. Sinai, didn't it?!

 

[trb123]

1. UConn
2. South Carolina
3. Notre Dame
4. Baylor
5. Texas
6. Ohio State
7. Arizona State
8. Oregon State
9. Maryland
10. UCLA

http://espn.go.com/womens-college-b...chedule-carries-ucla-bruins-ncaa-top-10-teams

 

[nd2tty]

Maryland has beaten nobody this year. At #9 that is a gift.

Yep: #9 in an early tournament seeding vote (where things like SOS, RPI, etc matter) and the 2nd-3rd best team in the country. Not mutually exclusive.

 

[JordyG]

Unless SC keeps the UConn game to 5-10 pts, Maryland is the third best team in the country (behind ND).

Not gonna happen.

 

[toadfoot]

Charlie Creme:
"That produces good SOS rankings, which enhances RPI, which continues to improve when teams get into conference play and start playing one another. It's brilliant scheduling that helps the math and gives the Pac-12 four teams in the RPI top 10."

This is precisely what I've been railing against for a few years now, only it's the SEC, Big 12 and others that have been doing the "brilliant scheduling", or as I like to call it "gaming the system". Sooner rather than later, someone responsible for the RPI needs to sit down and figure out why their RPI ratings don't mesh with reality and if they can't, they need to scrap it altogether.

 

[Nuyoika]

Something just occurred to me... if Maryland is #9 where on earth is Tennessee. This early release leaves me with more questions than answers.

 

[Frodo]

My biggest concern with this 'early seeding' is that once a team is selected into/out of the top ten are they more likely to remain in/out regardless of actual performance. It happens with the AP and coaches polls all the time.

 

[UcMiami]

My biggest concern with this 'early seeding' is that once a team is selected into/out of the top ten are they more likely to remain in/out regardless of actual performance. It happens with the AP and coaches polls all the time.

The interesting aspect of this is that I am sure the committee did not follow its 'outlined' procedure, and I suspect the 'committee' involved in this list was a very small cohort of the eventual full committee that will do the selection and final seeding. Most of the committee members are in the meat of their respective day job responsibilities and if consulted at all mailed in a quick list of their opinions.

So I would say no, this will not be similar to the polls as the process will be very different. And the really weighty questions in ranks 14-20 were left unaddressed, let alone the rankings of 58-70. Those 'who hosts and who just misses' and 'who makes the dance and who just misses' questions were rightfully left out of the conversation.