UCLA?

[visitingcock]

Seems like this board hardly mentions the number one team ( by human polls) in the nation. Of course, we have very few UCLANS who frequent the board.

It’s interesting that the human polls are nearly unanimous in voting UCLA as number one . (What’s up with last weeks two Notre Dame voters) while the computers like NET, Massey and RPI don’t. NET only ranks them 4!

While I generally prefer computers, I’m human enough to apply head-to-head where two teams are otherwise undefeated halfway through the season. They deserve the top spot over us,

I note that Massey has an estimated loss factor of 3.56 for UCLA. I’m not seeing it. They’ve got U$C twice and I’m seeing a split. Then maybe one other loss. Other opinions?

Can they run the table to the tournament? I think so but Maybe I’m just gun shy. They beat us soundly!

 

[ucbart]

UCLA beating USC 3x before the NCAAT is a very tall task. I think they, along with SC, will enter the NCAAT with 1 loss each.

 

[Puppy Love]

Corrected from earlier post where I grabbed the wrong screenshot from Massey.

I that there are a couple of reasons that UCLA doesn’t get the discussion that they deserve. The first is that people perceive Lauren Betts as fragile. She’s an undeniable force and when playing well makes UCLA pretty much unstoppable. The second thing that seems to show consistently on fan boards (and not just this one) is that Cori Close may not be able to coach in the big game situations well enough to deliver a championship. I don’t think either one of those things are concrete metrics that should keep UCLA from being ranked number one, but it changes the perception of fans. If I were voting on straight up facts, clearly UCLA is number one. If I were voting with a forward thinking “what are teams going to look like at the end of the year”, right now I think that Notre Dame is the team to beat.

Every computer model has bias built into it. Massey has bias towards recent winners. At the beginning of the year, it was far too far skewed to the teams that had won a lot last year and didn’t seem to reflect conference realignment and coaching changes.

Some of the strength of schedule ratings were way off at the beginning of the year and still seem to be suspect. Strength of schedule has to factor into rating because otherwise you reward teams far too much the play cupcakes. The problem with this is that as conference realignment has concentrated a lot of the best teams together (for example OU now being in the SEC), you get a modeling effect that starts introducing bias, simply based on the effect of good teams playing each other. it isn’t as simple as “who did you play“ it’s also who did the teams you played play. I think that when good teams are all bunched together, and they all have to play each other, it starts to cause bias. While I used to think that Massey ratings were really good, lately, I’ve been taking them with a grain of salt.

 

[Vowelguy]

Every computer model has bias built into it. Massey has bias towards recent winners. At the beginning of the year, it was far too far skewed to the teams that had won a lot last year and didn’t seem to reflect conference realignment and coaching changes.

Didn’t seem? Of course it didn’t.

How is a computer going to reflect a coaching change. And what does your conference have to do with expectations of how good you are?

A computer is not a genie. It can only process data. And the only data it has in October is last years results. So of course the numbers will be off at the start of the year. And strength of schedule is just a type of average of those numbers so it will also be off early in the season.

Any computer ranking will get better as the season progresses and it gets more data.

 

[packwrap]

I would for sure not write off SC just for the 1 loss to UCLA.

As we often learn in 5 and 7 game series, it was just the result of 1 game.

I do agree UCLA should be ranked #1 right now though.

The UCLA front quiet now as their Big10 schedule is back loaded. My guess is 2 losses for them. Once to USC and one surprise, away in conference.

I still think final 4 will come from the mag7, SC, ND, UConn, LSU, TX, UCLA and USC.

The TX beatdown does not eliminate them either. They will now have drive and focus for that rematch and Booker shooting 3 for 19 unlikely to repeat.

 

[Geew1992]

I would for sure not write off SC just for the 1 loss to UCLA.

As we often learn in 5 and 7 game series, it was just the result of 1 game.

I do agree UCLA should be ranked #1 right now though.

The UCLA front quiet now as their Big10 schedule is back loaded. My guess is 2 losses for them. Once to USC and one surprise, away in conference.

I still think final 4 will come from the mag7, SC, ND, UConn, LSU, TX, UCLA and USC.

The TX beatdown does not eliminate them either. They will now have drive and focus for that rematch and Booker shooting 3 for 19 unlikely to repeat.

In both losses Texas shot miserably. So yes, a repeat may happen

 

[WBBTakeover]

The UCLA front quiet now as their Big10 schedule is back loaded. My guess is 2 losses for them. Once to USC and one surprise, away in conference.

This bears repeating. They haven't really been tested since the South Carolina game, so late January/early February will tell us a lot about them. I am expecting at least two losses in-conference (at least one to Southern Cal and at least one to Ohio State or Maryland). I also don't expect them to go undefeated in the NCAA Tournament.

That said, they are very good--worth watching for sure.

 

[visitingcock]

This bears repeating. They haven't really been tested since the South Carolina game, so late January/early February will tell us a lot about them. I am expecting at least two losses in-conference (at least one to Southern Cal and at least one to Ohio State or Maryland). I also don't expect them to go undefeated in the NCAA Tournament.

That said, they are very good--worth watching for sure.

Speaking of not being tested: Ohio’s State has played only one quad one opponent all year. One!

UCLA has played four. Even Kim has played three.

TOSU’s schedule is ranked 110. They might be really goood, but who knows?

 

[Darwin]

Corrected from earlier post where I grabbed the wrong screenshot from Massey.

I that there are a couple of reasons that UCLA doesn’t get the discussion that they deserve. The first is that people perceive Lauren Betts as fragile. She’s an undeniable force and when playing well makes UCLA pretty much unstoppable. The second thing that seems to show consistently on fan boards (and not just this one) is that Cori Close may not be able to coach in the big game situations well enough to deliver a championship. I don’t think either one of those things are concrete metrics that should keep UCLA from being ranked number one, but it changes the perception of fans. If I were voting on straight up facts, clearly UCLA is number one. If I were voting with a forward thinking “what are teams going to look like at the end of the year”, right now I think that Notre Dame is the team to beat.

Every computer model has bias built into it. Massey has bias towards recent winners. At the beginning of the year, it was far too far skewed to the teams that had won a lot last year and didn’t seem to reflect conference realignment and coaching changes.

Some of the strength of schedule ratings were way off at the beginning of the year and still seem to be suspect. Strength of schedule has to factor into rating because otherwise you reward teams far too much the play cupcakes. The problem with this is that as conference realignment has concentrated a lot of the best teams together (for example OU now being in the SEC), you get a modeling effect that starts introducing bias, simply based on the effect of good teams playing each other. it isn’t as simple as “who did you play“ it’s also who did the teams you played play. I think that when good teams are all bunched together, and they all have to play each other, it starts to cause bias. While I used to think that Massey ratings were really good, lately, I’ve been taking them with a grain of salt.
View attachment 106222

I agree. These Massey rankings are actually horrible when you consider the ranking of several suspect programs to date. For instance, Iowa doesn’t belong in the top 20, everyone knows that already. Duke and NCSU are over rated here as well. Similar for several others.

Massey Ratings - College Basketball Women's Ratings

Computer ratings and rankings for CBW (College Basketball Women's), with links to team predictions, scores, and schedules.

masseyratings.com

 

[BruinGold]

As one of the few (but not only) UCLANs on the board, I mostly keep my mouth shut. Things I notice:
1. It's basically an article of faith that Cori Close can't coach. Like, at all.
2. Lauren Betts gets very little love.
3. Kiki Rice is perceived as overrated.

I don't think that Cori Close is a chessmaster in in-game adjustments, or even in drawing up plays, but UCLA's excellent defense has survived several lineups over the years, and the coaching staff appears to have avoided much in the way of player drama. It's hard to recruit when the players hate the coaches. So, I'm pretty happy with her as the coach.

Lauren Betts is very, very good as a post player. She will always be a post, not a power forward playing close to the basket, or a "big girl with skills". She's a CENTER. Offensively and defensively, she is killing it. You would definitely want her on your team.

Kiki Rice should not have been the #2 ranked player in her class. Granted. She has a crazy skillset that allows her to do great things. She has a very nice highlight reel. She also seems to play more in her head and try to think things through than just going at the basket. She CAN destroy your team in numerous ways... she just probably won't. Don't get her mad, though.

I get it, though. It's not your team. They haven't proven anything. I can, personally, see the flaws. I hope your team gets a chance to prove that my team is overrated. Have fun with that.

Also, unless someone else transfers or goes pro, we only lose one starter off this team at the end of the year... at our deepest position.

 

[Monte]

As we all know. frequent and unexpected injuries take a big toll on rankings as the season goes on.

As of right now, UCLA is #1.

 

[jake0414]

I agree. These Massey rankings are actually horrible when you consider the ranking of several suspect programs to date. For instance, Iowa doesn’t belong in the top 20, everyone knows that already. Duke and NCSU are over rated here as well. Similar for several others.

Massey Ratings - College Basketball Women's Ratings

Computer ratings and rankings for CBW (College Basketball Women's), with links to team predictions, scores, and schedules.

masseyratings.com

The snapshot of the Massey Rankings in the post above is listed by strength of schedule to date in ascending order. The next column SSF lists the strength of schedule of future games.

I‘ve looked at Massey’s predicted results for UCLA’s future games from which the predicted wins/losses get calculated. Oddly the win probability of the game at Iowa (52%) and the predicted score (72-71 UCLA) hasn’t moved for weeks even as Iowa has lost several conference games recently. Similarly the prediction for the Minnesota game at UCLA hasn’t moved despite the Gopher’s winning and movement up the polls. I would expect that UCLA win probability would rise for Iowa game and decrease for the Minnesota game.

 

[Darwin]

The snapshot of the Massey Rankings in the post above is listed by strength of schedule to date in ascending order. The next column SSF lists the strength of schedule of future games.

I‘ve looked at Massey’s predicted results for UCLA’s future games from which the predicted wins/losses get calculated. Oddly the win probability of the game at Iowa (52%) and the predicted score (72-71 UCLA) hasn’t moved for weeks even as Iowa has lost several conference games recently. Similarly the prediction for the Minnesota game at UCLA hasn’t moved despite the Gopher’s winning and movement up the polls. I would expect that UCLA win probability would rise for Iowa game and decrease for the Minnesota game.

That is why I posted the version with the actual rankings, not SOS rankings. Btw, look again at the Minn SOS (109!) and there is no reason to move them up in any model matchup vs UCLA.

 

[Puppy Love]

Didn’t seem? Of course it didn’t.

How is a computer going to reflect a coaching change. And what does your conference have to do with expectations of how good you are?

A computer is not a genie. It can only process data. And the only data it has in October is last years results. So of course the numbers will be off at the start of the year. And strength of schedule is just a type of average of those numbers so it will also be off early in the season.

Any computer ranking will get better as the season progresses and it gets more data.

I spent an entire career in data analytics, much of it focused on model building. It’s pretty darn simple to account for something like a coaching change in a data model. All you have to do is assign data points attributed the coach. A simple yes/no field in the data – did the coach change - associated to weighted win/loss record will do it. That way, when someone like Kim Mulkey moves from Baylor to LSU, LSU gets immediate benefit in the model of having a coaching upgrade. If a team takes on a coach that has never coached before, they shouldn’t get credit/blame for 100% of last year’s results. It should also have data points for graduating seniors/transfers, and for the relative strength of an incoming freshman class.

I think for years, Masseys women’s model benefited from the relative stability of women’s basketball. Yes, seniors graduated and new freshmen came in, but generally the same schools were going to be power houses. Things changed a glacial pace. Since change has now accelerated, the model isn’t as good as it used to be and probably needs to be revised If it wants to be relevant.

 

[visitingcock]

Speaking of not being tested: Ohio’s State has played only one quad one opponent all year. One!

UCLA has played four. Even Kim has played three.

TOSU’s schedule is ranked 110. They might be really goood, but who knows?

As one of the few (but not only) UCLANs on the board, I mostly keep my mouth shut. Things I notice:
1. It's basically an article of faith that Cori Close can't coach. Like, at all.
2. Lauren Betts gets very little love.
3. Kiki Rice is perceived as overrated.

I don't think that Cori Close is a chessmaster in in-game adjustments, or even in drawing up plays, but UCLA's excellent defense has survived several lineups over the years, and the coaching staff appears to have avoided much in the way of player drama. It's hard to recruit when the players hate the coaches. So, I'm pretty happy with her as the coach.

Lauren Betts is very, very good as a post player. She will always be a post, not a power forward playing close to the basket, or a "big girl with skills". She's a CENTER. Offensively and defensively, she is killing it. You would definitely want her on your team.

Kiki Rice should not have been the #2 ranked player in her class. Granted. She has a crazy skillset that allows her to do great things. She has a very nice highlight reel. She also seems to play more in her head and try to think things through than just going at the basket. She CAN destroy your team in numerous ways... she just probably won't. Don't get her mad, though.

I get it, though. It's not your team. They haven't proven anything. I can, personally, see the flaws. I hope your team gets a chance to prove that my team is overrated. Have fun with that.

Also, unless someone else transfers or goes pro, we only lose one starter off this team at the end of the year... at our deepest position.

Yes, Betts is a five (and we have never won it all without at least a 4/5). She the best in the game at this time.

I do have a question about Cori but it’s not about x and o’s etc. it’s only about experience in the Final Four. The leap in hype from the Elite 8 to the Final Four is astronomical. Keeping a team focused and ready to play their best is easier after you have been there before. I believe your team can get to the show this year. Can Cori take them to two wins beyond that point?

Good luck - but not too much.

 

[Darwin]

Quad 1 wins/games played to date is very interesting so far….

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

 

[SCGamecock]

As one of the few (but not only) UCLANs on the board, I mostly keep my mouth shut. Things I notice:
1. It's basically an article of faith that Cori Close can't coach. Like, at all.
2. Lauren Betts gets very little love.
3. Kiki Rice is perceived as overrated.

I don't think that Cori Close is a chessmaster in in-game adjustments, or even in drawing up plays, but UCLA's excellent defense has survived several lineups over the years, and the coaching staff appears to have avoided much in the way of player drama. It's hard to recruit when the players hate the coaches. So, I'm pretty happy with her as the coach.

Lauren Betts is very, very good as a post player. She will always be a post, not a power forward playing close to the basket, or a "big girl with skills". She's a CENTER. Offensively and defensively, she is killing it. You would definitely want her on your team.

Kiki Rice should not have been the #2 ranked player in her class. Granted. She has a crazy skillset that allows her to do great things. She has a very nice highlight reel. She also seems to play more in her head and try to think things through than just going at the basket. She CAN destroy your team in numerous ways... she just probably won't. Don't get her mad, though.

I get it, though. It's not your team. They haven't proven anything. I can, personally, see the flaws. I hope your team gets a chance to prove that my team is overrated. Have fun with that.

Also, unless someone else transfers or goes pro, we only lose one starter off this team at the end of the year... at our deepest position.

Please post more often

 

[ucbart]

As one of the few (but not only) UCLANs on the board, I mostly keep my mouth shut. Things I notice:
1. It's basically an article of faith that Cori Close can't coach. Like, at all.
2. Lauren Betts gets very little love.
3. Kiki Rice is perceived as overrated.

I don't think that Cori Close is a chessmaster in in-game adjustments, or even in drawing up plays, but UCLA's excellent defense has survived several lineups over the years, and the coaching staff appears to have avoided much in the way of player drama. It's hard to recruit when the players hate the coaches. So, I'm pretty happy with her as the coach.

Lauren Betts is very, very good as a post player. She will always be a post, not a power forward playing close to the basket, or a "big girl with skills". She's a CENTER. Offensively and defensively, she is killing it. You would definitely want her on your team.

Kiki Rice should not have been the #2 ranked player in her class. Granted. She has a crazy skillset that allows her to do great things. She has a very nice highlight reel. She also seems to play more in her head and try to think things through than just going at the basket. She CAN destroy your team in numerous ways... she just probably won't. Don't get her mad, though.

I get it, though. It's not your team. They haven't proven anything. I can, personally, see the flaws. I hope your team gets a chance to prove that my team is overrated. Have fun with that.

Also, unless someone else transfers or goes pro, we only lose one starter off this team at the end of the year... at our deepest position.

Honestly, who should've been the #2 recruit? In a deep recruiting class, she wouldn't have been the #2 recruit, but in that one, maybe she should be. That's shaping up to be one of the worst recruiting classes in a very long time.

 

[SCGamecock]

I still have nightmares from the way the Bruins dismantled my team earlier this season. Sleep on them if you want, I’m definitely not. They have it all, size, athleticism and skill. Crafty guards, aces on the perimeter, size at the forward spot. That team resembles last year’s SC team in a lot of ways to me.

If Cori is ever going to get to the FF then this is probably the team to do it. UCLA is the team to beat IMO, #1 ranking or not.

 

[visitingcock]

Please post more often

And bring comrades (and stay alert and cautious if you are in LA at this time)

@BruinGold

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Didn’t seem? Of course it didn’t.

How is a computer going to reflect a coaching change. And what does your conference have to do with expectations of how good you are?

A computer is not a genie. It can only process data. And the only data it has in October is last years results. So of course the numbers will be off at the start of the year. And strength of schedule is just a type of average of those numbers so it will also be off early in the season.

Any computer ranking will get better as the season progresses and it gets more data.

The formula that are released would probably save their proprietors grief by not releasing polls with past season data in them, but my understanding is that including the data makes them reasonably predictive.

Concentrating the best programs into a smaller number of conferences probably is going to mean that those conferences will have more good teams. And they can demonstrate that by performing comparatively better vs non-con and conference opponents than the average team even if it doesn't necessarily lead to wins. .

Conversely, the quality of teams that these teams leave behind doesn't necessarily improve because you have new conference winners with better records. In fact, the quality of the left behind conferences almost certainly will be less than before. But they can prove otherwise by performing better.

I do not have a view on Massey vs others raw data formulas except to say that Massey is widely available and the years of data can give you a sense of what is important.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

ESPN doesnt seem to believe in uCLA either as I think only 1 of their experts picked them to win it all.

What remember from South Carolina's matchup was getting handled on the boards and not really having much interior scoring at all.

I can't see why you would not given them your vote for #1 at this point, but Notre Dame has beaten half of the true contenders.

South Carolina vs Notre Dame for #2 is a reasonable discussion though South Carolina blowing out Texas has cut into the argument for ND somewhat.

It is too bad that ND-SCar is not one of the regularly played games.

 

[JellyBean]

As one of the few (but not only) UCLANs on the board, I mostly keep my mouth shut. Things I notice:
1. It's basically an article of faith that Cori Close can't coach. Like, at all.
2. Lauren Betts gets very little love.
3. Kiki Rice is perceived as overrated.

I don't think that Cori Close is a chessmaster in in-game adjustments, or even in drawing up plays, but UCLA's excellent defense has survived several lineups over the years, and the coaching staff appears to have avoided much in the way of player drama. It's hard to recruit when the players hate the coaches. So, I'm pretty happy with her as the coach.

Lauren Betts is very, very good as a post player. She will always be a post, not a power forward playing close to the basket, or a "big girl with skills". She's a CENTER. Offensively and defensively, she is killing it. You would definitely want her on your team.

Kiki Rice should not have been the #2 ranked player in her class. Granted. She has a crazy skillset that allows her to do great things. She has a very nice highlight reel. She also seems to play more in her head and try to think things through than just going at the basket. She CAN destroy your team in numerous ways... she just probably won't. Don't get her mad, though.

I get it, though. It's not your team. They haven't proven anything. I can, personally, see the flaws. I hope your team gets a chance to prove that my team is overrated. Have fun with that.

Also, unless someone else transfers or goes pro, we only lose one starter off this team at the end of the year... at our deepest position.

I always laugh when I hear people say, "Coach Close can't coach!" Like she just landed a coaching job after working a shift at the local Waffle House or something. Coach Close has several years of experience coaching and recruiting. She has a WNIT title on her resume. Her UCLA squads have only missed two years of post season play. And if you have ever attended a WBCA event, you can witness Coach Close in action. She can Coach.

The UCLA program- Is a program on the rise. This is great for the women's game and the overall growth of the game. They have a lot to prove to some people. Me. I think they are right there. The goal is to sustain that Championship Culture. Set the Standard.