UConn a two seed in the latest bracketology (merged)

[jpp13]

Playing (Blue) Devil’s advocate …

The NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) includes more components than just winning percentage. It takes into account game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses.

In other words, NET ranking is determined by who you played, where you played, how efficiently you played, and the result of the game. The AP & Coaches’ polls are not factored into the analysis, nor are the ESPN NCAA power rankings nor the ESPN Final Four predictions.

Yes, UConn is #2 in the latest NET rankings (through games played as of January 12, 2023). If you look at UConn’s remaining Big East games, only three (two against Villanova, one against Creighton) involve teams currently ranked in the top 40 of NET , with five remaining games (Georgetown X2, Butler, Providence, Xavier) against teams not in the top 110 of the NET rankings.

Right now, for example, the Big Ten has eight teams in the top 40 in NET (and Charlie Creme had both Indiana and Ohio State as #1 seeds). The opportunities for quality wins against strong opponents is significantly greater – and Ohio State and Indiana are less hurt by a loss to such a quality opponent.

One can look to TN to see the impact of a quality loss not being detrimental to a team’s chances in terms of NET rankings as of now. TN is ranked #17 in NET rating, despite six losses. Charlie Creme, however, has the Lady Vols as an #8 seed. Why? Perhaps it is TN’s remaining schedule. If you look at the Lady Vols’ remaining 12 games, six are against teams in the top 36 of the 1/12/2023 NET rankings – including three games against the top three in NET (South Carolina, UConn, and LSU). Even though the losses may be quality ones, having likely double digit losses entering the NCAA Tournament does not usually lend itself to a top-four/top-five seed.

Also, I am not sure how projecting UConn as a #2 seed but picking the Huskies to make the Final Four demonstrates a bias against UConn.



Predicting a team to make the Final Four is not mutually exclusive with said team being one of the four #1 seeds. To wit:

• In 2022, UConn was the #2 seed in the Bridgeport Regional and made the Final Four.
• In 2019, UConn was the #2 seed in the Albany Regional and made the Final Four.

I think his point is he has UConn and Stanford in the same region, this they can’t both make it.

 

[Bills Fan]

I think Charlie is in cahoots with those who run the Boneyard to get more clicks and posts to generate more ad revenue for the Boneyard .

The eye test says UConn should be the 3rd #1 seed, at worst the 1st 2 seed. As I've said in other posts, at a minimum, 3 of the teams ranked ahead of UConn in bracketology will have one or more losses. All UConn has to do is win the Big East, beat Tennessee, and pay well against South Carolina and they will be a 1 seed.

This bracketology has Uconn as a #1 seed.

Women's Basketball Bracketology

www.collegesportsmadness.com

This has 6 BE teams in the tourney!

 

[LwrcasefaN]

The beauty of it all is being in control of your final fate. Win and advance. This team has already exceeded my expectations and that's with all the injuries. IMO...they represent a new chapter in UCONN Womens Hoops. If a 2 seed is where they launch from...then that will have to be where the ascent starts. Just keep winning. I don't think Creme is biased. And in all honesty...he's a lot better than the weatherman. And...so are a lot of you.

 

[MSGRET]

So the NCAA only uses NET when seeding the teams?

Please read my statement where I said "NET plus other metrics are considered". Look at @dabears17 post #22 for the criteria. You may need to step up on your reading comprehension also.

 

[Bone Dog]

The NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) includes more components than just winning percentage. It takes into account game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses.

I must admit to having searched the NCAA NET page looking for some sort of SoS factor in the NET, and I can't find one, at least not a direct factor. This has led me to conclude in other posts that SoS (or quality of opponent, as you put it) is expected to fall out indirectly from other factors it does include, and to do so better as more data is collected. This is possible and leads me to believe the NCAA thinks that, although the NET will tend to be inaccurate in the early season, perhaps wildly so, it will improve as the season wears on, and by late February will be more or less accurate. As one example, LSU's NET ranking for this week can hardly be reconciled with their SoS. But it may turn out to be more accurate in a month.

If I'm right about this, then it isn't useful to complain about NET inaccuracies in December and January, since the tool isn't designed to be accurate at that time. It also shouldn't matter as long as the seeding decisions for the tournament are not influenced by early season ranking data.

All things considered, RPI looked like a more generally reliable tool than NET, even if it had its own flaws. Reading between the lines, I wonder if the reason the NCAA abandoned it was out of a fear that it would encourage gambling.

 

[dtbtbtb]

If UConn got the 8 players who played against SJ and have the 2 injured ones (CD and AP) join in the coming games, win all the remaining games and even if lose against SC but win all other games, there is no way UConn is not a number 1 seed or at worst strongest 2 seed. It would be strange if indeed UConn is the 2 seed in Stanford's region, and it will only mean that the committee is trying hard to avoid having UConn in another Final 4.

 

[fomalhaut]

Also, I am not sure how projecting UConn as a #2 seed but picking the Huskies to make the Final Four demonstrates a bias against UConn.

It demonstrates he doesn't understand how the brackets work. Two teams in the same quarter of the draw can't both make the final four.

Predicting a team to make the Final Four is not mutually exclusive with said team being one of the four #1 seeds. To wit:

It is mutually exclusive if it's a #2 in the same bracket as another team predicted to make the final four.

 

[triaddukefan]

Looking at this bracket and doping out the likely results, I'm amused. First we'll crush Boston U, then Kansas. who's as big and strong, and a lot quicker.

Who cares what Charlie thinks. He can put us where he likes. We'll still come out on top. Hello Final Four.

And as for the other regions, I expect we'll see ND, UCLA and Duke in the Final Four -- that would be a hoot, wouldn't it? We thump UCLA, and Duke squeaks past ND, and then we win it all.

No telling what I would do if Duke made it to Dallas, but 3 to 1 odds that i would spent a night in the Guilford County Jail.

 

[visitingcock]

OK... Sure... BUT, the most significant "poll" (or Ranking Tool) that NCAA Selection Committee relies on, among other subjective criteria, is their Own NET ranking...and at present UCONN is #2 overall Team in the NCAA NET Ranking... as of Jan 12, 2023. So, there's that.

They also look at the team sheets. Those show that UConn has played more Quad one opponents than any other team and has more Quad one wins than any team other than SCar and tOSU.

Also, I believe I. Conference politics prevents more than one team from any conference being in the Top Four unless two teams play twice, split and are pretty much otherwise undefeated.

Generally:
Top Four : champions of four different P-6 conference.

Two Remaining P- 6 champs

Two P-6 runners up

My Way To Early top 8 would be
SCar
Stanford
TOSU
UConn

Duke
Notre Dame
Indiana
Iowa State ( however LSU might bump. Big 12 champ)