UConn to Bridgeport ?

[oldude]

So, you think the committee should take the time to evaluate every teams' losses, who the opponent was, which players were absent,

You have outlined precisely the process that the committee undertakes when they seed the 68 team field.

 

[oldude]

Is there an actual published metric confirming that? Or, is that just an opinion? Who decides "key" absences versus "non-key"?

What about UCLA and Duke? I'm guessing UCLA was the victim of more season-ending injuries, and there players weren't likely to return. But, I have recollection that Duke faced many player injuries throughout the season. Tennessee had Rae Burrell and Jordan Horston out several games. Same for Indiana, perhaps?

Again, my point is simply how/where does the committee draw the line when taking player absences into consideration?

You’re not comparing apples to apples. I believe Duke is 16-13, UCLA 14-13. Both lost in their respective conference tournaments. UConn is 25-5, the winners of their last 10 games, including winning their conference tournament convincingly.

 

[southie]

You have outlined precisely the process that the committee undertakes when they seed the 68 team field.

So, the committee could award Duke an at-large invitation due to injuries, and take that at-large invitation away from another deserving at-large team? That's unfortunate.

I'm more of the belief that "injuries are part of the game".

 

[Jmsdawg]

Iowa barely beat Indiana, and Clark couldn’t throw it in the ocean. I watched the game yesterday, Clark had 18 points on like a zillion attempts.

Watch out for Kentucky, low seed that is playing like much higher seed now. Can not let Kentucky have open 3 or it could be very tough game.

 

[KingKong139]

Not confused in the least, but perhaps you are. The selection committee is allowed to and does consider injuries as part of the seeding. Secondly you may want to check the latest NET ratings which is yet another consideration used by the Committee & UCONN is tied with Louisville for 4th. I'll keep it simple: UCONN lost to Louisville by 5 Points by playing without Paige, Nika & Azzi. Now that all three are healthy I think UCONN can take Louisville and I can see how the selection committee might as well.

Right, they can take injuries into account for seeding as they should. That is the exact reason why we are on the 2 line and not the 3 or 4 line. The Big East was a weak conference this year, we didn’t handle our business out of conference, if it weren’t for the benefit of the doubt (see the comparisons of us to Bama), we would maybe not even be a 2. We’re almost all UConn fans here, we all want to be in the best position to succeed, but sometimes the bias just becomes too much and is just unrealistic. I know I know “what else are you expecting on a pro-UConn forum”.

 

[southie]

You’re not comparing apples to apples. I believe Duke is 16-13, UCLA 14-13. Both lost in their respective conference tournaments. UConn is 25-5, the winners of their last 10 games, including winning their conference tournament convincingly.

Which is why this is such a subjective issue, and not easily measured. How can anyone compare apples to apples regarding injuries, opponents, and game outcomes? Can you give me two apples to compare?

 

[CocoHusky]

So, you think the committee should take the time to evaluate every teams' losses, who the opponent was, which players were absent, and then speculate that the outcome of the game would have been different? What if player got injured during the game? Should the loss not count either?

The point I was trying to make (perhaps not very well) was that where does the committee draw the line when taking player injuries/illnesses into consideration? Only look at the teams jockeying for Top 16 seeds? What about those teams on the bubble? Should Duke get more consideration because Celeste Taylor missed several games? Should those losses not count and Duke be given the invitation of an at-large team who did not have the same type of player injuries?

No.... obviously not for every team. What I'm suggesting is that the committee can and does take into account injuries when all the other considerations are not sufficient to distinguish between two teams and a distinction must be made. In my scenario Louisville and UCONN are in a virtual tie not only in the NET but they are close enough in rankings and the 4th #1 seed MUST be made. The next logical tie breaker is head to head. Once you get to this level of tie breaker it is perfectly appropriate for them to consider that one team was not a full strength when the teams played during the regular season. Another example is Villanova who is widely considered a bubble team. It would be perfectly appropriate for the committee to consider that Villanova lost 3 games when Siegrist was unavailable. To be clear I'm not saying the decision needs to go with UCONN's or Villanova's way what I'm saying is that the selection committee should consider it.

 

[CocoHusky]

Right, they can take injuries into account for seeding as they should. That is the exact reason why we are on the 2 line and not the 3 or 4 line. The Big East was a weak conference this year, we didn’t handle our business out of conference, if it weren’t for the benefit of the doubt (see the comparisons of us to Bama), we would maybe not even be a 2. We’re almost all UConn fans here, we all want to be in the best position to succeed, but sometimes the bias just becomes too much and is just unrealistic. I know I know “what else are you expecting on a pro-UConn forum”.

UCONN is projected by Charlie to be in this position. Charlie is not the selection committee.

 

[Jmsdawg]

“but that team lacked depth and chemistry”………Lol, you think not having Azzi Fudd and Paige Bueckers for any of those losses, and Dorka Juhasz and Caroline Ducharme (head injury) for some of them, only caused a lack of team depth and chemistry??? Also I think you’re failing to realize how much the UConn bigs (Edwards, Ono, Ducharme and Juhasz) have improved their scoring in the paint since those losses.

I believe Azzi, Paige, and Dorka all played in the SC game. However, the team chemistry was not what it is today and Geno was not comfortable with his depth, that is not the case today. SC is dominate inside, I think UConn must beat SC outside just like Mizzou and Kentucky did, trying to out muscle SC inside will be very difficult.

 

[oldude]

Which is why this is such a subjective issue, and not easily measured. How can anyone compare apples to apples regarding injuries, opponents, and game outcomes? Can you give me two apples to compare?

How about Oregon? Like UConn, the Ducks were devastated by early season injuries and Covid. They got everyone back and secured big wins over a depleted UConn and against Arizona. But Oregon is a contrast with UConn, because unlike the Huskies, who have been firing on all cylinders, Oregon, with a full roster, has been inconsistent the last part of the season. The Ducks will still make the tourney, but not as a highly seeded team.

So, the committee could award Duke an at-large invitation due to injuries, and take that at-large invitation away from another deserving at-large team? That's unfortunate.

I'm more of the belief that "injuries are part of the game".

The committee can do anything it wants. Here’s what I believe will happen, subject to the Big12 conference tournament. NC St & UConn will be the 1 & 2 seeds in the Bridgeport Region. That might change if, and only if, either IO St or Texas wins the Big12 tournament, which is unlikely imo.

Assuming that Baylor wins the Big 12 championship, there is a strong possibility that Baylor & Louisville swap their 4th & 5th overall seeding with Baylor #1 & Louisville #2 in the Wichita Region.

 

[HuskyNan]

You have outlined precisely the process that the committee undertakes when they seed the 68 team field.

Precisely? I would disagree. The committee’s selection process is Byzantine, at best, and there have been any number of times that some weird brackets from way out in left field were released. The committee is made up of human beings who have their own opinions and while they’re supposed to put those aside, they are human. Just think of juries who are supposed to put aside prejudices and preconceived opinions - it’s the same deal here.

 

[CocoHusky]

Is there an actual published metric confirming that? Or, is that just an opinion? Who decides "key" absences versus "non-key"?

What about UCLA and Duke? I'm guessing UCLA was the victim of more season-ending injuries, and there players weren't likely to return. But, I have recollection that Duke faced many player injuries throughout the season. Tennessee had Rae Burrell and Jordan Horston out several games. Same for Indiana, perhaps?

Again, my point is simply how/where does the committee draw the line when taking player absences into consideration?

You are missing a major point here. Season ending injuries are not and should not be considered. We are talking about situations where the player has returned from a regular season injury and is available to play in the tournament.

 

[oldude]

Precisely? I would disagree. The committee’s selection process is Byzantine, at best, and there have been any number of times that some weird brackets from way out in left field were released. The committee is made up of human beings who have their own opinions and while they’re supposed to put those aside, they are human. Just think of juries who are supposed to put aside prejudices and preconceived opinions - it’s the same deal here.

OK, strike the word “precisely.” But taking into account injuries is exactly what the committee is “supposed” to do.

 

[southie]

No.... obviously not for every team. What I'm suggesting is that the committee can and does take into account injuries when all the other considerations are not sufficient to distinguish between two teams and a distinction must be made. In my scenario Louisville and UCONN are in a virtual tie not only in the NET but they are close enough in rankings and the 4th #1 seed MUST be made. The next logical tie breaker is head to head. Once you get to this level of tie breaker it is perfectly appropriate for them to consider that one team was not a full strength when the teams played during the regular season. Another example is Villanova who is widely considered a bubble team. It would be perfectly appropriate for the committee to consider that Villanova lost 3 games when Siegrist was unavailable. To be clear I'm not saying the decision needs to go with UCONN's or Villanova's way what I'm saying is that the selection committee should consider it.

And, I do understand that. Louisville has the head-to-head win over UConn on the road (Uncasville); that has to count for something even if there were injuries. Not sure asking the committee to speculate and predict that the outcome of that game would have been different had specific player(s) played is realistic.

For the record, I think the last #1 seed comes down to Louisville and Baylor. I don't think UConn can jump from #9 in the 02/28 to reveal to #4 based on the quality wins they had the last week or so. Baylor has a chance to accumulate 2 more Q1 Top 10 wins this weekend.

 

[oldude]

And, I do understand that. Louisville has the head-to-head win over UConn on the road (Uncasville); that has to count for something even if there were injuries. Not sure asking the committee to speculate and predict that the outcome of that game would have been different had specific player(s) played is realistic.

For the record, I think the last #1 seed comes down to Louisville and Baylor. I don't think UConn can jump from #9 in the 02/28 to reveal to #4 based on the quality wins they had the last week or so. Baylor has a chance to accumulate 2 more Q1 Top 10 wins this weekend.

I agree, UConn will not be a #1 seed. Right now I believe the Huskies are a #2 seed, the 6th overall seed, and that will land them in the Bridgeport Region.

 

[southie]

You are missing a major point here. Season ending injuries are not and should not be considered. We are talking about situations where the player has returned from a regular season injury and is available to play in the tournament.

Agreed. That's why I stated that about UCLA as I'm not familiar if some of their players returned already after injuries. I included more teams than UCLA such as Tennessee, Duke, and Indiana. I'm sure there are so many more teams impacted by injuries.

 

[HuskyNan]

OK, strike the word “precisely.” But taking into account injuries is exactly what the committee is “supposed” to do.

If the process is so clear cut, we wouldn’t have 1,000,000 Bracketology threads across the Internet. The whole process is shrouded in mystery and there is rarely any kind of explanation given for the odd bracket placements. We are working in the dark in trying to predict the official brackets.

 

[oldude]

If the process is so clear cut, we wouldn’t have 1,000,000 Bracketology threads across the Internet. The whole process is shrouded in mystery and there is rarely any kind of explanation given for the odd bracket placements. We are working in the dark in trying to predict the official brackets.

If the process was clear cut, what on earth would the BY talk about for the next week leading up to selection Sunday?

 

[CocoHusky]

If the process is so clear cut, we wouldn’t have 1,000,000 Bracketology threads across the Internet. The whole process is shrouded in mystery and there is rarely any kind of explanation given for the odd bracket placements. We are working in the dark in trying to predict the official brackets.

That's almost not fair. After every selection show (ESPN usually) the selection committee ( usually the selection chair) makes themselves available to explain and justify the placements. UCONN is rarely adversely impacted by the selections but SC was in 2017. It is up to the reporter covering the tournament and teams to ask the right questions IMO.

 

[CONN78SEJ]

You’re right. Clark had a bad game. They won because of Czinano, who had 30. But I wouldn’t judge Clark on one game, just as I wouldn’t judge Paige for going 3 for 14 last year against Tennessee. Clark has been incredible this season, in scoring, assists, and directing the offense. If UConn doesn’t take Iowa seriously, just like they didn’t take Arizona seriously, they could lose. Just my opinion, of course.

I respectfully disagree, Iowa doesn’t have the fire power to match up with Dorka, Edwards, Ono, Ducharme, Fudd, Westbrook, Nika, and CW. I think Villanova could beat Iowa, but still remains to be seen if Villanova gets in, if they do they could definitely upset someone.

PS…..and take note that I have not mentioned Paige at all.

 

[sun]

I think that folks have taken the committee's consideration for injuries out of context.
I previously posted a Q&A reference where a committee member was asked if injuries are considered.
And IIRC it had to do with an injury at Colorado.
His answer was with respect to injured players being available for the tournament.
He did not mention that they would cancel or predict who would have won regular season games due to injuries at all.
He said to the effect that if there were a tie among teams that were on the bubble, that the committee could look at injuries to players that wouldn't be available for the tournament.
He said that generally they wouldn't want to discriminate against a team with a good record that now has a major injury to a star player.
But that it could be a consideration because player availability due to injury is a factor that the committee could consider.
This is only my recollection from a single answer or two that he stated in response to a specific question about if player injuries were considered by the committee.
But since then, posters here have greatly tried to expand the committee member's answer to include all loses during the season due to injuries for each and every team.
That wasn't the context of what I posted at all.
Perhaps folks are reading rules that I don't know about.
Maybe there's a catch all criterion that allows the committee to do whatever they want.
But I doubt that's the reality when the injury criterion is put into practice.
I think that the criterion is limited to injured player availability during the tournament only.
And I'm pretty sure that he said it could affect seeding, but generally not selection.

 

[CL82]

Can you give me two apples to compare?

You’re welcome.

 

[CONN78SEJ]

I believe Azzi, Paige, and Dorka all played in the SC game. However, the team chemistry was not what it is today and Geno was not comfortable with his depth, that is not the case today. SC is dominate inside, I think UConn must beat SC outside just like Mizzou and Kentucky did, trying to out muscle SC inside will be very difficult.

Ducharme didn’t play at all, and Fudd only played for 10 minutes and was still dealing with foot issues. Dorka also played at not 100%. Edwards played too but was not the same player she is now. Lastly I might remind you that UConn led in this game at halftime despite all the negatives.

 

[CONN78SEJ]

Watch out for Kentucky, low seed that is playing like much higher seed now. Can not let Kentucky have open 3 or it could be very tough game.

Kentucky is very good, agreed. Just remember, so is Villanova now that Maddy Seacrist is healthy, she missed several games earlier in the season.

 

[CONN78SEJ]

I still say Stanford will be the team to beat.

I couldn’t disagree more.

 

[CONN78SEJ]

As I said in another thread, NO WAY UConn is placed in Bridgeport. Any number one seed should not have to play the regionals in the home state of the number two seed. And the Committee would face charges of favoritism toward the 11-time champions.

What makes you think UConn doesn’t get a #1 seed? They just beat a very good Villanova team by 30 points.

 

[KingKong139]

UCONN is projected by Charlie to be in this position. Charlie is not the selection committee.

First of all, where did I reference Charlie? Next, Charlie attempts to emulate the committee just like all of us are right now. As has been referred to by others, manager many teams have been impacted by injuries. Just as UConn has dealt with it’s fair share, they also have more highly ranked, highly talented players to turn to than others. If attacking Creme is you’re best critique, we should hold any discussion until Monday because none of us are the committee.

 

[CocoHusky]

First of all, where did I reference Charlie? Next, Charlie attempts to emulate the committee just like all of us are right now. As has been referred to by others, manager many teams have been impacted by injuries. Just as UConn has dealt with it’s fair share, they also have more highly ranked, highly talented players to turn to than others. If attacking Creme is you’re best critique, we should hold any discussion until Monday because none of us are the committee.

With this statement:
"That is the exact reason why we are on the 2 line and not the 3 or 4 line."

 

[KingKong139]

With this statement:
"That is the exact reason why we are on the 2 line and not the 3 or 4 line."

Yes, that is my belief that we are on the two line. If not for the injuries I would have us, and I bet most experts would have us on the 3/4. Once again, I made no reference to Crème or others in my statement.

 

[CONN78SEJ]

Yes I agree in part. But no other team suffered the number of key player absences and injuries that UConn had to overcome this season. If you just look at Villanova as a benchmark for UConn’s season, the impact of injuries gives the committee 2 striking data points.

One month ago, without Paige, Liv & Caroline, using just 6 players, UConn dropped a 72-69 game in Hartford. Two days ago, with Paige, Liv & Caroline, using 9 players against the same Villanova roster, UConn blows out the Wildcats 70-40 at the Conference Tournament.

Yes, look at Villanova. I hope the committee considers that Maddy Seacrist missed several games with an injury early in the season that they ended up losing, they are a very good team and should get an invite to the NCAA. Maybe a 15 or 16 seed. It’s unfortunate that they ran into a healthy buzzsaw called UConn the other night.