Week 18 - AP Poll

[HuskyNan]

would think ND has two many bad losses now to be passing anybody in the top 5, although their roster is the equal of any of them

All of NDs losses are Quad 1

 

[AzzisBraids]

I realize that the AP poll does not affect the selection committee seedings. But do you think the rash of upsets catapults the Huskies to a #1 seed?

The math is tricky but Quad 1 wins was a crucial factor into the last bracket and why SC gets the 1 seed in the voters opinion - I see

Texas
UCLA
USC
South Carolina

As the top 4 with UConn being #5 and the highest 2 seed. Notre Dame imo has played themselves into a 2 seed situation but the sheer fact that the above teams are all in 2 conferences means that if 1 loses over the other - it doesn't really do anything but shuffle. If UConn arrives in Texas' or region it is the best case outcome. UCLA being a close second.

 

[huskeynut]

Surprised UConn jumper up to #3. But given the upsets, not totally unexpected. It means this year's tournament is wide open.

UConn will be a 2 seed. I'm fine with that.

 

[packwrap]

UCLA hasn't really had a good win in a while and the Big Ten has one team that might make it to the final 8 and that is not a given.

You don't think that both USC and UCLA can still finish in top 8?

Both teams will still be at absolute worst #2 seeds, which means they really only have to win the sweet 16 game to get to final 8.

Wow! I'm thrilled, though, that UConn is now AP#3. Committee does not use that info officially in seeding, but they do see it, just like they see UConn at #1 in NET!

An upset or two in conference tourneys and who knows. Here's to more carnage.

 

[maccca3232]

Duke isn't #10?

View attachment 107426

You might want to check the individual AP votes (My posts in the General board).

AP voter Heather Williams this week dropped Duke 11 places to #24.

 

[triaddukefan]

You might want to check the individual AP votes (My posts in the General board).

AP voter Heather Williams this week dropped Duke 11 places to #24.

 

[jaydee602]

The coaches poll was just posted. It matches the AP poll with the only top 10 exception being TCU & NC State flip flopping for the #7 & #8 spot.

 

[fireford]

Another thing I noticed in this weeks coaches poll was that South Carolina received a first place vote that they didn't have last week. The voter must have been really impressed with their winning coin flip.

2024-25 Coaches Poll Women's College Basketball Rankings, Week 18 - ESPN

Find the complete NCAAW Week 18 rankings on ESPN. Includes the full votes and trend for the top 25 NCAAW teams.

www.espn.com

 

[Pharos]

Impressed with TCU... Go Hailey!

 

[tomcat]

Maybe someone has posted this already, in which case, I'll apologize in advance: Let's say all the league tournaments happen and the top teams win and he rankings at the top stay the same. I recognize that there are other factors the influence where a team will go, but anyone want to take a stab at where UConn, ranked (inexplicably, in my opinion) at #3, winds up in the NCAAs?

 

[packwrap]

Tons of speculation in threads on this board and in the media.

Brief summary, UConn about 80% likely to be #5 seed, so the highest ranked #2 seed team, and 20% likely to be 4th #1 seed. A very tiny chance UConn is in spot #6.

Assignment to a region not really clear, as matchups get adjusted to avoid 'same conference' matchups. Only the actual bracket creation will finalize that.

 

[triaddukefan]

And you can always comfort yourself that you have the perfect GIF for every mood.

 

[Skeets]

The math is tricky but Quad 1 wins was a crucial factor into the last bracket and why SC gets the 1 seed in the voters opinion - I see

Texas
UCLA
USC
South Carolina

As the top 4 with UConn being #5 and the highest 2 seed. Notre Dame imo has played themselves into a 2 seed situation but the sheer fact that the above teams are all in 2 conferences means that if 1 loses over the other - it doesn't really do anything but shuffle. If UConn arrives in Texas' or region it is the best case outcome. UCLA being a close second.

Well, here we go again - BULL HOCKEY (sorry). UConn cannot control that the other teams in the BE are not quad 1. So, UConn is never going to get any respect so long as they are in the BE? That is about as unscientific as it gets. Wouldn't be better to measure the quality of the team rather than the quality of the league they play in? I will say that quad 2/3/4 losses are bad.

FYI, I don't think the selection committee "votes" like they do for the AP poll. I think they throw darts.

 

[HuskyNan]

Well, here we go again - BULL HOCKEY (sorry). UConn cannot control that the other teams in the BE are not quad 1. So, UConn is never going to get any respect so long as they are in the BE? That is about as unscientific as it gets. Wouldn't be better to measure the quality of the team rather than the quality of the league they play in? I will say that quad 2/3/4 losses are bad.

FYI, I don't think the selection committee "votes" like they do for the AP poll. I think they throw darts.

It’s one criterion. Here’s the list: Do you see Conference Record there? That makes the Big East an advantage for UConn.

 

[visitingcock]

It’s one criterion. Here’s the list: Do you see Conference Record there? That makes the Big East an advantage for UConn.

View attachment 107460

And add Quad record as a factor for this year. What we have is a system with so many factors that it renders the system meaningless .

Three of the factors are 1) overall record, 2) conference record and 3) non- conference record with non guidance as to whether one outweighs the other. Just say “ record!”

This NET system is no better than RPI.

Basically I would favor simplifying it to Record x SOS + Top Ten wins

 

[oldude]

And add Quad record as a factor for this year. What we have is a system with so many factors that it renders the system meaningless .

Three of the factors are 1) overall record, 2) conference record and 3) non- conference record with non guidance as to whether one outweighs the other. Just say “ record!”

This NET system is no better than RPI.

Basically I would favor simplifying it to Record x SOS + Top Ten wins

The multiple factors allow the selection committee to basically justify whatever decisions they make relative to selection and seeding. As I indicated on a number of occasions, the NCAA could easily create a computer program to quantify and weight all relevant criteria and then just run the program with no human involvement. Of course that wouldn’t be much fun for all of us to speculate about.

 

[Vowelguy]

The multiple factors allow the selection committee to basically justify whatever decisions they make relative to selection and seeding. As I indicated on a number of occasions, the NCAA could easily create a computer program to quantify and weight all relevant criteria and then just run the program with no human involvement. Of course that wouldn’t be much fun for all of us to speculate about.

Yes they could create a computer program.

Would it be any good? Almost undoubtedly no. If it were easy to create a great ranking, someone would have done it.

Look at the Massey rankings — are you comfortable with USC at 5 and UCLA at 4?
Or Baylor at 13 and UNC 18?

 

[oldude]

Yes they could create a computer program.

Would it be any good? Almost undoubtedly no. If it were easy to create a great ranking, someone would have done it.

Look at the Massey rankings — are you comfortable with USC at 5 and UCLA at 4?
Or Baylor at 13 and UNC 18?

There is absolutely no reason that you could not create a computerized selection system that would be every bit as good, if not better than the human system now in place. Whether through a series of algorithms or using AI, you could create a decision tree, weighting the various selection criteria, and adding hard factors such as AQ’s, separating teams from the same conferences in early rounds and so on.

You could then beta test the program against prior year selections to validate it and then let it fly. After each year, a technical team could review the outcome, and adjust the program as needed to add or delete specific criteria, adjust the weighting, etc.

If you really think the current system is better, I strongly suggest that you review the NCAA information on just how the present system works. The NCAA sends out a bunch of information to each member of the selection committee (AD’s & Conference Chairmen) who are supposed to review it on their own. Then they all show up over a couple days for coffee & donuts, dinner & cocktails and they take a series of votes.

Every selection committee member shows up with their lists pretty much made up before they arrive. The chair of the committee can call for revotes and their may be some horse trading if a conflict occurs, but the idea that the 12 person committee pours over reams of data and thoroughly analyzes all of the relevant information before making their selections is simply not the case.

 

[PAHuskeyFan]

Another thing I noticed in this weeks coaches poll was that South Carolina received a first place vote that they didn't have last week. The voter must have been really impressed with their winning coin flip.

2024-25 Coaches Poll Women's College Basketball Rankings, Week 18 - ESPN

Find the complete NCAAW Week 18 rankings on ESPN. Includes the full votes and trend for the top 25 NCAAW teams.

www.espn.com

Yep... it was done with nearly perfect form.

 

[visitingcock]

Yes they could create a computer program.

Would it be any good? Almost undoubtedly no. If it were easy to create a great ranking, someone would have done it.

Look at the Massey rankings — are you comfortable with USC at 5 and UCLA at 4?
Or Baylor at 13 and UNC 18?

I’m not comfortable with SCar at 1

 

[Dugway]

I was thinking about the difference between being a #1 seed and being a #2 seed. It never works out perfectly this way, but in theory if every one of these teams win all of their early games that they are supposed to, just by the pairings in the bracket, they would eventually face off against each other in the Elite 8. It would be the four separate #1's vs. the four separate #2’s assuming they win out the way the bracket suggests they should.

So, in that particular game, in that Elite 8, what are the advantages of being the #1 vs. being the #2 seed? Here is the list that I initially came up with!

• The #1 gets to sit on the right side of the scorer’s table, whereas the #2 is saddled with having to sit on the left side of the scorer’s table. So, there is that huge advantage right from the start, correct!
• Oh, the Locker Rooms! At the neutral court venue, the #1 seed gets to use Locker Room ‘A’. Just think about it; this potentially could be equivalent to how many extra points?
• Hmmm …. still thinkin’,

I guess that is about all of the advantages I was able to come up with. When it comes down to that Elite 8 game, there really is not all that many perks that the #1 would receive over the lowly #2. Am I wrong?

So, the real advantage may not necessarily in the Elite 8 game itself, but it could be in the game just before that, the Sweet 16. One of these subject teams are (in theory) going to be paired against a #4 seed, while the other would (in theory) be against a #3 seed – that is just assuming that those who were supposed to have won, did in fact win. And I know that is not the way the real world works, but I put into my synopsis here the word ‘theory’ for a reason, please don’t bag.

Alright, given that someone is going to be playing from the pool of three seeds while the other is going to be playing from the pool of four seeds, is there a significant drop-off in competition level between the 3-seed and a 4-seed? Well, I guess, yes, potential there is. Or at least something more significant of an advantage than, "which side of the court the ‘home team’ gets to sit when playing at a neutral venue."

You have to win all of the games if you are going to be National Champions. But a difficult, down to the wire, drawn out battle in a team’s Sweet 16 game, has the potential to sap all of their energy during the follow up Elite 8 game. It is not like they have a week off to recuperate; the games are basically back-to-back. Ideally, you would want to handle that Sweet 16 game as if you are on cruise control, right?

So, who are the pool of #3 seeds and who are the pool of #4’s? And #5's and #6's I guess might be considered as well.

 

[Bigboote]

Yes to the above. The matchups are way more important than whether you’re playing a 1 or 2 seed. Some teams may matchup better against a #1 UCLA with Betts and Dugalic than they would a more modestly sized #2 Notre Dame with Hidalgo, Miles, and Citron.

 

[ERWUC65]

There is absolutely no reason that you could not create a computerized selection system that would be every bit as good, if not better than the human system now in place. Whether through a series of algorithms or using AI, you could create a decision tree, weighting the various selection criteria, and adding hard factors such as AQ’s, separating teams from the same conferences in early rounds and so on.

You could then beta test the program against prior year selections to validate it and then let it fly. After each year, a technical team could review the outcome, and adjust the program as needed to add or delete specific criteria, adjust the weighting, etc.

If you really think the current system is better, I strongly suggest that you review the NCAA information on just how the present system works. The NCAA sends out a bunch of information to each member of the selection committee (AD’s & Conference Chairmen) who are supposed to review it on their own. Then they all show up over a couple days for coffee & donuts, dinner & cocktails and they take a series of votes.

Every selection committee member shows up with their lists pretty much made up before they arrive. The chair of the committee can call for revotes and their may be some horse trading if a conflict occurs, but the idea that the 12 person committee pours over reams of data and thoroughly analyzes all of the relevant information before making their selections is simply not the case.

You maybe right, but this is analogous to replacing the plate umpire in baseball with a computerized system of calling balls and strikes. In spite of inconsistencies no one wants to take the human element (with its warts) out of the equation. I might suggest something like the use of VAR in soccer which is used to validate, not replace the referee.

 

[oldude]

You maybe right, but this is analogous to replacing the plate umpire in baseball with a computerized system of calling balls and strikes. In spite of inconsistencies no one wants to take the human element (with its warts) out of the equation. I might suggest something like the use of VAR in soccer which is used to validate, not replace the referee.

I would love to see the umpire replaced by computerized balls and strikes. As for baseball analogies, this would be more like Bill James SABRmetric statistical analysis of baseball which revolutionized the game with quantitative methods while getting rid of a bunch of dinosaurs who were married to baseball cliches and the eyeball test.

 

[Bone Dog]

I would love to see the umpire replaced by computerized balls and strikes. As for baseball analogies, this would be more like Bill James SABRmetric statistical analysis of baseball which revolutionized the game with quantitative methods while getting rid of a bunch of dinosaurs who were married to baseball cliches and the eyeball test.

I loved the movie Moneyball.