What message is being sent to non Power 5 teams???????

[Scrutiner]

What you are really seeing is the backlash to UConn's dominance in the Women's Basketball sport over the last 10 to 20 years. You folks do not understand the resentment and hate that exists in the competitive universities all these years that is now being directed at UConn. This is and was the beginning of their chance to subordinate UConn for years of excellence. Given any chance to screw UConn and the other AAC and non power conference teams will be the norm. If UConn suffers 7 or 8 losses next year the result will be even more dramatic. It almost is an effort to destroy the UConn Women's program so that only Power 5 teams will win the championships. Get real folks, and read between the lines. Look at all of the money, TV, and news attention the other teams will get if UConn is moved away from the winning status and just becomes an ordinary team in a non power 5 conference.

As a lifelong Yankee fan, there's a lesson the NCAA could learn from how attendance and interest in baseball lagged when the Yankees were awful for about 20 years from the early 70's to the mid-90's.

If they destroy UConn, they destroy a major magnet for fans in a sport that doesn't have an overwhelming national interest. Nobody has the star power and draw of Geno and the Huskies and that affects ratings and thus the money advertisers are willing to pay. Look how well SNY has done. I wonder if anyone knows how the ratings of UConn's national games this year compared to those of Baylor, ND, Louisville, MS St and Oregon that did not include UConn as the opponent?

 

[southofnorth]

The issue isn’t and should never be about what seed a team gets. So UConn as a #2 seed should NOT phase anyone that actually believes in the UConn WBB program. The seeding really only effects who you play (which shouldn’t matter since this is a TOURNAMENT to decide the BEST team) and where you play them. If you can’t play and beat the best anywhere, then you probably won’t beat them when you have a higher seed or more people rooting for you in the stands. What is concerning is that teams are being left out because they can’t get into a P5 conference and some of the P5 teams choose to play the weakest teams rather than face some quality mid-major opponents. I don’t know how scheduling goes in WCBB, but I can’t imagine teams like Ohio and Central Michigan are avoiding teams like Notre Dame, Baylor, or UConn. I get that mid-majors are harder to predict as far as how good they will be, but when you play a team that hasn’t had a winning season in a decade [exaggeration obviously] year in and year out, it speaks more to the fear some of these P5 schools have in facing some of the regularly tough mid-major programs.

 

[Scrutiner]

There might have a lot of twisted logic by the "committee" to put 2 coaches they have issues with in the same bracket, assures one doesn't make the final 4 .

What's even more shocking is Vic Schaefer isn't on the same side of the bracket for the national semi-final (as I understand the brackets). Putting him, Geno and Walz on the same side would have assured gender equality for the championship game.

Before all the PC police get on me, here's a reminder about past tournaments and what appeared to be some level of manipulation of brackets. There was one year, in the early 2000's if I recall correctly, when the brackets had Geno, Andy Landers and Jim Foster (all with good teams) in one region, thus assuring only one would get to the Final Four. Geno, in his usual shy and engaging manner commented on it at the time.

Then there's women's volleyball where only male coaches have won the national championships and there was an undercurrent of unrest for a couple decades. Volleyball Magazine even did a feature on "the elephant in the room". Eventually the high level of angst subsided and the schools concentrated on winning regardless of who the coaches were.

 

[HopJim]

The NCAA heavily prioritizes strength of schedule and quality wins. Year after year. Last year it was 1-loss Baylor who didn't get a #1 while 3-loss ND did because ND had more quality wins and played a tougher schedule.

Unfortunately, the AAC is not strong generally and is having a down year outside of UConn. So UConn has to have a brutal non-conference SOS to be able to build the resume the NCAA wants out of a #1 seed. Normally, they do. But this year their non-conference SOS was #23. Good but not as strong as ND, Baylor, and Louisville. So their #1 seed credentials really depended on their performance against those 3 teams in the head-to-head matchups. And the NCAA apparently felt 1-2 wasn't good enough.

UConn's strength of schedule was better than Miss. St's and the win over ND is better than any Miss. St. win, so I felt they should have got the #1 seed. But I guess the committee went for Miss. St. having one more top-50 win (and several more top-100 wins). It probably didn't help that 3 of UConn's top-50 team were over UCF, a bubble team because they only had 1 top-50 win.

In my eyes, the committee got it wrong, but seeding UConn #2 is broadly consistent with their past actions.

The unfortunate truth is that UConn has to schedule a top-5 non-conference schedule to make up for the AAC, which is hard to guarantee given the lag time between scheduling games and playing games.

Listened to the Chair of the Women's Selection Committee review the criteria for the #1 seeds and you net out her comments. While she didn't specifically say this, normally AAC has 3-4 teams in or near Top20. With some many teams having down years, we shouldn't be surprised at selections. I'll file this under "who cares" since I like our bracket.

 

[CocoHusky]

As a lifelong Yankee fan, there's a lesson the NCAA could learn from how attendance and interest in baseball lagged when the Yankees were awful for about 20 years from the early 70's to the mid-90's.

If they destroy UConn, they destroy a major magnet for fans in a sport that doesn't have an overwhelming national interest. Nobody has the star power and draw of Geno and the Huskies and that affects ratings and thus the money advertisers are willing to pay. Look how well SNY has done. I wonder if anyone knows how the ratings of UConn's national games this year compared to those of Baylor, ND, Louisville, MS St and Oregon that did not include UConn as the opponent?

The numbers are inconclusive and appear to be highly dependent on UCONN opponent. UCONN vs Syracuse 2016 & UCONN vs Louisville 2009 were two of the lowest draws ever recorded.
Women’s Final Four Ratings Hub

 

[BroadwayVa]

The evidence is in the polling. Both polls have UConn number 2 because they are the better team. More evidence is used SOS and RPI so Strongly as it helps the Power 5 who have the power conferences and that includes UNC and Tenn making the tourney as both were questionable. What does that mean to other conferences???? Whats that telling other conferences if teams on the bubble in Power 5 conferences make it and teams in lesser conference with better records dont???? I dont like it one bit. If UConn is a 2 seed with 2 losses how does a team in a lesser conference with 2 losses make the tourney. Chance are some wont but a power 5 team with a loosing conference record has a better chance and it will help their recruiting because of it.

TonyC@ The AAC is what it is or has been. It, like the old BE, is getting better. No P5 and may never be. Uconn is either in the AAC or Independent --an you know what that may mean! Does this AAC have an impact on the UC ratings or SOS or recruiting: Of course it does. Not a thing Geno, UConn, you nor I can do about it. This is purely proof that life isn't fair.
I agree with your conclusions. all other conferences have a few ranked teams to help SOS. Maybe one or 2 in the AAC (other than UC) will be so ranked.

 

[BroadwayVa]

The issue isn’t and should never be about what seed a team gets. So UConn as a #2 seed should NOT phase anyone that actually believes in the UConn WBB program. The seeding really only effects who you play (which shouldn’t matter since this is a TOURNAMENT to decide the BEST team) and where you play them. If you can’t play and beat the best anywhere, then you probably won’t beat them when you have a higher seed or more people rooting for you in the stands. What is concerning is that teams are being left out because they can’t get into a P5 conference and some of the P5 teams choose to play the weakest teams rather than face some quality mid-major opponents. I don’t know how scheduling goes in WCBB, but I can’t imagine teams like Ohio and Central Michigan are avoiding teams like Notre Dame, Baylor, or UConn. I get that mid-majors are harder to predict as far as how good they will be, but when you play a team that hasn’t had a winning season in a decade [exaggeration obviously] year in and year out, it speaks more to the fear some of these P5 schools have in facing some of the regularly tough mid-major programs.

Personal Opinion: To me it matters Who you play and when you play them. Uconn with it's best teams it didn't matter for their Best team. JMU fielded its best team ever it mattered who they played. In Uconn's off years it too mattered who and when. Geno has spoken, in the past about the "luck of the draw" and other LUCK getting to the NC. Obviously the better prepared teams have the greater luck and that is often Uconn

 

[caramel]

All I can see,is,the powers that be who put Connecticut as a number 2 seed has most likely lit a fire under the team and they will have the desire to prove the committee wrong.This has become a more complete,dangerous team over the past couple of months,even with a 90% Lou.I think the committee did Connecticut a big,big favor.

 

[Zinethar]

I'd personally like a rule like football has - Not a .500 or better team no tournament. All conferences have top teams and bottom feeders. USF is normally a ranked team that had their season robbed by injuries. That hurt UConn also on their SoS. Yes they got screwed. Will it really matter in this tournament. Yes - might make them even more determined.

 

[eebmg]

The NCAA heavily prioritizes strength of schedule and quality wins. Year after year. Last year it was 1-loss Baylor who didn't get a #1 while 3-loss ND did because ND had more quality wins and played a tougher schedule.

Unfortunately, the AAC is not strong generally and is having a down year outside of UConn. So UConn has to have a brutal non-conference SOS to be able to build the resume the NCAA wants out of a #1 seed. Normally, they do. But this year their non-conference SOS was #23. Good but not as strong as ND, Baylor, and Louisville. So their #1 seed credentials really depended on their performance against those 3 teams in the head-to-head matchups. And the NCAA apparently felt 1-2 wasn't good enough.

UConn's strength of schedule was better than Miss. St's and the win over ND is better than any Miss. St. win, so I felt they should have got the #1 seed. But I guess the committee went for Miss. St. having one more top-50 win (and several more top-100 wins). It probably didn't help that 3 of UConn's top-50 team were over UCF, a bubble team because they only had 1 top-50 win.

In my eyes, the committee got it wrong, but seeding UConn #2 is broadly consistent with their past actions.

The unfortunate truth is that UConn has to schedule a top-5 non-conference schedule to make up for the AAC, which is hard to guarantee given the lag time between scheduling games and playing games.

Guys. Stop worrying. We scheduled TN.

 

[MainefanSC]

Guys. Stop worrying. We scheduled TN.

The problem with that is we'll beat them, they will get an at large bid and we won't. Look how many teams beat them this year that are not at the "Big Dance".

 

[warbler1055]

In my simplistic thinking, the game between UConn and Louisville (if it occurs) will determine if the NCAA committee were legit or not. There are national polls, NCAA committee members and then, there are players and coaches. Hopefully officials will not be part of the equation.