Pathetic Job by Selection Committee

#1
armchair

armchair

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
10,948
Likes
7,608
#1
The NCAA women's selection committee is a joke. How is it that CT. is in a bracket that is by far the easiest in the tournament? In the sweet 16 the huskies now play that powerhouse 12 seed BYU, which beat a middling nebraska team, which means that ct. will have to beat either 7 seed DePaul or 3 seed Texas A&M to get the final four. Not one legitimately good team in that regional besides Ct.

Meanwhile, South Carolinia is a regional with THREE legit teams--Stanford, North Carolina and Penn State! Notre is in a regional with two legit contenders--Baylor and Kentucky. And Tennessee must face two legit teams--Maryland and Louisville.

Totally LAME job by the committee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2
#2
Unfortunately it wouldn't matter. I'm so sick of seeing these teams play on their home floors. And I hate to say it but unless Notre Dame beat them. They will win #9.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3
#3
Meanwhile, South Carolinia is a regional with THREE legit teams--Stanford, North Carolina and Penn State! Notre is in a regional with two legit contenders--Baylor and Kentucky. And Tennessee must face two legit teams--Maryland and Louisville.

And if it turns out to be Louisville it will be on Louisville's home court.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4
#4
armchair said:
The NCAA women's selection committee is a joke. How is it that CT. is in a bracket that is by far the easiest in the tournament? In the sweet 16 the huskies now play that powerhouse 12 seed BYU, which beat a middling nebraska team, which means that ct. will have to beat either 7 seed DePaul or 3 seed Texas A&M to get the final four. Not one legitimately good team in that regional besides Ct.

Meanwhile, South Carolinia is a regional with THREE legit teams--Stanford, North Carolina and Penn State! Notre is in a regional with two legit contenders--Baylor and Kentucky. And Tennessee must face two legit teams--Maryland and Louisville.

Totally LAME job by the committee.
Click to expand...

Looks like a conspiracy to prevent the SEC from reaching the final four. Consider the source. :question:
 
#6
#6
armchair said:
The NCAA women's selection committee is a joke. How is it that CT. is in a bracket that is by far the easiest in the tournament? In the sweet 16 the huskies now play that powerhouse 12 seed BYU, which beat a middling nebraska team, which means that ct. will have to beat either 7 seed DePaul or 3 seed Texas A&M to get the final four. Not one legitimately good team in that regional besides Ct.

Meanwhile, South Carolinia is a regional with THREE legit teams--Stanford, North Carolina and Penn State! Notre is in a regional with two legit contenders--Baylor and Kentucky. And Tennessee must face two legit teams--Maryland and Louisville.

Totally LAME job by the committee.
Click to expand...


Though the brackets only feature the seed numbers 1-16 in each region, the committee assembles an S-curve of teams seeded from 1-64. In theory, the teams 1-4 on the seed list will all be #1 seeds (the #1 "seed line"), 5-8 will be #2 seeds (the #2 seed line), and so on; however, bracketing rules often lead to some deviation from this. The S-curve is most important for keeping each region balanced, the ideal being that each region will be equally strong. For example, the committee will try to ensure that the number 1 team on the seed list, the national #1 seed, will be in the same region as the weakest #2 seed. The committee tries to ensure that the top four seeds in each region are comparable to the top four teams in every other region. For example, if one region has the best #1 seed (#1 overall), the weakest #2 seed (#8 overall), the best #3 seed (#9 overall), and the weakest #4 seed (#16 overall), its seeds add up to 34, the ideal number. But if a region has the best team for every given seed, its seeds would add up to 28, and a region with the weakest team in every seed would add up to 40, making the two regions very unbalanced. It is extremely unusual that an at-large bid can be lower than a #12 seed, but it has occurred, most recently with BYU and Iona being #14 seeds in the 2012 Tournament. While the seeds are almost never perfectly balanced throughout the four regions, the committee strives to ensure that they differ from each other by only a few points. The process is identical for the women's tournament, with the exception that seeding occurs to 64.
The selection committee uses a number of factors to place teams on the S-curve, including record, strength of schedule, and the Ratings Percentage Index (RPI). The RPI rating is often considered a significant factor in selecting and seeding the final few teams in the tournament field, though the selection committee stresses that the RPI is used merely as a guideline and not as an infallible indicator of a team's worth.
 
#7
#7
ruggy1 said:
Though the brackets only feature the seed numbers 1-16 in each region, the committee assembles an S-curve of teams seeded from 1-64. In theory, the teams 1-4 on the seed list will all be #1 seeds (the #1 "seed line"), 5-8 will be #2 seeds (the #2 seed line), and so on; however, bracketing rules often lead to some deviation from this. The S-curve is most important for keeping each region balanced, the ideal being that each region will be equally strong. For example, the committee will try to ensure that the number 1 team on the seed list, the national #1 seed, will be in the same region as the weakest #2 seed. The committee tries to ensure that the top four seeds in each region are comparable to the top four teams in every other region. For example, if one region has the best #1 seed (#1 overall), the weakest #2 seed (#8 overall), the best #3 seed (#9 overall), and the weakest #4 seed (#16 overall), its seeds add up to 34, the ideal number. But if a region has the best team for every given seed, its seeds would add up to 28, and a region with the weakest team in every seed would add up to 40, making the two regions very unbalanced. It is extremely unusual that an at-large bid can be lower than a #12 seed, but it has occurred, most recently with BYU and Iona being #14 seeds in the 2012 Tournament. While the seeds are almost never perfectly balanced throughout the four regions, the committee strives to ensure that they differ from each other by only a few points. The process is identical for the women's tournament, with the exception that seeding occurs to 64.
The selection committee uses a number of factors to place teams on the S-curve, including record, strength of schedule, and the Ratings Percentage Index (RPI). The RPI rating is often considered a significant factor in selecting and seeding the final few teams in the tournament field, though the selection committee stresses that the RPI is used merely as a guideline and not as an infallible indicator of a team's worth.
Click to expand...


The committee quite obviously failed to set up four "comparable" regions, based on four highest seeds in each region. It was obvious from the start that Ct.'s region was weak--it didn't pass the eye-test, forget all the metrics. You have three stout regionals and one absolute cupcake regional. Clearly either the 3rd or 4th seed, or both, in Ct.'s region should have been in other regions and replaced with a stronger team(s) like north carolina or maryland or pa. state. Every team in the tourney is playing a competitive game next except connecticut, which is somehow playing a 12 seed. Isn't texas a&M the weakest 3 seed as well?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8
#8
The "committee" was hand cuffed due to regional sites being Lincoln, South Bend, Stanford and Louisville. With #1 seeds being Conn. Notre Dame, S Carolina and Tennessee, the only option was to send Tn to Lincoln and Conn. to Louisville.

Until the Women's tournament can draw enough fans, teams playing on their home court is necessary. Also the the "s" is set up for the tool seed to be in the easiest bracket.
 
#10
#10
Ya, it's a pretty easy bracket for UCONN as Nebraska was a dubious #4 and whoever got Louisville as a #3 was definitely at a disadvantage. The good news for them is that they have an easy path to the finals. The bad news is that whoever they face in the finals will be extremely battle tested in both pre-conference play, conference play, AND the tournament. You don't want your first close game to be for the championship. Outside of Louisville, the only team UCONN has faced this year of any significance is Baylor. You got to go back to earlier in the season and 2013 to find anyone else somewhat challenging.

Don't get me wrong, I think UCONN can handle those teams, but I don't think they've been challenged in a long while and won't be in the tournament until the championship and that could be a big challenge if you face someone who has been THOROUGHLY tested.
 
#11
#11
Crazy Ivan said:
My guess is Stanford and Louisville are the most likely 2 to get there.
Click to expand...

I don't get all the love for Louisville here and across other boards. Heck, even Obama picked Louisville over Tenn. :huh: Yes I know they will be on their home court, but they are in a weak conference, they have literally played NOBODY all year except UCONN, and were totally obliterated all 3 times. The only other competition they had was Kentucky back in Dec. when KY was playing like crap - and they LOST! I think they are way overrated and if LSU is playing anything like they played TENN last time, LSU will win. I would much rather play LOU than LSU any day, even with LSU's recent injuries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#12
#12
We got the strongest 4 and 3, and you knew TN would be the one to get screwed because they weren't moving ND or Stan. They also weren't sending Uconn to Louisvile. This years tourney is extremely unfair, but it is what is is. Hopefully the Lady Vols can overcome these challenges, but to me this years tournament setup makes it especially tough
 
#13
#13
armchair said:
The committee quite obviously failed to set up four "comparable" regions, based on four highest seeds in each region. It was obvious from the start that Ct.'s region was weak--it didn't pass the eye-test, forget all the metrics. You have three stout regionals and one absolute cupcake regional. Clearly either the 3rd or 4th seed, or both, in Ct.'s region should have been in other regions and replaced with a stronger team(s) like north carolina or maryland or pa. state. Every team in the tourney is playing a competitive game next except connecticut, which is somehow playing a 12 seed. Isn't texas a&M the weakest 3 seed as well?
Click to expand...
The problem for what you're saying is there are no teams except ND capable of providing uconn with a competitive game. Thus, it makes sense to put the weakest teams in with Connecticut. They already beat, not just beat but creamed all these teams: Louisville 3 times, Baylor, Duke (before the injuries), Penn State, Stanford, and Maryland. Plus, Uconn is much better now with Mosqueda-Lewis back (triple double last night). So putting better teams in uconn's region wouldn't have made a difference to uconn but, it would have weakened the match ups in the other regions because some good teams would have been knocked out and the remaining good teams would be playing the cupcakes.

Overall, for the good of WBB, the committee didn't do a bad job. I mean, how would TN like it if they were placed in uconn's region? What other good team would be in favor of that?

As it stands, TN and lots of other good teams have a chance to make the final 4 although a uconn Notre Dame final is most likely.

As you said, three regions will have good games. That's a good thing for the sport.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
Before the selection this year and every year I say it doesn't matter. If you win you move forward. The Men NCAA had W. State, Kentucky, Stanford and Kansas in the same early bracket.

The other problem is that there are only two conferences with top 20 depth: the ACC and the SEC. The Big 10 has many teams that quickly fall in early rounds, similar to PAC 10 and Big 12. So at 15 5 of 7 SEC teams are still playing. So based on how you define parity (the best four or the best 20) The stair steps are significant in overall ability dropoff.

The only objective for the LVols is to beat their next opponent which is Maryland. They either will or they won't.
 
#15
#15
ruggy1 said:
Though the brackets only feature the seed numbers 1-16 in each region, the committee assembles an S-curve of teams seeded from 1-64. In theory, the teams 1-4 on the seed list will all be #1 seeds (the #1 "seed line"), 5-8 will be #2 seeds (the #2 seed line), and so on; however, bracketing rules often lead to some deviation from this. The S-curve is most important for keeping each region balanced, the ideal being that each region will be equally strong. For example, the committee will try to ensure that the number 1 team on the seed list, the national #1 seed, will be in the same region as the weakest #2 seed. The committee tries to ensure that the top four seeds in each region are comparable to the top four teams in every other region. For example, if one region has the best #1 seed (#1 overall), the weakest #2 seed (#8 overall), the best #3 seed (#9 overall), and the weakest #4 seed (#16 overall), its seeds add up to 34, the ideal number. But if a region has the best team for every given seed, its seeds would add up to 28, and a region with the weakest team in every seed would add up to 40, making the two regions very unbalanced. It is extremely unusual that an at-large bid can be lower than a #12 seed, but it has occurred, most recently with BYU and Iona being #14 seeds in the 2012 Tournament. While the seeds are almost never perfectly balanced throughout the four regions, the committee strives to ensure that they differ from each other by only a few points. The process is identical for the women's tournament, with the exception that seeding occurs to 64.
The selection committee uses a number of factors to place teams on the S-curve, including record, strength of schedule, and the Ratings Percentage Index (RPI). The RPI rating is often considered a significant factor in selecting and seeding the final few teams in the tournament field, though the selection committee stresses that the RPI is used merely as a guideline and not as an infallible indicator of a team's worth.
Click to expand...

More than I need to know. But for the most part; well written. I just don't care that much. UConn is winning it anyhow---but they certainly needed no Help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16
#16
I don't see much wrong with the bracket from a placement standpoint. Now how they placed teams on the S-curve is a completely different and legitimate argument (i.e. Maryland is not really a 4, Louisville doesn't appear to be a 2).

But if you assume the validity of the S curve they used for placement the results wouldn't have been much different regardless of whether they used geography for placement or a straight s-curve (i.e. best 1 v. worst 2, 2nd best 1 v. 2nd worst 2). UConn got the lowest 2 and 4 seeds (Duke and Nebraska) which would have happened in a straight s-curve scenario. The only potential problem was getting Texas A&M as the 3 seed. Under a straight s-curve placement the top 3 seed would have been sent to play the lowest 2 seed which would have given us Louisville vs. Duke. But getting A&M vs. Louisville doesn't strike me as a huge advantage for UConn other than the fact the game would have been in Louisville.
 
#17
#17
Chris89128 said:
We got the strongest 4 and 3, and you knew TN would be the one to get screwed because they weren't moving ND or Stan. They also weren't sending Uconn to Louisvile. This years tourney is extremely unfair, but it is what is is. Hopefully the Lady Vols can overcome these challenges, but to me this years tournament setup makes it especially tough
Click to expand...

UNC is a stronger #4 than Maryland. Those were probably the top 2.

Kentucky is a stronger #3 than Louisville.

And in all fairness, Duke (with or without Jones/Gray) was right there with Stanford as the strongest #2, and they were in UConn's region. Tennessee easily got the weakest #2, so it's not like they got the Wichita State bracket.
 
#18
#18
Amb3096 said:
UNC is a stronger #4 than Maryland. Those were probably the top 2.

Kentucky is a stronger #3 than Louisville.

And in all fairness, Duke (with or without Jones/Gray) was right there with Stanford as the strongest #2, and they were in UConn's region. Tennessee easily got the weakest #2, so it's not like they got the Wichita State bracket.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you, but that's what forums are all about. UNC was truly lucky to win, and look at how many bad losses UNC had
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#19
#19
Chris89128 said:
I disagree with you, but that's what forums are all about. UNC was truly lucky to win, and look at how many bad losses UNC had
Click to expand...

UNC is like Tennessee...when they are up, they can play with almost anyone. When they are down, they can lose to anyone. They swing wildly between the two extremes.

Maryland has had one bad loss...to Virginia. Their best win was their first meeting with UNC.

UNC has 5 bad losses (Miami, ASU, Syracuse, GT, VT), but they have 2 wins over Duke, 1 win over SC and won the rematch with Maryland.

I think UNC is better because of who they've beaten, not who they've lost to. It's anyone's guess who the committee had higher, but UNC can be scary because of how talented that team is. They've got a lot of studs.
 
#20
#20
Chris89128 said:
I disagree with you, but that's what forums are all about. UNC was truly lucky to win, and look at how many bad losses UNC had
Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that Louisville, Stan, and ND all get to play at home to get to the final 4. Just glad this is a one year and done thing. I personally believe no one should play at home. I know all the reasons why they do, but I still don't like it
 
#23
#23
Amb3096 said:
UNC is like Tennessee...when they are up, they can play with almost anyone. When they are down, they can lose to anyone. They swing wildly between the two extremes.

Maryland has had one bad loss...to Virginia. Their best win was their first meeting with UNC.

UNC has 5 bad losses (Miami, ASU, Syracuse, GT, VT), but they have 2 wins over Duke, 1 win over SC and won the rematch with Maryland.

I think UNC is better because of who they've beaten, not who they've lost to. It's anyone's guess who the committee had higher, but UNC can be scary because of how talented that team is. They've got a lot of studs.
Click to expand...

it also had talent and played in a (slightly) better conference than nebraska, and clearly is a tougher matchup for anybody than Nebraska, another 4 seed that had a perfectly decent season but doesn't have a track record. Anybody who knows the game knows that UNC is a potential contender. Nebraska? Not so much. Duke, to me, was obviously the weakest 2 seed--and it went to Ct.'s region. Is that the way it's supposed to work? I think the weakest 2 seed, 3 seed and 4 seed were ALL in Ct's bracket! That's crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#24
#24
armchair said:
it also had talent and played in a (slightly) better conference than nebraska, and clearly is a tougher matchup for anybody than Nebraska, another 4 seed that had a perfectly decent season but doesn't have a track record. Anybody who knows the game knows that UNC is a potential contender. Nebraska? Not so much. Duke, to me, was obviously the weakest 2 seed--and it went to Ct.'s region. Is that the way it's supposed to work? I think the weakest 2 seed, 3 seed and 4 seed were ALL in Ct's bracket! That's crazy.
Click to expand...

You think Duke is weaker than Baylor or West Virginia? I thought that they were the 2nd best behind Stanford, and that's with their guard problems.

Nebraska had a fluke win in the B10 and got rewarded with a high seed. Not that any of this matters for UConn, seeing that they destroyed two of the #2 seeds (and beat a third one by a "closer" score), 2 #3s, 2 #4s and anyone they came across this year. Any talk about UConn having an easy bracket is besides the point, because so far ND is probably the only team with a snowball's chance in hell to win. I would probably root for ND against Tennessee if UConn advances to the championship game, because I really don't want to see UConn add another, and ND is the only thing standing in their way (Tennessee would get the Stanford/Duke/Louisville treatment if they played UConn, unfortunately...).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top