Seed Watch!

#51
#51
Convoluted said:
As of today, Charlie Creme has Tennessee as #1 seed in the Louisville bracket. Uconn has been moved to #1 in Lincoln. This sets up a uconn TN final if uconn can get there and TN can get past (most likely opponents) North Carolina, Tex A&M, USC again, Louisville, and Notre Dame.
I think this is the most likely scenario the committee will come up with.
Click to expand...

This would be one TOUGH road to get thru as a number #1 seed. We would def be deserving of the title game if we made it thru all of those difficult games. Whatever the road may be...I'm behind my girls 100%!! Go LVs!!
 
#52
#52
He also has North Carolina as a #4 seed but Nebraska and TAM as #3's. Not sure that one jives either.

At any rate, if you make it to the final, those last 2 games are never easy. The games before then are rarely a cake walk, too, but I don't think there are any doomsday scenarios for anyone as far as the first 4 rounds. We're better than all those teams. We just got to play well. That's always true no matter who we play or when we play them.
 
#53
#53
clkou said:
I haven't saved the data, but I just remember several things over the years he "predicted" that didn't come close to being true. He probably does get a lot of it right, but the obvious stuff like UCONN is a #1 seed and some team with a losing record that managed to win their conference tournament is a #16 seed. Picking Stanford over Louisville for the last #1, even if it happens (in which case I'll have even less respect for the committee, too), shows me he doesn't exactly know his stuff.

I mean, what do YOU think? Do you think Stanford deserves a #1 over Louisville or Baylor? If so, why? At the end of the day it ultimately doesn't matter what Charlie or us thinks, so I wouldn't use Charlie's predictions as anything other than just another opinion.
Click to expand...
I don't think Creme is giving his opinion. His predictions are based more on what he thinks the Committee will do. So I think his predictions are the best available, but as you imply, he's not the decision maker. They have so many rules that conflict that there is no sure way to predict how it will end up. Particularly this year with the home court rules, closest venue rule. The committee has stated winning the season is more important than winning the conference tournament. The RPI, which they are supposed to be following is so flawed that it is almost useless. Besides teams have learned to pick opponents that maximize their RPI score without making their schedule tougher. The committee can hang their hat on just about anything when they decide.

Regarding Louisville Baylor & Stanford, I agree with you. What I'd like to see is whatever is best for Women's BB. The sport needs people in the seats. I think Creme's latest iteration is probably pretty good for that. I think L'ville will be the toughest bracket but it wouldn't be good to have ND & uconn meet until the end.

Uconn would probably prefer to play L'ville again instead of meeting Baylor, but that wouldn't be good for WBB. We'll just have to wait another week to find out and then accept the decision.

How would you feel if TN was moved to #1 in Stanford bracket, and Stanford was moved to #2 in L'ville bracket with L'ville as #1 in L'ville bracket?
 
#54
#54
Convoluted said:
I don't think Creme is giving his opinion. His predictions are based more on what he thinks the Committee will do. So I think his predictions are the best available, but as you imply, he's not the decision maker. They have so many rules that conflict that there is no sure way to predict how it will end up. Particularly this year with the home court rules, closest venue rule. The committee has stated winning the season is more important than winning the conference tournament. The RPI, which they are supposed to be following is so flawed that it is almost useless. Besides teams have learned to pick opponents that maximize their RPI score without making their schedule tougher. The committee can hang their hat on just about anything when they decide.

Regarding Louisville Baylor & Stanford, I agree with you. What I'd like to see is whatever is best for Women's BB. The sport needs people in the seats. I think Creme's latest iteration is probably pretty good for that. I think L'ville will be the toughest bracket but it wouldn't be good to have ND & uconn meet until the end.

Uconn would probably prefer to play L'ville again instead of meeting Baylor, but that wouldn't be good for WBB. We'll just have to wait another week to find out and then accept the decision.

How would you feel if TN was moved to #1 in Stanford bracket, and Stanford was moved to #2 in L'ville bracket with L'ville as #1 in L'ville bracket?
Click to expand...

Stanford is not, nor would be, moving to any region other than the Stanford regional. The comm tends to reward Stanfordevery year with the easiest path to the FF, even though they don't usually cash in on the opportunity! Stanford will be the #1 seed. Louisville could not the #1 or 2 in the Stanford region since they're hosting. I would like to see TN as the 1 w Stanford as the 2, but I expect to for the LVs to be the 1 in Louisville. Either way, it's good to see UT as a #1 again. Now, they've got to go out and take care of business, and not look ahead of ANY opponent.
 
#55
#55
Maybe I don't understand the rules. I thought they were supposed to reward the teams their seeds based on their regular season and tournament results. The better teams and results get the better, higher seeds. AFTER everyone is seeded, they have more flexibility with pairings based on geography. It would be completely unfair to give Stanford a #1 seed over BOTH Louisville AND Baylor just to comply with some geography convenience.

However, they could still put Stanford in the "Stanford" bracket with a #2 seed. That's STILL pretty unfair to the #1 seed in that bracket as it would be to any #1 or #2 seed who may face Louisville in the "Louisville" bracket as it would be to any #1 or #2 seed who may face Notre Dame in the "Notre Dame" bracket.

I mean, damn, having a home field advantage in the first and/or 2nd round is one thing, but having one in the sweet 16 and elite 8 is another. The crux of the problem is that Louisville is deserving of a #1 seed and Stanford is not. Charlie, likely trying to predict what the committee would do to "fix" this, put Stanford in "Stanford" and Louisville in "Louisville" without the seeds they deserve. However, the RIGHT way to do it IMO is to put TN in "Stanford" as a #1 and Louisville in "Louisville" as a #1. Stanford SHOULD NOT be in the "Stanford" region. They did not earn the right to a #1 seed NOR the right to a home field advantage in the sweet 16 and elite 8.

My guess is that they will NOT do the right thing because heaven forbid they lose out on ticket sales. We will likely get screwed in one of two ways: we'll either get the #1 seed in the "Stanford" region with Stanford as the #2 OR Louisville will get screwed out of the #1 seed and be placed in the "Louisville" bracket with us as a #2 and we'll potentially have to play THEM in their gym.

Of those two choices, I'd prefer Louisville because it's closer geographically and we can get a good crowd and the officiating in Stanford is always atrocious and they'd get more home cooking there plus less of our fans.

I've got a feeling they will put us with Stanford, though, which the silver lining is we'd have a chance to avenge 1 of our 2 losses we have yet to avenge. Although the chance to avenge LAST YEAR's game vs. Louisville sounds pretty sweet, too.

Convoluted said:
How would you feel if TN was moved to #1 in Stanford bracket, and Stanford was moved to #2 in L'ville bracket with L'ville as #1 in L'ville bracket?
Click to expand...
That would be fine if they were a #2 in any region except "Stanford".
 
Last edited:
#56
#56
clkou said:
Maybe I don't understand the rules. I thought they were supposed to reward the teams their seeds based on their regular season and tournament results. The better teams and results get the better, higher seeds. AFTER everyone is seeded, they have more flexibility with pairings based on geography. It would be completely unfair to give Stanford a #1 seed over BOTH Louisville AND Baylor just to comply with some geography convenience.

However, they could still put Stanford in the "Stanford" bracket with a #2 seed. That's STILL pretty unfair to the #1 seed in that bracket as it would be to any #1 or #2 seed who may face Louisville in the "Louisville" bracket as it would be to any #1 or #2 seed who may face Notre Dame in the "Notre Dame" bracket.

I mean, damn, having a home field advantage in the first and/or 2nd round is one thing, but having one in the sweet 16 and elite 8 is another. The crux of the problem is that Louisville is deserving of a #1 seed and Stanford is not. Charlie, likely trying to predict what the committee would do to "fix" this, put Stanford in "Stanford" and Louisville in "Louisville" without the seeds they deserve. However, the RIGHT way to do it IMO is to put TN in "Stanford" as a #1 and Louisville in "Louisville" as a #1. Stanford SHOULD NOT be in the "Stanford" region. They did not earn the right to a #1 seed NOR the right to a home field advantage in the sweet 16 and elite 8.

My guess is that they will NOT do the right thing because heaven forbid they lose out on ticket sales. We will likely get screwed in one of two ways: we'll either get the #1 seed in the "Stanford" region with Stanford as the #2 OR Louisville will get screwed out of the #1 seed and be placed in the "Louisville" bracket with us as a #2 and we'll potentially have to play THEM in their gym.

Of those two choices, I'd prefer Louisville because it's closer geographically and we can get a good crowd and the officiating in Stanford is always atrocious and they'd get more home cooking there plus less of our fans.

I've got a feeling they will put us with Stanford, though, which the silver lining is we'd have a chance to avenge 1 of our 2 losses we have yet to avenge. Although the chance to avenge LAST YEAR's game vs. Louisville sounds pretty sweet, too.

That would be fine if they were a #2 in any region except "Stanford".
Click to expand...

You have it backwards bud. Geography for teams hosting takes first precedent over everything. They will seed teams on the S-curve (1-64) and then pick teams who are hosting sub-regionals and regionals and put them on the bracket at those locations regardless of seed. At this point in time these are basic facts: Notre Dame will be the 1 seed in South Bend. Stanford will be a 1 or 2 seed in Palo Alto. Louisville will be a 1 or 2 seed in Louisville and Nebraska will be a 3 or 4 seed in Lincoln. All the other teams will be moved around to fit this paradigm. Where geography is really going to blow this year is the fact that Louisville is the nearest regional host to any team in the South, Mid-Atlantic and Northeast and yet most of the good teams are in the East and Southeast. Which means as you are placing teams, many of the best 3 and 4 seeds will end up in Louisville and worst 2, 3, and 4 seeds are going to get placed out West by default since it will be the last place to put them. The Stanford regional final will likely setup to be a battle of the 3rd/4th 1 seed against the 4th 2 seed.

Unfortunatley, if you are looking for a sport based on fairness this is not the one at this time. Until there is more of a following economics will trump fairness at this time.

I do not agree with Charlie on UT's placement in Louisville. Moving UConn to Lincoln goes against plenty of recent history where teams were matched up for the 4th time in a season as 1 and 2 seeds. I still think UConn goes to Louisville and UT to Lincoln.
 
Last edited:
#58
#58
Tonight is the night we find out. Will we be a #1 seed with Louisville in Louisville? A #1 seed with Stanford in Stanford? Or a #1 seed with neither of those? Or NOT a #1 seed? My guess is #1 seed in Stanford region with Stanford although I'll be happier if it's #1 with Louisville in Louisville and be MUCH happier if #1 seed without Louisville or Stanford playing in their home court :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#61
#61
Some very intelligent reviews of records and attempts at explaining some of the logic that a group of individuals with computers and statistics and quasi-policies may follow as they create a bracket. Having seen what came forth from the men -

The definitions below of validity and reliability are helpful in reviewing the position you believe is best. Do you believe that if you put the same people in a room to start over they will arrive at the same seeding and location? Do you believe they have specific criteria for ranking, and locating teams. For example: same conference teams playing in early rounds, or host team is always at home; or travel should be minimized, or RPI equal + 2, or no significant wins equal - 3.

Validity is the consideration of whether a particular research method or technique actually measures what you want it to measure, whereas reliability refers to how accurately a technique actually measures the phenomenon you are investigating. So, reliability means repeatability or consistency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#63
#63
Where did you expect it to be? This was the best case scenario plus Louisville got a 3 seed and better chance of getting upset.
 
#64
#64
I didn't see a breakdown by teams by conference, so I made one:

Conference ---> #
ACC ---> 8
SEC ---> 8
Big 12 ---> 6
Big 10 ---> 5
Pac 12 ---> 5
Atlantic 10 ---> 3
American ---> 2
Big East ---> 2
West Coast ---> 2
America East ---> 1
Atlantic Sun ---> 1
Big Sky ---> 1
Big South ---> 1
Big West ---> 1
Colonial ---> 1
Conference USA ---> 1
Horizon ---> 1
Ivy League ---> 1
MAAC ---> 1
MEAC ---> 1
Mid-American ---> 1
Missouri Valley ---> 1
Mountain West ---> 1
Northeast ---> 1
Ohio Valley ---> 1
Patriot League ---> 1
Southern ---> 1
Southland ---> 1
Summit League ---> 1
Sunbelt ---> 1
SWAC ---> 1
WAC ---> 1

Btw, how in the world did Oklahoma get in the tournament over an AP top #25 team like Rutgers? Oklahoma has 14 losses. They are 3-7 against ranked teams and none of those wins was against a top 10 team. They have an additional 7 losses against unranked. They had a 9-9 record in their conference and did not make the tournament finals. It's a pretty lackluster resume by any standard in a conference that is also pretty lackluster imo.
 
#66
#66
I'm not making fun of anyone. I'm asking an honest question of how someone with that resume could get in the tournament over IMO more deserving teams like Rutgers (9 losses) or South Florida (12 losses). Throughout the season, most teams are going to have their fair share of wins and losses, but getting an "at large" invitation with 14 losses and next to no signature wins in a "decent" conference seems questionable at best.

Vanderbilt's inclusion is also "on the bubble" but the difference between 12 losses and 14 losses is pretty big when you are handing out invitations ESPECIALLY when you consider Vandy is in the SEC and Oklahoma is in the Big 12. Vandy also has a top 10 win on their resume against a #1 seed.

I think the Big 12 definitely got one too many teams in and the American conference should have got one instead. TCU is also in the Big 12 with an identical record as Oklahoma and split with them and played West Virginia within single digits 3 times. I'm not saying they should be in either, but they seem to be a similar caliber team who didn't get in.

Btw, we avenged our losses to Vandy, Kentucky, and LSU (twice). If the tournament holds, we may have a chance to avenge the Notre Dame game, too.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top