RebKell's Junkie Boards

[linkster]

[Marquette Fan]

Updated bracketology:

http://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/bracketology

He still has Marquette hosting - I'm not so sure about that - will be interesting to hear the top 16 reveal tonight and see if Marquette is still in there. They may have a slim shot now but can't afford to lose in the BET. And I'm not sure what their chances are of winning out with Davenport's injury and how they've been playing.

[Phil]

I see that Charlie has Tennessee in as an 11 seed and West Virginia out.

Can we compare the two to see if this makes sense?

(I fully understand that the committee doesn't directly use Massey ratings but Massey numbers are easily accessible so I will make comparisons based on Massey ratings and will be happy to track down the RPI numbers if someone thinks that will make a substantive difference.)

West Virginia has two major black marks on its resume — the schedule, especially their out of conference schedule is weak and they recently lost to Oklahoma. Overall, their Massey rating is 30, which reflects the strength of schedule (or lack thereof), but the committee has indicated that strength of schedule is important so perhaps it deserves some weight beyond that incorporated into the rating.

West Virginia has what I call a barbell schedule. They don't have teams sprinkled throughout the range of ratings, they have a number of decent teams and a number of, let's face it, atrocious teams. A team with a ranking of 300 or beyond is not much of an opponent if you are aiming to get into the tournament. Let's choose 200 has a cut off. West Virginia has played seven teams with the Massey ratings of 200 or higher.

In contrast, Tennessee has only played six teams with a rating of 200 or higher. Wait a minute, am I reading that correctly? West Virginia is excoriated for a terrible schedule and they've only played one more team than Tennessee with a ranking over 200? Tennessee rightfully deserves a reputation for playing a very tough out of conference schedule. Even when the SEC was one of the top conferences in the country, they loaded up their out of conference schedule with high quality teams. I can't help but wonder if this reputation has stuck with them, and the current facts haven't totally sunk in. Six teams over 200 versus seven teams over 200 isn't much of a difference.

But maybe West Virginia is loading up with triple digit ranked teams and staying away from the sub 50 ranked teams?

Tennessee has played 12 teams ranked in the top 50. In contrast West Virginia has only played, let's see, 12 teams in the top 50 (counting the upcoming game against Baylor, which I will count as a loss.) That's interesting, both teams have played exactly the same number of teams in the top 50.

Of course, playing a team is not the same as beating a team. Charlie has talked about the fact (if I recall correctly) that one of the reasons Tennessee is still in the mix is that they have four top 50 RPI wins, more than many of the other contenders. If we use Massey they have five wins over top 50, while West Virginia has only, let's see, four. Hmmm, four versus five, a little bit of a difference but not much of a difference.

Two other important considerations are best wins and worst losses.

Tennessee's claim to fame is that they beat mighty Texas at Texas. How did West Virginia do? They beat Texas at Texas. So Tennessee's best win is arguably a push compared to West Virginia. However, if we examine it carefully, we see the Tennessee beat Texas early in the season. Joyner Holmes was in the game, but it was her first game back after injury; she played only 11 minutes and scored two points. In contrast, West Virginia's win against Texas at Texas had Joyner at full strength, scoring 16 points. I'd argue that the West Virginia win over Texas is more impressive than the one by Tennessee but at worst it's a push.

But wait, we're not done. That's Tennessee's best win but it's not West Virginia's best win. West Virginia beat Iowa State, ranked number 13. So West Virginia's best win is far better than Tennessee's best win and West Virginia second best win is arguably better than Tennessee's best win but at worst comparable.

How about losses?

As noted earlier, West Virginia lost to Oklahoma recently. There was a time when losing to Oklahoma wasn't quite so much a black mark but this year is not a good year for Oklahoma so the loss to Oklahoma ranked 108 definitely counts as a bad loss. How about Tennessee? They just lost to Vanderbilt on their home court. First time in history Vandy has beaten Tennessee in Tennessee. Vanderbilt is now ranked 159 which is far far worse than Oklahoma and there were ranked 177 before they climbed the rankings with their win over Tennessee.

So West Virginia's best win is far better than Tennessee's. West Virginia's worst loss is far less significant than Tennessee's. They've played a comparable number of highly ranked teams, a comparable number of atrocious opponents, and West Virginia is ranked at number 30, 17 places ahead of Tennessee. How on earth does Tennessee earn a bid over West Virginia?

I will confess to a bit of bias. A few years ago I was invited to a West Virginia game, got to meet my carry and was introduced to the team after the game and out with them a bit post game, so I'm a fan of West Virginia and maybe see things with a little bit of bias, but can someone tell me what Tennessee has done THIS YEAR to justify a bit ahead of West Virginia?

[ArtBest23]

I suspect It's a simple matter of referring to the NCAA's own designed and utilized ranking system. Tenn' s RPI rank is 63, WVU's is 68. More significantly, Tenn's strength of schedule is 39, WVU's is 103.

Even worse, while Tenn's non-conference RPI and SOS are 28 and 51, WVU's are 186 and 330.

By it's own free choice, WVU elected to play a horrible OOC schedule and Creme is likely predicting that they will get hammered for that choice.

[myrtle]

there is no way on God's green earth (or even scorched earth) that Tennessee deserves to be in this year's tournament unless they get to the SEC championship game. Then you might make a case for them.

_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman

[Nixtreefan]

Preach Myrtle

_________________
"White privilege is unseen by white pompous asses"
Feelings, nothing more than feelings...

[Marquette Fan]

[Coyotes]

I don't know that West Virginia is the best team to compare to Tennessee. Only 2 teams with RPI's of 67 or lower have made the tournament in recent memory, but I couldn't tell you who they were off the top of my head. That's a question for Plight.

If we go by RPI here:

Tennessee is currently sitting at 63. They have not beaten a single team in the Top 25 in RPI, with their best win being over #27 Mizzou (2x). That's a black mark in my book. Their losses have been ugly including to #96 Arkansas, #177 Vanderbilt, #151 Alabama and #98 Georgia. To be fair, they do have decent wins over #32 Texas, #50 Auburn (2x), #60 Belmont, #52 Clemson, and #64 LSU.

Louisiana State on the other hand....sits at 64. They have lost to #161 Tulane, #156 Kansas, #98 Georgia. The good news for LSU is that their wins are far better than Tennessee's. LSU has beaten #23 Florida State, #18 Texas A&M, #27 Missouri, #71 Little Rock, and #96 Arkansas. I would wager that the SEC Tournament Game could tip the balance for one of these teams. Especially considering LSU's 3 game losing streak against good tournament teams, they probably need to win this one.

West Virginia on the other hand....sits at #70. West Virginia's best non-conference win comes against #106 Towson. West Virginia played 5 games against teams outside the top 300 in RPI, with a 6th, Bryant checking in at #299. West Virginia does have wins against #11 Iowa State, #32 Texas, and #42 TCU. They did manage to stumble at #134 Oklahoma. I'd say that these wins are nice, but....those are the only three games that they've won against the top 100.

I guess just looking at these three teams, it becomes a discussion of how you value quantity of wins, versus quality of wins, versus bad losses, versus a cupcake schedule, versus whatever tinted glasses you choose to wear that day. I would say judging on past history (hello, Oklahoma), a team that is willing to play a tough schedule often gets rewarded, but I'd argue that you're supposed to actually win some of those to get into the tournament. Tennessee hasn't managed to do that against the upper tier.

[Phil]

Good discussion.

I think everyone will agree that early-season RPI values are close to useless, and as the season goes by they get less and less bad. Ideally, near the end of the season they aren't too terrible. I confess to be surprised that the West Virginia RPI number is so far away from the Massey number. Maybe Charlie is looking at the RPI number.

As I have pointed out earlier, I know the committee starts with RPI, but as the original reveal showed, after they make their adjustments, the selections are closer to the Massey ranking than they are to the RPI ranking which is one of the reasons I look at Massey.

Coyotes makes a good point that the may be better teams to compare to Tennessee than West Virginia. I picked West Virginia because I tend to follow them more closely.

Let's look at Southern Cal.

Their Massey rating is 36 far better than Tennessee. If you don't like Massey look at their RPI, which is 42, far better than Tennessee. they've got one more loss than Tennessee but because they play a much much tougher schedule. The Massey ranking of their strength of schedule is 13th.

They have beaten 28th ranked Cal and 22nd ranked UCLA, so their best wins are better than Tennessee's. Their worst loss is 115 Colorado, which is not a great loss but not remotely close to Vanderbilt.

They have zero opponents ranked in the 300s.

They have four losses in the last 10 which isn't great but that's the same as Tennessee, and that includes three top 10 opponents, compared to Tennessee's one top 10 opponent in the last 10 games.

USC isn't even one of the first four out, its the next four out. What am I missing? seems like USC beats Tennessee on virtually every metric.

[Coyotes]

Tennessee is closer to .500 in their conference than USC. The Pac-12 does have more top 25 teams than the SEC and fewer terrible teams. The east coast bias means that we ignore a team from the west instead of a team from the east.

The Trojans did play TAMU out of conference, but similar to West Virginia, their best OOC victory is probably Fresno State (92). I hate to reward teams that don't even try OOC.....I also have to question the SOS metric from Massey. To be fair, yes, the Trojans do not have a terrible loss on their resume.

The Pac-12 played the 2,3,4,6,10,11,13,19,29,34,41,and 52nd toughest schedules in the country per Massey. That's 8 of the top 25, and 11 of the top 50 with Colorado just missing out at 52.

The SEC by comparison is weak. South Carolina checks in at #8, AFTER four Pac-12 teams. They're followed by.....#21 Mississippi State, #36 TAMU, #38 Missouri, #39 Tennessee #40 Kentucky, #49 LSU, but then every single other SEC team is weaker than the Pac-12's worst team.

[Coyotes]

What about a team like Virginia Tech? How do you measure how well they did to start the season before running into a brutal ACC gauntlet. They beat #85 Ohio State, #25 Rutgers, #46 Villanova in the preseason. They only managed two wins against top 100 teams in the conference in #79 Duke and #98 Virginia. Their worst loss is to #98 Virginia. I mean, it's not a pretty resume, but........they don't have any terrible losses. This is a team that scheduled tough but were let down as Richmond, Dayton, and Chattanooga are not as strong as they traditionally have been.


For the record, I tend to stick to RPI while evaluating rankings. Just a disclaimer.

[pilight]

The big problem with RPI's calculation of SOS is that it overstates the difference in bad teams. Take a look at Sacred Heart and Florida Atlantic. What's the difference in having one on your schedule rather than the other? Realistically, there's none for a team with tournament aspirations. They're both easy wins for anybody who's anybody. But, for the purposes of RPI, Sacred Heart at 16-11 is a much better win than FAU at 5-23. The other problem is that much of the difference isn't controllable. A year ago those two teams had very similar records (13-15 vs 14-17). So teams that are tournament contenders get rewarded or punished for what are essentially random fluctuations.

Let's try an experiment. Which of these non-conference schedules is tougher?

Schedule A

Chadron State
@ St Mary's
Colorado Springs U
North Texas (neutral site)
@ Pacific
Montana St
Denver
Idaho
South Dakota St

Schedule B

SE Missouri
@ Virginia
Lamar
Coppin State
Furman
Jackson State
@UALR
@ Texas
Marquette
@Southern Miss
@ Oregon
@ Washington
Louisiana


According to RPI, schedule A is much tougher despite featuring no ranked teams and only one opponent in the top 50 of RPI. It ranks #26 in the country for non-con SOS while schedule B ranks #76. If Mississippi St, the owner of schedule B, had played the non-con of Wyoming, the owner of schedule A, they would be an unquestioned #1 seed.

_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home

[WNBA 09]

People should really rethink of UCONN being a #1 seed this year. They will be but i believe Baylor , Lousiville , Oregon , Oregon State , Mississippi State and Yes Notre Dame are all better contenders this year honestly.

_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol

[Marquette Fan]

[calbearman76]

[PRballer]

So in Chicago, Creme has:

1. Louisville
2. Stanford
3. Maryland
4. Texas A&M

and....no fans. None. Maybe 3,000.

So, I get the conundrum with Notre Dame's placement in favor of Louisville but you have to have the G-curve considered here. I can't imagine this regional happening without some combo of Notre Dame, Marquette, Iowa or even Iowa State. I say 2 out of those 4 teams need to be playing in Chicago for you to have an atmosphere. Iowa State fans in particular may travel as they historically have done especially since this is the first time in a while the Cyclones have the potential to play the second weekend of the tournament. So make the easy switch and put Iowa State in Chicago, Texas A&M in Albany. And if Iowa wins the Big10 tourney, they are going to Chicago.

Otherwise, this regional would be a dud at the gates and would reflect poorly on Chicago as a host and the women's tournament overall.

Balance is key, I get it. You also have to consider fans being able to access these regional sites, Charlie!

[pilight]

Louisville is about as close to Chicago as either of the Iowa teams

_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home

[Nixtreefan]

Don't worry, the NCAA thinks they will beat Louisville, it is a little over the top for them to seem to give the whiners everything they want and show they are doing it, like with Shepard last year, when they have 3 losses and 2 losses to unranked teams at the time

_________________
"White privilege is unseen by white pompous asses"
Feelings, nothing more than feelings...

[patsweetpat]

Just gonna take the quick opportunity to agitate for my Bruins' seed here...

Charlie's had UCLA seeded worse than ASU ever since he began his projections this season. Fine enough. But now that UCLA's just ended the Sun Devils' conference season in Vegas, I wanna take the opportunity to point out:

*UCLA has more Tier 1 wins than ASU
*UCLA has more Tier 2 wins than ASU
*UCLA's top win is better than ASU's top win
*UCLA has beaten ASU in both of their head-to-head matchups... once on ASU's home court, and once on a neutral court (the two never met in Westwood)
*And if it matters at all, UCLA's played better basketball down the stretch than ASU has

So given all of the above... if the Tournament Committee indeed seeds the teams as Charlie has thusfar projected, I'm gonna officially, OFFICIALLY be quite salty.

If the committee finds itself having to "procedurally" bump a Pac-12 team down to an 8-seed in order to make their brackets work, I think it's the Sun Devils that oughtta take that bullet, not the Bruins.

[patsweetpat]

[Marquette Fan]

Creme now has Marquette as a 5 going to Ames and playing Quinnipiac again in the first round - they upset Marquette in 2017 in the first round. The 5 seed sounds right but not sure that match-up would happen again.

[Marquette Fan]

He updated it again this morning but I can't tell what all is changed. I see he has Marquette going to a different location but still a 5 and still playing Quinnipiac in the first round. I didn't pay enough attention to the rest to know what else he changed.

[Shades]

Does it matter? Has anybody ever tracked his success rate?

_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned

[purduefanatic]

[Marquette Fan]