RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

2018-2019 Bracketology
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11624
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/14/19 9:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
calbearman76 wrote:
myrtle wrote:

The team we'd like to get a shot at would be Louisville.., or send us to Albany and see if we can mess with UConn.

I think the most likely place is Chicago. There is no chance of Louisville because they will either be 1 in n the West or a 2 in either Greensboro or Albany. Albany or Greensboro are also possible if the Committee wants Iowa in Chicago.

yeah, I know. But I think ND is really the #1, #1...which is why I'm not so excited about going there...but whatever, you have to win to move on.

Charlie has Stanford in Chicago as of today, but--tho I don't ever remember him being TOO close on matching the selcom, and this season is a doozie--I see Stanford as being competitive in ANY of those regionals. And the way they've been playing, I'd bet that ND or UConn are less of a challenge than Mississippi State. Vic's got waaay too much to prove, imo. Look. Out. Cool



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
Marquette Fan



Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2563



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/19 7:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
myrtle wrote:
calbearman76 wrote:
myrtle wrote:

The team we'd like to get a shot at would be Louisville.., or send us to Albany and see if we can mess with UConn.

I think the most likely place is Chicago. There is no chance of Louisville because they will either be 1 in n the West or a 2 in either Greensboro or Albany. Albany or Greensboro are also possible if the Committee wants Iowa in Chicago.

yeah, I know. But I think ND is really the #1, #1...which is why I'm not so excited about going there...but whatever, you have to win to move on.

Charlie has Stanford in Chicago as of today, but--tho I don't ever remember him being TOO close on matching the selcom, and this season is a doozie--I see Stanford as being competitive in ANY of those regionals. And the way they've been playing, I'd bet that ND or UConn are less of a challenge than Mississippi State. Vic's got waaay too much to prove, imo. Look. Out. Cool


Yeah I think his location predictions are usually way off.

I'm getting a little worried about Marquette's seed based on some years I think they got way lower than they deserved and they did also get higher than I thought they deserved in 2017 on the flip side. Monday night is feeling a long way's off still...


PRballer



Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 2167



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/19 9:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Marquette Fan wrote:
Howee wrote:
myrtle wrote:
calbearman76 wrote:
myrtle wrote:

The team we'd like to get a shot at would be Louisville.., or send us to Albany and see if we can mess with UConn.

I think the most likely place is Chicago. There is no chance of Louisville because they will either be 1 in n the West or a 2 in either Greensboro or Albany. Albany or Greensboro are also possible if the Committee wants Iowa in Chicago.

yeah, I know. But I think ND is really the #1, #1...which is why I'm not so excited about going there...but whatever, you have to win to move on.

Charlie has Stanford in Chicago as of today, but--tho I don't ever remember him being TOO close on matching the selcom, and this season is a doozie--I see Stanford as being competitive in ANY of those regionals. And the way they've been playing, I'd bet that ND or UConn are less of a challenge than Mississippi State. Vic's got waaay too much to prove, imo. Look. Out. Cool


Yeah I think his location predictions are usually way off.

I'm getting a little worried about Marquette's seed based on some years I think they got way lower than they deserved and they did also get higher than I thought they deserved in 2017 on the flip side. Monday night is feeling a long way's off still...


Hey there - I feel like Marquette should be a 5 with the possibility of playing in Chicago! And you should be happy to draw Iowa State or Texas A&M as I think your guards would do well in those matchups. Agree?


Marquette Fan



Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2563



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/19 11:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PRballer wrote:
Marquette Fan wrote:
Howee wrote:
myrtle wrote:
calbearman76 wrote:
myrtle wrote:

The team we'd like to get a shot at would be Louisville.., or send us to Albany and see if we can mess with UConn.

I think the most likely place is Chicago. There is no chance of Louisville because they will either be 1 in n the West or a 2 in either Greensboro or Albany. Albany or Greensboro are also possible if the Committee wants Iowa in Chicago.

yeah, I know. But I think ND is really the #1, #1...which is why I'm not so excited about going there...but whatever, you have to win to move on.

Charlie has Stanford in Chicago as of today, but--tho I don't ever remember him being TOO close on matching the selcom, and this season is a doozie--I see Stanford as being competitive in ANY of those regionals. And the way they've been playing, I'd bet that ND or UConn are less of a challenge than Mississippi State. Vic's got waaay too much to prove, imo. Look. Out. Cool


Yeah I think his location predictions are usually way off.

I'm getting a little worried about Marquette's seed based on some years I think they got way lower than they deserved and they did also get higher than I thought they deserved in 2017 on the flip side. Monday night is feeling a long way's off still...


Hey there - I feel like Marquette should be a 5 with the possibility of playing in Chicago! And you should be happy to draw Iowa State or Texas A&M as I think your guards would do well in those matchups. Agree?


Yes - Iowa State was one of the places I was hoping Marquette might get sent because of better match-up possibilities. Of course Iowa State draws a ton of fans but MU had their chances to get back up to a host seed and didn't take advantage. I hope they can get at least a 5 - we will see...


5thmantheme



Joined: 11 Apr 2016
Posts: 415



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/19 3:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Coyotes wrote:
5thmantheme wrote:


Iowa in Notre Dame's bracket, for a possible Turner on Gustafson D vs O gun fight.



We've already seen Gustafson versus Turner and Shephard this season.


Oops, then maybe Iowa v UConn for a Collier + Gustafson show.


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 24364



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/19 5:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

MAC. Charlie has three teams in. I don't really understand it. CMU has a signature win over Miami and a high enough RPI.

One of Ohio or Buffalo will win the MAC and get the auto bid. But why will the loser get in? Neither have a signature win and both have bad losses.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 5100
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/19 5:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
MAC. Charlie has three teams in. I don't really understand it. CMU has a signature win over Miami and a high enough RPI.

One of Ohio or Buffalo will win the MAC and get the auto bid. But why will the loser get in? Neither have a signature win and both have bad losses.


Because as I've been saying for years, Charlie is an idiot.



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 58102
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/19 6:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
MAC. Charlie has three teams in. I don't really understand it. CMU has a signature win over Miami and a high enough RPI.

One of Ohio or Buffalo will win the MAC and get the auto bid. But why will the loser get in? Neither have a signature win and both have bad losses.


What do you consider a signature win?

They both have better qualifications than UCF, who has been comfortably in. Kentucky has a worse loss than either of them and only one win that's marginally better than either of their best wins.



_________________
It's time I had some time alone
purduefanatic



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2375
Location: Indiana


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/19 6:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

[quote="pilight"]
myrtle wrote:
MAC. Charlie has three teams in. I don't really understand it. CMU has a signature win over Miami and a high enough RPI.

One of Ohio or Buffalo will win the MAC and get the auto bid. But why will the loser get in? Neither have a signature win and both have bad losses.


What do you consider a signature win?

They both have better qualifications than UCF, who has been comfortably in. Kentucky has a worse loss than either of them and only one win that's marginally better than either of their best wins.[/quote

But those teams haven't been blown away 3 times by a Top 5 RPI team!!! Rolling Eyes


Coyotes



Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 404



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/19 6:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

[quote="purduefanatic"]
pilight wrote:
myrtle wrote:
MAC. Charlie has three teams in. I don't really understand it. CMU has a signature win over Miami and a high enough RPI.

One of Ohio or Buffalo will win the MAC and get the auto bid. But why will the loser get in? Neither have a signature win and both have bad losses.


What do you consider a signature win?

They both have better qualifications than UCF, who has been comfortably in. Kentucky has a worse loss than either of them and only one win that's marginally better than either of their best wins.[/quote

But those teams haven't been blown away 3 times by a Top 5 RPI team!!! Rolling Eyes


Rutgers got blown away 4 times by Top 100 RPI Teams in Ohio State, Gonzaga, Virginia Tech, and Minnesota. Yet they're comfortably in.


SpaceJunkie



Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 3640
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/19 8:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
MAC. Charlie has three teams in. I don't really understand it. CMU has a signature win over Miami and a high enough RPI.

One of Ohio or Buffalo will win the MAC and get the auto bid. But why will the loser get in? Neither have a signature win and both have bad losses.


Buffalo beat South Dakota St (projected 6 seed by Creme) in non-conference play. That's what has Buffalo now, after beating Central Michigan, in good shape to be an at-large now even if they lose tomorrow.

Ohio only has one loss that may be bad, but their best win is a win over Central Michigan, and nothing else except splitting with Buffalo during the regular season. If they don't win tomorrow, they may be on shakier ground.


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 24364



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/19 8:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:


What do you consider a signature win?

They both have better qualifications than UCF, who has been comfortably in.


A: Miami
B: I've never said, or thought, that UCF should be in.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 24364



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/19 9:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

SpaceJunkie wrote:
myrtle wrote:
MAC. Charlie has three teams in. I don't really understand it. CMU has a signature win over Miami and a high enough RPI.

One of Ohio or Buffalo will win the MAC and get the auto bid. But why will the loser get in? Neither have a signature win and both have bad losses.


Buffalo beat South Dakota St (projected 6 seed by Creme) in non-conference play. That's what has Buffalo now, after beating Central Michigan, in good shape to be an at-large now even if they lose tomorrow.



so you would ignore the losses to Dayton, Bowling Green, Kent, and Akron Shocked



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
SpaceJunkie



Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 3640
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/19 9:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
SpaceJunkie wrote:
myrtle wrote:
MAC. Charlie has three teams in. I don't really understand it. CMU has a signature win over Miami and a high enough RPI.

One of Ohio or Buffalo will win the MAC and get the auto bid. But why will the loser get in? Neither have a signature win and both have bad losses.


Buffalo beat South Dakota St (projected 6 seed by Creme) in non-conference play. That's what has Buffalo now, after beating Central Michigan, in good shape to be an at-large now even if they lose tomorrow.



so you would ignore the losses to Dayton, Bowling Green, Kent, and Akron Shocked


I'm pretty sure good wins are worth more than the negative of bad losses, and I'm pretty sure the committee values having non-conference win(s)/non-conference performances (I know because the old Minnesota coach would put together the worst non-conference schedules possible, so the Gophers would miss the NCAA Tournament or last year barely make the tournament when teams below them in the Big Ten would be safely in).


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 58102
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/19 9:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
pilight wrote:


What do you consider a signature win?

They both have better qualifications than UCF, who has been comfortably in.


A: Miami
B: I've never said, or thought, that UCF should be in.


Who would you put in instead of Buffalo/Ohio? TCU? Butler? St Mary's?



_________________
It's time I had some time alone
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 24364



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/19 9:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
myrtle wrote:
pilight wrote:


What do you consider a signature win?

They both have better qualifications than UCF, who has been comfortably in.


A: Miami
B: I've never said, or thought, that UCF should be in.


Who would you put in instead of Buffalo/Ohio? TCU? Butler? St Mary's?


Possibly JMU. They have one bad loss. No real good ones. But they clearly won their conference which has a decent RPI for a mid. And likely lost in their tourney due to injuries. I'd want to know that those players would be back. But if so, I'd reward their performance in conference.

But in general, I don't really know who deserves it more...just that there are several teams that sure look like they DON'T. I'd look for teams that maybe had a bad beginning but got a lot better as the year progressed.

Maybe another B1G team. They had a really competitive conference.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3497
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/19 11:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The issue of the MAC teams points out the significance of the strength of conference. This year the MAC has 4 top 50 teams according to the RPI. That means that the teams can get top 50 wins in conference and not have to rely on non-conference wins alone. These are the 4 teams:

Central Michigan (31 -RPI) 2-1 Top 25 (W-15 UCF,18 Miami L-3 Louisville)
4-4 26-50 (W-33 Buffalo(2), 29 Ohio (1), 39 Quinnipiac, L-26 South Dakota St, 33 Buffalo, 29 Ohio, 44 Miami(O))sub 50 L 2 (84-Toledo, 168-Tulane)

Buffalo (33) 0-2 (L-4 Stanford, 5-Oregon) 5-3 (W-26 South Dakota St, 31-CMU, 29 Ohio, 44 Miami(O)(2), L-29 Ohio, 31 CMU(2)sub 50 L 4(83 Kent St, 118 Dayton, 162 Akron, 218 Bowling Green)

Ohio (29) 0-0 4-3 (W-31 CMU, 33 Buffalo, 44 Miami(O)(2), L-31 CMU, 33 Ohio, 44 Miami(O)) sub 50 L 1 84 Toledo. Best N/C win 51 Lamar

Miami(O) (44) 0-1 3 (Louisville) 2-4 (W-29 Ohio, 31 CMU, L-29 Ohio(2), 33 Buffalo(2))sub 50 L 2(83 Kent St, 124 NIU) Best N/C win 77 Cincinnati

CMU has 2 top 25 wins and 6 top 50 wins with only 2 bad losses which is clearly good enough to make the Tournament.

Buffalo has a solid resume with 5 top 50 wins, but they also have 4 bad losses. Only 19 teams have more than 5 top 50 wins. Comparable teams would be Missouri (5 top 50 wins, 4 sub 50 losses) Rutgers (4 top 50 wins, 3 sub 50 losses) Michigan St (6 top 50 wins, 6 sub 50 wins) Indiana (5 top 50 wins, 6 sub 50 losses, Clemson (4 top 50 wins, 5 sub 50 losses) Tennessee (6 top 50 wins, 4 sub 50 losses). Most of those teams are in, I think Buffalo will make it also.

Ohio has 4 top 50 wins, even if all of them are against MAC teams. Lamar could actually make the top 50 as well with a win in the Southland final. They only have one bad loss and that was to a top 100 team. Given the alternatives I expect that Ohio will also get in.

Miami(O) isn't close, but by being in the top 50 they make the resumes of the other MAC teams significantly better.

There is a problem in this analysis which is that it uses the RPI to rank the teams, so a win over Miami(O) is seen as better than a win over Tennessee, a win over UCF is better than a win over UCLA. But that is what the Committee uses. If you look at the first 8 out according to Charlie Crème only 2 (West Virginia and LSU have 3) have more than two top 50 wins.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3497
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/19 11:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
pilight wrote:
myrtle wrote:
pilight wrote:


What do you consider a signature win?

They both have better qualifications than UCF, who has been comfortably in.


A: Miami
B: I've never said, or thought, that UCF should be in.


Who would you put in instead of Buffalo/Ohio? TCU? Butler? St Mary's?


Possibly JMU. They have one bad loss. No real good ones. But they clearly won their conference which has a decent RPI for a mid. And likely lost in their tourney due to injuries. I'd want to know that those players would be back. But if so, I'd reward their performance in conference.

But in general, I don't really know who deserves it more...just that there are several teams that sure look like they DON'T. I'd look for teams that maybe had a bad beginning but got a lot better as the year progressed.

Maybe another B1G team. They had a really competitive conference.


JMU did not have a top 50 win. Their best wins are over Drexel. They also have four bad losses against UNCW, Wake Forest, Hampton and Hofstra. I agree that when you are trying to come up with the last 3 or 4 at-large teams there are no stellar resumes. But 32 teams get in at-large and unless Drake loses I believe the MAC will get 3.


acsuc99



Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Posts: 626



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/16/19 12:07 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I am too lazy to scroll this thread, did Charlie Creme explain why MISS STATE would be a 1 over Louisville? The VILLE seems to have better NUMBERS.

What's THAT all about Charlie?


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 24364



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/16/19 11:58 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I see they are supposed to announce the debatable eight during sportscenter on Sunday...so 4 of whom will be in and 4 of whom out. Seems kind of like torture for those 8 teams.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3497
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/16/19 1:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

acsuc99 wrote:
I am too lazy to scroll this thread, did Charlie Creme explain why MISS STATE would be a 1 over Louisville? The VILLE seems to have better NUMBERS.

What's THAT all about Charlie?


Crème gave 2 reasons for Mississippi St. First was how big the Louisville loss to Notre Dame was. Second was that Mississippi St got the nod because they were both a regular season and tournament champion.


huskiemaniac



Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 477
Location: NE CT


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/17/19 6:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/sports/ncaa-bracket-selection-sunday-net-rating.html?fbclid=IwAR3HVau5kAUiPIc97imAAgBTUeBvBHA0hqE1BG8zvWaG847cgkhYUkCtz2A


Apologies if this article has already been linked/discussed.


purduefanatic



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2375
Location: Indiana


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/17/19 6:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

huskiemaniac wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/sports/ncaa-bracket-selection-sunday-net-rating.html?fbclid=IwAR3HVau5kAUiPIc97imAAgBTUeBvBHA0hqE1BG8zvWaG847cgkhYUkCtz2A


Apologies if this article has already been linked/discussed.


The NET is only used for men's basketball


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5237
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/17/19 6:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Very interesting. The NCAA has abandoned RPI for men's basketball in favor of a more advanced metric called NET. As the article suggests, NET is closest to Georgia Tech's LMRC (Bayesian) rating and KenPom's main rating. LMRC also rates women's basketball teams, and I've suggested it to pilight for his Fun Bracket. Here is the LMRC (Bayesian) page for WCBB:

https://www2.isye.gatech.edu/~jsokol/lrmcW/
huskiemaniac



Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 477
Location: NE CT


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/17/19 7:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

purduefanatic wrote:
huskiemaniac wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/sports/ncaa-bracket-selection-sunday-net-rating.html?fbclid=IwAR3HVau5kAUiPIc97imAAgBTUeBvBHA0hqE1BG8zvWaG847cgkhYUkCtz2A


Apologies if this article has already been linked/discussed.


The NET is only used for men's basketball


Indeed.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 10 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin