| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5155
Location: Carson City
Back to top |
 Posted: 02/11/23 2:02 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
| undersized_post wrote: |
NCAA Selection Committee's first official Top 16 reveal:
1. South Carolina
2. Indiana
3. Stanford
4. UConn
5. LSU
6. Utah
7. Iowa
8. Duke
9. Maryland
10. Notre Dame
11. Michigan
12. Texas
13. Virginia Tech
14. North Carolina
15. Villanova
16. Ohio State |
The selection Committee definitely surprised on a few counts. The biggest surprise for me was Villanova making the list. The Wildcats best win was over Creighton (who they also lost to). They have three other losses, including UConn, Iowa St and Baylor. Their other best wins are South Florida, Princeton and Marquette.
Texas also seems high given that they have 6 losses, with only UConn in the top 16. They are only 4-3 on the road and 2-2 on neutral courts. Both Villanova and Texas were benefitted by high NET ratings (Texas 10, Villanova 11). This represents a change from previous years when who you played and who you beat were given higher priority.
Florida St was left out (even before their loss to Miami) despite wins over Duke and North Carolina and a better record in the ACC and higher NET than UNC.
|
|
mzonefan
Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 4878
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/11/23 7:25 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| readyAIMfire53 wrote: |
Yep, you bested the ACC 5-4. Of course, it's due to the near bottom of the ACC pulling off conference upsets and thus leading to a couple of ACC teams barely missing the top 16 cut. Top BIG teams only have to survive other top BIG teams beating each other up as the bottom BIG teams have little/no chance of pulling an upset.
So, it's the ongoing debate of what constitutes being a top conference? Is it having strong teams at the top only or having good teams in the bottom half who can beat a strong team on any given night? Meanwhile, congrats to both the BIG and the ACC this season! |
I didn’t realize I was comparing results to other conferences or said depth of those conferences. Can’t one just be excited about one’s own?
|
|
readyAIMfire53
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 7377
Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/11/23 7:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mzonefan wrote: |
| readyAIMfire53 wrote: |
Yep, you bested the ACC 5-4. Of course, it's due to the near bottom of the ACC pulling off conference upsets and thus leading to a couple of ACC teams barely missing the top 16 cut. Top BIG teams only have to survive other top BIG teams beating each other up as the bottom BIG teams have little/no chance of pulling an upset.
So, it's the ongoing debate of what constitutes being a top conference? Is it having strong teams at the top only or having good teams in the bottom half who can beat a strong team on any given night? Meanwhile, congrats to both the BIG and the ACC this season! |
I didn’t realize I was comparing results to other conferences or said depth of those conferences. Can’t one just be excited about one’s own? |
Yes, absolutely. Congrats to the BIG!
_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.
~rAf
|
|
whoopsjunkie2
Joined: 12 Apr 2022
Posts: 11
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/14/23 8:22 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Anyone else think Baylor should be dropping? Feels like they should be dropping towards the 9 line at least. Seems like Creme is giving them name-recognition benefit, they're 16-8 and 7-5 in Big 12.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66928
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/14/23 8:29 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Creme is acknowledging that the committee gives name recognition benefits
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66928
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/14/23 9:17 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| LSU is going to be a challenge to seed properly. Creme and the committee reveal both show them as a #2 seed. Their resume is more indicative of a #6 or #7 seed. Only four Q1 wins and only five Q1 games. Columbia has a better record against Q1 opponents. Jackson State has played more Q1 games. LSU has six Q2 wins. Creighton has more Q1 wins and more Q2 wins, Creme has them as a #8 seed. LSU is going to be overseeded and will probably get upset early in the tournament.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15744
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/14/23 10:27 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| LSU is going to be a challenge to seed properly. Creme and the committee reveal both show them as a #2 seed. Their resume is more indicative of a #6 or #7 seed. Only four Q1 wins and only five Q1 games. Columbia has a better record against Q1 opponents. Jackson State has played more Q1 games. LSU has six Q2 wins. Creighton has more Q1 wins and more Q2 wins, Creme has them as a #8 seed. LSU is going to be overseeded and will probably get upset early in the tournament. |
Hopefully, they'll have a host of metrics to utilize here, but still....name rec, actual w/l record...yeah - they'll probably stumble earlier than expected. They haven't beaten one ranked team all year, right?
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
whoopsjunkie2
Joined: 12 Apr 2022
Posts: 11
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/14/23 10:35 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| LSU is going to be a challenge to seed properly. Creme and the committee reveal both show them as a #2 seed. Their resume is more indicative of a #6 or #7 seed. Only four Q1 wins and only five Q1 games. Columbia has a better record against Q1 opponents. Jackson State has played more Q1 games. LSU has six Q2 wins. Creighton has more Q1 wins and more Q2 wins, Creme has them as a #8 seed. LSU is going to be overseeded and will probably get upset early in the tournament. |
FYI: committee doesn't use quads as they do in the men's side. It is simply about final NET ranking and ranking of opponents as far as NET is concerned.
Which is something I think is utterly ridiculous.
|
|
whoopsjunkie2
Joined: 12 Apr 2022
Posts: 11
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/14/23 10:37 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Creme is acknowledging that the committee gives name recognition benefits |
I did read that but I think that it really makes more sense to apply it to coaches rather than teams where those coaches no longer coach. Nothing against Baylor but they've had a mediocre (by their standards) season thus far and I think they belong on the bubble.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66928
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/14/23 10:39 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| whoopsjunkie2 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| Creme is acknowledging that the committee gives name recognition benefits |
I did read that but I think that it really makes more sense to apply it to coaches rather than teams where those coaches no longer coach. Nothing against Baylor but they've had a mediocre (by their standards) season thus far and I think they belong on the bubble. |
I'd rate them as a #8 or #9 seed. That's not really "on the bubble".
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
singinerd54
Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 1817
Location: Missouri
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/14/23 11:26 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| whoopsjunkie2 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| LSU is going to be a challenge to seed properly. Creme and the committee reveal both show them as a #2 seed. Their resume is more indicative of a #6 or #7 seed. Only four Q1 wins and only five Q1 games. Columbia has a better record against Q1 opponents. Jackson State has played more Q1 games. LSU has six Q2 wins. Creighton has more Q1 wins and more Q2 wins, Creme has them as a #8 seed. LSU is going to be overseeded and will probably get upset early in the tournament. |
FYI: committee doesn't use quads as they do in the men's side. It is simply about final NET ranking and ranking of opponents as far as NET is concerned.
Which is something I think is utterly ridiculous. |
Oh! Where did you read or hear about this? Do you know of other differences between how the men's and women's committees handle seeding?
|
|
whoopsjunkie2
Joined: 12 Apr 2022
Posts: 11
Back to top |
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5155
Location: Carson City
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/14/23 1:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Interesting note on today's Creme Bracketology. The at-large teams included are the exact same as the top 36 in the NET (excluding Conference leaders.)
|
|
Stormeo
Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 4701
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/19/23 1:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| the NET system starts to look a bit sus to me when a team like Oregon (14-12 [5-10 conf.], losers of 6-straight) remains in the Top 30
|
|
Marquette Fan
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 3581
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/19/23 9:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| singinerd54 wrote: |
| whoopsjunkie2 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| LSU is going to be a challenge to seed properly. Creme and the committee reveal both show them as a #2 seed. Their resume is more indicative of a #6 or #7 seed. Only four Q1 wins and only five Q1 games. Columbia has a better record against Q1 opponents. Jackson State has played more Q1 games. LSU has six Q2 wins. Creighton has more Q1 wins and more Q2 wins, Creme has them as a #8 seed. LSU is going to be overseeded and will probably get upset early in the tournament. |
FYI: committee doesn't use quads as they do in the men's side. It is simply about final NET ranking and ranking of opponents as far as NET is concerned.
Which is something I think is utterly ridiculous. |
Oh! Where did you read or hear about this? Do you know of other differences between how the men's and women's committees handle seeding? |
This is a recent article on a Marquette blog about it and highlights key differences between what they do for NET for Men's and Women's Basketball - https://www.anonymouseagle.com/2023/2/11/23595427/marquette-golden-eagles-womens-basketball-ncaa-tournament-bubble-net-rankings-sorting
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 2864
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/25/23 5:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
1. South Carolina (No. 1 seed — Greenville Region)
2. Indiana (No. 1 seed — Greenville Region)
3. Stanford (No. 1 seed — Seattle Region)
4. Utah (No. 1 seed — Seattle Region)
5. LSU
6. Maryland
7. UConn
8. Virginia Tech
9. Iowa
10. Notre Dame
11. Duke
12. Ohio State
13. Texas
14. Villanova
15. Arizona
16. Michigan
It's two days old at this point but I thought I'd post the reveal of the committee's latest top 16. With their upset of Stanford today, Utah definitely justified their new position as a 1-seed!
_________________
RebKell's 2021-2022 NCAA Fantasy League Regular Season Champion 🏆
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15744
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
Fighting Artichoke
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040
Back to top |
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15744
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 2864
Back to top |
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5155
Location: Carson City
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/28/23 2:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Arizona will likely play UCLA in the Pac 12 tournament. The loser will be a 6 or even a 7 seed. The winner has a shot at a top 4 seed but will likely wind up a 5 unless they beat Stanford.
|
|
Stormeo
Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 4701
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/01/23 3:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stormeo wrote: |
| the NET system starts to look a bit sus to me when a team like Oregon (14-12 [5-10 conf.], losers of 6-straight) remains in the Top 30 |
Oregon's still firmly a bubble team at 16-13 but is #18 in the NET, so again how legitimate is this rankings system?
|
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5155
Location: Carson City
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/01/23 5:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stormeo wrote: |
| Stormeo wrote: |
| the NET system starts to look a bit sus to me when a team like Oregon (14-12 [5-10 conf.], losers of 6-straight) remains in the Top 30 |
Oregon's still firmly a bubble team at 16-13 but is #18 in the NET, so again how legitimate is this rankings system? |
I suspect todays game will decide Oregon's fate. A win over Wahington probably gets them in, a loss puts them in the NIT
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/01/23 6:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stormeo wrote: |
| Stormeo wrote: |
| the NET system starts to look a bit sus to me when a team like Oregon (14-12 [5-10 conf.], losers of 6-straight) remains in the Top 30 |
Oregon's still firmly a bubble team at 16-13 but is #18 in the NET, so again how legitimate is this rankings system? |
That's actually the example I most often see raised by articles questioning the validity and common sense of the NET formula.
And if the two "reveals" are an actual indication, the Committee isn't paying much attention to its own proprietary metric.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/01/23 11:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stormeo wrote: |
| Stormeo wrote: |
| the NET system starts to look a bit sus to me when a team like Oregon (14-12 [5-10 conf.], losers of 6-straight) remains in the Top 30 |
Oregon's still firmly a bubble team at 16-13 but is #18 in the NET, so again how legitimate is this rankings system? |
The polls are a measure of the teams right now while NET is a seeding tool and seeding looks at the entire season. Right now UConn is playing like a 4 seed but those wins against ranked opponents still work in their favor. UConn has little chance to improve their seed except maybe beating Vill but maybe Geno would rather be a 3 and save his team's legs. He wouldn't be the first.
|
|
|
|
