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

So where are they going to find 64 teams?
Goto page 1, 2, 3  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
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12914



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 10:52 am    ::: So where are they going to find 64 teams? Reply Reply with quote

If the season to date is any indication, I don't see any possibility of there being 64 tournament-worthy teams come March.

The P5 ALL look much shallower than usual. There's no league that can claim 5 or 7 or 9 deserving teams. In some cases (like the B10) they're lucky to find three or four.

The BE, A10, WCC, AAC, CUSA certainly are not rushing to fill the void.

I suppose when conference play starts someone has to win and thus some teams will build gaudy records beating their even worse conference brethren. But this looks like the thinnest season I can remember. Maybe the tournament will end up with lots of parity and upsets and be a lot of fun.

Is my impression completely off base? I kind of hope I'm mistaken here.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57591
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 11:22 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

There never are 64 worthy teams in men's or women's ball.



_________________
Make lots of noise
Kiss lots of boys
Or kiss lots of girls
If that's something you're into
When the straight and narrow
Gets a little too straight
Roll up a joint, or don't
Just follow your arrow
Wherever it points, yeah
Follow your arrow
Wherever it points
summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 4890
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 12:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Periodic reminder: It's DECEMBER, not March.

You're welcome.



_________________
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
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10976
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 12:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WCB would do well limiting the field to 16, and even then several teams would suck.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5102
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 12:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
There never are 64 worthy teams in men's or women's ball.


So e-x-t-e-n-s-i-v-e-l-y true.

Perhaps they should limit the tournament to four teams, like football. No poorly attended preliminaries, just a one weekend Final Four.
Joe Foss



Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 3855



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 12:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Although it hasn't happened in 20 years or so, I think the MAC has a chance for an at-large bid. The best candidates look to be either Ball State (8-0, 33 Massey rating) or Central Michigan (7-1, 44 Massey rating). Buffalo (7-1, 51) and Toledo (7-2, 62) aren't far behind, and the league as a whole seems to have more depth than usual, with only two teams outside Massey's top 150. But as summertime blues says, it is pretty early.



_________________
Ohio Bobcats WBB Fan
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12914



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 1:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

summertime blues wrote:
Periodic reminder: It's DECEMBER, not March.

You're welcome.


If by your snarky comment your mean to suggest it's too early to assess teams, I completely disagree. It's not mid November. The reality is that the season is more than a third complete, and the OOC schedule - the opportunity for teams to demonstrate where they fit on the national landscape - is nearly over. We're about to move on to conference play. If a conference is bad (as demonstrated in OOC play), it merely means that bad teams will be beating up on each other.

Take Michigan St as simply a convenient example. In recent years a regular Tourney participant (12 of last 14 years). This year, they don't look very good. They lost the only three "real" games they played, two of them being total beatdowns to two of the top teams, the other a loss to Miami which is similarly a step down from its recent quality.

It doesn't really make Michigan St. any better to now proceed (assuming the best case) to build a good record beating NU, IU, Minn, Purdue, PSU, WI, NW, none of whom has demonstrated they are a quality team.

I think MSU has already demonstrated who they are. It would be unusual for that to change in any meaningful respect between now and selection day regardless of their record in a weak conference.

But, as I said in my initial post, "I suppose when conference play starts someone has to win and thus some teams will build gaudy records beating their even worse conference brethren." So MSU may build a record that makes it look like they belong in the tournament. After all, they have to fill 32 at large bids from somewhere. But I submit that just demonstrates my point that this is one of the thinnest years in memory, and a bunch of MSU-like teams that have proven nothing will end up in the Tournament field.

Think of some of the teams that are well below their usual recent strength. For example, MSU, NU, NW, Miami, UNC, KY, OU, ASU, Stanford, Dayton, GW, Gonzaga, DePaul, etc.

Good chance many of those will still end up in the tournament.

Regarding the MAC, while I would be happy to see them be a two-team league, the reality is that the conference is 3-16 against the RPI top 50. And two of those wins are by Ball St. If Ball St wins the conference, it leaves the remainder currently at 1-16. Again, contrary to the "it's early" theory, there are very very few opportunities left to change that narrative. Now they just get to beat each other, which doesn't prove anything about where they stand in the larger universe.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3135
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 2:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

64 teams is 64 teams. You can talk about some teams being up or down but in the end there will be 64 that make it, and as has been the case forever the top teams will cruise. Right now these would be my picks:

American 2 (UConn, USF)
ACC 8 (Louisville, Notre Dame, Florida St, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, Duke, Miami, Georgia Tech)
Big 12 5 (Texas, Baylor, W Virginia, Oklahoma St, Kansas St)
Big East 4 (Villanova, DePaul, Marquette, St John's)
Big 10 6 (Ohio St, Maryland, Iowa, Michigan, Rutgers, Michigan St)
Pac 12 7 (Oregon, UCLA, Oregon St, Stanford, California, USC, Arizona St)
SEC 6 (Tennessee, South Carolina, Mississippi St, Missouri, Texas A&M, Georgia)
One Bid Conferences 25
One wild card (upset winner that steals bid)

I suspect that by tournament time the Pac 12 will only get 6, and maybe even 5, and that the SEC, Big 12 and/or the American could each pick up a bid. But regardless, there will be 64 teams that make the tournament, another handful worthy of consideration, and at least one that isn't considered among the top 32 that will wind up in the final 16.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12914



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 3:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
64 teams is 64 teams. You can talk about some teams being up or down but in the end there will be 64 that make it, and as has been the case forever the top teams will cruise. Right now these would be my picks:

American 2 (UConn, USF)
ACC 8 (Louisville, Notre Dame, Florida St, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, Duke, Miami, Georgia Tech)
Big 12 5 (Texas, Baylor, W Virginia, Oklahoma St, Kansas St)
Big East 4 (Villanova, DePaul, Marquette, St John's)
Big 10 6 (Ohio St, Maryland, Iowa, Michigan, Rutgers, Michigan St)
Pac 12 7 (Oregon, UCLA, Oregon St, Stanford, California, USC, Arizona St)
SEC 6 (Tennessee, South Carolina, Mississippi St, Missouri, Texas A&M, Georgia)
One Bid Conferences 25
One wild card (upset winner that steals bid)

I suspect that by tournament time the Pac 12 will only get 6, and maybe even 5, and that the SEC, Big 12 and/or the American could each pick up a bid. But regardless, there will be 64 teams that make the tournament, another handful worthy of consideration, and at least one that isn't considered among the top 32 that will wind up in the final 16.


Well I should thank you for assembling all the proof necessary to demonstrate my point. There are at least 2 or 3 in nearly every one of those conference lists that have no business being anywhere near the tournament.

But because, as you say, there will be 64 teams, a bunch of totally undeserving teams will get in. A lot more than usual. It's a weak year.

Where I disagree is that there will be a single team "worthy of consideration" that gets left out. There may be some teams left out who are essentially equal to other teams who are also unworthy but sneak in, but if you don't make it in this year, you have nobody to blame but yourself and have nothing to whine about.


FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 1072



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 4:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

P5 conference play is going to help teams with young players improve, especially if their OOC schedule was laden with cupcakes.


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15767
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 7:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm a Big East fan and I don't think my conference deserves more than two bids. Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe three.



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3135
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 9:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
I'm a Big East fan and I don't think my conference deserves more than two bids. Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe three.


The Big East is very much like the Pac 12 right now in that they may be getting an extra team just because of the way the teams near the bubble fall. But for now I can justify 4. Villanova is undefeated with a win over Duke, IN. St John's has only two losses to South Carolina and USF, both top 25 teams, and have a win on the road at Miami. IN. DePaul has an OT loss to FGCU, a loss to Northern Colorado and a loss to UConn, but they are picked to finish second in the conference. Borderline, but if they play up to expectations in conference they squeak in. Marquette has lost 4 games. When they opened up with a loss at New Mexico it was seen as a bad loss, but New Mexico is undefeated and on the edge of the top 25. Since then they've lost in OT to Tennessee, @Green Bay and @Michigan. Again if they play up to expectations in conference they get in. On the other hand if Butler or Creighton pull some upsets on these top 4 teams it is certainly possible that the conference will drop to 3. But this year the conference is clearly the sixth best conference, closer to the top 5 than to the American at seventh.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12914



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 9:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
I'm a Big East fan and I don't think my conference deserves more than two bids. Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe three.


Serious question. Who's the second?

There's not likely to be anyone other than Nova with an attractive resume come March.

This is a perfect example of my point. All the conferences seem unusually thin. Teams are going to make it for no reason other than that there are 32 at large slots that need to be filled. The Big East will get more than one, but it will likely be hard to find any team other than Villanova that would really be offensive to omit, except in comparison to other undeserving teams from other conferences that will get in.

I just look around and find this to be an exceptionally weak year beneath a very thin veneer at the top. Just no depth. We always talk about how stratified WCBB is, but even considering that, this year seems extreme to me. And it's across the board, not just one or two conferences.


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15767
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/17 10:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Queenie wrote:
I'm a Big East fan and I don't think my conference deserves more than two bids. Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe three.


Serious question. Who's the second?

There's not likely to be anyone other than Nova with an attractive resume come March.

This is a perfect example of my point. All the conferences seem unusually thin. Teams are going to make it for no reason other than that there are 32 at large slots that need to be filled. The Big East will get more than one, but it will likely be hard to find any team other than Villanova that would really be offensive to omit, except in comparison to other undeserving teams from other conferences that will get in.

I just look around and find this to be an exceptionally weak year beneath a very thin veneer at the top. Just no depth. We always talk about how stratified WCBB is, but even considering that, this year seems extreme to me. And it's across the board, not just one or two conferences.


I think much will depend on the conference tournament. DePaul is shakier than usual this year, but they have tradition behind them, and we all know how much the committee loves tradition. They've also got the conference tournament back again (pet peeve: can we maybe get it on the East Coast again at some point, on account of this being the Big East an' all?).

Villanova has that very solid win over Duke; that might be enough.

St. John's hasn't done anything indefensible. Yet. Would have loved to beat South Florida, though.

I suspect Marquette will recover in conference play.

(I would have also boosted Seton Hall, but that epic fail fourth quarter against Rutgers has me negative on them right now. If they beat UCLA, though...)

So I can see two bids, or a one-plus-one if someone less than expected wins the conference tournament while DePaul or someone more secure as an at-large wins the regular season title.

I'm not saying you're wrong about the general shallowness of competition this year- I've noticed it too. A handful of schools are at the top, which is down from the multiple handfuls of the last couple of years, the absolute bottom is a steaming mess, and the middle seems to be sinking to the bottom.

(no, I must resist making an economic comparison here, let's not derail this thread into politics)



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
UK1996



Joined: 03 Sep 2015
Posts: 327



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/17 2:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

summertime blues wrote:
Periodic reminder: It's DECEMBER, not March.

You're welcome.

Couldn't agree more, how you are playing in March is much more important than how you play in December. There are several young teams that will get better throughout the year.


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15767
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/17 10:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
St. John's hasn't done anything indefensible. Yet.


welp



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 23370



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/17 10:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It always comes down to pulling a few names out of the random hat. Maybe I'll vote for your team if you vote for mine...



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
SO ...I lost a bet with Rock about how many wins Chicago would get this year. My punishment - T. Young as my avatar. Well it could be worse!
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12914



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/17 11:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
Queenie wrote:
St. John's hasn't done anything indefensible. Yet.


welp



Soooooooooo, where are they going to find 64 teams?


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15767
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 12:22 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Queenie wrote:
Queenie wrote:
St. John's hasn't done anything indefensible. Yet.


welp



Soooooooooo, where are they going to find 64 teams?


Have you checked the couch cushions?



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12914



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 12:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Queenie wrote:
Queenie wrote:
St. John's hasn't done anything indefensible. Yet.


welp



Soooooooooo, where are they going to find 64 teams?


Have you checked the couch cushions?


Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9322



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 10:53 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I think one of the things we're seeing here is the slow hollowing-out of the talent at the lower levels. Volleyball especially is taking away top-shelf athletes, and soccer (played in the winter in California) is not far behind.

The lifeblood of any sport is the people who play it, and girls' basketball isn't the automatic default for elite athletes that it once was.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
TotalCardinalMove



Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1109



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 11:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Who cares? It’s December. A lot of teams and players will more than likely be playing a lot differently come tournmant time. Regardless, they’ll find 64 teams.


Nixtreefan



Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2153



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 11:57 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Be prepared for some wrath Laughing I think someone tried that approach above but yes.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12914



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 12:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I get a chuckle every time someone responds "they'll find 64 teams". Sure they will. There are over 300 teams. They'll pick some warm bodies to fill up the bracket. As has been acknowledged several times already.

Which of course has nothing to do with the point of the thread which is that there won't be 64 TOURNAMENT-WORTHY teams. And absent the sudden appearance of Dumbledore and his magic wand, that's not going to change between now and March.

Why raising that reality for discussion evidently offends some people escapes me. If you don't care, then why respond at all?


TotalCardinalMove



Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1109



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 12:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
I get a chuckle every time someone responds "they'll find 64 teams". Sure they will. There are over 300 teams. They'll pick some warm bodies to fill up the bracket. As has been acknowledged several times already.

Which of course has nothing to do with the point of the thread which is that there won't be 64 TOURNAMENT-WORTHY teams. And absent the sudden appearance of Dumbledore and his magic wand, that's not going to change between now and March.

Why raising that reality for discussion evidently offends some people escapes me. If you don't care, then why respond at all?


When has there ever been 64 TOURNAMENT-WORTHY teams? Doesn’t the “bubble” exist every season? It’s a moot point anyway, regardless of who gets in, it will likely be the usual teams competiting at the end anyway.


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 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
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