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

Bracketology 2018
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
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
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2725
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/16/18 4:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Time to update my thoughts on mid-majors and at-large bids. I am including the updated information in bold italic

calbearman76 wrote:
What mid-majors have a chance at an at-large bid?

Currently there are 1718 mid-major teams in the top 64 of the RPI, but a reasonable assessment shows that only a few have any real shot at an at-large berth.

Horizon
Wisconsin Green Bay (RPI - 1613) With 4 wins over top 50 teams (Marquette, Arizona St, Dayton and South Dakota St) and only 23 losses (Mississippi St and Northern Kentucky). They can probably afford two losses and still get in as an at-large, but it is more likely they will win the Horizon automatic bid. Even with today's loss to Cleveland St, Green Bay has still moved up to 13 in the past two weeks
IUPUI (63) (67) Without a top 50 win it is very unlikely that they will be able to get an at large bid. They will need to win the Horizon tournament.

Mid-American
Buffalo (24) (14) Despite being the highest rated RPI team in the MAC the Bulls are 21games behind Central Michigan. They also have 2 very bad losses (Niagara and Northern Illinois). But while they only have one top 50 win (Ball St) now, they also have wins over Nebraska and St John's that could become top 50 wins. A win over CMU in their rematch doesmake their resume very good. At this point Buffalo is a tournament team as long as they don't get upset before the end of the season.
Central Michigan (30)(26) CMU went through the non-conference season without an impressive win. They played 3 top 100 teams and lost all of them (Purdue, Quinnipiac and Duquesne) None are bad losses, but the best wins were Vanderbilt and Iowa St. The Chippewas have the toughest conference schedule, playing Buffalo, Ball St and Toledo twice each. So far CMU has beaten Buffalo and Ball St, but they could wind up with 7 or 8 top 50 games, rare for a mid-major. If they win the MAC regular season with 0 or 1 loss and get to the semifinal in the MAC tourney they could get an at-large bid. If CMU goes undefeated the rest of the regular season a defeat in the MAC tournament should not keep them out of the NCAA
Ball St (34) (42) The Cardinals went undefeated in non-conference play, including wins over top 50 teams Purdue and Western Kentucky. Since conference play started they have cooled off, losing to each of the other top 3 teams. They have rematches with both Toledo and CMU left in the regular season. Ball St lost to Ohio so they will now have to win the MAC tourney to make the NCAA.
Toledo (58)(62) Toledo currently sits 4th in the MAC. With 2 bad losses (E Michigan and Kent St) the Rockets will have a tough time making their resume good enough to get an at large bid. But they do have 2 games left vs CMU and a game each vs Buffalo and Ball St and if they win all 4 the conference will be turned upside down. Toledo has fallen to 6-7 in the MAC, but they are still in the top 64 of the RPI. Go Figure.
While it seems unlikely the MAC could actually get 2 at-large bids if the top 3 teams only lose to each other. CMU would probably need to lose to each of the other two once. At this point it looks like CMU and Buffalo are in if they don't get upset, and if someone else wins the MAC tourney they could get 3.

Atlantic 10
Dayton (41)(40) The Flyers had 4 non conference losses (Green Bay, South Florida, Quinnipiac, Toledo) and a good win over Virginia. The Atlantic 10 is not as good as usual, but they do have 2 good teams. Dayton beat Duquesne in the regular season. If both teams stay undefeated otherwise and Duquesne returns the favor in the A-10 tourney final Dayton will get a long look.
Duquesne (53)(57) The Dukes had two bad non conference losses to Charlotte and E Tennessee St but also had two good wins (Virginia and Central Michigan). Because they lost to Dayton earlier this week it is unlikely they can get an at-large bid, but if they keep winning they could help the conference. The Dukes loss to St Joseph's so only an A-10 Tourney win will earn a golden ticket.

Summit
South Dakota St (44) (36)SDSU had a good non-conference schedule which included 6 games against top 50 teams. They won 2 (North Carolina St and Oklahoma) and lost 4 (Louisville, Green Bay, FGCU and Creighton). By itself this would be just enough to get in, but without much margin for error. Unfortunately error came in the form of a home loss to South Dakota. In order for SDSU to get an at-large bid they would have to endure another loss to South Dakota in the Summit tournament. Unless the Coyotes are able to move into the RPI top 50, it seems doubtful.
South Dakota (69) The Coyotes have only 2 top 100 wins (Creighton (45) and SDSU (44). Their only remaining top 100 game is SDSU, and if they beat them it is likely the Jackrabbits will fall out of the top 50. They have 3 sub-100 losses, so it seems highly unlikely the Coyotes can get an at-large bid. As for them being able to move into the top 50, their next two games against 5-14 North Dakota St and 3-16 IPFW make that unlikely as well.

Other Conferences
Northern Colorado (39)(34) Northern Colorado beat both DePaul and LSU non-conference but they have 6 losses to teams outside the top 50, so they have almost no chance.
Florida Gulf Coast (RPI 42)(48) FGCU got upset by North Florida today. Given the weakness of the Atlantic Sun Conference, another loss by FGCU would likely knock them out of an at-large berth, which they would have if they lose in the A-Sun tourney.
Western Kentucky (46)(43) The Hilltoppers beat Missouri in the first game of the season. That win is the only real positive on the resume, but it could be enough because the negatives aren't that bad. Their losses are to Notre Dame, Iowa, Ball St, Indiana and UAB; all but ND on the road. They would have to lose another game in the Conf USA tourney to be considered for an at-large bid so the Committee would have to be very impressed with that opening night home win; unlikely but not impossible. With their loss to UAB, WKU will not get an at-large bid.
Drexel (47)(58) The Dragons may be a top 50 RPI team but they haven't beaten one. Their best wins are over Elon (73) and Butler (88). Drexel hosts the Colonial tournament so they be able to win and get in, but an at-large bid is highly unlikely.
Elon (57) Elon has moved into the top 64 with wins over Drexel and James Madison, but even though they were the best team non-conference in the Colonial they will not get an at-large.
Princeton (53)(31) Princeton is another team without a top 50 win. Their only top 90 win is over Quinnipiac, but their worst loss is to Georgia Tech (74). The Tigers could get some consideration for an at-large bid if (1) Quinnipiac moves into the top 50, (2) Princeton goes undefeated in the Ivy regular season and (3) loses in the finals of the Ivy tournament. This may not be enough, but it will give them a look. Princeton lost to Yale, and yet they have jumped to 31 in the RPI. But an at-large bid is a major long shot.
Quinnipiac (55)(53) The Bobcats played 8 top 64 teams in the non-conference season, winning 3 (Central Michigan, Northern Colorado and Dayton) and losing 5 (Ohio St, Missouri, Iowa, Princeton, Michigan St). That is borderline at-large. Unfortunately the MAAC is so bad that any loss, even in the MAAC tourney probably tips the scales against them.
Mercer (62)(61) The Bears have only lost 2 games all year to Georgia and Western Kentucky, but their best win is over Central Florida. The Committee hasn't generally looked favorably upon such thin resumes, but an undefeated conference season and a loss in the Southern Conference final should merit some consideration.
Gonzaga (41) I inadvertently left Gonzaga off the list last time even though they were in the top 64. They do not have a top 50 win so they will not get an at large bid
American (55) American has moved into the top 64 but also has no top 50 wins and no chance.
Belmont (76) Belmont is now ranked in the AP top 25 so I have included them here. Despite an RPI of 76 the overall resume is decent. The Bruins opened the season losing at Oklahoma and then had a very successful Las Vegas trip, beating Gonzaga and FGCU while losing to Stanford. The only real blemish on the schedule is a loss to Wright State. This would be a borderline (probably just out) resume, but in order to get in as an at large team they would have to endure a bad loss in the Ohio Valley Tournament, so even though the Bruins are ranked an at-large berth is highly unlikely.


summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 4788
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/16/18 2:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Reminding you that Elon and JMU are 1-1.



_________________
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
linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 3551



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/16/18 5:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
linkster wrote:

What you are missing is the relatively new policy of separating 1-16 teams from the same conference. Now this year the SEC may have more than 4 teams in the top 16 but if not they need to be in separate regions.

In essence what we have at this point is that the committee can and does do anything they want and have policy mandate to point to no matter what.

1. We used the geographical mandate, or
2, We were bound by keeping conference opponents apart (but we don't hesitate to make a 4 a 5 to avoid this), or
3. We needed to "balance the regions".

I don't think the committee itself has any hidden agendas but I do think that what goes on before the committee sits (prioritizing which policies take precedence within the inner circle of the NCAA Womens basketball poobahs which binds the committee's hands) are tainted with political agendas


I'm curious. Where does this new policy come from? The information I quoted was from NCAA.org. It wouldn't surprise me that there is such a policy but I can't find it. Can you help?

The Committee has occasionally violated its own principles but more often it has run into problems by slavishly sticking to new principles that weren't well thought out. The best example was the writing/interpreting of the geographic principle which completely undid the S-curve concept.


Here's the specific policy I was referring to.

Quote:
 Each of the first four teams selected from a conference
shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded
on the first four lines.


http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017-18DIWBKB_PreChampMan_20171031.pdf

The pertinant section I quoted is in Appendix C on page 26 of the PDF file, Sec III - Principles for Placing Teams into the Championship
Bracket


If you read through the entire thing you'll see that there are many exceptions to basic S-curve seeding and little prioritizing of those exceptions. That's why I would favor a simple S-curve.

What I find funny is that the document states clearly that RPI is but "one of many" tools used to seed teams. But if you were to listen to their comments over the last umpteen years about how they seeded specific teams, RPI would be the only tool ever mentioned.




Last edited by linkster on 02/16/18 5:47 pm; edited 2 times in total
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2725
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/16/18 5:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
calbearman76 wrote:
linkster wrote:

What you are missing is the relatively new policy of separating 1-16 teams from the same conference. Now this year the SEC may have more than 4 teams in the top 16 but if not they need to be in separate regions.

In essence what we have at this point is that the committee can and does do anything they want and have policy mandate to point to no matter what.

1. We used the geographical mandate, or
2, We were bound by keeping conference opponents apart (but we don't hesitate to make a 4 a 5 to avoid this), or
3. We needed to "balance the regions".

I don't think the committee itself has any hidden agendas but I do think that what goes on before the committee sits (prioritizing which policies take precedence within the inner circle of the NCAA Womens basketball poobahs which binds the committee's hands) are tainted with political agendas


I'm curious. Where does this new policy come from? The information I quoted was from NCAA.org. It wouldn't surprise me that there is such a policy but I can't find it. Can you help?

The Committee has occasionally violated its own principles but more often it has run into problems by slavishly sticking to new principles that weren't well thought out. The best example was the writing/interpreting of the geographic principle which completely undid the S-curve concept.


Quote:
 Each of the first four teams selected from a conference
shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded
on the first four lines.


http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017-18DIWBKB_PreChampMan_20171031.pdf

The pertinant section is on page 26 of the PDF file, Sec III - Principles for Placing Teams into the Championship
Bracket


Thanks. That is more specific than what I had seen.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2725
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/16/18 6:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

summertime blues wrote:
Reminding you that Elon and JMU are 1-1.


I included Elon because they are now in the top 64. JMU is 76 and is a game ahead of Drexel. Elon split with both teams. Do you know who would get the tiebreaker if Drexel beats JMU and they wind up tied for first at 14-2. It would be a big advantage to avoid Elon in the semis.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 10982
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/18 12:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Tell me, what does the "first four out" category mean, exactly?



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners!

<--Maddie Manning, Sooner Extraordinaire
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 47828



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/18 12:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Tell me, what does the "first four out" category mean, exactly?


The 4 best teams not in the tournament.



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



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 3551



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/18 2:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Looking at Creme's latest bracket I have to wonder if he follows the policies.

The 1 seeds are placed in their regions. He puts Louis in Lexington despite Miss St being a higher seed and I guess that he sees N Dame as the 4th one seed but overall they are done as the NCAA would. The 2 seeds are also placed correctly in that Fla St is the worst of the 4, Oregon is where they should be and as long as Baylor is seeded higher than Texas they are placed correctly.

The problem is with the 3 seeds. There are 3 SEC teams in that tier and seeing how Miss St has already been placed the three should be placed in the remaining 3 regions. But Creme ignores the policy and puts Tenn in Miss St's region, leaving the east regional without an SEC team. In addition he sends the only non-SEC 3 seed, UCLA to the East for the what I believe is the third straight year. Now he does place 4 seed Georgia in the East and I'm sure he would say that there is a requirement to "balance" the regions.

There are 2 "policies in play:

 Each of the first four teams selected from a conference
shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded
on the first four lines.


If the committee is unable to balance the bracket after
exhausting all possible options, it has the flexibility to
permit two teams from the same conference to meet
each other after the first round.


Now a traditional balanced bracket would put the worst 2 seed, the best 3 seed and the worst 4 seed in UConn's bracket, likewise for the remaining regions. But is this truly a balanced bracket? It is if one assumes that the gaps between each seed are equal but one only needs to look at the raw numbers in any ranking system (RPI, Massey, Sagarin etc) to see that the gaps between teams are all different. So simply adding up ranking numbers doesn't necessarily result in balance. In fact what is typical is that the difference among a couple of groups of teams in the top 16 are virtually identical and if I still remembered my college statistical methods would be proven to be due to chance.

The more one looks at all the exceptions there are to a pure S-curve the more it becomes an exercise in futility. What it does allow for however are plausible reasons for the committee to do pretty much whatever it wishes.

The only principles I would have are the placement by geography and separating conference rivals. Take the top 16 teams, rank them and then place them by geography while separating conference rivals if possible. The rest should just be placed by the S curve with a few geographical adjustments to accommodate fans. The idea of keeping travel costs down is dubious. Sure, there are teams that are close enough to drive to the games but once air travel is involved the difference between a 2 hour flight and a 5 hour flight isn't that different when we factor in the time spent getting to and from the airport. And as far as the other 48 teams, realistically all but a small hand full are gone after the first weekend.

And the system could also be served by re-seeding teams after the 1st weekend & holding the S16 & E8 at one location.


linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 3551



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/18 2:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Looking at Creme's latest bracket I have to wonder if he follows the policies.

The 1 seeds are placed in their regions. He puts Louis in Lexington despite Miss St being a higher seed and I guess that he sees N Dame as the 4th one seed but overall they are done as the NCAA would. The 2 seeds are also placed correctly in that Fla St is the worst of the 4, Oregon is where they should be and as long as Baylor is seeded higher than Texas they are placed correctly.

The problem is with the 3 seeds. There are 3 SEC teams in that tier and seeing how Miss St has already been placed the three should be placed in the remaining 3 regions. But Creme ignores the policy and puts Tenn in Miss St's region, leaving the east regional without an SEC team. In addition he sends the only non-SEC 3 seed, UCLA to the East for the what I believe is the third straight year. Now he does place 4 seed Georgia in the East and I'm sure he would say that there is a requirement to "balance" the regions.

There are 2 "policies in play:

 Each of the first four teams selected from a conference
shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded
on the first four lines.


If the committee is unable to balance the bracket after
exhausting all possible options, it has the flexibility to
permit two teams from the same conference to meet
each other after the first round.


http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017-18DIWBKB_PreChampMan_20171031.pdf

Now a traditional balanced bracket would put the worst 2 seed, the best 3 seed and the worst 4 seed in UConn's bracket, likewise for the remaining regions. But is this truly a balanced bracket? It is if one assumes that the gaps between each seed are equal but one only needs to look at the raw numbers in any ranking system (RPI, Massey, Sagarin etc) to see that the gaps between teams are all different. So simply adding up ranking numbers doesn't necessarily result in balance. In fact what is typical is that the difference among a couple of groups of teams in the top 16 are virtually identical and if I still remembered my college statistical methods would be proven to be due to chance.

The more one looks at all the exceptions there are to a pure S-curve the more it becomes an exercise in futility. What it does allow for however are plausible reasons for the committee to do pretty much whatever it wishes.

The only principles I would have are the placement by geography and separating conference rivals. Take the top 16 teams, rank them and then place them by geography while separating conference rivals if possible. The rest should just be placed by the S curve with a few geographical adjustments to accommodate fans. The idea of keeping travel costs down is dubious. Sure, there are teams that are close enough to drive to the games but once air travel is involved the difference between a 2 hour flight and a 5 hour flight isn't that different when we factor in the time spent getting to and from the airport. And as far as the other 48 teams, realistically all but a small hand full are gone after the first weekend.

And the system could also be served by re-seeding teams after the 1st weekend & holding the S16 & E8 at one location.


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 22506



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/18 3:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:


And the system could also be served by re-seeding teams after the 1st weekend & holding the S16 & E8 at one location.


I like the idea of having the games in one location, but re-seeding seems like it discriminates against those lower seeds who manage to overperform in the first weekend. If an 8 beats a 1 on the 1's home court, why should they then have to play another 1 in the S16? Or am I mis-interpreting your re-seeding comment.



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



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 3551



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/18 3:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
linkster wrote:


And the system could also be served by re-seeding teams after the 1st weekend & holding the S16 & E8 at one location.


I like the idea of having the games in one location, but re-seeding seems like it discriminates against those lower seeds who manage to overperform in the first weekend. If an 8 beats a 1 on the 1's home court, why should they then have to play another 1 in the S16? Or am I mis-interpreting your re-seeding comment.


No your aren't. There are arguments both ways. If the 8 isn't re-seeded it also gives an unearned advantage to the 4 seed in their region. I really have no preference either way. I just think that holding it in one place eliminates all the BS about geography and it would make for an exciting weekend, especially in some place like Vegas.


Marquette Fan



Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2208



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/18 6:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
Looking at Creme's latest bracket I have to wonder if he follows the policies.



One thing I've noticed is he tends to have season rematches in his predictions. I thought they generally tried to avoid those in early rounds. For example, he has Marquette-Michigan paired up now and they played this year. He also had Marquette-Quinnipiac paired in an earlier bracket and I doubt they'd have them face each other two years in a row in the NCAA's although I don't think there's a rule about that.

But for me it's fun to look every week and see Marquette as in there for sure Smile. They had such a long drought from the NCAA Tourney before last season - feels great to have them in the mix two seasons in a row. I have to enjoy it while I can too as I think things are going to drop off majorly after this year's junior class graduates.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2725
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/18 6:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Linkster, your comments are very interesting and I agree with you on most of them. With regard to the placement of number one seeds, I believe that Mississippi St, if they are the second overall #1 seed, deserves to be in Lexington. Prior to this year the way the principles read there is no question they would have been put there. But with the new wording the Committee is given more flexibility and it is hard to say whether they will give preference to the number 2 seed over the number 3 or 4 overall seed in terms of placement. Indeed I wouldn't be shocked if the number 3 overall seed gets shipped to Spokane because of overall bracket balancing.

On your second point. I completely agree that the new principles require that Tennessee not be in the Midwest region. I actually don't like this rule because it is more likely to force a round of 16 matchup between conference teams, but the new principals as written would require Tennessee to be in the East in Creme's bracket.

On the point of balancing brackets the rule is specific in how that is to be determined. The teams are rated 1 to 16 and placed into the bracket. The total of the seeds in each of the 4 regions must be with 5 points of each other. That requires the Committee to use that basis for balancing the bracket even if, for instance, there is substantially no difference between teams 11 and 15. Once the teams are assigned their position in the overall ranking that stays with them for purposes of arranging the bracket.

When I was trying to put together my bracket, which I will post after taking into account tonight's games, this is how I broke down the 16 seeds.

Albany: 1 Connecticut, 7 Florida St, 13 Ohio St, 14 Stanford Total 35
Lexington 3 Louisville, 8 Texas, 11, Missouri, 12 Texas Total 34
Kansas City 2 Mississippi St, 5 Baylor, 10 UCLA, 15 N Carolina St Total 32
Spokane 4 Notre Dame, 6 Oregon, 9 South Carolina, 16 Texas A&M Total 35

I would prefer to see general principles and concepts rather than specific rules, particularly when those rules go to cross purposes. The placement of #1 seeds was straightforward before, but got into crazy mileage tests. Now it is unclear whether a higher #1 seed gets a benefit from that higher seed.

On the other points raised by you and Myrtle, I would make a few points. I don't know why it is so important to separate teams from the same conference I wouldn't mind having true regional breakdowns. The Big 12 would be combined with Pac 12 in the West, the SEC would lead the South, the ACC would lead the East and the Big 10 would lead the Midwest. The other conferences would be assigned as appropriately as possible given the spread of some of the conferences. This way the travel for nearly all teams would be shortened. Additionally, if there was surety as to which Region a team would go during the season fans could plan in advance to go to a neutral regional. As an alternative, the concept of a regional weekend in Las Vegas with all 16 teams and 2 separate venues (or even 32 teams over 3 or 4 venues for round 2-4) would be incredible. There are obviously numerous hurdles, but Las Vegas could handle it and I suspect they would get better attendance than in any other central location.

Finally, here is a really crazy idea. How about doing away micromanagement completely. Have the Committee do the following:

1. Select the teams
2. Seed the top 16 teams
3. Have a draw for the remaining 48 slots to fill out the bracket.

Yes, there are some teams that are better than others, but if the top teams are really that good they shouldn't have any trouble beating the number 17 team. A team that is seeded 60 may have no chance of beating the #5 team, but maybe that team is quite a bit better than their seed, and they could prove it if they got the chance to play the #35 team. The first round would have more intriguing matchups and even more of the midmajors would get exposure. And one more benefit; Just imagine how great those team shots would be when they find out who they get to play in the first round. The unveiling of the bracket would become must watch.


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 22506



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/18 8:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
I don't know why it is so important to separate teams from the same conference I wouldn't mind having true regional breakdowns. The Big 12 would be combined with Pac 12 in the West, the SEC would lead the South, the ACC would lead the East and the Big 10 would lead the Midwest. The other conferences would be assigned as appropriately as possible given the spread of some of the conferences. This way the travel for nearly all teams would be shortened. Additionally, if there was surety as to which Region a team would go during the season fans could plan in advance to go to a neutral regional. As an alternative, the concept of a regional weekend in Las Vegas with all 16 teams and 2 separate venues (or even 32 teams over 3 or 4 venues for round 2-4) would be incredible. There are obviously numerous hurdles, but Las Vegas could handle it and I suspect they would get better attendance than in any other central location.

Finally, here is a really crazy idea. How about doing away micromanagement completely. Have the Committee do the following:

1. Select the teams
2. Seed the top 16 teams
3. Have a draw for the remaining 48 slots to fill out the bracket.



We already have conference tournies so a lot of the best teams play each other three times. I don't see the point in making them play a fourth time without a chance to show what they can do outside their region. Let's say theoretically speaking, that the top four teams in the country all come from one region. Let's say #1 Baylor, #2 UCLA, #3 Texas, #4 Oregon. In your scenario only one of these teams could go to the final four. [Strictly a for instance of course, but even if three of the top four are in one region, the same thing applies.] And in fact your scenario penalizes the B12 & P12 since they're the only P5 teams stuck in the same region together. Maybe you want to add in the AAC to the West too since a bunch of them are in Texas? Razz I love spreading out the teams from a conference so they can play teams from other conferences. It just creates a much more equal landing field.

I do kinda like your idea of having a drawing to place the teams after the top 16. And I think a neutral central site (or two sites) for everything after the first weekend makes sense.



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



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 3551



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/20/18 1:34 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Myrtle gave my answers to the idea of not separating conferences. As for actual regionals, I still sting from that method in the 60's in the Men's NCAA's. Teams in the East and South would beat each other up while UCLA would waltz over teams like Montana and Long Beach St. in a cakewalk to the final four. It would be common for UCLA to be the only ranked team in the West. In addition, only one team got into the tournament from any conference, making the ACC & B1G tournaments better than the NCAA's.

In a year like this one where there are 5 potential 1 seeds the answer is easy. Put the no 4 and No 5 in the same region. Not much of difference. One plays the 3 seed in the S16 while the other plays the 4 seed. And it is pure S curve. This year that would mean putting Baylor in Spokane. They already are using the rationale that once a team is flying the difference in where they fly to is insignificant. And there is a big gap between Oregon and Baylor. McGraw would much rather face a Duck than a Bear. Sure, poor Oregon. My response? Play better and get a higher seed. Or they could make Oregon a 3 seed, but that would surely disrupt the balance. And there is no certainty (more tonight than last night) that Oregon will be the top seed in the west. If it was UCLA then Spokane isn't exactly car distance from LA.

Of course having the 3rd and 4th rounds in Vegas would eliminate all the bullshit and whining. It would allow for a true S curve among the top 16 seeds.
I would also end the practice of committee voting deciding the order of the top 16 seeds. There are many algorithms that would do a better job. If they can do it for football then they can do it for WBB. The NCAA wants to prevent embarrassing teams by running up scores but there could be a limit to MOV so that teams wouldn't have an incentive to do so.


rykhala



Joined: 15 Oct 2009
Posts: 268
Location: Saint Louis, MO


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/21/18 5:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Does the principle of geographic preference based on seed not apply to the seeds after the number 2 seeds? It seems that the committee shoehorned both Tennessee and Ohio State into the Lexington Regional at the expense of the other teams seeded 9-16?


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2725
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/21/18 10:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

rykhala wrote:
Does the principle of geographic preference based on seed not apply to the seeds after the number 2 seeds? It seems that the committee shoehorned both Tennessee and Ohio State into the Lexington Regional at the expense of the other teams seeded 9-16?


Presumably the principle of geographic preference applies to the entire bracket, but applies most strongly to the top seeds. As the bracket gets filled after the top 4 seeds the separation of conference teams has gotten more preference, and geographic preference, particularly for one bid conferences, has generally related to its first round matchup. I suspect that will still be the case, and the lengthy travel issue will be construed in terms of either first two rounds or regionals depending upon seed.


TechDawgMc



Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 198
Location: Temple, TX


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/22/18 2:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
L
Finally, here is a really crazy idea. How about doing away micromanagement completely. Have the Committee do the following:

1. Select the teams
2. Seed the top 16 teams
3. Have a draw for the remaining 48 slots to fill out the bracket.



I've actually argued for random seeding after the first 16 for years -- mainly to stop giving preferred positions to teams that finished 7th in a conference just because they're in a quality conference. I also think it'd make some very interesting matchups.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2725
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/25/18 1:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Here is an interesting bracketology hypothetical. Could the team that is most overrated by the RPI actually be hurt by its use in forming the field?

Buffalo is currently ranked 13 in the RPI, one spot ahead of South Carolina. The Gamecocks are looking at a 2 seed, but Buffalo is a bubble team. Buffalo is perceived as having played a weak non conference schedule (173), but it really wasn't that weak. They lost to Arizona St on the road, beat St John's on the road and beat Nebraska in Florida. Even though ASU and Nebraska are both tournament teams neither is currently in the top 50. That leaves Buffalo with only 2 top 50 wins and 3 sub 50 losses. Buffalo isn't the 13th best team in the country but they deserve to be in the field. Charlie Crème doesn't have them in. I do, but it is close. But if the Committee used the same, "who did you play and who did you beat" philosophy with a better rating system the Bulls wouldn't have to sweat.


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 47828



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/26/18 12:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Here’s what Charlie Creme says about Minnesota’s tournament prospects.


Quote:
Minnesota

The Golden Gophers have a little more cushion and saved themselves from a terrible loss with a comeback against Illinois on Saturday. Minnesota, the Big Ten's No. 4 seed, is set to meet fifth-seeded Iowa in the quarterfinals if the Hawkeyes advance as expected. If Minnesota beats Iowa, a bid should be secure.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2725
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/03/18 3:51 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Now that we are getting down to the end of the season for the major conferences we can see who may be most hurt by the vagaries of the RPI. The Pac 12 could really get hurt because right now USC is 51 and Arizona St is 52. Unless ASU upsets Stanford tomorrow night that means those two teams will be out of the top 50, even though under almost any metric they are among the top 50 teams in the country. That means that the other 5 Pac 12 teams have at least 4 games that are characterized as lesser games than they should be. As an example, right now Stanford is 2-6 vs the top 25, 2-1 vs 26-50, 6-2 vs 51-100, and 11-0 vs 101+. But of the 6-2 that is 51-100, 4-1 is 51-52. That gives a very different picture of the team. The same is true in evaluating Cal and Oregon St. The chances of either team climbing back into the top 50 (other than an ASU upset) are slim because Mercer will passthem with a win in the Southern final. That would mean 2 teams would have to fall behind.

Part of the reason why the Pac 12 teams are lower is because they play an 18 game conference schedule, something that also hurts the Big 12 . Another reason is that ASU had to play Arizona for a third time, and their 6-24 record (times 3) hurts ASU's SOS.


IM in OC



Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 734
Location: Orange County, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/03/18 5:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
Now that we are getting down to the end of the season for the major conferences we can see who may be most hurt by the vagaries of the RPI. The Pac 12 could really get hurt because right now USC is 51 and Arizona St is 52. Unless ASU upsets Stanford tomorrow night that means those two teams will be out of the top 50, even though under almost any metric they are among the top 50 teams in the country. That means that the other 5 Pac 12 teams have at least 4 games that are characterized as lesser games than they should be. As an example, right now Stanford is 2-6 vs the top 25, 2-1 vs 26-50, 6-2 vs 51-100, and 11-0 vs 101+. But of the 6-2 that is 51-100, 4-1 is 51-52. That gives a very different picture of the team. The same is true in evaluating Cal and Oregon St. The chances of either team climbing back into the top 50 (other than an ASU upset) are slim because Mercer will passthem with a win in the Southern final. That would mean 2 teams would have to fall behind.

Part of the reason why the Pac 12 teams are lower is because they play an 18 game conference schedule, something that also hurts the Big 12 . Another reason is that ASU had to play Arizona for a third time, and their 6-24 record (times 3) hurts ASU's SOS.


How can teams like Buffalo at 16 RPI and Central Michigan at 23 RPI(NCAA RPI used) have that high of an RPI when they have faced no other Top 25 teams other than each other and play in the MAC? Something is amiss in the RPI's #'s


SpaceJunkie



Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 3163
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/03/18 7:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

IM in OC wrote:
calbearman76 wrote:
Now that we are getting down to the end of the season for the major conferences we can see who may be most hurt by the vagaries of the RPI. The Pac 12 could really get hurt because right now USC is 51 and Arizona St is 52. Unless ASU upsets Stanford tomorrow night that means those two teams will be out of the top 50, even though under almost any metric they are among the top 50 teams in the country. That means that the other 5 Pac 12 teams have at least 4 games that are characterized as lesser games than they should be. As an example, right now Stanford is 2-6 vs the top 25, 2-1 vs 26-50, 6-2 vs 51-100, and 11-0 vs 101+. But of the 6-2 that is 51-100, 4-1 is 51-52. That gives a very different picture of the team. The same is true in evaluating Cal and Oregon St. The chances of either team climbing back into the top 50 (other than an ASU upset) are slim because Mercer will passthem with a win in the Southern final. That would mean 2 teams would have to fall behind.

Part of the reason why the Pac 12 teams are lower is because they play an 18 game conference schedule, something that also hurts the Big 12 . Another reason is that ASU had to play Arizona for a third time, and their 6-24 record (times 3) hurts ASU's SOS.


How can teams like Buffalo at 16 RPI and Central Michigan at 23 RPI(NCAA RPI used) have that high of an RPI when they have faced no other Top 25 teams other than each other and play in the MAC? Something is amiss in the RPI's #'s



RPI = 25% team's record, 50% opponent's record, and 25% opponent's opponet's record.
I think the RPI of a lot of teams are skewed by the 50% opponent's record, as the top MAC teams have gawdy records (Buffallo 25-4, Ball State 23-5, Central Michigan 24-4) and even the bad MAC teams, and some of the bad non-conference teams they have played don't have bad records.


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15767
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/03/18 7:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So what does the trainwreck that is the 2018 A-10 tournament do to the A-10's at-large chances? Will it be auto-bid plus Dayton, or just auto-bid?

(Yes, salty Fordham fan is salty.)



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 56384
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/03/18 7:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

SpaceJunkie wrote:
RPI = 25% team's record, 50% opponent's record, and 25% opponent's opponet's record.
I think the RPI of a lot of teams are skewed by the 50% opponent's record, as the top MAC teams have gawdy records (Buffallo 25-4, Ball State 23-5, Central Michigan 24-4) and even the bad MAC teams, and some of the bad non-conference teams they have played don't have bad records.


Plus adjustments for home/road. A home win now counts as 0.6 win, while a road win counts as 1.4 wins. Inversely, a home loss equals 1.4 losses, while a road loss counts as 0.6 loss. A neutral game counts as 1 win or 1 loss.

Note that this location adjustment applies only to the WP factor and not the OWP and OOWP factors.



_________________
Beard's secret is always to be slightly on the edge but to pull back from disaster at the last minute.
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2725
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/03/18 7:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
So what does the trainwreck that is the 2018 A-10 tournament do to the A-10's at-large chances? Will it be auto-bid plus Dayton, or just auto-bid?

(Yes, salty Fordham fan is salty.)


Dayton is a bubble team, but I believe they will be left out. I believe they could have made it if they hadn't also lost to St. Louis to end the regular season, but that probably puts them out.

As I see it right now there are 3 spots open with the following teams fighting for those spots:

USC - should be in
Indiana - in based on end of season but overall questionable.
Rutgers- overall stronger than Indiana but week throughout Big 10.
South Dakota State or South Dakota possible for loser if both reach final.
West Virginia needs win over Oklahoma State probably
Central Florida slight chance with win over South Florida but still doubtful
Creighton needs to reach Big East final
Oklahoma lost to TCU probably knocked them out
TCU still needs one more big win vs Baylor
Michigan State very unlikely
Purdue very unlikely
Ball State unlikely even if they reach Mac final
Dayton probably out

Mercer would join the list if thye lose the Southern final. Green Bay would probably get in if they lose, which would reduce the open spots to 2.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2725
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/03/18 7:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The mechanics of the RPI have an inherent bias against teams that play a higher percentage of their games against the power conferences. The reason for this is that teams from lower rated conferences generally have better records than teams from tougher conferences of the same quality. Games against Virginia (18-13) and Morehead St (19-11) would be considered as nearly equal by RPI, but the Virginia game would be much tougher. Generally this is balanced out by other factors, but every year a few teams have their ratings vastly distorted. In some ways the bigger mistakes are less of a problem because they are so obvious. No one believes Buffalo is #16, but when the differences are small they go unnoticed, even if they are real and quantifiable. The effect of a conference playing 18 games vs 16 games for example, makes a difference, but because the difference also depends on the quality of the conference (it acts as a regression to the mean) it is subtle.

As I have stated before, it is sad to think that the NCAA, which is supposed to be an association of institutions of higher learning, would stick with a system that is so inherently flawed that a first year philosophy major could come up with a better one.


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 22506



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/04/18 3:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

yeesh, Creme claims Dayton is in. But I agree that there really isn't anything on their resume that shouts 'in'. If beating Virginia is that hot, then Duquesne should be in.



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



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2725
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/04/18 3:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
yeesh, Creme claims Dayton is in. But I agree that there really isn't anything on their resume that shouts 'in'. If beating Virginia is that hot, then Duquesne should be in.


I haven't looked at it but I also understand he doesn't have Nebraska in the field I believe the Cornhuskers are in for sure and could be as high as a 7 seed I will do a full bracket on Wednesday when I get back from the Pac-12 tournament.

The Pac-12 maybe catching a break with Oklahoma State and Western Kentucky both losing. As a result USC may stay in the top 50.


SpaceJunkie



Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 3163
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/04/18 3:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
yeesh, Creme claims Dayton is in. But I agree that there really isn't anything on their resume that shouts 'in'. If beating Virginia is that hot, then Duquesne should be in.


I'm not sure how one win over Virginia constitues a superior resume than beating Iowa twice along Michigan (and Maryland). If the Big Ten sucks that much, then why are Maryland, Ohio St, and Iowa projected 6-seeds or higher?


SpaceJunkie



Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 3163
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/04/18 3:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
myrtle wrote:
yeesh, Creme claims Dayton is in. But I agree that there really isn't anything on their resume that shouts 'in'. If beating Virginia is that hot, then Duquesne should be in.


I haven't looked at it but I also understand he doesn't have Nebraska in the field I believe the Cornhuskers are in for sure and could be as high as a 7 seed I will do a full bracket on Wednesday when I get back from the Pac-12 tournament.

The Pac-12 maybe catching a break with Oklahoma State and Western Kentucky both losing. As a result USC may stay in the top 50.


His logic seems to me to be that since Nebraska and Minnesota had crappy non-conference schedules/performances, the fact that they beat good teams and had good records in Big Ten play just means the Big Ten isn't that good and those wins shouldn't mean much, not that maybe some teams take until conference season starts for things to click.


PRballer



Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 1960



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/04/18 3:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Creme’s current Lexington Regional doesn’t have a single SEC team in there which is a head scratcher. I don’t always understand his brackets when it comes to geography and maximizing attendance potential.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2725
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/04/18 5:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PRballer wrote:
Creme’s current Lexington Regional doesn’t have a single SEC team in there which is a head scratcher. I don’t always understand his brackets when it comes to geography and maximizing attendance potential.


His current bracket violates the current NCAA principles. One of the top four teams from the SEC has to be in the Lexington Regional. He will most likely fix that in his next prediction.

As for the Big 10, I may slightly overvalue the conference play, but that is because it most accurately assesses current quality in top conferences. Nebraska and Minnesota both established clear superiority over Rutgers. He doesn't even include Indiana who in my mind has a vastly superior resume than Purdue. I have Rutgers barely ahead of Indiana based on games played but when I factor in when the games were played Indiana move ahead.

Barring a major upset there are only a handful of games left that could affect what teams make the NCAA. Texas - West Virginia tonight, Creighton - DePaul tomorrow, Central Florida - South Florida tomorrow, the Summit final and some MAC games.


mikeyc22



Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 2297
Location: Connecticut


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/04/18 6:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Does Louisville have a case for the overall #2?


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2725
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/04/18 7:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mikeyc22 wrote:
Does Louisville have a case for the overall #2?


It is fairly close, but I would say yes. I totally discount a loss to UCONN so effectively each team has one loss to fairly comparable teams. LOuisville has 2 wins over Notre Dame and wins over Oregon, Ohio St for 4 top 10 wins. MSU has only 2 (South Carolina is 11).

This will make it easier to justify Louisville in the Lexington region and MSU in Kansas City, and then having Baylor, potentially as the top #2 seed, in KC as well.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8842



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/05/18 10:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So who are the host schools? To me, that's the most important thing about the brackets because that gives teams a huge leg up on the road to the Sweet 16. (Once you get to the Sweet 16, they are all good teams so you have to play well ...)



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Nixtreefan



Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 1871



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/05/18 11:34 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
mikeyc22 wrote:
Does Louisville have a case for the overall #2?


It is fairly close, but I would say yes. I totally discount a loss to UCONN so effectively each team has one loss to fairly comparable teams. LOuisville has 2 wins over Notre Dame and wins over Oregon, Ohio St for 4 top 10 wins. MSU has only 2 (South Carolina is 11).

This will make it easier to justify Louisville in the Lexington region and MSU in Kansas City, and then having Baylor, potentially as the top #2 seed, in KC as well.


This sounds like the most interesting match up.


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
Page 2 of 2

 
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