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

The Field of 64
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
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 47340



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/05/18 8:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote




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



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 3542



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/05/18 9:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If Creme is correct (and I don't think so) then

UConn to Albany, Miss St to St Louis Louis to Lexington N Dame to Spokane

I hope that N Dame is not the overall 4 seed since UConn has a mixed history against them in FF semi's.

And I keep hoping that Tenn would be put in UConn's region. For 10 years now I've been hoping. Smile


WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 5774
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/05/18 9:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
If Creme is correct (and I don't think so) then

UConn to Albany, Miss St to St Louis Louis to Lexington N Dame to Spokane

I hope that N Dame is not the overall 4 seed since UConn has a mixed history against them in FF semi's.

And I keep hoping that Tenn would be put in UConn's region. For 10 years now I've been hoping. Smile


Hopefully it turns into 11 . No one wants to see this game Laughing
How about they send Baylor to Albany as punishment for the soft schedule and put them as the weakest 2 or the strongest 3 ????



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



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 3542



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/05/18 10:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WNBA 09 wrote:
linkster wrote:
If Creme is correct (and I don't think so) then

UConn to Albany, Miss St to St Louis Louis to Lexington N Dame to Spokane

I hope that N Dame is not the overall 4 seed since UConn has a mixed history against them in FF semi's.

And I keep hoping that Tenn would be put in UConn's region. For 10 years now I've been hoping. Smile


Hopefully it turns into 11 . No one wants to see this game Laughing
How about they send Baylor to Albany as punishment for the soft schedule and put them as the weakest 2 or the strongest 3 ????

Wouldn't surprise me. How about Baylor as the weakest 2, Tenn as the strongest 3 and tOSU as the 4?


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2637
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/05/18 10:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The questions raised in this thread by linkster require divining what the new words in the Committee's guidance mean. I can read the wording to allow for pilight's interpretation that as long as you have more than 4 teams you can put 2 top 4 teams into a region or 2 regions, but the other reading is equally reasonable. I also believe that under the new language it is not necessary that the #4 1 seed is the seed that will be shipped to Spokane. I fully expect that Oregon will find its way to Spokane as a 2 seed or even a 3 seed. Only Stanford if they were able to win the Pac 12 Tournament might be able to displace them, and if Oregon is there as a comparatively weak 2 seed the Committee could send a stronger 1 seed (Mississippi St) to balance the bracket.


linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 3542



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/05/18 11:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
The questions raised in this thread by linkster require divining what the new words in the Committee's guidance mean. I can read the wording to allow for pilight's interpretation that as long as you have more than 4 teams you can put 2 top 4 teams into a region or 2 regions, but the other reading is equally reasonable. I also believe that under the new language it is not necessary that the #4 1 seed is the seed that will be shipped to Spokane. I fully expect that Oregon will find its way to Spokane as a 2 seed or even a 3 seed. Only Stanford if they were able to win the Pac 12 Tournament might be able to displace them, and if Oregon is there as a comparatively weak 2 seed the Committee could send a stronger 1 seed (Mississippi St) to balance the bracket.


You propose reasonable possibilities. The way things have worked out over the years is that the top seed in the west, at whatever level they are listed, gets the west regional. With the exception of the overall one seed that has not been the case for any other team with the exception of the year they let teams bid for the regionals and the last 2 years with Kentucky. Most years it's a one or 2 seed but it never mattered because the west is always the furthest site for the other 1 and 2 seeds. The team that always seemed to benefit was Stanford. If they were a one seed they got the weakest 2 seed and if they were a two seed they got the weakest one seed.
But I have a problem with your proposal of sending a No 2 or 3 one seed across the country simply because the best west team that gets the west region by default is relatively weak. The committee ignores the S curve with every policy they write and it's ridiculous for them to then use the S curve to punish a strong team by sending them across the country.

I'd rather see the one seeds sited by geography and then just let the S curve rule and let the chips fall where they may. Or re-seed after the first 2 rounds do it then. All the bullshit about saving travel costs is BS when one compares the cost of running the tournament with the billions the NCAA has at it's disposal.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2637
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/06/18 12:14 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

That is why the change in the wording, as I noted in the Bracketology thread, is so important. The wording had been that the placement of the top teams was primarily done by geography. That has changed. The new wording no longer specifically speaks to the placement of the top teams by geography.

"The committee will then go through the seed list, placing all teams by seed starting with the four No. 1 seeds, through the No. 4 seeds. After the top four seed lines have been assigned, determining the relative strengths of the regions by adding the true seed numbers in each region to determine if any severe numerical imbalance exists. Generally, no more than five points should separate the lowest and highest total. The committee will also attempt to assign each team to the most geographically compatible regional."

This difference allows the Committee much more flexibility to move teams to different regions, including the number 1 seeds. The primary test now is to add the true seed numbers and assure that each is within 5 points of all others. Ideally each region would have a total of 34, (e.g., 1,8,9,16) but most likely all regions would have to be between 31 or 32 and 36 or 37.

The Albany region will have Connecticut. The Lexington region will have an ACC team (probably Louisville, maybe Notre Dame) and an SEC team. The Kansas City regional will have the Big 12 winner and the Spokane regional will most likely have Oregon unless Stanford sweeps through the Pac 12. UCLA would not draw in Spokane, so even if they win the Pac 12 I suspect they will be shipped east, and the new wording makes it easier to do so.

Of course the Committee also interprets these words, and from past experience they seem to often do so in a vacuum. Since there is no precedent for this year I believe they could see this as a new world, but they may also see this as just a minor tweak. We will know more after the first bracket.


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 22304



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/06/18 12:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

maybe seeing themselves posted as a nine seed served to wake up the tree team before the Oregon trip. Anything is better than an 8-9!



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



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 56180
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/18 11:09 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote



Multiple Bid Conferences
8 ACC
7 P12
7 SEC
7 B10
3 B12
3 BEast
2 AAC
2 MAC
2 Summit

Just Missed: West Virginia, TCU, Virginia Tech, Creighton
Last In: Ball State, Minnesota, California, Villanova

How did I arrive at this?

First, I gave two points for a win over a top 25 RPI team and one for a win over a 26-50 RPI team.

Then, I subtracted one point for a loss to a 26-50 team, and two for a loss against a sub-50 team.

I then added points based on the remaining schedule: .5 for a game remaining against a top 25 RPI team and .25 for a game against a 26-50 RPI team.

Teams more than one game under .500 in conference are not allowed in.

Many teams were moved within the same seed to prevent teams in the same conference from meeting before the conference finals or to meet the new rules about conferences with top four seeds. In this instance four teams swapped seeds to avoid this. Belmont and California moved up one; Miami (FL) and Syracuse moved down one.

Ties went in favor of the team with the most points on current wins and losses. If still tied then better RPI.

The cut off for getting in as an at large was -2.75 points. It took 15.75 points to get a #1 seed.



_________________
Why can't we sit in the park like other boys and girls?
Why do we have to walk in the subway tunnel?


Just keep walking
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2637
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/18 4:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The current Field of 64 shows some interesting issues about both the RPI and the system for calculating the Field. Take for example the comparison of USC and California. USC is a 6 seed while Cal is an 11 seed (before a procedural bump) and one of the last teams in the field. The two teams have nearly equal resumes. Cal is 8-6 in the Pac 12 while USC is 7-7, but the difference is because USC has played Stanford twice while Cal has played Arizona and Arizona St. Cal beat USC twice, but USC has beaten both Oregon St and Arizona St at home. Both teams played relatively easy non-conference schedules. Cal lost at home by 3 to Missouri; USC lost at home by 1 to Tesas A&M. Cal lost at UConn; USC won at Purdue. Both teams won every other game; Cal had 2 top 100 wins to USC's 0.

If I correctly calculated, Cal scores -2 (2 losses to ASU, 1 loss to OSU, 2 games upcoming with Stanford) USC scores +1.75 (1 win each over Purdue, ASU and OSU, 2 losses to Cal, games upcoming with Oregon and OSU). Cal is 34 in the RPI while USC is 51. If the ratings were reversed Cal would score 0 and USC would score -0,25. Furthermore if the top 6 lines on the Field of 64 are a proxy for the top 24 teams, then everyone of Cal's losses and Cal's 2 victories over USC would all be considered top 25, and that would raise Cal's score to +5.

Other teams are similarly impacted by these narrow distinctions. If West Virginia were in the top 50 (instead of 53), TCU would be in the field. Nebraska gets a 5 seed because it has played 4 games between teams from 20-25 and 4 more from 38-50. And while I think the Committee takes some care at the higher levels of seeding past history has shown they don't do so towards the bottom of the field.

On a completely separate issue you now have Mercer as an 8 seed and I believe a score of 0 (a win over Central Florida and a loss to W Kentucky). If the Bears (great mascot) stay undefeated but lose in the Southern Tourney and UCF and WKU stay in the top 50 (and UGA stays in the top 25) they would be -2. Do you still believe they have no chance at an at-large bid?


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 56180
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/18 5:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
The current Field of 64 shows some interesting issues about both the RPI and the system for calculating the Field. Take for example the comparison of USC and California. USC is a 6 seed while Cal is an 11 seed (before a procedural bump) and one of the last teams in the field. The two teams have nearly equal resumes. Cal is 8-6 in the Pac 12 while USC is 7-7, but the difference is because USC has played Stanford twice while Cal has played Arizona and Arizona St. Cal beat USC twice, but USC has beaten both Oregon St and Arizona St at home. Both teams played relatively easy non-conference schedules. Cal lost at home by 3 to Missouri; USC lost at home by 1 to Tesas A&M. Cal lost at UConn; USC won at Purdue. Both teams won every other game; Cal had 2 top 100 wins to USC's 0.

If I correctly calculated, Cal scores -2 (2 losses to ASU, 1 loss to OSU, 2 games upcoming with Stanford) USC scores +1.75 (1 win each over Purdue, ASU and OSU, 2 losses to Cal, games upcoming with Oregon and OSU). Cal is 34 in the RPI while USC is 51. If the ratings were reversed Cal would score 0 and USC would score -0,25. Furthermore if the top 6 lines on the Field of 64 are a proxy for the top 24 teams, then everyone of Cal's losses and Cal's 2 victories over USC would all be considered top 25, and that would raise Cal's score to +5.

Other teams are similarly impacted by these narrow distinctions. If West Virginia were in the top 50 (instead of 53), TCU would be in the field. Nebraska gets a 5 seed because it has played 4 games between teams from 20-25 and 4 more from 38-50. And while I think the Committee takes some care at the higher levels of seeding past history has shown they don't do so towards the bottom of the field.

On a completely separate issue you now have Mercer as an 8 seed and I believe a score of 0 (a win over Central Florida and a loss to W Kentucky). If the Bears (great mascot) stay undefeated but lose in the Southern Tourney and UCF and WKU stay in the top 50 (and UGA stays in the top 25) they would be -2. Do you still believe they have no chance at an at-large bid?


I absolutely believe they have no chance at an at-large bid.

I've pretty well reached the conclusion that picking the at-large bids and seeding are two separate problems and require different formulae.



_________________
Why can't we sit in the park like other boys and girls?
Why do we have to walk in the subway tunnel?


Just keep walking
linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 3542



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/18 5:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If Creme's bracket worked out it would be the 3rd time in the last 6 years that USF would end up in UConn's bracket while it'a been maybe 30 years since Tenn & UConn got paired up.

You either have to be a conspiracy theorist or a coincidence theorist. When you consider that there's a 1 in 4 chance of 2 teams being in the same region conspiracy becomes the more likely theory even factoring in the years both UConn & Tenn were 1 seeds.


patsweetpat



Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2058
Location: Culver City, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/18 9:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
If Creme's bracket worked out it would be the 3rd time in the last 6 years that USF would end up in UConn's bracket while it'a been maybe 30 years since Tenn & UConn got paired up.


And it would be the 3rd consecutive year that UCLA would be placed in UConn's region. i just absolutely do not believe the committee would do that.


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 47340



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/18 4:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.espn.com/core/video/iframe?id=22493898&endcard=false" allowfullscreen frameborder="0"></iframe>



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



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 3542



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/18 12:32 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

patsweetpat wrote:
linkster wrote:
If Creme's bracket worked out it would be the 3rd time in the last 6 years that USF would end up in UConn's bracket while it'a been maybe 30 years since Tenn & UConn got paired up.


And it would be the 3rd consecutive year that UCLA would be placed in UConn's region. i just absolutely do not believe the committee would do that.


UCLA would seem to be aided by this "additional consideration".

 The committee shall attempt to avoid moving a team or a
conference out of its natural region or geographic area
an inordinate number of times and will examine the
previous three tournament brackets to determine the
number of times a team or conference has been assigned
out of its natural region.

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


The problem implementing this in the PAC12 is that there is a good chance 3 teams will be among the top 16 so 2 of them will have to go east.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 56180
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/18 6:14 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

On vacation this week, so no projection. Will be limited in posting.



_________________
Why can't we sit in the park like other boys and girls?
Why do we have to walk in the subway tunnel?


Just keep walking
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2637
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/18 1:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
patsweetpat wrote:
linkster wrote:
If Creme's bracket worked out it would be the 3rd time in the last 6 years that USF would end up in UConn's bracket while it'a been maybe 30 years since Tenn & UConn got paired up.


And it would be the 3rd consecutive year that UCLA would be placed in UConn's region. i just absolutely do not believe the committee would do that.


UCLA would seem to be aided by this "additional consideration".

 The committee shall attempt to avoid moving a team or a
conference out of its natural region or geographic area
an inordinate number of times and will examine the
previous three tournament brackets to determine the
number of times a team or conference has been assigned
out of its natural region.

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


The problem implementing this in the PAC12 is that there is a good chance 3 teams will be among the top 16 so 2 of them will have to go east.


One thing that always makes me laugh is people looking at Creme's choices down to the level of actual matchups. I believe Crème does a good job of evaluating teams in the manner that the Committee does. Indeed I believe he does a better job than anyone else generally available on the internet. But when it comes to individual matchups I doubt he even gives much thought to his placements. There are so many moving parts, including new principles for this year.

And on a separate point, don't be surprised if the Pac 12 gets 4 teams among the top 16. Oregon St is very close right now.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2637
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 1:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Hey Pilight -

Are we going to get a final Field of 64 before the Bracket comes out tonight?


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 56180
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 1:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I really haven't been happy with the results, so probably not. Need a new formula.



_________________
Why can't we sit in the park like other boys and girls?
Why do we have to walk in the subway tunnel?


Just keep walking
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