| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mzonefan
Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 4878
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Back to top |
 Posted: 09/12/14 5:22 am ::: 2015 Selection Mock Excercise |
Reply  |
|
http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-women/article/2014-09-11/womens-basketball-mock-exercise-spotlights-2015
Some excerpts:
| Quote: |
In the event that a top 16 seeded team does not submit a bid to host, or their bid does not meet requirements for hosting, the committee will select a host from the remaining submitted bids that meet requirements. In order to adhere to the bracketing principles, it may not be possible to select the next highest seed to host. Therefore, institutions are encouraged to submit a bid, even if they do not believe their team will be seeded in the top 16. Attendees of the mock selection were encouraged to begin reserving playing facilities and hotel properties for championship first- and second-round hosting possibilities.
....
The mock exercise also allowed for a full discussion of the current “Principles and Procedures for Establishing the Bracket.” While the principles and procedures will continue to emphasize fairness, consistency and balance, attendees were notified of several tweaks for 2015 that included:
• Each of the first four teams from a conference shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded on the first four lines.
• Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional final if they played each other three or more times during the regular season and conference tournament.
• The committee will attempt to keep conference teams from meeting until the regional final round.
• 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.
Mock attendees were also briefed on the input provided by committee members in the selection on the 112 game officials chosen each year to work the championship and the criteria used to evaluate the performance of game offcials as they advance during the tournament.
|
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/12/14 3:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
| • Each of the first four teams from a conference shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded on the first four lines. |
This is long overdue and could allow for some novel matchups in March. It could mean that if Stanford loses the P12 to a higher seed they could find themselves out of the west region for the first time in ages.
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/12/14 9:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I agree that the Stanford situation is an interesting one. For another interesting possibility suppose UConn,Notre Dame, South Carolina and Tennessee are the top four seeds. UConn goes to Albany, South Carolina to Greensboro but who gets sent to Spokane? Neither Tennessee nor Notre Dame will be happy about playing Stanford in Spokane.
In addition, I should say, the committee will want to send SC to NC, but both TN and ND would rather be there, so that could be interesting. The team that is fourth is the natural one to go west, but SC went west last year, so won't be happy if they get sent there again.
|
|
Fighting Artichoke
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/13/14 12:57 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Phil wrote: |
I agree that the Stanford situation is an interesting one. For another interesting possibility suppose UConn,Notre Dame, South Carolina and Tennessee are the top four seeds. UConn goes to Albany, South Carolina to Greensboro but who gets sent to Spokane? Neither Tennessee nor Notre Dame will be happy about playing Stanford in Spokane.
In addition, I should say, the committee will want to send SC to NC, but both TN and ND would rather be there, so that could be interesting. The team that is fourth is the natural one to go west, but SC went west last year, so won't be happy if they get sent there again. |
Then they can win their conference tournament. If 2 SEC teams are in the top 4 seeds, the one that came in second will go west if no west coast team is top 4. Unless the winner of the ACC is 4th because they have a bunch of losses (which is unlikely).
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/13/14 10:36 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Fighting Artichoke wrote: |
| Phil wrote: |
I agree that the Stanford situation is an interesting one. For another interesting possibility suppose UConn,Notre Dame, South Carolina and Tennessee are the top four seeds. UConn goes to Albany, South Carolina to Greensboro but who gets sent to Spokane? Neither Tennessee nor Notre Dame will be happy about playing Stanford in Spokane.
In addition, I should say, the committee will want to send SC to NC, but both TN and ND would rather be there, so that could be interesting. The team that is fourth is the natural one to go west, but SC went west last year, so won't be happy if they get sent there again. |
Then they can win their conference tournament. If 2 SEC teams are in the top 4 seeds, the one that came in second will go west if no west coast team is top 4. Unless the winner of the ACC is 4th because they have a bunch of losses (which is unlikely). |
Last year the committee made 2 SEC teams 1 seeds and neither made it past the S16. Hopefully at some point they will reexamine the predictive power of RPI in selecting top seeds.
As far as where teams go, the rule of geography is still in play. Let's say that the top 4 seeds are (in order) UConn, Notre Dame, SC & Tenn. UConn goes to Albany, Notre Dame goes to Greensboro SC goes to Ok Cty and the LV's go to Spokane.
The interesting placements will come with the 2, 3 & 4 seeds from the same conference. This will have no impact on UConn but it could have an impact in the ACC & SEC.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/13/14 10:52 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| It's funny that you could call this the "UConn Rule" since it is obvious that it is a response to last year's UConn-Louisville fiasco, but they're doing it when UConn will never have to face the problem again.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/13/14 1:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| It's funny that you could call this the "UConn Rule" since it is obvious that it is a response to last year's UConn-Louisville fiasco, but they're doing it when UConn will never have to face the problem again. |
I think last year was an aberration due to there being no "regional" sites. Teams were allowed to host without any regard to geography so any "principle" concerning geographical assignments obviously was irrelevant. But let's not regurgitate a discussion that was beaten to death last season.
I would think the committee was trying to avoid the history that led to Tenn & LSU being put into the same region a couple of times back in 07-08 and the time Rutgers was placed in UConn's region as a 2 despite the fact that UConn was the overrall top seed and Rutgers was the top 2 seed. In both cases the 2 teams were forced to play a 4th time prior to the FF, something that won't happen with this new policy.
While there is no guarantee of anything, separating top conference teams should produce some novel interconference matchups. I can't remember the last time Stanford played Notre Dame in the regular season.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16358
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/13/14 1:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
I would think the committee was trying to avoid the history that led to Tenn & LSU being put into the same region a couple of times back in 07-08 and the time Rutgers was placed in UConn's region as a 2 despite the fact that UConn was the overrall top seed and Rutgers was the top 2 seed. In both cases the 2 teams were forced to play a 4th time prior to the FF, something that won't happen with this new policy. |
Or, more recently, when Texas A&M beat Baylor in the Elite Eight after Baylor had beaten A&M three times previously.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/13/14 2:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| If they were motivated by things that happened five or ten years ago they would have fixed it five or ten years ago.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/13/14 3:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| If they were motivated by things that happened five or ten years ago they would have fixed it five or ten years ago. |
I've sat on committees. It sometimes takes years to get a consensus to do anything. Last year was the first time the NCAA put maximizing popular interest over keeping costs at a minimum.
I'd guess the committee was thinking of the ACC, SEC & B12 a lot more than UConn and the AAC.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66903
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/14/14 8:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
| Last year the committee made 2 SEC teams 1 seeds and neither made it past the S16. Hopefully at some point they will reexamine the predictive power of RPI in selecting top seeds. |
Having upsets isn't a bad thing, actually.
Anyway, the committee swears up and down that it doesn't actually use RPI to do the seeding. The correlation is very strong at the top end, though.
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/15/14 12:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Tennessee and South Carolina were 5th and 6th in RPI, so it isn't quite fair to blame the RPI for those mistakes.
Tennessee was higher in the AP and Coaches poll, although South Carolina was 8th in both.
While I think the committee does a decent job, and far better than some critics realize, I think they give too much credit to the SEC who used to be the top conference, but isn't anymore.
|
|
|
|
