| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
singinerd54
Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 1817
Location: Missouri
Back to top |
 Posted: 03/17/24 9:42 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
| calbearman76 wrote: |
| Evaluating strength of schedule is much more nuanced than an overall schedule number. |
I don't disagree, but how would you suggest the selection committee go about evaluating SOS when considering an entire tournament field?
| calbearman76 wrote: |
LSU was 1-3 against the top 20 and 6-2 against the rest of Quadrant 1.
UConn was 0-5 against the top 20 and 10-0 vs the rest of Q1
Notre Dame was 4-2 against the top 20 and 8-2 vs the rest of Q1. They also lost 2 games against Q2, the only team in the top 19 with more than 1 non Q1 loss.
North Carolina St was 5-4 against the top 20 and 3-2 vs the rest of Q1. |
As with all statistics, we can choose slightly different variations to tell a slightly-somewhat different story.
The NET website breaks down Quad 1 games into two groups on the individual team page.
LSU: 3-3 against upper group, 5-2 against lower
UConn: 2-5, 8-0
Notre Dame: 6-3, 6-1 (plus 2 Quad 2 losses)
NC State: 4-4, 4-2
Other ways to break it down:
LSU: 1-3 against NET Top 25, 9-2 against NET 26-50
UConn: 3-5, 6-0
Notre Dame: 7-3, 3-3
NC State: 6-4, 4-2
LSU: 0-2 against NET Top 15, 2-1 against NET 16-30, 7-1 against NET 31-45, 2-1 against NET 46-60
UConn: 0-5, 3-0, 6-0, 2-0
Notre Dame: 2-2, 6-1, 1-3, 2-0
NC State: 2-1, 4-3, 4-1, 1-1
Each of these suggests that Notre Dame has the best wins and UConn has the "best" losses. LSU has the weakest combination of good wins/bad losses.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5155
Location: Carson City
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/17/24 2:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
[quote="singinerd54"]
| calbearman76 wrote: |
| Evaluating strength of schedule is much more nuanced than an overall schedule number. |
I don't disagree, but how would you suggest the selection committee go about evaluating SOS when considering an entire tournament field?
When it comes to evaluating which teams should get in the tournament I believe the most simplistic way to evaluate teams is Q1 wins vs. non Q1 losses. Very good wins (wins over top 10 and wins over top 25 should be given additional weight. Similarly Q3 and Q4 losses can be given more weight
For the top 16 the criteria must be tougher. Whether you use the top half of Q1, top 20 or top 25, those are the games that make a top 16 team..
|
|
Conway Gamecock
Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1900
Location: Here
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/17/24 5:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| singinerd54 wrote: |
| Fighting Artichoke wrote: |
| But when people say the UConn's conference schedule balances out with LSU's weak OOC schedule, that argument still has some merit. Not because the SEC is a murderer's row like UConn's OOC schedule, but because there are more games against conference opponents so it should be weighted more. |
LSU's average opponent NET ranking was 118; UConn's was 72.
| Fighting Artichoke wrote: |
| In support of this, Massey has UConn's SOS as 16th toughest and LSU's as 28th most difficult. That's not nearly as stark as you might expect, given the extreme weakness of LSU's nonconference schedule. |
Keep in mind that the committee uses NET as its metric, not Massey. UConn's NET SOS is 24; LSU's is 69. The next worst SOS for a 2-seed candidate is Texas at 47, followed by NC State at 32. |
Interesting. I always understood that NET ratings relied on - among other factors - the Strength of Schedule (SOS). So, there is a particular NET SOS that is separate from the overall SOS?? The standard SOS equation has CT at 4 and LSU at 42. Can you provide any documentation that describes this "NET SOS", and how it is calculated???
|
|
Conway Gamecock
Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1900
Location: Here
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/17/24 5:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| singinerd54 wrote: |
| calbearman76 wrote: |
| Evaluating strength of schedule is much more nuanced than an overall schedule number. |
I don't disagree, but how would you suggest the selection committee go about evaluating SOS when considering an entire tournament field?
| calbearman76 wrote: |
LSU was 1-3 against the top 20 and 6-2 against the rest of Quadrant 1.
UConn was 0-5 against the top 20 and 10-0 vs the rest of Q1
Notre Dame was 4-2 against the top 20 and 8-2 vs the rest of Q1. They also lost 2 games against Q2, the only team in the top 19 with more than 1 non Q1 loss.
North Carolina St was 5-4 against the top 20 and 3-2 vs the rest of Q1. |
As with all statistics, we can choose slightly different variations to tell a slightly-somewhat different story.
The NET website breaks down Quad 1 games into two groups on the individual team page.
LSU: 3-3 against upper group, 5-2 against lower
UConn: 2-5, 8-0
Notre Dame: 6-3, 6-1 (plus 2 Quad 2 losses)
NC State: 4-4, 4-2
Other ways to break it down:
LSU: 1-3 against NET Top 25, 9-2 against NET 26-50
UConn: 3-5, 6-0
Notre Dame: 7-3, 3-3
NC State: 6-4, 4-2
LSU: 0-2 against NET Top 15, 2-1 against NET 16-30, 7-1 against NET 31-45, 2-1 against NET 46-60
UConn: 0-5, 3-0, 6-0, 2-0
Notre Dame: 2-2, 6-1, 1-3, 2-0
NC State: 2-1, 4-3, 4-1, 1-1
Each of these suggests that Notre Dame has the best wins and UConn has the "best" losses. LSU has the weakest combination of good wins/bad losses. |
I'm not sure that the selection committee "goes about" evaluating SOS for ANY team they select for their tournament. I think they simply rely on established formulas already in place that determines SOS, and factor those rankings into their decision-making. I always understood that the NET formula calculated its ratings the exact same way, but now I have learned that there is a unique equation for "NET SOS" that I'm interested in learning more about. So now there may be a unique NCAAT Selection Committee equation/process for SOS??? Hmmm....
The idea was once - or so it was sold as such - that all these mundane processes for determining a program's proper place in any ranking structure, would be performed by formulas, equations, and computer computations, so as to remove any and all human subjectivity from the ranking processes. Now I'm beginning to feel that these processes are totally and purely viscerally human, after all..... 
|
|
Conway Gamecock
Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1900
Location: Here
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/17/24 6:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Overall, I think what dilemma the selection committee has in determining seeding for the NCAAT, is how well prepared teams are to compete in said tournament at the time they step foot on the hardwood for the very first games.
With one team, we have a lot of quality competition towards the START of the season, while with the other team, we have those competition towards the END of the season. The NCAAT begins after the END of the regular season.
So what does the committee understand?? That the top 2 toughest opponents that CT faced in the year of 2024 - the type of opponents that one could suspect would reach the last half of the NCAAT - CT was 0-2 against losing by 15 and 18 pts respectively.
Since 2024, LSU has had four (4) such losses - all against NET Q1 opponents - losing by 5, 6, 4, and 7 pts respectively. Two of those losses were to an undefeated opponent with the #1 NET (1 of CT's losses was to that same opponent). LSU has since redeemed itself against Auburn TWICE, beating them by 5 and 30 pts, respectively.
CT won its conference - at the later end of the season - by an average of 31.1 ppg MOV, and its BET by an average of 32.7 ppg MOV. There are no surprises there.
LSU went through its conference schedule out-scoring its SEC opponents by a MOV average of 16.0 ppg, and went through its SECT with an average MOV of 10.3 ppg.
Perhaps the Committee may feel that LSU has been tested more recently of late, and against better competition - the likes of what it is expected they will see in the NCAAT - then CT has. And therefore the Committee has a better "bead" on what to expect from Louisiana State in the LATER rounds of the NCAAT, then they have on Connecticut......
Not to say that this will come to fruition - CT could STILL be seeded above LSU - but should LSU be seeded higher, then I feel this will be the Committee's best explanation for why......
|
|
Conway Gamecock
Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1900
Location: Here
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/17/24 7:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Looks like both CT and LSU will be 3-Seeds, so this argument is moot.......
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/17/24 7:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I wouldn't want to be Ole Miss playing in South Bend.
It will feel like they are playing on Marquette's court. Coach Megan Duffy was a popular player at ND. Crowd will be loud for Marquette.
Edit: Apparently Charlie Creme doesn't know that Duffy played for ND. He just said that Old Miss is his sleeper team. I would be interested to know if that would maybe change his mind.
_________________
"Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
CBiebel
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 1055
Location: PA
Back to top |
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14109
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/17/24 8:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
I wouldn't want to be Ole Miss playing in South Bend.
It will feel like they are playing on Marquette's court. Coach Megan Duffy was a popular player at ND. Crowd will be loud for Marquette.
Edit: Apparently Charlie Creme doesn't know that Duffy played for ND. He just said that Old Miss is his sleeper team. I would be interested to know if that would maybe change his mind. |
Last season Ole Miss upset #1 Stanford on their home court, no reason they should be intimidated going to any other school and it feeling like a true road game as opposed a neutral game.
|
|
Marquette Fan
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 3581
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/17/24 8:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
I wouldn't want to be Ole Miss playing in South Bend.
It will feel like they are playing on Marquette's court. Coach Megan Duffy was a popular player at ND. Crowd will be loud for Marquette.
Edit: Apparently Charlie Creme doesn't know that Duffy played for ND. He just said that Old Miss is his sleeper team. I would be interested to know if that would maybe change his mind. |
Honestly Marquette's play recently does not inspire much confidence in them being able to beat anyone.
|
|
Speebs56
Joined: 19 Aug 2015
Posts: 228
Location: Orange county, CA
Back to top |
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/18/24 7:44 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| Phil wrote: |
Here is a table summarizing the opponents:
Range UConn LSU
Very Good 1-25 2 2
Good 26-100 12 1
Decent 100-150 6 1
Weak >151 1 10
|
Help me out here....I *think* I'm understanding your overall points, but in this side-by-side comparison, which parts of whose schedule are you comparing? |
Sorry I wasn't clearer. I was responding to a comment that "LSU's non-conference and CT's conference cancel each other out". Clever, but I disagree. So I compared LSU's non-conference to UConn's conference schedule.
Last edited by Phil on 03/19/24 5:13 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/18/24 7:45 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ::sigh:: duplicate, feel free to remove
|
|
huskiemaniac
Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 1049
Location: NE CT
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/24 2:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
| Some P-5 fans have been pointing to UConn's conference for 29 years and during that time UConn has won 11 titles. The BE and the AAC are 2nd level conferences but so what. As pointed out UConn still plays one of the strongest schedules in the country. But the same old false saws still get posted. |
The relative strength of both the BEast and UConn has fluctuated over the years. As you suggest, there is little correlation.
That said, the BEast is weak as currently constituted for WCB, and UConn is weak, relative to its successful teams you cite.
|
|
Hoops9092
Joined: 04 Nov 2008
Posts: 1639
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/20/24 10:05 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Iowa's bracket in some ways reminded me of 2007 when Candace Parker and Tennessee was #1 in their region, defending champs Maryland was #2, Courtney Paris and Oklahoma #3 and Jessica Davenport and Ohio State were #4. Everyone was in shock how stacked this region was.
How did it play out?
Well #4 Ohio State was upset by Marist in the Round of 64.
Arminitie Price and #7 Ole Miss emerged and upset both Maryland in the Round of 32 and Oklahoma in the Sweet 16.
And Tennessee's path to the Final Four including beating a #13 seed in the Sweet 16 and a #7 seed in the Elite Eight...by an average of 27 points.
So you never know.
|
|
RavenDog
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 6878
Location: Home
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/20/24 4:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
No doubt in my mind that the Iowa bracket was a setup.
They looked at the teams and squeezed in the most difficult teams for Iowa to beat. They then came up with rhetoric to make it seem to fit. The NCAA
Committee doesn't want Iowa or Clark to be more successful. They want to place more light on the other teams and players, so they get more recognition. And lets not forget about the spreading of $$$$$.
It's the same old game the NCAA plays more or less every year. LSU a three seed? Come on, they are one of the top 4 teams in the Nation.
Even if Iowa gets through their bracket, they have the best teams yet to beat.
It cannot be done. Too many back-to-back games against really tough teams.
NCAA is too powerful, influential and controls too much of everything in college sports.
|
|
WNBA 09
Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 12538
Location: Dallas , Texas
Back to top |
|
Hoops9092
Joined: 04 Nov 2008
Posts: 1639
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/24 8:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| It's remarkable that there have been practically no "upsets" by seed in the opening round. The only one so far has been #11 Middle Tennessee State oer #6 Louisville.
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/24/24 9:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Hoops9092 wrote: |
| It's remarkable that there have been practically no "upsets" by seed in the opening round. The only one so far has been #11 Middle Tennessee State oer #6 Louisville. |
And that one required a near record come-back.
Maybe the seeding committee is getting it right?
|
|
|
|
