RebKell's Junkie Boards :: View topic - #8 Princeton vs #1 Maryland

RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums

#8 Princeton vs #1 Maryland - 3/23/15
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

GEF34

Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14127

Back to top

Posted: 03/26/15 12:05 am :::

Howee wrote:

GEF34 wrote:

Howee wrote:

root_thing wrote:

Anything can happen in one game, so unless it was very close or a total blowout I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions. Bottom line is that Princeton was ranked 13th in both the AP and Coaches polls. Given that there are 4 teams per slot, that implies a 4 seed.

It's just not that simple. AP and Coaches' polls aren't based on as many 'layers' of criteria as the Selection Committee implement. Princeton ranked #13 in the last Coaches' Poll, Stanford at #17. Texas wasn't even IN the Top 25. Texas and Stanford are playing on yet, Princeton isn't. Even if Princeton had been a 5 (like the other 2), I can see them losing to teams like Oklahoma or Cal (the teams that Stanford and TX beat in round 2)

It proves that the POLL is flawed, more than proving the Selection Committee's process. And they're flawed, too, but they have so many more puzzle pieces they MUST fit into the finished product--the bracket--than a simple pollster has to do)

You can't use who is still playing and not playing as an indication of whether a team was rightly seeded and wrongly seeded. If was the #8 Stanford played #1 seed Maryland in the 2nd round and lost would anyone be saying Stanford was correctly seeded because they lose to the #1 seed, whom theoretically they should lose to anyways, or would people be saying they should have been a higher seed and not playing the #1 seed in the 2nd round.

As the #1 seed you should beat, in theory, any lower seed, so how can that be an indication on whether a team was seeded correctly because they lost to the #1 seed.

My simple point is that the last POLL RANKINGS will not fully correlate to the BRACKET SEEDINGS. That's all. That was root thing's assertion.

I completely disagree with your reasoning in the post I quoted. Who is still playing right now doesn't prove anything about the polls nor does it say anything about who is better or worse for an entire season. If Connecticut some how lost in the 1st or 2nd round no one would be saying the polls were flawed for picking Connecticut #1, so I don't see how it can be a reason for picking Princeton #13.

Howee

Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15765
Location: OREGON (in my heart)

Back to top

Posted: 03/26/15 1:27 am :::

GEF34 wrote:

Who is still playing right now doesn't prove anything about the polls nor does it say anything about who is better or worse for an entire season.

So, you DO agree with me: Polls DON'T irrefutably prognosticate bracket seedings, and bracket seedings should not rely totally on Poll rankings.

Yay. Cool

_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"

GEF34

Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14127

Back to top

Posted: 03/26/15 1:50 am :::

Howee wrote:

GEF34 wrote:

Who is still playing right now doesn't prove anything about the polls nor does it say anything about who is better or worse for an entire season.

So, you DO agree with me: Polls DON'T irrefutably prognosticate bracket seedings, and bracket seedings should not rely totally on Poll rankings.

Yay. Cool

I agree with your point, not with the reasoning you stated. Which I clearly state in the part of my post that you deleted.

Display posts from previous:

	RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion	All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

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