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

Bracketology
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
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
mzonefan



Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 4878
Location: Ann Arbor, MI


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/02/16 12:55 pm    ::: Bracketology Reply Reply with quote
http://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/bracketology

Bids By Conference

SEC (8 )
Pac-12 (7)
ACC (7)
Big 12 (5)
Big Ten (5)
Big East (3)
American (2)
Atlantic 10 (2)

Last Four In

Vanderbilt
South Florida
Virginia
Michigan State

First Four Out

Creighton
Duke
Oklahoma State
Northwestern

Next Four Out

Texas A&M
Arkansas
Gonzaga
Oregon
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/02/16 1:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
Well, it's a good thing we have several months of play ahead of us, because that looks seriously improbable to me in too many places to even know where to start.
Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18030
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/02/16 7:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
...if there are three teams from the Big East, Creighton is one of them, not Villanova, especially not Villanova without the Coyers.

There is no point in a bracketology this early.



_________________
Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
FollowtheCardinalRule



Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 5153
Location: Denver


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/02/16 7:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
If there are 7 teams from the Pac, I don't think that Cal and USC are among them. Cal is a possibility, but USC? Including Vanderbilt, Mizzou, and NC State seems a tad optimistic for those teams, but I can understand arguments for them at this juncture.

Oklahoma as a 3 seed, while Stanford is a 5 boggles my mind,
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/02/16 8:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
I suppose somebody has to make it, but there's actually three AAC teams, with both Temple and USF included. I doubt that.

Kentucky a four seed? Is no one aware that most of their team left?

And I characterize the likelihood of Baylor not being a 1 seed as "remote".

Of course for the second year in a row Creme wants to force Notre Dame to play a regional on Kentucky's home court. Oh sorry, I forgot. Kentucky's home court is down the block. This is only their part time home court. 👎👎👎
Marquette Fan



Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 3581



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/02/16 9:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
Queenie wrote:
...if there are three teams from the Big East, Creighton is one of them, not Villanova, especially not Villanova without the Coyers.

There is no point in a bracketology this early.


Yeah but it's been so long since Marquette has been predicted to be an NCAA team, that it's really fun for me to read stuff like this Smile
Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/16 2:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
Yes, it is early, but it is never too early to start practicing. No, I don't mean practicing pick and rolls, I mean practicing outrage at bracket decisions.

Let's start with Dawn Staley and let's start with what happened to them last year. In theory, what happened last year is irrelevant but it is my belief that when the committee either makes a mistake or is forced to make a decision that appears unfair for a particular team, the try to make sure they don't screw them over the following year.

So what happened to South Carolina last year? They finished in either second or third depending on whether you believe the AP or coaches poll. That isn't going to give them the first pick of regional locations but who cares — number one is going to Connecticut, and Connecticut is going to Bridgeport. South Carolina doesn't want to be in Bridgeport.

So where are they end up? Sioux Fricken Falls. Nothing against South Dakota, I'm sure it's a nice place but while it's not the end of the world you can see it from there. They didn't even get shipped to the westernmost regional Dallas, but the trip from South Carolina to Sioux Falls is 400 miles further than it is to Dallas. Obviously, they wanted Lexington, but that wasn't in the cards. If they couldn't get Lexington though, it is a much easier drive and a much easier flight to Dallas not to mention a better location in terms of weather and things to do and places to eat.

So let's agree that South Carolina got the short end of the stick last year.

How will the committee make it up to them this year?

After being shipped to the furthest away location last year this year the bracket has them heading to… California? And not even a nice destination location to encourage fans to visit but Stockton California.

Obviously, they prefer to be in Lexington but Notre Dame's going to have to lay an egg to blow that assignment. That means they are battling with Louisville for Oklahoma City which at least is a lot closer than Stockton. (Aside, I'd pick Baylor ahead of Louisville) I guess if they can't get seeded ahead of Louisville maybe they deserve to go out West. I'm thinking that Louisville's pretty good but maybe not quite up to getting the third-best one seed and maybe they slip a bit and get assigned to Lexington, but back to South Carolina. I wouldn't want to be around Dawn Staley if she earns a number one seed and get shipped even further away this year.
Fighting Artichoke



Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/16 3:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
Phil wrote:
Yes, it is early, but it is never too early to start practicing. No, I don't mean practicing pick and rolls, I mean practicing outrage at bracket decisions.

Let's start with Dawn Staley and let's start with what happened to them last year. In theory, what happened last year is irrelevant but it is my belief that when the committee either makes a mistake or is forced to make a decision that appears unfair for a particular team, the try to make sure they don't screw them over the following year.

So what happened to South Carolina last year? They finished in either second or third depending on whether you believe the AP or coaches poll. That isn't going to give them the first pick of regional locations but who cares — number one is going to Connecticut, and Connecticut is going to Bridgeport. South Carolina doesn't want to be in Bridgeport.

So where are they end up? Sioux Fricken Falls. Nothing against South Dakota, I'm sure it's a nice place but while it's not the end of the world you can see it from there. They didn't even get shipped to the westernmost regional Dallas, but the trip from South Carolina to Sioux Falls is 400 miles further than it is to Dallas. Obviously, they wanted Lexington, but that wasn't in the cards. If they couldn't get Lexington though, it is a much easier drive and a much easier flight to Dallas not to mention a better location in terms of weather and things to do and places to eat.

So let's agree that South Carolina got the short end of the stick last year.

How will the committee make it up to them this year?

After being shipped to the furthest away location last year this year the bracket has them heading to… California? And not even a nice destination location to encourage fans to visit but Stockton California.

Obviously, they prefer to be in Lexington but Notre Dame's going to have to lay an egg to blow that assignment. That means they are battling with Louisville for Oklahoma City which at least is a lot closer than Stockton. (Aside, I'd pick Baylor ahead of Louisville) I guess if they can't get seeded ahead of Louisville maybe they deserve to go out West. I'm thinking that Louisville's pretty good but maybe not quite up to getting the third-best one seed and maybe they slip a bit and get assigned to Lexington, but back to South Carolina. I wouldn't want to be around Dawn Staley if she earns a number one seed and get shipped even further away this year.

The previous year ND had the 2nd/3rd best resume and South Carolina got the best region (Greensboro). ND got shipped farther (Oklahoma City) and had to play the top 2-seed Baylor in front of a very pro-Baylor crowd. I think that played into the decision to let ND get Lexington last year.
Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/16 3:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
Fighting Artichoke wrote:


The previous year ND had the 2nd/3rd best resume and South Carolina got the best region (Greensboro). ND got shipped farther (Oklahoma City) and had to play the top 2-seed Baylor in front of a very pro-Baylor crowd. I think that played into the decision to let ND get Lexington last year.


That's a good point.

I still suggest that even if SC had to take the hit last year to remedy the prior hit to ND, they won't be happy if they get sent west this year.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/16 3:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
Fighting Artichoke wrote:
I think that played into the decision to let ND get Lexington last year.


Huh? I think McGraw WANTED to go to S Dakota last year. Nobody wanted to be the one screwed playing KY on its own campus on one of its home courts.

And of course Creme ( who defended screwing ND vociferously last year) would double down and do it again. I'm shocked. Rolling Eyes
Shmermerer1



Joined: 04 Aug 2014
Posts: 284



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/16 4:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
Queenie wrote:
...if there are three teams from the Big East, Creighton is one of them, not Villanova, especially not Villanova without the Coyers.

There is no point in a bracketology this early.


I actually disagree. They still have Hahn, they brought in a top 50 recruit in Jekot, and Jannah Tucker is now eligible and I believe she led the team in scoring in their exhibition going 5-12 from 3. I also think they have one of the top coaches in the conference. I think they're gonna make some noise this year.
linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/16 4:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
The committee had to send either Kentucky or S Carolina from that region because their "policy" says that seeds 1 through 4 from the same conference should be put in separate regions.

I'm looking forward to the whining from the 1 seed that gets sent to Bridgeport if UConn ends up a 2 - 4 seed. Very Happy
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/16 4:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
linkster wrote:
The committee had to send either Kentucky or S Carolina from that region because their "policy" says that seeds 1 through 4 from the same conference should be put in separate regions.

I'm looking forward to the whining from the 1 seed that gets sent to Bridgeport if UConn ends up a 2 - 4 seed. Very Happy


They should complain. It's a disgrace that Ky can play a regional in Lexington and UConn in Bridgeport.

There was a men's regional at the Yum Center last year and Louisville was barred from playing in that region because the men actually care about the integrity of the tournament.

And they should have solved their problem by sending KY somewhere else. Then there would have been no problem sending SCar to Lexington.
patsweetpat



Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/16 7:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
Phil wrote:
Yes, it is early, but it is never too early to start practicing. No, I don't mean practicing pick and rolls, I mean practicing outrage at bracket decisions.


Okay, then I'll start with a little warm up:

It's ridiculous that-- the very season after the Pac-12 puts four teams into the Sweet 16, three teams into the Elite 8, and 2 teams into the Final Four-- the highest tourney seed any Pac-12 team merits is a 3 seed.

The Big-12 runner-up, the ACC runner-up and the Big-10 runner-up all merit higher seeds than the Pac-12 champion?!

C'mon now.

How'd I do?
Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/16 8:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
patsweetpat wrote:
Phil wrote:
Yes, it is early, but it is never too early to start practicing. No, I don't mean practicing pick and rolls, I mean practicing outrage at bracket decisions.


Okay, then I'll start with a little warm up:

It's ridiculous that-- the very season after the Pac-12 puts four teams into the Sweet 16, three teams into the Elite 8, and 2 teams into the Final Four-- the highest tourney seed any Pac-12 team merits is a 3 seed.

The Big-12 runner-up, the ACC runner-up and the Big-10 runner-up all merit higher seeds than the Pac-12 champion?!

C'mon now.


How'd I do?



Nice!
summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7842
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/16 8:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
Everything that happened last year is irrelevant.



_________________
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
Fighting Artichoke



Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/16 10:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
ArtBest23 wrote:
Fighting Artichoke wrote:
I think that played into the decision to let ND get Lexington last year.


Huh? I think McGraw WANTED to go to S Dakota last year. Nobody wanted to be the one screwed playing KY on its own campus on one of its home courts.

And of course Creme ( who defended screwing ND vociferously last year) would double down and do it again. I'm shocked. Rolling Eyes


I cannot imagine Kentucky as any sort of threat this season, so I cannot fear going to Lexington. In fact, I would be shocked if they are a top 4 seed.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/16 10:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
Fighting Artichoke wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Fighting Artichoke wrote:
I think that played into the decision to let ND get Lexington last year.


Huh? I think McGraw WANTED to go to S Dakota last year. Nobody wanted to be the one screwed playing KY on its own campus on one of its home courts.

And of course Creme ( who defended screwing ND vociferously last year) would double down and do it again. I'm shocked. Rolling Eyes


I cannot imagine Kentucky as any sort of threat this season, so I cannot fear going to Lexington. In fact, I would be shocked if they are a top 4 seed.


I don't disagree with that. But it should never even come up. They were supposed to be selecting neutral sites for the regionals. They need to stop allowing teams to play in regionals on their home courts.

Like the Yum Center was for the men, if they want to rent out their facility for a regional, the home team should have to go to a different region.

The fact that Ky stinks doesn't change that. They should not be allowed to play in the Lexington regional. Period.
patsweetpat



Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/04/16 9:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote
summertime blues wrote:
Everything that happened last year is irrelevant.


That's a good point. Only the outcomes of the imaginary games that haven't even been played yet this year bear relevance to this preseason Bracketology exercise.
Fighting Artichoke



Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/04/16 9:42 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote
patsweetpat wrote:
summertime blues wrote:
Everything that happened last year is irrelevant.


That's a good point. Only the outcomes of the imaginary games that haven't even been played yet this year bear relevance to this preseason Bracketology exercise.


Of course what happened last year matters, but mostly in the context of which star players return. And it matters what those returning stars did in the tournament AND in the regular season. Just because Washington played exceptionally well in the tournament does not mean that they were better than South Carolina, Baylor, and Notre Dame. (Look at the records and the computer rankings, even AFTER the tournament.) Single elimination tournaments can have unpredictable and strange results, but as a conference the PAC12 really kicked ass, and that is a larger sample size. The issue with the PAC12, in my opinion, is that they do not have a dominant team or two that wows people. Their conference strentgh seems to be a bunch of really good teams, that while not top 6, are well represented in 7th-25th spots of the top 25. But I agree with you that the PAC12 is poorly seeded in Creme's bracketology. I hope that changes as the results of the season are incorporated into his analysis.
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/04/16 11:54 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote
patsweetpat wrote:
summertime blues wrote:
Everything that happened last year is irrelevant.


That's a good point. Only the outcomes of the imaginary games that haven't even been played yet this year bear relevance to this preseason Bracketology exercise.


Laughing ty Pat. But it is true as Arti says right now we have a hard time amongst ourselves (P12 fans) to tell who will shine this year. It's safer for Creme to seed them all lower. Gotta start somewhere and it means we are more apt to go up than down so that's a better direction. And I think most of those #1 and #2 teams deserve their ranking. I'm not so sure about Texas but guess we'll see pretty soon.



_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/04/16 3:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
I don't care about pre-season brackets, in-season brackets or the actual post-season brackets. Nor do I care what team plays where. I don't think it affects much nor the Final outcome, any more than some other quantum mechanical flukiness may. Like refs. Whom I care about even less than bracketology.

But I enjoy watching others quibble about such kibble.

And I can never decide whether I am amazed, jealous or horrified that Charlie Creme actually gets paid real moola to do what he does.
CBiebel



Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 1055
Location: PA


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/05/16 3:02 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote
I'm not sure which is more useless, a preseason poll or a preseason bracket prediction... Wink
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/05/16 4:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
CBiebel wrote:
I'm not sure which is more useless, a preseason poll or a preseason bracket prediction... Wink


I would say the bracket prediction is more useless, but we could have a uselessness poll and see how we all REALLY feel! Laughing

On the other hand, it does give us something to talk about while we wait though.



_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/05/16 6:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
myrtle wrote:
CBiebel wrote:
I'm not sure which is more useless, a preseason poll or a preseason bracket prediction... Wink


I would say the bracket prediction is more useless, but we could have a uselessness poll and see how we all REALLY feel! Laughing

On the other hand, it does give us something to talk about while we wait though.


Pre-season bracketology is more useless by complex orders of magnitude.

To do it, have to poll (rank) not just 25 teams but 64. Then you have to predict their order not at the beginning of the season but at the end. Then you have to predict how some other bunch of nutjobs (the SelComm) will seed them. Then you have to predict all the geographic locations the nutjobs will send them.

The energy to do such pre-season bracketology requires one to solve the following equation:



This may be a simple calculation for Charlie Creme, but it's pretty useless for most regular folks.
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 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
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