|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 10, 2009 16:45:57 GMT -5
I realize the NCAA wants to avoid having conference opponents face each other in 1st or 2nd round. But they also want to limit travel. So two questions: 1. Could Washington State possibly be sent to Seattle for 1st and 2nd rounds? (Assuming WSU makes tournament and UW hosts). 2. Has WSU requested to host and could that happen and could UW be sent to Pullman? I don't think so. They will just have played each other two weeks before. Seems like the committee would just send one of them across the country instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2009 17:24:50 GMT -5
WSU may not make the tourney, after being around 30 in the RPI a few weeks ago, it's now down to 53. That is right on the bubble for at large teams.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Nov 10, 2009 17:48:58 GMT -5
I realize the NCAA wants to avoid having conference opponents face each other in 1st or 2nd round. But they also want to limit travel. So two questions: 1. Could Washington State possibly be sent to Seattle for 1st and 2nd rounds? (Assuming WSU makes tournament and UW hosts). 2. Has WSU requested to host and could that happen and could UW be sent to Pullman? I don't think so. They will just have played each other two weeks before. Seems like the committee would just send one of them across the country instead. I've never heard of conference opponents with a possible match in the 1st/2nd round. In the 3rd round happens to some degree - with Cal playing Stanford in 2006 and UW against Stanford in 2003. Avoiding a repeated non-conference matchup never seemed to be a concern. I remember back in 2002 Cal had to play Santa Clara in the 1st round after playing them less than 3 weeks previous.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Nov 10, 2009 17:55:18 GMT -5
2. I sent my proposed seedings to about 12 VTalkers whom I respect and trust and their suggestions are reflected in the changed ratings. Also, Nebraska and Cal messed me up big time on Saturday. Thrill of the Ville, my system couldn't seem to accept you so I will try again later. I didn't get a request. Hence the flaw in the system.
|
|
|
Post by qc on Nov 10, 2009 18:09:46 GMT -5
WSU may not make the tourney, after being around 30 in the RPI a few weeks ago, it's now down to 53. That is right on the bubble for at large teams. Wait a minute. I found #20 Wichita St. #53 Washington St. #213 Wright St. #249 Weber St.I predict that all of the WSUs make it. ... Have I ever been wrong before? (Note: This is a rhetorical question; answers are not required. ;D )
|
|
|
Post by qc on Nov 10, 2009 18:17:52 GMT -5
Same with the SUs: #9 Stanford #90 Syracuse #138 Samford #214 Siena #254 Seattle #301 Stetson #322 Southern U. My predictions are as reliable as ... microsoft security (" Windows - We Will See You Through"). ;D
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Nov 10, 2009 18:48:40 GMT -5
Whereas they *can* put two teams from the same conference in the same sub-regional, they have not to date. No reason to believe they'd do it this time. Much easier for them to just leave WSU out of the tournament if travel became a real issue. (And I'm not kidding.) While I agree that Washington State probably won't make it (based upon their current record and probable losses in their last 6 matches), I don't think the travel issue will have anything to do with it. I believe the selection committee's responsibility is to select the 31 at large teams irregardless of what travel requirements it may or may not require. Then, once the field of 64 is decided, the go about seeding team and placing them in brackets that require the fewest number of teams flying whatever the number is with the teams that make the field.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Nov 10, 2009 19:46:03 GMT -5
Whereas they *can* put two teams from the same conference in the same sub-regional, they have not to date. No reason to believe they'd do it this time. Much easier for them to just leave WSU out of the tournament if travel became a real issue. (And I'm not kidding.) While I agree that Washington State probably won't make it (based upon their current record and probable losses in their last 6 matches), I don't think the travel issue will have anything to do with it. I believe the selection committee's responsibility is to select the 31 at large teams irregardless of what travel requirements it may or may not require. Then, once the field of 64 is decided, the go about seeding team and placing them in brackets that require the fewest number of teams flying whatever the number is with the teams that make the field. They're guaranteed to finish with a winning record and have 3 wins over likely NCAA Tournament teams.
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Nov 10, 2009 19:54:41 GMT -5
Whereas they *can* put two teams from the same conference in the same sub-regional, they have not to date. No reason to believe they'd do it this time. Much easier for them to just leave WSU out of the tournament if travel became a real issue. (And I'm not kidding.) While I agree that Washington State probably won't make it (based upon their current record and probable losses in their last 6 matches), I don't think the travel issue will have anything to do with it. I believe the selection committee's responsibility is to select the 31 at large teams irregardless of what travel requirements it may or may not require. Then, once the field of 64 is decided, the go about seeding team and placing them in brackets that require the fewest number of teams flying whatever the number is with the teams that make the field. The slides on the selection guidelines say to "avoid" pairing teams from the same conference in the 1st and 2nd rounds. Not really a brightline rule, but at least they're told to avoid it. Another interesting guideline is to "avoid" rematches of prior-tournament 1st and 2nd round matches. Isn't this one typically violated with some of the subregionals involving florida schools every year?
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Nov 10, 2009 20:11:41 GMT -5
RE: Washington St .... they're one spot ahead of USC in the PAC-10 standings. conceivably they could finish out the season that way, but lose out on an at-large bid b/c of their RPI ... but USC (with the higher RPI ... in the 30s, i believe) gets in ahead of WSU, despite WSU's better conference record ...
not the first time something like this has happened -- it might have happened to the Big West in recent years -- but it'd make for an interesting predicament.
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Nov 10, 2009 20:13:41 GMT -5
While I agree that Washington State probably won't make it (based upon their current record and probable losses in their last 6 matches), I don't think the travel issue will have anything to do with it. I believe the selection committee's responsibility is to select the 31 at large teams irregardless of what travel requirements it may or may not require. Then, once the field of 64 is decided, the go about seeding team and placing them in brackets that require the fewest number of teams flying whatever the number is with the teams that make the field. They're guaranteed to finish with a winning record and have 3 wins over likely NCAA Tournament teams. . . . and could very easily be 2-8 in there last 10 matches. With four losses in the last two weeks, their RPI has taken a huge hit. 4 more losses could very well make it worse. Clearly they will be a bubble team at the very best. But guess we'll both see in about 2 1/2 weeks.
|
|
|
Post by jets on Nov 10, 2009 20:28:49 GMT -5
They're guaranteed to finish with a winning record and have 3 wins over likely NCAA Tournament teams. Not a big fan of Pac10 but it would be pretty harsh to keep out a team that would have at worst a 16-14 record when you look at where those wins and losses came. Wazzu will very likely will be 17-13 or 18-12, if so it would really sad if they got left out. Resume: (current RPKI rankings) Great wins: #5 Washington 3-1 Good wins: #17 Arizona 3-0 #33 USC 3-0 Other Notable Wins: #95 UCDavis 3-1 #62 Mizzou 3-0 #65 Utah 3-0 #52 Oregon State 3-0 Bad Losses: #69 Arizona 1-3 Other Losses: #19 Oregon 1-3 #9 Stanford 1-3 & 0-3 #6 California 0-3 & 1-3 #8 UCLA 0-3 #17 Arizona 1-3 So of their 8 losses, 7 are against RPI (and mostly Pablo) top 20 - 5 against top 10 teams. Their only loss outside the top 20 is to Arizona State which isn't a terrible loss. Even if they lose the rest of their Pac10 matches but beat EWU, you're adding 'other' losses to #5, #8, #19, #33 teams and a 'bad' loss to #52. Any 17-13 team who has wins over #5, #17, and #33 teams while their worst losses are to #33, #52, #69 teams really does deserve an at-large berth, especially when you consider the other bubble teams out there and who their best wins and worst losses are to.
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Nov 10, 2009 20:54:06 GMT -5
Thanks for the input. I have made notes from these suggestions and will incorporate them into changes after the weekend, when more results are in. PDub has criticized the term "Bracketology" with some reason and I invite another phrase more germane to our sport. He says I put together the brackets without considering the method behind the brackets and that is not entirely true. I followed this system. I welcome any corrections before the next round. I haven't gone back far enough in recent seedings to tell how the committee has handled some situations but I do accept the statement of,I believe pdub, that you just change the names from the big conferences and the results are the same;
1. ID the automatic entries. I think I took North Dakota from the Great West and shouldn't have; it was in the Rich Kern database and I couldn't quickly find out if its a qualified conference or not. I will drop them in the next set of brackets.
2. Establish the rest of the 64. I am using present completed records, not what could happen. For the Pac 10, I consider OSU and ASU out, and USC and Washington State on the edge. If they don't win some matches soon, they will be out. Same for other conferences. For instance, I am not enamored of Michigan State, but their RPI is still 23, I believe.
3, Seed the best 16. I will spend more time on that this weekend and send out listings with reasons, hopefully backed up by history. For this weekend, Michigan is not seeded because of Zimmerman's thumb. Wins ahead can show her disslocated thumb is OK, hard to believe. My main perception is the committee is willing to seed champs from mid majors, even without supremo wins. The feedback I've gotten from others disputes that idea.
4. Adjust the 16 to fit 4 to a regional. The lower seeded teams are the ones to be moved when there is a conflict, according to the rules.
5. Set up subregionals. This is by far the part of the exercise that calls for the final 64. My methodolgy, which comes from a remembrance of NCAA guidelines that I cannot locate, is that at least 2 of the 3 visiting teams should be from within 400 miles. I have followed this fairly religiously. Also, no first and second round opponents from the same conference. I saw a rule that was going to get rid of that, but the NCAA video still sticks with that. So no conference opponents. Although I have seen no rules, I also have tried to match 1 v. 32 in the second round, 2 v. 31, etc. Generally, the higher your seed (1,2,3..) the worse your opponent should be compared to 13,14,15,16, so Pac 10 #1 Washington might get Texas A&M, while #3 Stanford gets Baylor in it's sub-regional. The "wild card teams" tend to be from the Pac 10 and Big 12, because those teams, if not hosting, are within 450 miles only of teams within their conference (Oregon, WSU in the north, Cal, USC down south, Arizona, as well as Baylor, Oklahoma, Texas A & M, so they go provide the #2 seeded teams in other sub regionals. I will try to explain next week why, say, Kentucky will host, but higher ranked UCLA may not. I will say right now the rules say "remote" teams should not host, and Hawaii, which really SHOULD host rounds 1 &2, is about as remote a location as there is on earth (which the natives appreciate).
Frankly, until the smaller conference tournaments are done this is a bit of an exercise in futility, particularly since the subregional sites will not bbe released. But Again, I will revise after the weekend, and if somebody nknows its 450 miles, not 400, let me know.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 10, 2009 21:37:39 GMT -5
PDub has criticized the term "Bracketology" with some reason and I invite another phrase more germane to our sport. How about "My bracket predictions"? Kind of like the whole other thread on that topic. A-hem! How much have you studied the actions of the committee to determine the factors that they find important? Not "what do the rules say," but "what does the committee do?" That's what Lunardi's "bracketology" is about.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Nov 10, 2009 21:53:34 GMT -5
5. Set up subregionals. This is by far the part of the exercise that calls for the final 64. My methodolgy, which comes from a remembrance of NCAA guidelines that I cannot locate, is that at least 2 of the 3 visiting teams should be from within 400 miles. I have followed this fairly religiously. I recall a couple of NCAA subregionals where at most one of the visiting teams was from within 400 miles. Just last year Cal hosted St Mary's, Siena, and New Mexico State. In 2006, Cal Poly hosted Cal, Michigan, and LSU. That 2006 Cal Poly subregional was notorious because it seemed like it was the one that matched 3-4 participants that were extremely close to each other in quality, plus they threw out the regional participant guidelines to boot to arrive at it. I think Cal Poly, Cal, and LSU were ranked maybe #13/14/15 in the AVCA top 25 at the end of the regular season.
|
|