FINALIZED Bracketology (11/28) [includes AQ's]

[trojansc]

I'm still stunned Arizona State and UNI got in. Also kind of surprised KState made it.

[seymour8]

Nov 30, 2015 1:48:03 GMT -5 trojansc said:

I'm still stunned Arizona State and UNI got in. Also kind of surprised KState made it.

I'm stunned by how little the selection committee members care about the mid major conference winners. These ladies have family and fans who would like to see them play as well. Just ridiculous.

[ay2013]

Nov 30, 2015 2:17:07 GMT -5 seymour8 said:

Nov 30, 2015 1:48:03 GMT -5 trojansc said:

I'm still stunned Arizona State and UNI got in. Also kind of surprised KState made it.

I'm stunned by how little the selection committee members care about the mid major conference winners. These ladies have family and fans who would like to see them play as well. Just ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure that every mid major conference winner gets into the tournament, it's called the auto-bid.

[seymour8]

Nov 30, 2015 2:44:42 GMT -5 ay2013 said:

Nov 30, 2015 2:17:07 GMT -5 seymour8 said:

I'm stunned by how little the selection committee members care about the mid major conference winners. These ladies have family and fans who would like to see them play as well. Just ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure that every mid major conference winner gets into the tournament, it's called the auto-bid.

Not talking about that. Talking about where some of these mid major teams are being sent to play 1st round matches. They have family and fans who would like to see them play and the distances some of these teams have to go to play is ridiculous.

[skullars]

Arizona State? I had to check their results because I felt like they lost a lot after Gardner went down. They were 4 - 12 in the last 16 matches of the season! And 4 loses in a row to end the season! Granted, they did take both UCLA and USC to 5 sets at home. But was there no more deserving teams out there? I mean, they DID have an RPI of 33 as of 11.23, so on that basis it's no surprise they got selected. The injury to their best player was unfortunate esp. playing in the PAC. But still, this is surprising.

[msrsv]

Nov 30, 2015 9:01:10 GMT -5 skullars said:

Arizona State? I had to check their results because I felt like they lost a lot after Gardner went down. They were 4 - 12 in the last 16 matches of the season! And 4 loses in a row to end the season! Granted, they did take both UCLA and USC to 5 sets at home. But was there no more deserving teams out there? I mean, they DID have an RPI of 33 as of 11.23, so on that basis it's no surprise they got selected. The injury to their best player was unfortunate esp. playing in the PAC. But still, this is surprising.

Back in the day, I remember there always being discussion about the last third of the season being weighted. If so, there is NO way ASU should be in.

I was really, really hoping Boise or Wyo would get in, but the lack of RPI strength in the MWC killed their hopes. Boise won every match, except CSU, for almost two months... but the best winin that stretch was Wyo. MWC coaches really need figure the RPI game and get it done.

[bluepenquin]

Nov 30, 2015 1:48:03 GMT -5 trojansc said:

I'm still stunned Arizona State and UNI got in. Also kind of surprised KState made it.

trojansc, great work again.

Those three are the biggest surprises to me also.  I really thought the injury for Arizona State would keep them out.  I didn't see UNI making it and I also didn't think Kansas State would make it. 

I had Pittsburgh, Long Beach State (evidently wishful thinking) and Wyoming making it instead of those three - so I wasn't very good in predicting the bubble teams. 

Other random thoughts on the selection:

1) The committee seemed to really downgrade the SEC relative to what most of us thought they would do (and the RPI).  I didn't think Texas A&M would get a seed better than 7 - but I am surprised it was as low as #10.  Missouri didn't get a seed - which wasn't so much of a surprise as it was trying to figure out if not them, then who.

2) I think overall, the committee did a much better job than I expected.  To me, they got the 8 best teams with the 1st 8 seeds - and that makes this a very fair bracket, much more so than past seasons. 

3) I think the committee did a much better job at looking at teams 17-32 and spreading across the bracket.  Seems to me that only the Minnesota bracket is weak in this regard, where there are usually more really weak subregionals.  I think with more required air travel than last year (due to the makeup of the field), the committee was given more flexibility in spreading out the better non seeded teams and it was an improvement over last year.

[huskerjen]

It still seems the regions are unbalanced. Austin is rough. Lexington is probably the next most difficult. Des Moines and San Diego don't seem as daunting as the other two.

[c4ndlelight]

Unseeded UNC got UNC Wilmington AND to host, with a home match against Creighton (Pablo 35) to get to the Sweet 16, as an unseeded team.

As an aside, hosting at UNC (rather than at Creighton or Mizzou) is what gave the geo balance to take away a bunch of fly-ins and was responsible for the PAC-12 fly-in crunch that had Oregon-Wisconsin playing in the first round.

I'm not sure how the Committee justified giving the seed to Creighton, they have only one good win (Kentucky) which Mizzou matched and exceeded. Does seem rather convenient since they didn't submit a bid to host..

[vbprisoner]

I saw two committee members running from the grassy knoll!

[ay2013]

Nov 30, 2015 12:03:17 GMT -5 c4ndlelight said:

Unseeded UNC got UNC Wilmington AND to host, with a home match against Creighton (Pablo 35) to get to the Sweet 16, as an unseeded team.

As an aside, hosting at UNC (rather than at Creighton or Mizzou) is what gave the geo balance to take away a bunch of fly-ins and was responsible for the PAC-12 fly-in crunch that had Oregon-Wisconsin playing in the first round.

I'm not sure how the Committee justified giving the seed to Creighton, they have only one good win (Kentucky) which Mizzou matched and exceeded. Does seem rather convenient since they didn't submit a bid to host..

Agreed

[redbeard2008]

Nov 30, 2015 10:49:16 GMT -5 msrsv said:

I was really, really hoping Boise or Wyo would get in, but the lack of RPI strength in the MWC killed their hopes. Boise won every match, except CSU, for almost two months... but the best winin that stretch was Wyo. MWC coaches really need figure the RPI game and get it done.

If they don't have the budgets to fly east, where are they going to go? To the Pac-12 for guaranteed losses, or to other West Coast conferences that have exactly the same problem?

[SportyBucky]

Nov 30, 2015 8:02:17 GMT -5 seymour8 said:

Nov 30, 2015 2:44:42 GMT -5 ay2013 said:

I'm pretty sure that every mid major conference winner gets into the tournament, it's called the auto-bid.

Not talking about that. Talking about where some of these mid major teams are being sent to play 1st round matches. They have family and fans who would like to see them play and the distances some of these teams have to go to play is ridiculous.

Yeah. It's life. Get a top 16 seed and be assured to host. Otherwise, suck it up, buttercup.

[bluepenquin]

Nov 30, 2015 12:03:17 GMT -5 c4ndlelight said:

Unseeded UNC got UNC Wilmington AND to host, with a home match against Creighton (Pablo 35) to get to the Sweet 16, as an unseeded team.

As an aside, hosting at UNC (rather than at Creighton or Mizzou) is what gave the geo balance to take away a bunch of fly-ins and was responsible for the PAC-12 fly-in crunch that had Oregon-Wisconsin playing in the first round.

I'm not sure how the Committee justified giving the seed to Creighton, they have only one good win (Kentucky) which Mizzou matched and exceeded. Does seem rather convenient since they didn't submit a bid to host..

I am usually one of the last people to believe in conspiracies - but this one has me thinking.

If MU was a seed and host - the # of drive-ins would have been the same.  Purdue and Arkansas State could have gone to Missouri instead of being flown.  Having MU host a seeded Creighton team could have been done with the same # of fly-ins.  Western Kentucky - same drive-ins.  I don't think this was the reason.  It is possible that the Creighton @ UNC helped set up the rest of the bracket - allowing more flexibility in sending Hawaii farther east, but I doubt that was the reason either.  Creighton did end up with the #15 RPI, so it isn't a huge stretch to think they were the deserving 16th seed in the Committee's minds.

Once they made the decision that Creighton was #16 and started filling out the rest of the bracket - they were left with no good place to send one of Oregon/Arizona/Arizona State.  Instead of trying to 'fix' that situation by changing the front end of the bracket, they were left with just trying to deal with the problem of where to send the last PAC 12 team.  In other words, I really don't think the Oregon/Wisconsin situation was a result of saving travel costs, but was one of the very last issues they had to deal with and it wasn't feasible to start over with the entire bracket to try and fix.

[msrsv]

Nov 30, 2015 14:04:03 GMT -5 redbeard2008 said:

Nov 30, 2015 10:49:16 GMT -5 msrsv said:

I was really, really hoping Boise or Wyo would get in, but the lack of RPI strength in the MWC killed their hopes. Boise won every match, except CSU, for almost two months... but the best winin that stretch was Wyo. MWC coaches really need figure the RPI game and get it done.

If they don't have the budgets to fly east, where are they going to go? To the Pac-12 for guaranteed losses, or to other West Coast conferences that have exactly the same problem?

I don't think it's budget, but I could be wrong esp for the Cali and Nevada schools. Really the tough thing is that scheduling for RPI, ie wins against teams that will get some wins, is not what builds a program - playing tough competition and not getting bogged down in the losses helps build a competitive program. For example, Matt at Air Force is playing a schedule to build his program, not his RPI. Probably the best thing for him, but not for the conference, which makes me feel like a selfish RPI bitch right now.

But like USU entering conference play at 4-10, with 6 top 100 losses, and SDSU at 3-12, 9 top 100 losses, is just a bummer. Being .500 when conference starts is pretty helpful for RPI.

And oh crap, just realized I was looking at Pablo for USU and SDSU, although I doubt it would change that much with RKPI. 

Anyway, I need to stop rambling!