WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology

WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology (/thread-23027.html)

Pages: 1 2

RE: WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology - TheWildJacko - 03-07-2022

As a given, I think we’d have to say luck is subjective. Otherwise there would be someway to objectively classify it and this discussion would be different. So, IMO, our team missing a lot of bunnies in a loss isn’t necessarily bad luck—it might just be bad headspace, the altitude (for the Mountain schools), poor execution, or the defense getting in our heads. But Aliyah Boston missing two point-blank shots in a row that she would normally make automatically, in the national semis? That feels lucky to me.

On the other hand, Aari McDonald missing the 3 at buzzer in the title game? That was good defense. She was way off balance for that shot and heavily defended by 3 players.

RE: WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology - BillBradley - 03-07-2022

(03-07-2022, 05:52 PM)bl82 Wrote: The biggest determinant of our "luck" this year will be how many ticky-tack fouls get called on Cam and how much time she spends on the bench in Q1 and Q2 as a result of these fouls.

Yep.

RE: WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology - teejers1 - 03-07-2022

(03-07-2022, 06:50 PM)BillBradley Wrote:
(03-07-2022, 05:52 PM)bl82 Wrote: The biggest determinant of our "luck" this year will be how many ticky-tack fouls get called on Cam and how much time she spends on the bench in Q1 and Q2 as a result of these fouls.
Yep.

I'll still go with "too many live ball turnovers" being the biggest determinant of our "luck" in the NCAAs.
You know, Coach doesn't HAVE to sit Cam if she picks up her second foul in the 1H . . .

RE: WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology - TheWildJacko - 03-07-2022

(03-07-2022, 07:32 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(03-07-2022, 06:50 PM)BillBradley Wrote:
(03-07-2022, 05:52 PM)bl82 Wrote: The biggest determinant of our "luck" this year will be how many ticky-tack fouls get called on Cam and how much time she spends on the bench in Q1 and Q2 as a result of these fouls.
Yep.

I'll still go with "too many live ball turnovers" being the biggest determinant of our "luck" in the NCAAs.
You know, Coach doesn't HAVE to sit Cam if she picks up her second foul in the 1H . . .

I think it’d have to depend on how effective she is between fouls. 2 fouls but also scoring at will? Maybe keep her in. Otherwise we have enough talented players that it’s really risky to have her pick up a 3rd foul and not be available (or available at full aggressiveness) in a critical late-game situation.

RE: WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology - TheWildJacko - 03-07-2022

UCONN without Bueckers, Duchamp and Nelson-Ododa lost to Villanova 69-72 a month ago. Today, with those players back, they beat Villanova 70-40. They were clearly not firing on all cylinders for tonight’s game (3-12 from 3, more turnovers than assists, only 2 points in 9 minutes for Bueckers), yet still blew out Villanova by 30. Didn’t score much more than the previous game, but their defense ramped up significantly.

Villanova is #70 in the NET—approximately on par with USC (#75) and Portland (#77). Their previous tournament opponents were Georgetown (#232) and Marquette (#69), who they blew out by 46 and 20, respectively. So they’re rolling right now, but they haven’t been tested recently with their current healthy lineup.

All this to say I think healthy UCONN firing on all cylinders would be hard to beat, but I would love to see a matchup up them at full strength vs. us playing to our full potential. I think we would have a good chance of winning!

RE: WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology - MiniBlueHawkCard - 03-07-2022

I have not seen NC State play much this year (I do not get the ACC Network) with the exception of the wolfpack I am willing to argue that we are right back to November in terms of 3 teams; South Carolina, Stanford, and UConn, above the rest. Had injuries not been such a big factor, there would be a lot more attention on who gets #1 overall because the other two teams would meet in the semifinals and the #1 would be protected against having to play both. Injuries changed the seeding situation for UConn, but they are better because of it (Geno had to figure out who the other young ladies on his roster are).

Lots of people are talking about where the Huskies get sent in a literal sense for their regional but I want to know where they end up on the bracket. Come Selection Sunday I am hoping to see South Carolina and UConn on the same side of the bracket. The cynic in me knows that is the dream national championship matchup for basically everyone except the folks who post here! It was set up last year until a few Pac 12 teams ruined things...

RE: WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology - BillBradley - 03-07-2022

I still think there's a distinct possibility that UConn could buckle in the tourney. Bueckers is not back to true form and there are obvious concerns about playing her too much too fast. She only played 9 minutes against Villanova. Who is going to lead them down the stretch in a close game? Who do they turn to when they need a bucket? Will Geno start Bueckers in the tourney or keep her coming off the bench? If he starts her, or plays her more, who sits and will she get pissed off? There's a lot of egos on that team, with an egomaniac at the helm. They could implode.

The key is how Bueckers is re-integrated and how well she plays. If she is playing close to 100%, I'll probably eat my words. Just doesn't seem like she's there.

Jacko touched on their schedule. Seriously, what a bunch of pansies they've been playing! Not even close to being tested.

Marquette (3 times): Net Rank #69
Xavier: #245
Georgetown (twice): #232
Providence: #174
St John's: #141
Villanova in the conf tourney final: #70

I don't think beating these teams by large margins proves anything.

Just for grins, here's our schedule during the same period:
Utah (twice): #25
Colorado (twice): #29
Oregon St (twice): #53
Oregon: #12
Wash St: #58
Washington: #94

UConn is not a fast team. I would LOVE to see them take the court against Utah or Colorado right now on a neutral court somewhere in the middle of the country.

RE: WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology - BostonCard - 03-08-2022

(03-07-2022, 02:29 PM)teejers1 Wrote: I don't want to get into verboten topics to the sensitive administrators here, so I'll leave part of the rationale for why I think Stanford was lucky for another time and place.

But putting that aside, do you consider Prechtel getting hot from long range lucky for Stanford in the Elite 8 game? If so, I'm fine abandoning (a) and (b) as it does not undermine the point. If you don't consider that lucky or fortunate or what have you, well . . . I disagree.

I mean, it's hard for me to fathom how an opponent missing a bunny at the buzzer in a the semifinal game constitutes "luck" for Stanford, while Prechtel going off from long range in Elite 8 does not constitute good luck. (Both strike me as unlikely occurrences in a hoops game).

I have no idea what you mean. A philosophical discussion about luck is by no means verboten. Even if you touch on COVID-19 (if that is what you were getting at), there is no rule against it in the context of Stanford athletics.

In one sense, virtually any outcome in a close game is “luck”. There are 130 or so shots in an average womens basketball game, of which 50 to 60 will be made, so in any game where the margin is less than a handful of points, a couple of buckets can make all the difference, especially if the outcome is unexpected (a ridiculously acrobatic shot that somehow rattles its way in or a missed bunny). Basketball is less predictable than some sports (for example, many individual sports, especially races, where time on one day is very strongly correlated to time on another day), but it is one of the more deterministic team sports out there (compare, for example, to baseball, where you can beat a team 10-0 one day and lose decisively to the same team the next).

You cite Louisville as a game where we were “lucky”, but it is worth remembering that we won that game by 15 points, and while it was a bit unexpected that Prechtel would have gotten 16 points, even if she had had a “normal” day, going, say 1/3 from 3 instead of 3/3, ceteris paribus, we still would have won the game. And while we might have been fortunate that we had Prechtel and that she went off that night, was that any more lucky than Dana Evans going 6/8 from 3 for the Cardinals (like Prechtel, she had about a .35 three point percentage).

Arizona was a close game that easily could have gone either way, and was a tough McDonald three away from an Arizona victory. While that shot was well-defended, McDonald did get it off and it had a chance. Even if it was a low-probability shot, sometimes low probability shots do go in. So we’re we “lucky”? Or was Arizona, a team we had beaten by 27 and 14 points, respectively, in the regular season, “lucky” to even be in it at the end? Again, it is a philosophical question, but to the extent that luck means something unexpected happening,you might argue they were “lucky” to even have had a shot. On the other hand, I might point to the fact that they played hard, their defense held us to 54 points and that they scored just enough to put themselves to be in a position to win.

The best case for luck playing a role was the semi-finals game against South Carolina, where we were playing a team that matched up well to us, and who you could reasonably believe would beat us a fair number of times had we played a long series. You don’t necessarily want to count on Boston missing a putback as time expires to win a chance to go to the final, but if you were South Carolina, you wouldn’t have necessarily wanted to count on your opponent to commit a turnover (one of only 12 all day) with 8 seconds left in the game either. Would it still have been luck if Brink didn’t turn the ball over?

Stanford was the best team in college basketball last year. We were the overall #1 seed, and then we won the tournament. We had some close calls, and anytime that happens, the outcome of a chaotic and stochastic process might well have turned out differently. But that outcome was, on the whole, due to the skills of our players compared to the competition, our team depth, coaching, and factors under our control. If you want to argue that luck is also a necessary component of any tournament run, then you are uttering a truism.

But in the end, I certainly think the women earned their national title.

BC

RE: WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology - 81alum - 03-08-2022

Strength of Schedule:

1) Stanford
2) South Carolina
40) UConn

RE: WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology - jonnyss - 03-08-2022

i think we had good fortune in the tournament last year. for a start, we were healthy.

we have had bad fortune in several past tournaments - 2 torn acl's against harvard; jayne's broken foot; the bogus 5th foul against kristin folkl; jeanette's sprained ankle plus repeated flops by danielle anderson of texas a&m called as charges on kayla pederson; the last-second charge call on candice negating the made 3 by krista rappahan; jamilla failing to lean into the on-rushing machanguana on the last-second 3. in a bad-fortune year, cam might have been whistled for slapping down on the desperation shot by aari. it was about time the breaks went our way.

and i think our wins were well deserved. big red's 3's were not lucky. tara has said that one of the benefits of a deep team is that she can give extra playing time to the player with the hot hand. ashten hit a 3, so tara kept her in. she hit another, so tara kept her in longer. and so on.

RE: WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology - Spiny_Norman - 03-08-2022

(03-08-2022, 09:03 AM)jonnyss Wrote: i think we had good fortune in the tournament last year. for a start, we were healthy.

we have had bad fortune in several past tournaments - 2 torn acl's against harvard; jayne's broken foot; the bogus 5th foul against kristin folkl; jeanette's sprained ankle plus repeated flops by danielle anderson of texas a&m called as charges on kayla pederson; the last-second charge call on candice negating the made 3 by krista rappahan; jamilla failing to lean into the on-rushing machanguana on the last-second 3. in a bad-fortune year, cam might have been whistled for slapping down on the desperation shot by aari. it was about time the breaks went our way.

Most recently, Karlie Samuelson's sprained ankle in the national semifinal game in 2017. She stepped on an opponent's foot. Just bad luck. Stanford was up 9 when she left the game. South Carolina outscored Stanford by 18 after she left the game.

RE: WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology - WBB fan - 03-08-2022

I love this discussion re luck etc. It's thoughtful, not argumentative, and offers a variety of ways to consider the matter. In short, it's classic Platonic discussion. And so Stanford. How many fan boards are going to yse the word stochastic? Go need nation.

RE: WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology - PVTree - 03-08-2022

Luck or not, if we lead by a bucket or less, have the ball with less than 30 seconds and need to inbound the ball/run out the clock, I would not have Cam in the game.

She was involved in both turnovers that gave SCar and Zona last second chances to beat us. Don't know if it was lack of strength or bringing the ball down, but the opponent got the turnover they needed (SCar lost the ball, Zona was unable to handle the pass from KW which lead to the shot clock violation). Additionally, she's a poor free throw shooter.

In that situation, I'd rather see a better ball handler who is a good FT shooter in the game.

RE: WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology - 81alum - 03-09-2022

Charlie Creme's brackets were updated today.

IF all of his seeds held, then we would need to win these six games to repeat as national champs:

1. Hawaii at Maples
2. Kansas State at Maples Round of 32
3. Indiana in Spokane Sweet 16
4. LSU in Spokane Elite 8
5. Louisville in Minni Semis
6. South Carolina in Minni Championship

Clearly Creme will be wrong about some of this, and there will be upsets, so the odds are infinitesimal that these will be the actual teams we would have to play. Nevertheless, I think this gives us a pretty good idea of what the gauntlet will be like.

RE: WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology - joemontes - 03-09-2022

(03-09-2022, 05:22 PM)81alum Wrote: Charlie Creme's brackets were updated today.

IF all of his seeds held, then we would need to win these six games to repeat as national champs:

1. Hawaii at Maples

2. Kansas State at Maples Round of 32

3. Indiana in Spokane Sweet 16

4. LSU in Spokane Elite 8

5. Louisville in Minni Semis

6. South Carolina in Minni Championship

Clearly Creme will be wrong about some of this, and there will be upsets, so the odds are infinitesimal that these will be the actual teams we would have to play. Nevertheless, I think this gives us a pretty good idea of what the gauntlet will be like.

Compare that to:

South Carolina:
************
1. ??? - Columbia SC
2. Utah/Miami - Columbia SC Round of 32
3. Arizona/Notre Dame - Greensboro Round of 16
4. Iowa State/Michigan - Greensboro Elite 8
5. NC State/UConn - Minneapolis National Semis
6. Stanford - Minneapolis National Championship

NC State:
*******
1. ??? - Raleigh
2. Central Florida/Arkansas - Raleigh Round of 32
3. Oklahoma/Oregon - Bridgeport Round of 16
4. UConn/Iowa - Bridgeport Elite 8
5. South Carolina - Minneapolis National Semis
6. Stanford - Minneapolis National Championship

Louisville:
*******
1. Maine - Louisville
2. FGCU/Kansas - Louisville Round of 32
3. Maryland/BYU - Wichita Round of 16
4. Baylor/Tennessee - Wichita Elite 8
5. Stanford - Minneapolis National Semis
6. South Carolina - Minneapolis National Championship
3.

RE: WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology - treetop11 - 03-10-2022

(03-07-2022, 07:09 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote: Utah HC Lynne Roberts was very complimentary of our team in her postgame comments: "I actually think they're better than they were last year, and last year they won the national championship...I do think they're the best team in the country."

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/33442542/stanford-repeats-pac-12-tournament-champs-makes-case-top-overall-seed-women-ncaa-tournament

Do you agree with her? We've played very well, on a 20-game winning streak (with a few close games in there, however) and we put in a great defensive effort yesterday.

Comparing our team to last year's, obviously, we added four new freshmen, but Iriafen, I would argue, has been the only one who has had a significant contribution so far this season. Demetre put in a few key minutes in a handful of games, but Bosgana has really only seen action in the waning minutes of games and Harriel hasn't played at all.

Several people were worried in the early season about our PG situation and I posted basically not to worry, that the only thing that Had to happen was for Tara to settle on how it was going to be run long term. As it turns out, Anna is the answer with Lacie as second on command.

I would argue that we are both better this year (for a number of reasons) and that Anna is better than Williams overall. That's no knock on Ki because I was a big fan of hers. But Wilson is much more consistent than Williams. Anna is a better defender and brings that every game. On offense, she runs the O consistently and with not many turnovers. She doesn't ut up the points that WIlliams did, rather Anna makes others better and I have noticed that if our O gets in a rut and we need a score, she takes over with a drive or a 3 pt or mid shot, and she does this consistently. Williams OTOH could go cold and miss a lot of shots or disappear - taking our offense down. She had poor games in the semi and final and we struggled and had to eke out a win.

What the Ute coach was saying is that we have a more diverse set of weapons now - she obviously wouldn't say that lsoign Williams opened things up for our other players, but I see that implied. Plus, our defense is sounder all around. We can either plug in Lacie for our best defensive starting 5 or Jump for more firepower. When Jump was absent, Tara went with Lacie at the 2 and apparently Tara has come to the conclusion that a stronger D lineup is to our advantage and hopefully get in Jump later to put up some instant points.

Yes, we are better and if we face SC for the title or in the FF, we will beat them. Not sure about NC State because I have only seen them in part of a game and not enough to tell how we would match up with them. Every other team we can and will beat. However, like several other posters, I do have concerns about UConn. They have their best back and now are deep. I believe that we beat them in a real dogfight, but I rather not have to play them; hope someone else knocks them out. The FF will be Stanford, SC, NC State, and UConn if it gets in the baracket of the other #1 seed. The #1 seeds this year are really strong with the lowest #1 seed vulnerable. For Stanford, it doesn't much matter who we play until the FF. We just have to play to our level, challenge ourselves to a higher bar. We have more talent and depth than anyone with SC and UConn right there with us, so it's a matter of us playing our way without being complacent. If we go out there with killer instinct, play hungry with energy, we will repeat as national champions.

Quote:Conversely, losing Williams was a significant loss. Though we've adapted over the last few months, you can't easily replace a player of her caliber. Though we still have a bevy of three-point shooters, no one quite has her ability to come down the floor, survey the situation and then stop and pop for a long range three.

However, we also need to consider how our returning players have improved (or not) since last season. I would argue Belibi is playing better and with more confidence than last year at this point, but beyond that, I wouldn't say, anyone is markedly that much better (they were at already high levels, so that's a tall bar to climb) than last year.

Anyway, just curious, as we have some time, before our next game, to muse over these things.

RE: WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology - WBB fan - 03-12-2022

The Athletic's analysis of the bracket possibilities and tournament possibilities

https://theathletic.com/3171234/2022/03/10/womens-basketball-pre-bracket-study-guide-bet-on-baylor-keep-an-eye-on-kentucky-dont-doubt-uconn/?source=weeklyemail&campaign=602288

RE: WBB: NCAA seedings/Bracketology - CompSci87 - 03-12-2022

Bay Area local WBB fans, see the Private Discussion area on the CardBoard.