NCAA Tournament Bracket Released: The Maryland did the B1G no Favors Edition

Donate To GopherHole

Did anyone attend the Gophers' viewing party? I was a bit surprised that Michigan didn't make it. It's still my feeling that BIG women's basketball is lacking the quality coaches that the men's side has. Freese is the exception, of course.
 

End of regular season RPI with B1G record (NCAA teams in bold):

16 Maryland 15-1
27 Ohio State 15-1
42 Michigan State 9-7
46 Michigan 11-5
51 Indiana 10-6
58 Purdue 10-6


Purdue was obviously aided by their tournament run which included beating the Buckeyes.
 

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/c...s-womens-basketball-ncaa-tournament/99145704/

Ann Arbor disappointment:

Gathered in a suite at Revel and Roll bowling alley in Ann Arbor, the Michigan women’s basketball team was ready to celebrate.

“We had a third-place finish in the Big Ten, our best season in program history, our RPI was ahead of a lot of the people that had gotten in,” Michigan coach Kim Barnes Arico said. “So I think we’re really, really disappointed with the way things turned out.”

Coming off a 1-4 finish to the season, including a first-round exit from the Big Ten tournament, Michigan was aware that its position could be affected. That was magnified as the Wolverines started to see the seeds other teams were receiving.

“You have bracketology, and we’ve kind of been following that,” Barnes Arico said. “We’ve never not been in all season long. We were a top-25 team at one point — I think we did everything. We played the non-conference schedule, we put ourselves in a position. And there were a couple teams that came up that we knew were not in the bracketology, so we knew that that would knock some teams out. We didn’t know it was going to be us, but it happened to be us.”

Still, the air of hope remained until the final No. 10 seed was announced. Michigan athletic director Warde Manuel was in attendance for the team’s watch party, and, before he left, he gave Barnes Arico a hug and some comforting words.
 



http://www.espn.com/womens-college-...sions-sprinkled-women-ncaa-tournament-bracket

Charlie Creme's musings on the brackets including the committee's chin flick to the B1G. Fleshing out Creme's comments, the final RPI for the bottom four: Nebraska (196), Illinois (207), Wisconsin (208) and Rutgers (225). I also assume that the committee's continued devaluation of Maryland was based on the Terp's 118th ranked strength of schedule. The B1G was squeezed from both the top and bottom. Purdue was one of the last four in while Michigan was one of the first four out.

Committee didn't value the Big Ten

It's no secret the Big Ten has slipped in recent years and was particularly down this season. The committee put a major explanation point on that fact with this bracket. Michigan wasn't included, Ohio State was not put in the top 16 and missed out on hosting the first and second rounds, and Maryland was given a No. 3 seed.

All of those could be questioned, but this was at least a consistent theme. Having four teams near or below 200 in the RPI dragged every other member's SOS down. This hurt the conference dearly.

The Terrapins might not be happy with their No. 3 seed (No. 9 overall), but being a No. 2 might not have helped. Even if Maryland was a No. 2 and Duke was a No. 3, it appears they both would still have been in the Bridgeport Regional, something that's probably more upsetting to Brenda Frese and her team than the No. 3 seed itself.

Purdue and Ohio State in the same subregional?

The committee seemed to go out of its way in its attempt to keep conference teams away from meeting before the Elite Eight (see the above Cal example). However, the committee put No. 9 Purdue in the same subregional as No. 5 Ohio State.

There are only four Big Ten teams in the field, so this was completely unnecessary. In fact, the Boilermakers easily could have been placed in the Waco subregional and Cal in South Bend to avoid what appears to be a mistake. Travel for the Bears to Notre Dame as opposed to Baylor can't be the consideration; Oregon is already going to Durham unnecessarily and Toledo is off to Corvallis


Regular-season performance in conference play didn't matter

The seeding of a number of teams indicates that this committee didn't take regular-season conference performance into consideration much at all. And that is a bad message. Conference record is supposed to matter. It's a posted criterion.

California vs. Oregon: California getting an at-large bid was questionable enough. The Bears were 6-12 in the Pac-12 and lost five of their last six regular-season league games. Not only did Cal make the field, the Bears are a No. 9 seed, one seed line ahead of Oregon.

The Ducks finished two games better in the Pac-12 than Cal. But that seemed to be disregarded, as was a better RPI, stronger schedule and better overall record. They each had the same number of top-50 wins. They split during the regular season. Cal does have a win over Oklahoma, but Oregon has a better one over Washington. The seeding here is confusing at best.
 

http://www.espn.com/womens-college-...rning-questions-women-ncaa-tournament-bracket

Five questions from Graham Hays:

4. Where will the drama be for the first two rounds?

Lexington: No. 4 Kentucky vs. No. 13 Belmont, No. 5 Ohio State vs. No. 12 Western Kentucky

For all the offseason drama of players and coaches leaving the program, Kentucky is seeded one spot worse than it was a year ago, with exactly the same opportunity to advance to the Final Four without leaving Lexington. That said, the mile between Memorial Coliseum, site of the first two rounds, and Rupp Arena, site of the next two, will be an arduous one to travel.

A potential second-round game between No. 4 Kentucky and No. 5 Ohio State is one of the more appealing in the bracket, with Kelsey Mitchell and the Buckeyes denied what many expected to be their opportunity to host. But neither favorite can afford to look ahead. This is the only site for the first two rounds in which all four teams received votes in the most recent AP Top 25. That tells you how well both Belmont and Western Kentucky were playing by the end of the regular season. Both double-digit seeds feature balanced offenses and experience. Both are also coached by former Louisville assistants, which won't go unnoticed by Big Blue Nation.


Louisville: No. 4 Louisville vs. No. 13 Chattanooga, No. 5 Tennessee vs. No. 12 Dayton

Mix two favorites who are difficult to figure out (this is one of only two sites for the opening week that includes two teams ranked in the top 16 in the preseason) and two underdogs entirely familiar with these surroundings. The product is a compelling weekend of basketball.

Ranked No. 5 in the preseason, Louisville barely held on to a place in the committee's top 16 and a chance to host the first two rounds. Ranked No. 13 in the preseason, Tennessee then beat Mississippi State, Notre Dame, South Carolina and Stanford -- in isolation, as good a résumé as any team this side of Connecticut. Yet the Lady Vols long ago vanished from the polls, pulled down by inconsistency and a 6-8 record away from Knoxville.

But before either can write its reclamation story, they have to get by Chattanooga, which played one of the nation's toughest schedules (including a loss at Louisville) and Dayton, still connected by a few strands to NCAA tournament wins against Kentucky and Louisville in 2015.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom