2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

[Carolina010]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

Honestly unless we are going to jump all the way to a 5 or 6 I don't really want to be any higher than 11. 7 - 10 isn't really that great of a seed considering who you would have to play in the second round if you were to win your first one.

[SteelSD]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

Honestly unless we are going to jump all the way to a 5 or 6 I don't really want to be any higher than 11. 7 - 10 isn't really that great of a seed considering who you would have to play in the second round if you were to win your first one.

The 12 seed actually seems quite good. You need to beat 2 solid teams to move to the sweet 16, but it allows you to avoid the elite programs.

[THE PRIDE IS BACK!!!]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

The 12 seed actually seems quite good. You need to beat 2 solid teams to move to the sweet 16, but it allows you to avoid the elite programs.

This is why the 12 seed is the most likely to have an upset (for the men's anyways; upsets don't tend to happen in the women's tournament.)

[krak-r-jacks]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

history being predicted here: http://collegewomenshoops.blogspot.c...24-update.html

showing western illinois and sdsu getting in the big dance.
i will stick with my original thoughts that the summit league will still only get 1 team in the big dance.

[BTownJack]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

history being predicted here: http://collegewomenshoops.blogspot.c...24-update.html

showing western illinois and sdsu getting in the big dance.
i will stick with my original thoughts that the summit league will still only get 1 team in the big dance.

I don't think there is any chance we get an auto-bid. Win had no marquee wins OOC and got destroyed by a few tournament caliber teams. Charlie Creme has us in the "next four out" category (http://www.espn.com/womens-college-b...l/bracketology). I don't see us moving out of that group by reaching the SL finals and losing. If we want an NCAA berth, we need to win 3 games in SF.

[filbert]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

I don't think there is any chance we get an auto-bid. Win had no marquee wins OOC and got destroyed by a few tournament caliber teams. Charlie Creme has us in the "next four out" category (http://www.espn.com/womens-college-b...l/bracketology). I don't see us moving out of that group by reaching the SL finals and losing. If we want an NCAA berth, we need to win 3 games in SF.

I think you meant "no chance of an at-large."

Disagree. Mildly.

An RPI of 32 and a Sagarin of 49 (with a 2-3 record vs. top 50) is pretty much the definition of a bubble team. The selection committee swears up and down that they don't do it, but they DO take "name recognition" into account. Taking Stanford to the wire in a game to advance to the Sweet 16 builds name recognition.

Plus, the Summit League (at the top anyway) was much, much stronger this year than in past years--four legitimate top-100 teams and ranks 10th among all conferences according to Sagarin.

That having been said, it's much more comfortable to NOT be a bubble team. The only way to do that is to win the OOC games vs. "power-5" conference teams, or to win the tournament.

Being "on the bubble" means you're not in until the committee in its infinite wisdom puts you in the tournament. You don't want to depend on a bunch of college administrators huddled in a room engaged in secret deliberations to decide . . . well . . . much of anything, really.

[goon]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

I think you meant "no chance of an at-large."

Disagree. Mildly.

An RPI of 32 and a Sagarin of 49 (with a 2-3 record vs. top 50) is pretty much the definition of a bubble team. The selection committee swears up and down that they don't do it, but they DO take "name recognition" into account. Taking Stanford to the wire in a game to advance to the Sweet 16 builds name recognition.

Plus, the Summit League (at the top anyway) was much, much stronger this year than in past years--four legitimate top-100 teams and ranks 10th among all conferences according to Sagarin.

That having been said, it's much more comfortable to NOT be a bubble team. The only way to do that is to win the OOC games vs. "power-5" conference teams, or to win the tournament.

Being "on the bubble" means you're not in until the committee in its infinite wisdom puts you in the tournament. You don't want to depend on a bunch of college administrators huddled in a room engaged in secret deliberations to decide . . . well . . . much of anything, really.

And the womens side it maybe could happen. Don't think we will ever see it on the mens side until we get teams ranked in the top 25.

[Southeast]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

I think you meant "no chance of an at-large."

Disagree. Mildly.

An RPI of 32 and a Sagarin of 49 (with a 2-3 record vs. top 50) is pretty much the definition of a bubble team. The selection committee swears up and down that they don't do it, but they DO take "name recognition" into account. Taking Stanford to the wire in a game to advance to the Sweet 16 builds name recognition.

Plus, the Summit League (at the top anyway) was much, much stronger this year than in past years--four legitimate top-100 teams and ranks 10th among all conferences according to Sagarin.

That having been said, it's much more comfortable to NOT be a bubble team. The only way to do that is to win the OOC games vs. "power-5" conference teams, or to win the tournament.

Being "on the bubble" means you're not in until the committee in its infinite wisdom puts you in the tournament. You don't want to depend on a bunch of college administrators huddled in a room engaged in secret deliberations to decide . . . well . . . much of anything, really.

It's crazy how high our ranking remain despite four conference losses. Though I would be extremely surprised if it is enough to get us an at-large this year, it does show that the idea is not at all ridiculous. I wonder where our RPI/Sagarin would have been if we had Miller and avoided at least a couple of those close conference losses. Could they leave out a team with a top-30 RPI? That seems crazy in a 64-team field.

[jackmd]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

It's crazy how high our ranking remain despite four conference losses. Though I would be extremely surprised if it is enough to get us an at-large this year, it does show that the idea is not at all ridiculous. I wonder where our RPI/Sagarin would have been if we had Miller and avoided at least a couple of those close conference losses. Could they leave out a team with a top-30 RPI? That seems crazy in a 64-team field.

I don't know what precedence there is and I sure don't plan to take the time to figure it out but I suspect it's fairly rare that a non-major conference has gotten multiple bids without prior entrance into the sweet 16 or multiple wins over top 50 teams. It's that "name recognition" game. Certainly SDSU has some of that but I don't think "close losses" in the 2nd round of the tourney help at all. Hopefully I'm proven wrong.

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

It's crazy how high our ranking remain despite four conference losses. Though I would be extremely surprised if it is enough to get us an at-large this year, it does show that the idea is not at all ridiculous. I wonder where our RPI/Sagarin would have been if we had Miller and avoided at least a couple of those close conference losses. Could they leave out a team with a top-30 RPI? That seems crazy in a 64-team field.

I'm surprised as well that we are even in the conversation for an at-large. I'd also be shocked if we got one. I just think we missed opportunities at a marquee win or two (Louisville, Oklahoma, and Green Bay). The GW win is a good one as they are projected as a 10 seed but I don't think that will be enough to get us over the hump this year.

[jackdaniel]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

I wouldn't count on an invite quite yet, this year anyway,although Rpi looks great,the other intangibles could be better (think Princeton a few yrs ago). I don't like to be overly pessimistic, but it's not good to get your hopes too high either, by ignoring the reality and the likely outcome of the selection process. They have to look at draw, exciting match ups , other intangibles, and I just don't hear much chatter about us, have we built sufficient intrigue to stimulate enough curiosity about the program for them to take a spot away from the more glamorous P-5 schools (name recognition,conf affiliation recognition). That's what we're mainly up against. We had our opportunities, just fell a little short. The coaching staff will no doubt schedule opportunities to build next years resume again.

Unless of course they would like to pursue that elusive, tantelizing elequent, intiguing figure of Disney fame, the infamous "Cinderella" to bump up ratings...but that's something they'd never consider, or at least never admit they considered. We've come close to sticking our huge ,ungainly foot into that dainty little slipper a couple of times, but like they say "close only counts in hand grenades and horseshoe".

[bigticket1]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

I agree with the idea that the Jacks probably don't get an at-large bid if they don't win in Sioux Falls. But you would think they would be a lock for a WNIT bid with their RPI and past history of drawing well in previous appearances.

[OldHare]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

I agree with the idea that the Jacks probably don't get an at-large bid if they don't win in Sioux Falls. But you would they would be a lock for a WNIT bid with their RPI and past history of drawing well in previous appearances.

I would support the idea that 3 Summit teams could make the WNIT before the idea of an at large spot.

[jackdaniel]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

Only one wins the big prize (conference auto bid into the "Big Dance") in the SLT, but it would be my sincere hope that the other three of the top four teams in the Summit this yr would really go out and get some name recognition for the Conference ,if they are fortunate enough to get a post season opportunity. I think they are all good enough to really make a difference and really help the Conference gain some prestige. All teams in the Conference will benefit so all Conference teams and fans should root for them to succeed. I know I will.

[rabidrabbit]

Re: 2016-2017 " too early " bracketology

Only one wins the big prize (conference auto bid into the "Big Dance") in the SLT, but it would be my sincere hope that the other three of the top four teams in the Summit this yr would really go out and get some name recognition for the Conference ,if they are fortunate enough to get a post season opportunity. I think they are all good enough to really make a difference and really help the Conference gain some prestige. All teams in the Conference will benefit so all Conference teams and fans should root for them to succeed. I know I will.

Agreed that all 4 top Summit teams will make either the NCAA tourney or WNIT.

WIU is guaranteed a spot as regular season champs, and they are the worst RPI team of the four.

USD is the defending WNIT champ, 20+ game winner, and 60's rpi.

IUPUI is 20 game winner, and 60's rpi

SDSU is bordering on dancing. Has an rpi between 32 & 50. Given the Summit and SDSU's success in WNIT, fully expect they'll be playing WNIT if not in NCAA tourney.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk