Cal wants to catch Bracketology's 8s, 7s, and some 6s.
USC and Utah want to catch the First Outs, 11s, and some 10s.

Bracketology 6 Seeds
#30 UCLA, 4 Quality Wins (@ #49, @38, @19, @5)
#27 Missouri, 4 QWs (@44, home vs. #22, @9, @71)
#23 Drake, 2 QWs (h34, neutral site vs. #16)
#29 South Dakota St., 2 QWs (@23, h24)

7 Seeds
#33 North Carolina, 5 QWs (n33, n35, h1, h8, @41) <- should be a 6 seed, IMO
#25 Central Michigan, 3 QWs (@51, h15, @18)
#35 South Dakota, 2 QWs (@30, h29)
#28 Texas, 2 QWs (n46, @71)

8 Seeds
#15 Arizona St., 2 QWs (n37, @21, h20) <- should be a 6 seed, IMO
#40 Michigan St., 4 QWs (h5, h7, h13, @46) <- should be a 7 seed, IMO
#24 Depaul, 2 QWs (n37, @54)
#46 Michigan, 2 QWs (n30, h7)

9 Seeds
#38 California, 4 QWs (@32, @53, h4, h15) <- should be a 7 seed, IMO
#32 BYU, 3 QWs (@56, h14, @14) <- should be an 8 seed, IMO
#65 Tennessee, 4 QWs (n40, @26, @47, @30)
#26 Rutgers, 2 QWs (@13, @55)

10 Seeds
#18 UCF, 1 QW (@51) <- should be an 8 seed, IMO
#52 Clemson, 3 QWs (@18, @20, h20)
#49 Indiana, 3 QWs (@33, n34, h7)
#50 Auburn, 2 QWs (n31, h30) <- shouldn't be in tournament, IMO

11 Seeds
#61 LSU, 3 QWs (@20, h22, h30) <- shouldn't be in tournament, IMO
#45 Miami of Ohio, 1 QW (@23) <- needs to win conference tournament
#36 James Madison, 1 QW (@65) <- needs to win conference tournament
#31 Rice, 0 QWs <- needs to win conference tournament

First 4 Out
#34 Kansas St., 2 QWs (h26, @26) <- should be a 10 seed, IMO
#72 West Virginia, 2 QWs (h11, @26)
#63 Butler, 1 QW (@10)
#70 Utah, 1 QW (h4) <- probably needs 2 more quality wins (chances @USC and then OSU in the Pac-12 tourney)

Next 4 Out
#39 Ohio, 1 QW (@23)
#42 Georgia Tech, 1 QW (h12)
#41 TCU, 2 QWs (@37, h11)
#37 Buffalo, 3 QWs (h29, @42, @32) <- should be an 10 seed, IMO

Not listed
#44 USC, 2 QWs (@30, @70) <- may need a quality win in the Pac-12 tournament
#84 Arizona, 1QW (h15) <- not gonna make it SoS to blame.

http://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/bracketology#
https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-women/d1/ncaa-womens-basketball-rpi

I like this bracket analysis from highposthoops.

https://highposthoops.com/2019/02/28/womens-basketball-bracketology-oregon-stanford/

Kookiebean said:

---

I like this bracket analysis from highposthoops.

https://highposthoops.com/2019/02/28/womens-basketball-bracketology-oregon-stanford/

---

Good clips and analysis; thanks, K.B.!

Good evening for Utah/USC:
Supposed 10 seed Clemson lost at Duke.
Supposed 10 seed Auburn lost at home to South Carolina
Supposed 11 seed LSU lost by 20 at Mississippi St.
Bubble team Georgia tech lost at Miami.
Supposed 9 seed Tennessee lost for the first time ever at home to #180 Vanderbilt. The Quadrant IV loss will hurt, but they're still Tennessee, so they probably get in if they don't fall further.

The only negative (mostly for Cal/UCLA/ASU):
Supposed 6 seed Missouri came from behind to win at Arkansas.

I'll update the RPI numbers tomorrow if possible.

Relevant Friday Games

#23 Drake @ #146 Southern Illinois (Drake's a 6 seed)
#83 Harvard @ #73 Penn (Our only Quadrant 3 loss could become Quadrant 2 if Harvard gets to 75)
#93 Georgetown @ #49 Butler (Butler's on the bubble)
#25 DePaul @ #114 Providence (DePaul's an 8 seed)
#20 Oregon St. @ #19 Arizona St. (We'd like to pass ASU on the bracket, but not have them drop out of top-30)
#5 Oregon @ #78 Arizona (a big upset could put Arizona on the bubble)
#4 Stanford @ #145 Washington St. (If Stanford looks good, our biggest win looks good)
#60 Utah @ #31 UCLA (Utah needs another quality win. A UCLA win helps Cal slightly because we played them twice)
#38 Cal @ #155 Washington (Can't afford a loss if we're hoping for a 6 or 7 seed)


Nothing going our way so far tonight:
ASU beats OSU, making our win look better, and slightly improving our RPI, but removing our chance of getting a better seed than them in the NCAA tourney.
Drake wins @ S. Ill.
Harvard loses @ Penn in overtime.
DePaul wins @ Providence

Butler loses by 30 at home to Georgetown (knocking them off the bubble)
Arizona loses to Oregon (ending their slim chances)
Stanford stomps Wazzu (Senior night for us @ WSU on Sunday)
Utah loses by 16 at UCLA (Utes running out of chances)

And Cal gets the win @ Washington!

UCLA finishing strong. Don't want to play SC in the Pac tourney where SC needs a win to get to the Dance. What happened to Utah?

wifeisafurd said:

---

What happened to Utah?

---

Very good team, with lots of blowout wins, but a very soft non-conference schedule and some close losses in conference are damaging their RPI and denying them quality wins. A win at USC on Sunday might be enough to get them in, but I wouldn't bet on that.

Everyone had easy non conference schedules.
Utah and Cal played some of same teams.

Injuries killed Utah. Utah lost 2 starters, one probably Freshman of the year. Now only 7 players. Projected to be 8th place. Great year Utah.

Kookiebean said:

---

Everyone had easy non conference schedules.

---

Strength of schedule as far as the RPI is concerned:
.6258 Stanford
.6122 Arizona St.
.6059 UCLA
.6014 California
.5984 Oregon
.5903 USC
.5898 Washington St.
.5798 Washington
.5683 Oregon St.
.5504 Colorado
.5399 Arizona
.5246 Utah
http://www.realtimerpi.com/rpi_305_Women.html
Utah and Colorado only played the Oregons and Nor. Cals once, so a very small part of that SoS difference is related to conference schedule.

Arizona (#48 Massey, #43 Moore) and Utah (#29 Massey, #23 Moore) both were done in by weak SoS and some key close losses.
https://www.masseyratings.com/cbw/ncaa-d1/ratings
http://www.sonnymoorepowerratings.com/w-basket.htm

Utah just dropped from #60 to #70 on the NCAA site, which shouldn't have happened with a road loss to UCLA:
https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-women/d1/ncaa-womens-basketball-rpi
The RealtimeRPI stite has had them lower all along, so the NCAA may have just fixed a mistake.

BYU has dropped from 28 to 32 after home victories against San Diego (7-20) and USF (6-22). Strength of schedule matters way too much in the RPI, but they still use it for the women to favor power conferences.

Updating RPIs in the original post now.

Nice write up R90. I don't have the patience and research skills to do what you are doing. I really miss Sagarin. One of the things all these ratings do is measure you for the season. Sometimes I would like to know the last 10 games.

The thing is nobody knows what will happen.

Here is another prespective.

http://www.boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?t=95929

It's all guess work to a flawed system.

As WVIT noted to me yesterday, the fact that the top 16 teams get to play the first two tournament games on their home courts makes upsets in those first two rounds of the women's tournament much less likely than in the men's tournament. Looking at the odds, you are basically playing the entire season to try to become one of those top sixteen teams.

Saturday games of note:
Miami (OH) @ Buffalo (big game between two bubble teams)
Central Michigan @ Eastern Michigan (Cal hoping to beat out CMU for a 7-seed)
Ohio @ Akron (Tough game for bubble team Ohio)
Harvard @ Princeton (A Harvard win would be a boost for Cal)
TCU @ Oklahoma (bubble team TCU needs the road win)
Iowa St. @ Texas (Call hoping to beat out Texas for a 7-seed)
West Virginia @ Kansas (bubble team West Virginia needs the road win)

SoS killers:
Texas Tech @ Kansas St. (too easy win for KSU that may hurt their RPI)
Louisiana Tech @ Rice (too easy win for Rice that may hurt their RPI)
Tulane @ UCF (too easy win for UCF that may hurt their RPI)
North Dakota @ South Dakota (too easy win for SD that may hurt their RPI)
Western Illinois @ South Dakota State (too easy win for SDS that may hurt their RPI)
Santa Clara @ BYU (too easy win for BYU that may hurt their RPI)

Results:
Buffalo wins 86-61, so no Quadrant 1 win for Miami (OH).
Central Michigan wins 87-60.

Kansas St. wins 76-67.
Rice wins 78-42.
UCF wins 52-42.
South Dakota wins 87-54.
South Dakota State wins 100-62.

Really great work R90. But don't over do it. Too many factors go into this. Plus it's up to a committee that also adds emotion (human perspective) to it.

Again really, really appreciate your efforts.

Kookiebean said:

---

Really great work R90. But don't over do it. Too many factors go into this. Plus it's up to a committee that also adds emotion (human perspective) to it.

Again really, really appreciate your efforts.

---

Thanks, Kookie and wvit.

I've enjoyed geeking out on the numbers and selection process for years. Lots of drama in the games and selection. Glad to share what I've learned about it all.

R90 said:

---

Kookiebean said:

---

Really great work R90. But don't over do it. Too many factors go into this. Plus it's up to a committee that also adds emotion (human perspective) to it.

Again really, really appreciate your efforts.

---

Thanks, Kookie and wvit.

I've enjoyed geeking out on the numbers and selection process for years. Lots of drama in the games and selection. Glad to share what I've learned about it all.

---

Enjoy your info and enthusiasm, but I don't think people who have some concerns or criticisms (if fairly stated) are trolls. It's actually a good thing that Cal WBB is progressed to the point that fans are passionate and opinionated. Big difference in caring or being disappointed and being unreasonable or mean spirited.

On Wall Street, when you are expecting the future to be better than the past based on no evidence, it is called "irrational exuberance".

I don't like title of thread
We are not on bubble

We are playing for seeding

Gotta get out of dreaded 8/9 spots

annarborbear said:

---

"irrational exuberance"

---

I really like that term. Also, blungld, I agree about fans' getting passionate/irrational over WBB. It's great to watch little kids, female and male, rooting for the team at Haas alongside their elders. As our grandgirl, 9, said, "I didn't expect it to be so entertaining!"

This is a great thread! Thanks so much R90!

HoopDreams said:

---

I don't like title of thread
We are not on bubble

We are playing for seeding

Gotta get out of dreaded 8/9 spots

---

Creme still has Cal in the 8/9 game to face Notre Dame in the second round.
He also moves UCLA from a 7-10 to the 8-9.
USC and Utah out.

ncbears said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I don't like title of thread
We are not on bubble

We are playing for seeding

Gotta get out of dreaded 8/9 spots

---

Creme still has Cal in the 8/9 game to face Notre Dame in the second round.
He also moves UCLA from a 7-10 to the 8-9.

---

I certainly don't expect any Bear fans to particularly care about this, but as a Bruin fan, I'm super-annoyed that after UCLA's win at Oregon (for which he placed UCLA in the 6-seed), the Bruins have gone 2-1, with the sole loss being a tight 3-point shortfall in Corvallis, and Charlie's reward for the Bruins is to knock 'em down to a 7-seed... and then to procedurally bump then down yet further, to an 8. A 3-point loss to OSU in Corvallis is worth *that* kind of a demotion? Really?

ESPN is just a guess. Other people make the decision. Lol

Kookiebean said:

---

ESPN is just a guess. Other people make the decision. Lol

---

True enough, Kookiebean.

patsweetpat said:

---

I certainly don't expect any Bear fans to particularly care about this, but as a Bruin fan, I'm super-annoyed that after UCLA's win at Oregon (for which he placed UCLA in the 6-seed), the Bruins have gone 2-1, with the sole loss being a tight 3-point shortfall in Corvallis, and Charlie's reward for the Bruins is to knock 'em down to a 7-seed... and then to procedurally bump then down yet further, to an 8. A 3-point loss to OSU in Corvallis is worth *that* kind of a demotion? Really?

---

Well I care and I'm glad Charlie isn't calling the shots.

stu said:

---

patsweetpat said:

---

I certainly don't expect any Bear fans to particularly care about this, but as a Bruin fan, I'm super-annoyed that after UCLA's win at Oregon (for which he placed UCLA in the 6-seed), the Bruins have gone 2-1, with the sole loss being a tight 3-point shortfall in Corvallis, and Charlie's reward for the Bruins is to knock 'em down to a 7-seed... and then to procedurally bump then down yet further, to an 8. A 3-point loss to OSU in Corvallis is worth *that* kind of a demotion? Really?

---

Well I care and I'm glad Charlie isn't calling the shots.

---

Hey thanks, stu! See you in Vegas, maybe! Good luck to yer Bears, there!

patsweetpat said:

---

stu said:

---

patsweetpat said:

---

I certainly don't expect any Bear fans to particularly care about this, but as a Bruin fan, I'm super-annoyed that after UCLA's win at Oregon (for which he placed UCLA in the 6-seed), the Bruins have gone 2-1, with the sole loss being a tight 3-point shortfall in Corvallis, and Charlie's reward for the Bruins is to knock 'em down to a 7-seed... and then to procedurally bump then down yet further, to an 8. A 3-point loss to OSU in Corvallis is worth *that* kind of a demotion? Really?

---

Well I care and I'm glad Charlie isn't calling the shots.

---

Hey thanks, stu! See you in Vegas, maybe! Good luck to yer Bears, there!

---

Pat, I told you early in the season that if you guys finish ahead of us I have to give a lot of credit to Cori. 12-6 with some close loses to the top teams - impressive.

This site is much more mathematically based than ESPN's Bracketology:

http://www.realtimerpi.com/bracketology/bracketology_Women.html

It's so automated that they still have last year's regions.

They currently have:
Stanford as a 1 seed
Oregon as a 2 seed
Arizona St. as a 5 seed
Oregon St. as a 6 seed
UCLA as a 7 seed
Cal as a 7 seed
I think that's pretty accurate based purely on RPI and number of Quality Wins.

USC and Utah aren't in their bracket and they don't list the near misses.
I think USC will be in as a 10 or 11 if they beat Arizona then lose to Oregon State.
I think Utah needs to reach the Pac-12 tournament final to get in.
Cal and UCLA may need to get to the Pac-12 tournament final to be considered as 6s.
UCLA is just slightly ahead of Cal, IMO.
Too close to know for sure.

The committee will move teams around to reduce travel distances. I think Stanford and Oregon will be in the Portland Region as the top two seeds, the same way Stanford and Cal were the top two seeds in the Spokane Region in 2013. It makes even more sense now, with Stanford as RPI #4 and Oregon as RPI #5. None of the other top teams really want to travel to Portland.

R90 said:

---

This site is much more mathematically based than ESPN's Bracketology:

http://www.realtimerpi.com/bracketology/bracketology_Women.html

It's so automated that they still have last year's regions.

They currently have:
Stanford as a 1 seed
Oregon as a 2 seed
Arizona St. as a 5 seed
Oregon St. as a 6 seed
UCLA as a 7 seed
Cal as a 7 seed
I think that's pretty accurate based purely on RPI and number of Quality Wins.

Cal and UCLA may need to get to the Pac-12 tournament final to be considered as 6s.

---

Well, for my Bruins' part, I think a lot will depend on the result of their game on Friday morning against ASU (assuming ASU beats Colorado on Thursday). If (AND IT'S A BIG "IF") my Bruins should happen to get the win over the Sun Devils, that'd give UCLA 3 top-tier wins (vs. 2 for ASU), and 4 second-tier wins (vs. 3 for ASU), and the Bruins will have also bested ASU in both of their head-to-head match-ups. Furthermore, UCLA's best win (at #5 Oregon) will have been better than ASU's best win (at #19 OSU). Under such circumstances (and on a just planet) I think it'd be pretty tough for the committee to justify giving ASU a 5 or 6 seed while leaving the Bruins at 7... even *if* the Bruins were to lose their subsequent Pac-12 tourney game to Oregon (thus failing to reach the Pac-12 tourney finals).

So anyway, yeah, I personally think that a win over ASU in the quarterfinals ought to be enough to put my Bruins on a 6-line.

But we'll see!

In any event, I just purchased my LAX-LAS plane tickets, and also booked myself a hotel room in the Trop, so I'll be there to witness the agony or ecstasy first-hand.

Will be happy to root for the Bears, too, on account of you guys are nice!

patsweetpat said:

---

R90 said:

---

This site is much more mathematically based than ESPN's Bracketology:

http://www.realtimerpi.com/bracketology/bracketology_Women.html

It's so automated that they still have last year's regions.

They currently have:
Stanford as a 1 seed
Oregon as a 2 seed
Arizona St. as a 5 seed
Oregon St. as a 6 seed
UCLA as a 7 seed
Cal as a 7 seed
I think that's pretty accurate based purely on RPI and number of Quality Wins.

Cal and UCLA may need to get to the Pac-12 tournament final to be considered as 6s.

---

Well, for my Bruins' part, I think a lot will depend on the result of their game on Friday morning against ASU (assuming ASU beats Colorado on Thursday). If (AND IT'S A BIG "IF") my Bruins should happen to get the win over the Sun Devils, that'd give UCLA 3 top-tier wins (vs. 2 for ASU), and 4 second-tier wins (vs. 3 for ASU), and the Bruins will have also bested ASU in both of their head-to-head match-ups. Furthermore, UCLA's best win (at #5 Oregon) will have been better than ASU's best win (at #19 OSU). Under such circumstances (and on a just planet) I think it'd be pretty tough for the committee to justify giving ASU a 5 or 6 seed while leaving the Bruins at 7... even *if* the Bruins were to lose their subsequent Pac-12 tourney game to Oregon (thus failing to reach the Pac-12 tourney finals).

So anyway, yeah, I personally think that a win over ASU in the quarterfinals ought to be enough to put my Bruins on a 6-line.

But we'll see!

In any event, I just purchased my LAX-LAS plane tickets, and also booked myself a hotel room in the Trop, so I'll be there to witness the agony or ecstasy first-hand.

Will be happy to root for the Bears, too, on account of you guys are nice!

---

By the way, it's worth noting that realtimerpi's projection for Oregon State (a 6-seed) is faaaar off from the seeding projection that the Tournament Committee itself revealed for the Beavers just two hours ago: a 3-seed. So: a big grain of salt to all of this.

patsweetpat said:

---

Well, for my Bruins' part, I think a lot will depend on the result of their game on Friday morning against ASU (assuming ASU beats Colorado on Thursday). If (AND IT'S A BIG "IF") my Bruins should happen to get the win over the Sun Devils, that'd give UCLA 3 top-tier wins (vs. 2 for ASU), and 4 second-tier wins (vs. 3 for ASU), and the Bruins will have also bested ASU in both of their head-to-head match-ups. Furthermore, UCLA's best win (at #5 Oregon) will have been better than ASU's best win (at #19 OSU). Under such circumstances (and on a just planet) I think it'd be pretty tough for the committee to justify giving ASU a 5 or 6 seed while leaving the Bruins at 7... even *if* the Bruins were to lose their subsequent Pac-12 tourney game to Oregon (thus failing to reach the Pac-12 tourney finals).

---

On RPI alone,
#20 ASU is a 5 seed.
#19 OSU is a 5 seed.
#33 UCLA is a 9 seed.
#38 Cal is a 10 seed.
#42 USC is an 11 seed.

Cal and UCLA both have more quality wins, moving them up past at least 5 and 10 teams respectively. Hopefully the committee values that more that the realtimerpi formula this year.

#19 OSU, with lots of good wins (n17, @33, @42, @38, h5) needs to be higher than 6, IMO.

R90 said:

---

patsweetpat said:

---

Well, for my Bruins' part, I think a lot will depend on the result of their game on Friday morning against ASU (assuming ASU beats Colorado on Thursday). If (AND IT'S A BIG "IF") my Bruins should happen to get the win over the Sun Devils, that'd give UCLA 3 top-tier wins (vs. 2 for ASU), and 4 second-tier wins (vs. 3 for ASU), and the Bruins will have also bested ASU in both of their head-to-head match-ups. Furthermore, UCLA's best win (at #5 Oregon) will have been better than ASU's best win (at #19 OSU). Under such circumstances (and on a just planet) I think it'd be pretty tough for the committee to justify giving ASU a 5 or 6 seed while leaving the Bruins at 7... even *if* the Bruins were to lose their subsequent Pac-12 tourney game to Oregon (thus failing to reach the Pac-12 tourney finals).

---

On RPI alone,
#20 ASU is a 5 seed.
#33 UCLA is a 9 seed.
#38 Cal is a 10 seed.

---

Thing is, the RPI doesn't take into account how a team is doing down the stretch... it values a big win in early-November identically to a big win in early-March. That's one of the reasons why the Tournament Committee doesn't just-- by rote-- simply seed teams according to their RPI, instead considering it as a factor alongside other factors, including how the teams finish their respective seasons.

ETA: what I wrote in this post is likely wrong (see down-thread). Sorry!

R90 said:

---

#19 OSU, with lots of good wins (n17, @33, @42, @38, h5) needs to be higher than 6, IMO.

---

Well, the Tournament Committee shares your opinion. They just projected OSU as a 3-seed, not two hours ago.

I've seen it in writing somewhere recently, that recent performance doesn't matter (unless there's an injury issue that will keep a key player out of the tournament).

Interestingly:
OSU beat UCLA twice.
UCLA beat ASU twice.
ASU beat OSU twice.

Link for that Top-16 reveal:
https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-women/2019-03-04/womens-basketball-rankings-ncaa-tournament-top-16-reveal

Albany:
[ol]

UConn

Mississippi State

Oregon State

Miami (FL)

[/ol]Chicago:
[ol]

Louisville

Stanford

Maryland

Iowa State

[/ol]Greensboro:
[ol]

Baylor

Iowa

NC State

Texas A&M

[/ol]Portland:
[ol]

Notre Dame

Oregon

South Carolina

Syracuse

[/ol]

R90 said:

---

I've seen it in writing somewhere recently, that recent performance doesn't matter (unless there's an injury issue that will keep a key player out of the tournament).

---

Is there any chance you recall where you may have read that?

I see that the *men's* tournament committee has instituted a new ranking system ("NET") which equalizes early-season and late-season performance, but this article seems to indicate that the women's committee has not made such a switch.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/division-i-men-s-basketball-committee-adopts-new-ranking-system