AAC Women's Basketball Tournament

[Sellular1]

Should be pretty simple math.  If you’re in the top 24, can’t be worse than a 6 seed....

[Guest Jonesy Bull]

3 hours ago, Sellular1 said:

Should be pretty simple math.  If you’re in the top 24, can’t be worse than a 6 seed....

Sounds simple enough to me......but when dealing with the human bias aspect, unfortunately it doesn't usually work that way.

[Friscobull]

5 hours ago, Sellular1 said:

Should be pretty simple math.  If you’re in the top 24, can’t be worse than a 6 seed....

I agree with Jonesy on this, what is the purpose of ranking the teams if they are completely ignored.  Team deserves a top 6 in the 15 minutes of my observation, they won the regular season and the tourney and ranked in the top 25, seems like a no brainer.  

[puc86]

44 minutes ago, Friscobull said:

I agree with Jonesy on this, what is the purpose of ranking the teams if they are completely ignored.  Team deserves a top 6 in the 15 minutes of my observation, they won the regular season and the tourney and ranked in the top 25, seems like a no brainer.  

Because people like them and they help sell matchups and headlines, but until the ap and the coaches start having their own tournaments they really don’t mean much in terms of insight as to how teams will be ranked for the tournaments. Just as when the playoff committee starts their poll and selects the chosen four and it sometimes is at odds with the previous polls the NCAA tournament enjoys the same luxury of ignoring the other rankings if it sees fit and going by their own metrics (well that and creating matchups and geographical interest). 

[Friscobull]

19 minutes ago, puc86 said:

Because people like them and they help sell matchups and headlines, but until the ap and the coaches start having their own tournaments they really don’t mean much in terms of insight as to how teams will be ranked for the tournaments. Just as when the playoff committee starts their poll and selects the chosen four and it sometimes is at odds with the previous polls the NCAA tournament enjoys the same luxury of ignoring the other rankings if it sees fit and going by their own metrics (well that and creating matchups and geographical interest). 

The only saving grace is I won’t watch it anyways so who cares. 

[Triple B]

7 hours ago, Sellular1 said:

Should be pretty simple math.  If you’re in the top 24, can’t be worse than a 6 seed....

 

3 hours ago, Jonesy Bull said:

Sounds simple enough to me......but when dealing with the human bias aspect, unfortunately it doesn't usually work that way.

I think one thing we have going for us this year as far as that simple math is concerned is that they won't have any of the logistical problems of slotting teams in actual geographic areas since it's all being done in one location..

[CousinRicky]

9 hours ago, Sellular1 said:

Should be pretty simple math.  If you’re in the top 24, can’t be worse than a 6 seed....

Yet when we were ranked 13th we weren't in the top 16 seeded teams.  

[Guest Jonesy Bull]

10 hours ago, Triple B said:

 

I think one thing we have going for us this year as far as that simple math is concerned is that they won't have any of the logistical problems of slotting teams in actual geographic areas since it's all being done in one location..

I still don't know how they will be able to pull off having 64 teams (68 for the men) in one City location for the entire Tournament.  I guess they have it figured out with different Arenas in the area, but it still seems like a logistical nightmare.  I know they are doing lots of Covid testing.  The Men's teams were dropping like flies this week.

At least the Women don't have to play in Connecticut!!

[BullyPulpit]

I don't see us being higher than a 6 seed. The resume is just not full of high-level wins. We could get a 5 see, but that is probably our ceiling at this point. It's ok so long as we avoid the dreaded 7-10 matchup. Being a #6 is probably preferable to a 4 or 5 seed anyway. Second round matchup is likely a similar quality opponent and in the third round you'd much rather play a #2 than a #1. 

[CousinRicky]

4 hours ago, BullyPulpit said:

I don't see us being higher than a 6 seed. The resume is just not full of high-level wins. We could get a 5 see, but that is probably our ceiling at this point. It's ok so long as we avoid the dreaded 7-10 matchup. Being a #6 is probably preferable to a 4 or 5 seed anyway. Second round matchup is likely a similar quality opponent and in the third round you'd much rather play a #2 than a #1. 

Which means we'll get the 5 seed.  Thanks for the hex post.