Selection Show Thread - Join In

I think - since Texas was placed with the overall #1 (UCONN) that means they were the last 5 seed.

But once they get to that point it often comes down to geography. Since both Big-12 5 seeds were sent as far away as possible, we were probably placed to get other 5 seeds closer to home. We will need to study it to see if that could be the case.

I tried to figure it out from what I could figure out on the information I could find on the S Seed, but am not sure I got it right. Plus it seems that once the S seed is determined it does not mean they actually seed them that way because of other factors such as you suggested.
 
Brenda Frese is a really good recruiter and coach. They only have 1 senior this year.
 
I think - since Texas was placed with the overall #1 (UCONN) that means they were the last 5 seed.

But once they get to that point it often comes down to geography. Since both Big-12 5 seeds were sent as far away as possible, we were probably placed to get other 5 seeds closer to home. We will need to study it to see if that could be the case.

The odd numbered seeds in the top 1-seed's bracket are the top seeds at those levels (1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15), except where rules force replacement to another position.
 
They don't attempt to use seeds within a seed line to rank teams any more.
 
They did a horrible job with avoiding potential conference re-matches which is supposed to be avoided if at all possible. Seems like region was more important than anything.
 
Being in Notre Dame's bracket, I thought that would make us the third ranked number 5 seed and thus be ranked at 19. Is that not how this works?

Notre Dame was the 2nd overall seed. The 5-seed in their bracket is the #18 overall, or at least close to it. in this case I think OU WAS #18, with Texas as the 1st 5-seed at #17, and Duke as the last 4-seed at #16.

CORRECTION.

According to the s-curve California was the last #4, not Duke.
 
Last edited:
They don't attempt to use seeds within a seed line to rank teams any more.

I have the latest "Principles and Procedures for Establishing the Bracket", downloaded them late last year. That's not what they say. They specifically talk about using the s-curve to establish parity across the brackets.
 
But, they recently said they don't do that any more. I think it was Joe C on his show.
 
Only 5 Big 12 teams made the field. Definitely a weaker conference this year than usual.
 
It was an absurd committee that put four Pac 12 teams in the top four seeds, with Washington close behind. A Cal team that KU beat is a #4? The committee didn't do its job in that region.

But, it does give us a seed that I don't mind, a #5 against stanford.
 
ESPN shows the game as being on ETESPN3. I do not know if we will be able to get it here in the OKC area. It may depend on whether they have an arrangement with Cox..
 
I have the latest "Principles and Procedures for Establishing the Bracket", downloaded them late last year. That's not what they say. They specifically talk about using the s-curve to establish parity across the brackets.

No sense in arguing this over and over. Who cares. No one knows. As Syb said, they said geography was the key in placing teams on a seed line - but the Big-12 got really hurt in that.

My only take away is that the Big-12's representative on the committee did the conference no favors. We are the only major conference with only 1 top 16, neither of our 5 seeds get to play anywhere even sort of close enough to get fans to, Duke was GIVEN a major gift for a weak season with way more bad losses (than us) and no good wins - not a single one. The ACC's representative is much more supportive of her conference than the Big-12's. Even if they supposedly don't sit in on the discussions about conference teams, you can tell how respected they are by the seedings. It also is likely that she represents Texas schools more than others. Texas finished 3 games behind us, played a weaker schedule, had to have a local official foul out 6 of our players to beat us - at home - in 2OT, and still got the same seed (5). Maybe she traded that Texas 5 seed by offering to send us out to Stanford. We will never know.

But none of it matters. We got the hardest 5 seed spot - since Stanford actually beat (in the conference tour.) both Pac-12 teams they played that were seeded higher than them. And obviously Stanford has been far more successful in Tournament play than about anyone around except Notre Dame, UCONN, & Tenn. To play on their court is a huge challenge. They even beat UCONN there if I recall correctly.

But had we been a 4 seed we would have played a 5. Only advantage would be on our court instead of as a visiting team.

Lots of our posters claimed all the road games prepared us for this. This is your test on that claim. I say we should have beaten Kansas and none of this would be under discussion. Although someone else lost to Kansas .... now who was that? Did it hurt them?
 
Last edited:
Dru Hancock of the Big 12 office was chair of the committee. When asked about OU hosting, she told a Daily Oklahoman reporter that OU would probably need to beat Fexas in the conference tourney semifinals. Did not happen.
 
Dru Hancock of the Big 12 office was chair of the committee. When asked about OU hosting, she told a Daily Oklahoman reporter that OU would probably need to beat Fexas in the conference tourney semifinals. Did not happen.

Exactly my point. We got absolutely no support from her. She obviously went in there playing down our team. Texas did apparently get extremely strong support from her. There is no possible argument for giving them a 5 seed. They finished tied for 6th place in the conference, 7 games out of first place and 4 games out of second. In a conference with very weak representation in the tournament. How could that possibly translate into a 5 seed - when a team they tied with (TCU) - and lost the tie breaker with - did not even make the tournament? That is why it leaves the impression of horse trading in the discussions. Maybe or maybe not with outright verbal trading - perhaps by language used. Cal lost to Stanford in their conference tournament - I never heard her say that disqualifies them (Cal) from a good seed - which they got.

Who did she sit with at the Big-12 tournament? Sherri? Oh thats right with a coach from her home area (Texas ). It is seriously naïve to think all the teams that left the conference were wrong about biases in the conference office. Where there is smoke there is fire.
 
Last edited:
We didn't get Uconn. Iowa are 3 and Stanford our 4? I'll take it. I don't think Stanford is that athletic this year from what I have seen and read. If we get to the sweet 16 we play in Okc? that will a nice advantage. We really didn't do so bad here from what I can see.
 
We didn't get Uconn. Iowa are 3 and Stanford our 4? I'll take it. I don't think Stanford is that athletic this year from what I have seen and read. If we get to the sweet 16 we play in Okc? that will a nice advantage. We really didn't do so bad here from what I can see.

I agree with you about our seed. But we were placed in a very difficult place to play. But had we beaten a very weak Kansas team that would not have happened. Or if we had played a reasonable non-conference schedule. Both were things that were in our control. No one to blame but ourselves.

I just wish the same criteria had been applied to all teams. It never is and that is why you need to get some help in the politics.
 
True True.. And were not a great road team thus far. But we have had a lot of battles on the road- I think that will pay off some...

I just hope we get to Notre Dame. I want the girls to see what those teams are like- we might get beat down, but going into a long off-season, getting a feel for that level will pay big dividends down the road.
 
Back
Top