WBB: NESCAC

[ronk]

It was the second shortest... here was the order from shortest to longest as it was told to me:

- Amherst (duh)
- St. Thomas (being undefeated eventually won out)
- WashU (comparing to Tufts was at least a bit of a conversation)
- Geneseo... eh ONU (as indicated, the longest chat)

So, why is Wash U hosting over Tufts; Tufts has a higher WP, the same 9-2 vrro, and marginally trails on SOS, but has lost only to the #1 seed, while Wash U has lost to lesser opponents?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Not sure where you are getting 9-2 for both... NCAA data doesn't have either team at 9-2 and I didn't either. Here is the most common data talked about from the NCAA at the close of the season:

WashU: 23-2 (.920)    8-2 vRRO   .621 SOS
Tufts: 25-2 (.926)   7-2 vRRO   .610 SOS

Per the vRRO category... Tufts lost to Amherst (#1) twice, WashU lost to Chicago (#2) and Rochester (#3)... I don't think I would call them "lesser opponents." Amherst is a great team, but it isn't like WashU lost to #8 or #9 in a regional ranking.

But more importantly it is the wins (in order of ranking):
- WashU: Chicago (#2), Rochester (#3), DePauw (#4), Wartburg (#5), IWU (#6), CMS (#8),  Carnegie Mellon (#8) twice
- Tufts: Bowdoin (#3) twice, Babson (#4)Keene State (#5), Skidmore (#5), Eastern Connecticut (#6), Univ. of New England (#10)

Pretty close, but I think I would give the edge to WashU especially with a win over a #2. They also played one more game against a regionally ranked opponent and have one more win. If this is coming down to splitting hairs, I can see where WashU has the advantage.

But I think another thing to point out, WashU split with those they loss to while Tufts lost both times to Amherst. That could have been a decision maker.

Finally, WashU was #1 in the Central Region and Tufts was #2... WashU's SOS is a little higher... I don't see a problem with them being host. I will also point out, that WashU was in the higher-seed position on the bracket. That doesn't always hold water (see Babson in the men's bracket), but it does for the most part. We saw how the committee felt about these two teams when the bracket came out.

[ronk]

Not sure where you are getting 9-2 for both... NCAA data doesn't have either team at 9-2 and I didn't either. Here is the most common data talked about from the NCAA at the close of the season:

WashU: 23-2 (.920)    8-2 vRRO   .621 SOS
Tufts: 25-2 (.926)   7-2 vRRO   .610 SOS

Per the vRRO category... Tufts lost to Amherst (#1) twice, WashU lost to Chicago (#2) and Rochester (#3)... I don't think I would call them "lesser opponents." Amherst is a great team, but it isn't like WashU lost to #8 or #9 in a regional ranking.

But more importantly it is the wins (in order of ranking):
- WashU: Chicago (#2), Rochester (#3), DePauw (#4), Wartburg (#5), IWU (#6), CMS (#8),  Carnegie Mellon (#8) twice
- Tufts: Bowdoin (#3) twice, Babson (#4)Keene State (#5), Skidmore (#5), Eastern Connecticut (#6), Univ. of New England (#10)

Pretty close, but I think I would give the edge to WashU especially with a win over a #2. They also played one more game against a regionally ranked opponent and have one more win. If this is coming down to splitting hairs, I can see where WashU has the advantage.

But I think another thing to point out, WashU split with those they loss to while Tufts lost both times to Amherst. That could have been a decision maker.

Finally, WashU was #1 in the Central Region and Tufts was #2... WashU's SOS is a little higher... I don't see a problem with them being host. I will also point out, that WashU was in the higher-seed position on the bracket. That doesn't always hold water (see Babson in the men's bracket), but it does for the most part. We saw how the committee felt about these two teams when the bracket came out.

After last weekend, when the sectional hosting was debated, Tufts additionally beat 2 regionally ranked opponents and Wash U one, bringing them both to 9-2.

Wash U lost to Chicago(#4 with 7 losses) and Rochester(8 losses); I'd certainly call them lesser opponents than the undefeated #1 seed, Amherst.

Tufts being #2 in their region to that same undefeated top seed could be still stronger than the #1 ranked in any other region.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Not sure where you are getting 9-2 for both... NCAA data doesn't have either team at 9-2 and I didn't either. Here is the most common data talked about from the NCAA at the close of the season:

WashU: 23-2 (.920)    8-2 vRRO   .621 SOS
Tufts: 25-2 (.926)   7-2 vRRO   .610 SOS

Per the vRRO category... Tufts lost to Amherst (#1) twice, WashU lost to Chicago (#2) and Rochester (#3)... I don't think I would call them "lesser opponents." Amherst is a great team, but it isn't like WashU lost to #8 or #9 in a regional ranking.

But more importantly it is the wins (in order of ranking):
- WashU: Chicago (#2), Rochester (#3), DePauw (#4), Wartburg (#5), IWU (#6), CMS (#8),  Carnegie Mellon (#8) twice
- Tufts: Bowdoin (#3) twice, Babson (#4)Keene State (#5), Skidmore (#5), Eastern Connecticut (#6), Univ. of New England (#10)

Pretty close, but I think I would give the edge to WashU especially with a win over a #2. They also played one more game against a regionally ranked opponent and have one more win. If this is coming down to splitting hairs, I can see where WashU has the advantage.

But I think another thing to point out, WashU split with those they loss to while Tufts lost both times to Amherst. That could have been a decision maker.

Finally, WashU was #1 in the Central Region and Tufts was #2... WashU's SOS is a little higher... I don't see a problem with them being host. I will also point out, that WashU was in the higher-seed position on the bracket. That doesn't always hold water (see Babson in the men's bracket), but it does for the most part. We saw how the committee felt about these two teams when the bracket came out.

After last weekend, when the sectional hosting was debated, Tufts additionally beat 2 regionally ranked opponents and Wash U one, bringing them both to 9-2.

Wash U lost to Chicago(#4 with 7 losses) and Rochester(8 losses); I'd certainly call them lesser opponents than the undefeated #1 seed, Amherst.

Tufts being #2 in their region to that same undefeated top seed could be still stronger than the #1 ranked in any other region.

Ronk - I quoted you the official NCAA data... WashU is 8-2... Tufts is 7-2 vRRO. There is no arguing that. I went through their schedules... I don't see any other regionally ranked opponents than the 10 WashU played and the 9 Tufts played. You can't make them 9-2 suddenly because two games were played in the tournament. You cannot add in the NCAA tournament opponents to the criteria. The committees don't do that. Simply because they created the bracket and thus they could manipulate the date to change the situation. So no, the teams are not 9-2 vRRO. You go by the data at the end of the regular season.

BTW, you may want to belittle Chicago and Rochester with their losses, but their SOSs were just as strong if not stronger than the Tufts (Chicago: .640; Rochester: .606). Considering unlike the NESCAC, the UAA plays a double-round-robin which naturally pulls a school's SOS towards .500 the fact their SOS numbers were just as good as Tufts says a lot about their schedules which compensates for those losses in the eyes of the committee. Chicago took undefeated #2 St. Thomas to the wire. Rochester was beaten by a similar foe in Geneseo. Those results aren't considered, but I believe it shows you a lot more about those teams than you would let on. I know you like to stir the pot and be a contrarian and I know you like to just argue with me for whatever reason (even if I said the sky was blue), but I don't think it is fair to say Chicago and Rochester are "lesser opponents" by any stretch of the imagination. And I am quite confident the committee(s) would disagree with your assertion on the topic as well.

You may not like the decision by the committee because your beloved Royals have to fly to WashU, but I don't see a problem with it. If you didn't see this coming with how the bracket was built in the first place, I can't help you. In fact, I am quite sure I alluded to the fact it was going to head to WashU from the get-go because I talked a lot about the men being kicked out of the gym the first weekend, but may return the favor the next weekend.

Furthermore, WashU was the #1 in their region and Tufts was #2 in theirs as I said. WashU has the numbers in a lot of regards even when splitting hairs. I will also add if they are looking at just the records of the teams at the end of the regular season, they aren't going to punish WashU for the lack of a conference tournament and reward Tufts for three extra games (and two wins) just because they were played. I am not saying they are disregarded, but they are going to understand the difference in the WL numbers and the fact WashU could have easily had two or three more wins in a normal conference tournament just as Tufts could have two less wins (and one less loss) thanks to not having a NESCAC tournament. No one is going to gain an unfair advantage in the eyes of the committee. They try not to discount the NESCAC's data considering the lack of a double-round-robin, so I wouldn't expect them to discount the UAA for their lack of a conference tournament.

And by the way, I don't think Tuft's is a stronger #2 than Thomas More, Trinity (Texas), or St. Thomas along with WashU (all #1s in their regions) when it comes to the data - they are all undefeated teams besides WashU, so I am not sure where Tufts would win that argument. And an argument could be made if Tufts is in a strong position criteria wise than Ohio Northern or Geneseo (who does have a much lower SOS, but plays a TON of conference games). So no, I don't think Tufts "could be still strong than the #1 ranked in any other region."

[ronk]

Not sure where you are getting 9-2 for both... NCAA data doesn't have either team at 9-2 and I didn't either. Here is the most common data talked about from the NCAA at the close of the season:

WashU: 23-2 (.920)    8-2 vRRO   .621 SOS
Tufts: 25-2 (.926)   7-2 vRRO   .610 SOS

Per the vRRO category... Tufts lost to Amherst (#1) twice, WashU lost to Chicago (#2) and Rochester (#3)... I don't think I would call them "lesser opponents." Amherst is a great team, but it isn't like WashU lost to #8 or #9 in a regional ranking.

But more importantly it is the wins (in order of ranking):
- WashU: Chicago (#2), Rochester (#3), DePauw (#4), Wartburg (#5), IWU (#6), CMS (#8),  Carnegie Mellon (#8) twice
- Tufts: Bowdoin (#3) twice, Babson (#4)Keene State (#5), Skidmore (#5), Eastern Connecticut (#6), Univ. of New England (#10)

Pretty close, but I think I would give the edge to WashU especially with a win over a #2. They also played one more game against a regionally ranked opponent and have one more win. If this is coming down to splitting hairs, I can see where WashU has the advantage.

But I think another thing to point out, WashU split with those they loss to while Tufts lost both times to Amherst. That could have been a decision maker.

Finally, WashU was #1 in the Central Region and Tufts was #2... WashU's SOS is a little higher... I don't see a problem with them being host. I will also point out, that WashU was in the higher-seed position on the bracket. That doesn't always hold water (see Babson in the men's bracket), but it does for the most part. We saw how the committee felt about these two teams when the bracket came out.

After last weekend, when the sectional hosting was debated, Tufts additionally beat 2 regionally ranked opponents and Wash U one, bringing them both to 9-2.

Wash U lost to Chicago(#4 with 7 losses) and Rochester(8 losses); I'd certainly call them lesser opponents than the undefeated #1 seed, Amherst.

Tufts being #2 in their region to that same undefeated top seed could be still stronger than the #1 ranked in any other region.

Ronk - I quoted you the official NCAA data... WashU is 8-2... Tufts is 7-2 vRRO. There is no arguing that. I went through their schedules... I don't see any other regionally ranked opponents than the 10 WashU played and the 9 Tufts played. You can't make them 9-2 suddenly because two games were played in the tournament. You cannot add in the NCAA tournament opponents to the criteria. The committees don't do that. Simply because they created the bracket and thus they could manipulate the date to change the situation. So no, the teams are not 9-2 vRRO. You go by the data at the end of the regular season.

BTW, you may want to belittle Chicago and Rochester with their losses, but their SOSs were just as strong if not stronger than the Tufts (Chicago: .640; Rochester: .606). Considering unlike the NESCAC, the UAA plays a double-round-robin which naturally pulls a school's SOS towards .500 the fact their SOS numbers were just as good as Tufts says a lot about their schedules which compensates for those losses in the eyes of the committee. Chicago took undefeated #2 St. Thomas to the wire. Rochester was beaten by a similar foe in Geneseo. Those results aren't considered, but I believe it shows you a lot more about those teams than you would let on. I know you like to stir the pot and be a contrarian and I know you like to just argue with me for whatever reason (even if I said the sky was blue), but I don't think it is fair to say Chicago and Rochester are "lesser opponents" by any stretch of the imagination. And I am quite confident the committee(s) would disagree with your assertion on the topic as well.

You may not like the decision by the committee because your beloved Royals have to fly to WashU, but I don't see a problem with it. If you didn't see this coming with how the bracket was built in the first place, I can't help you. In fact, I am quite sure I alluded to the fact it was going to head to WashU from the get-go because I talked a lot about the men being kicked out of the gym the first weekend, but may return the favor the next weekend.

Furthermore, WashU was the #1 in their region and Tufts was #2 in theirs as I said. WashU has the numbers in a lot of regards even when splitting hairs. I will also add if they are looking at just the records of the teams at the end of the regular season, they aren't going to punish WashU for the lack of a conference tournament and reward Tufts for three extra games (and two wins) just because they were played. I am not saying they are disregarded, but they are going to understand the difference in the WL numbers and the fact WashU could have easily had two or three more wins in a normal conference tournament just as Tufts could have two less wins (and one less loss) thanks to not having a NESCAC tournament. No one is going to gain an unfair advantage in the eyes of the committee. They try not to discount the NESCAC's data considering the lack of a double-round-robin, so I wouldn't expect them to discount the UAA for their lack of a conference tournament.

And by the way, I don't think Tuft's is a stronger #2 than Thomas More, Trinity (Texas), or St. Thomas along with WashU (all #1s in their regions) when it comes to the data - they are all undefeated teams besides WashU, so I am not sure where Tufts would win that argument. And an argument could be made if Tufts is in a strong position criteria wise than Ohio Northern or Geneseo (who does have a much lower SOS, but plays a TON of conference games). So no, I don't think Tufts "could be still strong than the #1 ranked in any other region."

It's not the data at the end of the regular season; it was updated to include the post season conference tourney; if there going to be consistent, they'll also update it for the regional weekend also.
The committee wouldn't have seeded Amherst #1 if they didn't consider Chicago and Rochester to be lesser opponents than Amherst.
And it has nothing to do with where Scranton is playing; it benefits Scranton to play a neutral court game rather than an away game against Tufts. Just want the committee to have consistency for their future decisions. BTW, wrt to a common opponent, Scranton won @ Rochester and Wash U lost there.
Just trying to keep your brain stimulated. 
 

[nescac1]

Two recent articles discussing future Eph guards:

http://www.myrecordjournal.com/sports/southingtonsports/10069223-154/ciac-girls-basketball-no-23-lady-knights-take-quarterfinal-aim.html

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/08/girls-basketball-pinewoods-mikaela-topper-passes-the-eye-test/

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Not sure where you are getting 9-2 for both... NCAA data doesn't have either team at 9-2 and I didn't either. Here is the most common data talked about from the NCAA at the close of the season:

WashU: 23-2 (.920)    8-2 vRRO   .621 SOS
Tufts: 25-2 (.926)   7-2 vRRO   .610 SOS

Per the vRRO category... Tufts lost to Amherst (#1) twice, WashU lost to Chicago (#2) and Rochester (#3)... I don't think I would call them "lesser opponents." Amherst is a great team, but it isn't like WashU lost to #8 or #9 in a regional ranking.

But more importantly it is the wins (in order of ranking):
- WashU: Chicago (#2), Rochester (#3), DePauw (#4), Wartburg (#5), IWU (#6), CMS (#8),  Carnegie Mellon (#8) twice
- Tufts: Bowdoin (#3) twice, Babson (#4)Keene State (#5), Skidmore (#5), Eastern Connecticut (#6), Univ. of New England (#10)

Pretty close, but I think I would give the edge to WashU especially with a win over a #2. They also played one more game against a regionally ranked opponent and have one more win. If this is coming down to splitting hairs, I can see where WashU has the advantage.

But I think another thing to point out, WashU split with those they loss to while Tufts lost both times to Amherst. That could have been a decision maker.

Finally, WashU was #1 in the Central Region and Tufts was #2... WashU's SOS is a little higher... I don't see a problem with them being host. I will also point out, that WashU was in the higher-seed position on the bracket. That doesn't always hold water (see Babson in the men's bracket), but it does for the most part. We saw how the committee felt about these two teams when the bracket came out.

After last weekend, when the sectional hosting was debated, Tufts additionally beat 2 regionally ranked opponents and Wash U one, bringing them both to 9-2.

Wash U lost to Chicago(#4 with 7 losses) and Rochester(8 losses); I'd certainly call them lesser opponents than the undefeated #1 seed, Amherst.

Tufts being #2 in their region to that same undefeated top seed could be still stronger than the #1 ranked in any other region.

Ronk - I quoted you the official NCAA data... WashU is 8-2... Tufts is 7-2 vRRO. There is no arguing that. I went through their schedules... I don't see any other regionally ranked opponents than the 10 WashU played and the 9 Tufts played. You can't make them 9-2 suddenly because two games were played in the tournament. You cannot add in the NCAA tournament opponents to the criteria. The committees don't do that. Simply because they created the bracket and thus they could manipulate the date to change the situation. So no, the teams are not 9-2 vRRO. You go by the data at the end of the regular season.

BTW, you may want to belittle Chicago and Rochester with their losses, but their SOSs were just as strong if not stronger than the Tufts (Chicago: .640; Rochester: .606). Considering unlike the NESCAC, the UAA plays a double-round-robin which naturally pulls a school's SOS towards .500 the fact their SOS numbers were just as good as Tufts says a lot about their schedules which compensates for those losses in the eyes of the committee. Chicago took undefeated #2 St. Thomas to the wire. Rochester was beaten by a similar foe in Geneseo. Those results aren't considered, but I believe it shows you a lot more about those teams than you would let on. I know you like to stir the pot and be a contrarian and I know you like to just argue with me for whatever reason (even if I said the sky was blue), but I don't think it is fair to say Chicago and Rochester are "lesser opponents" by any stretch of the imagination. And I am quite confident the committee(s) would disagree with your assertion on the topic as well.

You may not like the decision by the committee because your beloved Royals have to fly to WashU, but I don't see a problem with it. If you didn't see this coming with how the bracket was built in the first place, I can't help you. In fact, I am quite sure I alluded to the fact it was going to head to WashU from the get-go because I talked a lot about the men being kicked out of the gym the first weekend, but may return the favor the next weekend.

Furthermore, WashU was the #1 in their region and Tufts was #2 in theirs as I said. WashU has the numbers in a lot of regards even when splitting hairs. I will also add if they are looking at just the records of the teams at the end of the regular season, they aren't going to punish WashU for the lack of a conference tournament and reward Tufts for three extra games (and two wins) just because they were played. I am not saying they are disregarded, but they are going to understand the difference in the WL numbers and the fact WashU could have easily had two or three more wins in a normal conference tournament just as Tufts could have two less wins (and one less loss) thanks to not having a NESCAC tournament. No one is going to gain an unfair advantage in the eyes of the committee. They try not to discount the NESCAC's data considering the lack of a double-round-robin, so I wouldn't expect them to discount the UAA for their lack of a conference tournament.

And by the way, I don't think Tuft's is a stronger #2 than Thomas More, Trinity (Texas), or St. Thomas along with WashU (all #1s in their regions) when it comes to the data - they are all undefeated teams besides WashU, so I am not sure where Tufts would win that argument. And an argument could be made if Tufts is in a strong position criteria wise than Ohio Northern or Geneseo (who does have a much lower SOS, but plays a TON of conference games). So no, I don't think Tufts "could be still strong than the #1 ranked in any other region."

It's not the data at the end of the regular season; it was updated to include the post season conference tourney; if there going to be consistent, they'll also update it for the regional weekend also.
The committee wouldn't have seeded Amherst #1 if they didn't consider Chicago and Rochester to be lesser opponents than Amherst.
And it has nothing to do with where Scranton is playing; it benefits Scranton to play a neutral court game rather than an away game against Tufts. Just want the committee to have consistency for their future decisions. BTW, wrt to a common opponent, Scranton won @ Rochester and Wash U lost there.
Just trying to keep your brain stimulated. 

Scranton isn't part of this conversation of hosts with three losses and a much lower SOS. So who cares about common opponents. They aren't in the comparison here at all.

Ronk, the data I quoted is end of the regular season. That data is what the committee is using to make their decisions for the entire season. It would be inconsistent to use the first weekend of the NCAA tournament and update the data because the committee is changing the data on purpose by bracketing. Suddenly, the top seeded teams who are playing lesser opponents are disadvantaged because of that fact. The top seeds should play lower seeded teams. But then to punish them for that advantage seems pretty ridiculous. They then lose out in criteria because they risk their SOS going down and they can't bolster their vRRO accordingly. Seriously?! Please stop pretending that is a good idea. It has been shot down by more committee chairs than I can think of. Do you think they should reseed the D1 tournament after the first weekend and maybe change where teams are headed as a result? The data these teams control is the regular season. That is the data the committee should look at... not added data that is completely out of the control of the teams.

With that fact, the fact WashU played an unranked team in the first round PROVES they were the top seed in this quadrant.

And your argument that Amherst was #1 compared to Chicago and Rochester makes NO sense. Your use of "lesser" in comparison to Tufts opponents makes it seem like Chicago and Rochester were actually 8 or 9th ranked teams in the grand scheme of things. Of course Chicago and Rochester were lower seeded teams than Amherst... who is undefeated with a solid SOS. Amherst is basically the top seed in the entire tournament (those teams usually get slotted in the upper left bracket - see Whitman on the men's side). Everyone is "lesser" than Amherst... but that doesn't mean Chicago and Rochester are lesser than Tufts.

[ronk]

Not sure where you are getting 9-2 for both... NCAA data doesn't have either team at 9-2 and I didn't either. Here is the most common data talked about from the NCAA at the close of the season:

WashU: 23-2 (.920)    8-2 vRRO   .621 SOS
Tufts: 25-2 (.926)   7-2 vRRO   .610 SOS

Per the vRRO category... Tufts lost to Amherst (#1) twice, WashU lost to Chicago (#2) and Rochester (#3)... I don't think I would call them "lesser opponents." Amherst is a great team, but it isn't like WashU lost to #8 or #9 in a regional ranking.

But more importantly it is the wins (in order of ranking):
- WashU: Chicago (#2), Rochester (#3), DePauw (#4), Wartburg (#5), IWU (#6), CMS (#8),  Carnegie Mellon (#8) twice
- Tufts: Bowdoin (#3) twice, Babson (#4)Keene State (#5), Skidmore (#5), Eastern Connecticut (#6), Univ. of New England (#10)

Pretty close, but I think I would give the edge to WashU especially with a win over a #2. They also played one more game against a regionally ranked opponent and have one more win. If this is coming down to splitting hairs, I can see where WashU has the advantage.

But I think another thing to point out, WashU split with those they loss to while Tufts lost both times to Amherst. That could have been a decision maker.

Finally, WashU was #1 in the Central Region and Tufts was #2... WashU's SOS is a little higher... I don't see a problem with them being host. I will also point out, that WashU was in the higher-seed position on the bracket. That doesn't always hold water (see Babson in the men's bracket), but it does for the most part. We saw how the committee felt about these two teams when the bracket came out.

After last weekend, when the sectional hosting was debated, Tufts additionally beat 2 regionally ranked opponents and Wash U one, bringing them both to 9-2.

Wash U lost to Chicago(#4 with 7 losses) and Rochester(8 losses); I'd certainly call them lesser opponents than the undefeated #1 seed, Amherst.

Tufts being #2 in their region to that same undefeated top seed could be still stronger than the #1 ranked in any other region.

Ronk - I quoted you the official NCAA data... WashU is 8-2... Tufts is 7-2 vRRO. There is no arguing that. I went through their schedules... I don't see any other regionally ranked opponents than the 10 WashU played and the 9 Tufts played. You can't make them 9-2 suddenly because two games were played in the tournament. You cannot add in the NCAA tournament opponents to the criteria. The committees don't do that. Simply because they created the bracket and thus they could manipulate the date to change the situation. So no, the teams are not 9-2 vRRO. You go by the data at the end of the regular season.

BTW, you may want to belittle Chicago and Rochester with their losses, but their SOSs were just as strong if not stronger than the Tufts (Chicago: .640; Rochester: .606). Considering unlike the NESCAC, the UAA plays a double-round-robin which naturally pulls a school's SOS towards .500 the fact their SOS numbers were just as good as Tufts says a lot about their schedules which compensates for those losses in the eyes of the committee. Chicago took undefeated #2 St. Thomas to the wire. Rochester was beaten by a similar foe in Geneseo. Those results aren't considered, but I believe it shows you a lot more about those teams than you would let on. I know you like to stir the pot and be a contrarian and I know you like to just argue with me for whatever reason (even if I said the sky was blue), but I don't think it is fair to say Chicago and Rochester are "lesser opponents" by any stretch of the imagination. And I am quite confident the committee(s) would disagree with your assertion on the topic as well.

You may not like the decision by the committee because your beloved Royals have to fly to WashU, but I don't see a problem with it. If you didn't see this coming with how the bracket was built in the first place, I can't help you. In fact, I am quite sure I alluded to the fact it was going to head to WashU from the get-go because I talked a lot about the men being kicked out of the gym the first weekend, but may return the favor the next weekend.

Furthermore, WashU was the #1 in their region and Tufts was #2 in theirs as I said. WashU has the numbers in a lot of regards even when splitting hairs. I will also add if they are looking at just the records of the teams at the end of the regular season, they aren't going to punish WashU for the lack of a conference tournament and reward Tufts for three extra games (and two wins) just because they were played. I am not saying they are disregarded, but they are going to understand the difference in the WL numbers and the fact WashU could have easily had two or three more wins in a normal conference tournament just as Tufts could have two less wins (and one less loss) thanks to not having a NESCAC tournament. No one is going to gain an unfair advantage in the eyes of the committee. They try not to discount the NESCAC's data considering the lack of a double-round-robin, so I wouldn't expect them to discount the UAA for their lack of a conference tournament.

And by the way, I don't think Tuft's is a stronger #2 than Thomas More, Trinity (Texas), or St. Thomas along with WashU (all #1s in their regions) when it comes to the data - they are all undefeated teams besides WashU, so I am not sure where Tufts would win that argument. And an argument could be made if Tufts is in a strong position criteria wise than Ohio Northern or Geneseo (who does have a much lower SOS, but plays a TON of conference games). So no, I don't think Tufts "could be still strong than the #1 ranked in any other region."

It's not the data at the end of the regular season; it was updated to include the post season conference tourney; if there going to be consistent, they'll also update it for the regional weekend also.
The committee wouldn't have seeded Amherst #1 if they didn't consider Chicago and Rochester to be lesser opponents than Amherst.
And it has nothing to do with where Scranton is playing; it benefits Scranton to play a neutral court game rather than an away game against Tufts. Just want the committee to have consistency for their future decisions. BTW, wrt to a common opponent, Scranton won @ Rochester and Wash U lost there.
Just trying to keep your brain stimulated. 

Scranton isn't part of this conversation of hosts with three losses and a much lower SOS. So who cares about common opponents. They aren't in the comparison here at all.

Ronk, the data I quoted is end of the regular season. That data is what the committee is using to make their decisions for the entire season. It would be inconsistent to use the first weekend of the NCAA tournament and update the data because the committee is changing the data on purpose by bracketing. Suddenly, the top seeded teams who are playing lesser opponents are disadvantaged because of that fact. The top seeds should play lower seeded teams. But then to punish them for that advantage seems pretty ridiculous. They then lose out in criteria because they risk their SOS going down and they can't bolster their vRRO accordingly. Seriously?! Please stop pretending that is a good idea. It has been shot down by more committee chairs than I can think of. Do you think they should reseed the D1 tournament after the first weekend and maybe change where teams are headed as a result? The data these teams control is the regular season. That is the data the committee should look at... not added data that is completely out of the control of the teams.

With that fact, the fact WashU played an unranked team in the first round PROVES they were the top seed in this quadrant.

And your argument that Amherst was #1 compared to Chicago and Rochester makes NO sense. Your use of "lesser" in comparison to Tufts opponents makes it seem like Chicago and Rochester were actually 8 or 9th ranked teams in the grand scheme of things. Of course Chicago and Rochester were lower seeded teams than Amherst... who is undefeated with a solid SOS. Amherst is basically the top seed in the entire tournament (those teams usually get slotted in the upper left bracket - see Whitman on the men's side). Everyone is "lesser" than Amherst... but that doesn't mean Chicago and Rochester are lesser than Tufts.

I didn't say that Chicago and Rochester were lesser than Tufts; I said they were lesser than Amherst; the opponents Wash U lost to were lesser than the opponent that Tufts lost to. And you agree by saying that "Amherst is basically the top seed".

[jaybird44]

This is a circular argument that resembles a Category 1 hurricane rapidly strengthening in warm Caribbean waters to a Category 4...LOL

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Ronk - I didn't read it the first time you said it, but I see what you meant. I apologize. That said, Tufts still lost to them twice. WashU at least split with their two. That is going to go in the favor of WashU in almost every conversation. Tufts wins one of those games against Amherst and this could be a very different conversation.

[Maine 1]

We are going to talk about a little basketball here.  Interesting in looking at the four regional groups, that there are no ranked teams in Amhersts group.  Amherst has clear sailing to the final four, and should have no problem with Mass Dartmouth tonight.  Babson was competitive and had the game down to a 3 point game in the third quarter, and then Amherst clamped down their defense and Ali Doswell started making key baskets and it was over.  I think Tufts has a very good chance to win at Wash U tonight--if somehow they can bet Baptista to stop committing fouls.  She is so good and is such a force, but every game I watch she makes two-three very bad fouls, and is always on the bench in foul trouble.  Would love to see two NESCAC teams in the final four.

[ronk]

We are going to talk about a little basketball here.  Interesting in looking at the four regional groups, that there are no ranked teams in Amhersts group.  Amherst has clear sailing to the final four, and should have no problem with Mass Dartmouth tonight.  Babson was competitive and had the game down to a 3 point game in the third quarter, and then Amherst clamped down their defense and Ali Doswell started making key baskets and it was over.  I think Tufts has a very good chance to win at Wash U tonight--if somehow they can bet Baptista to stop committing fouls.  She is so good and is such a force, but every game I watch she makes two-three very bad fouls, and is always on the bench in foul trouble. Would love to see two NESCAC teams in the final four.

That is the strategy that suggests itself to opponents; Scranton did induce 1 early foul and Baptista accommodated with a couple more on her own, but Tufts' supporting cast played so well during her absence that it was a nonfactor last night.
  Haven't seen Wash U or St.Thomas/Whitman play yet, but have to think there's a good chance Tufts/Amherst will be the matchup for the title. 

[amh63]

Maine1...plus K  .....glad someone was posting wrt games played now.
Never saw the first game with Babson, so did not know what to expect.  The key to the win by Amherst was the defensive adjustment made by Coach G.  Fouls on Babson's key player and putting a 6'1" player on her was fine....driving on her also helped in getting her in foul trouble.  Babson was stacking the inside but had to open the inside when Amherst shooters started to make their threes.
Went to the Tufts game as I was surprised to see the relative high score...for Tufts.  North was cheering on the bench with the score above 60!

[amh63]

ronk....taking the opportunities to thank you the scouting rpt of talented players....the ones that Amherst HC "used" to get his FY players.  Almost all are contributing and one made ROY.

[ronk]

ronk....taking the opportunities to thank you the scouting rpt of talented players....the ones that Amherst HC "used" to get his FY players.  Almost all are contributing and one made ROY.

Yes, I've kept my list under tighter control this year  , although Williams and Middlebury have PGs committed from it already.