Bracketology: Top 16 Teams Set?

[Jimbo]

http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/bracketology

According to ESPN's WBB home page, "Sixteen bids will be decided Saturday and Sunday, but as Selection Monday quickly approaches, the top-16 seeds already are set in Charlie Creme's projection." By this I assume they mean the seeds belonging to the teams in the top 16. While I'm sure he could change them again if he wants to, for what it's worth, here's where Charlie has them going:

Bridgeport:
1. Connecticut
2. UCLA
3. Ohio State
4. Florida State

Lexington:
1. South Carolina
2. Maryland
3. Louisville
4. Stanford

Sioux Falls:
1. Notre Dame
2. Texas
3. Arizona State
4. Texas A&M

Dallas:
1. Baylor
2. Oregon State
3. Kentucky
4. Syracuse

 

[Sonny44]

If so ND has the easiest path to meet us in the finals.

 

[HGN]

If so ND has the easiest path to meet us in the finals.

I was thinking the same thing Sonny......A SC vs ND game will be good but I think ND comes out on top.

Baylor on our side of the bracket has me concerned . They are good and they are , as Trump would say , 'HUGE'.

 

[VAUConnFan]

1. Nice to see Syracuse among the Top 16.
2. Very nice to see Baylor remain among the elite programs post Griner.
3. Ohio State reminds me of the 1990 Loyola Marymount men's squad; Scary if they get hot.
4. If Notre Dame is the overall #2, then their path should be second easiest overall.
5. UCLA a #2 seed? I must not have been paying attention. Then again, Louisville in 2009 was awful/tired in the Big East Championship game and soared all the way to the national championship game. If UCLA is in UConn's region as a #2, I do not think they will be playing for the regional championship. If ever a high seed seemed doomed for an early exit, it is this UCLA squad.
6. I think Maryland ends up in Baylor's region with Oregon State going into South Carolina's.
7. Two projected #2 seeds out of the Pac 10 none of whom are Stanford; Bodes well for the Pac 10.
8. I am rooting for Sioux Falls to put up the best attendance numbers.

 

[Plebe]

1. Nice to see Syracuse among the Top 16.
2. Very nice to see Baylor remain among the elite programs post Griner.
3. Ohio State reminds me of the 1990 Loyola Marymount men's squad; Scary if they get hot.
4. If Notre Dame is the overall #2, then their path should be second easiest overall.
5. UCLA a #2 seed? I must not have been paying attention. Then again, Louisville in 2009 was awful/tired in the Big East Championship game and soared all the way to the national championship game. If UCLA is in UConn's region as a #2, I do not think they will be playing for the regional championship. If ever a high seed seemed doomed for an early exit, it is this UCLA squad.
6. I think Maryland ends up in Baylor's region with Oregon State going into South Carolina's.
7. Two projected #2 seeds out of the Pac 10 none of whom are Stanford; Bodes well for the Pac 10.
8. I am rooting for Sioux Falls to put up the best attendance numbers.

3. Ohio State has hit the skids recently and is a big question mark at this point. They were in the driver's seat for the top #2 seed, but then lost to Minnesota in OT, then to Michigan State in 3OT, and then, after laboring past Rutgers in the Big Ten quarterfinals, got completely blown out by Michigan State for its 3rd loss in 4 games. Ameryst Alston sprained the wrist of her shooting arm in the Rutgers game and barely played in the Michigan State debacle. She's expected to play in the tournament, but Coach McGuff was quoted in an article just a couple days ago saying that her wrist is still swollen. Not a good sign for them. Mitchell puts up the bigger numbers, but Alston's scoring average (19 ppg) would be first on almost any other team. They need her as a scoring threat to have any chance. Ohio State is not a team that can win on defense.

4. Notre Dame isn't the overall #2. The selection committee has placed South Carolina at #2 in each of its top-10 "reveals". There's no guarantee that it will still be that way next Monday, but nothing significant has happened in the last 2 weeks to alter that equation.

5. UCLA was #10 overall in the last top-10 reveal on Feb. 29, but in the interim has jumped over Ohio State and Arizona State (which lost to Cal in the Pac-10 quarterfinals) to take the overall #8 spot, according to Charlie's projections.

6. The committee had Maryland at #8 overall on Feb. 29. Arizona State almost certainly drops from #7 after losing to Cal, but neither Oregon State (#6) nor Texas (#5) has lost to any lower-ranked team. So it's almost impossible that Maryland would be placed in the same regional as Baylor, even though many people (including the polls) seem to think that Maryland is the fifth-best team in the country.

8. Why are you rooting for Sioux Falls?

 

[Bonpland]

Who knows how these things play out (as VAUConn points out nobody could have predicted Louisville's path to the final in '13), but on the surface it certainly looks like SC would have the toughest path to the FF and ND the easiest.

Oregon State could possibly take Baylor down, and tOSU has weapons, but neither Texas team is going to touch ND, and Arizona State is going to have to show something in a big game before we'll begin to think that they can compete with the Irish.

SC on the other hand has 2, 3 and 4 seeds that, on a given night, could challenge anyone. I don't know how Charlie figured the brackets but the Lexington Regional (if the NCAA agrees with his logic) looks like it a real slugfest.

By the way, what's the current thought on where the Vols will get placed?

 

[baggerbob]

If those seeds hold up South Carolina being the number 2 seed has the hardest path to the final four.

 

[Plebe]

Who knows how these things play out (as VAUConn points out nobody could have predicted Louisville's path to the final in '13), but on the surface it certainly looks like SC would have the toughest path to the FF and ND the easiest.

Oregon State could possibly take Baylor down, and tOSU has weapons, but neither Texas team is going to touch ND, and Arizona State is going to have to show something in a big game before we'll begin to think that they can compete with the Irish.

SC on the other hand has 2, 3 and 4 seeds that, on a given night, could challenge anyone. I don't know how Charlie figured the brackets but the Lexington Regional (if the NCAA agrees with his logic) looks like it a real slugfest.

By the way, what's the current thought on where the Vols will get placed?

The Lexington regional looks loaded, I think, because Maryland (#7 overall) and Louisville (#10 overall) are considered by many to be better than their seeding would indicate. That will the most compelling Sweet 16 matchup, if it happens.

I don't feel like any of the #4 seeds look dangerous at all — but then again, wasn't Louisville a #5 seed the year it took out Baylor and got to the final?

 

[UcMiami]

So ... an interesting point based on his last four in and first four out - with special reference to my long (very long) 'RPI, SOS ....' thread

The last four in are three Big Ten teams and one SEC team.
The first four out are an AAC, two A10 team, and an Ivy.

Indiana - RPI 45, OOC road games 3, best wins #16 MSU, Chattanooga, worst losses at Wis (7-22/3-15), NW (18-16/4-14)
Purdue - RPI 59, OOC road games 1, best wins #8 Lou*, IND, worst losses (BC 15-16/2-14 ACC), at Wis (7-22/3-15)
Auburn - RPI 57, OOC road games 5, best wins #12 KY, #25 FLA, worst losses at Marq (14-16/9-9 BE), UVA (16-15/6-10 ACC)
Iowa - RPI 65, OOC road games 3, best wins IND, PUR, worst losses PSU x2 (12-19/6-12), at ISU (13-17/5-13 B12)

St Bonaventure - RPI 35, OOC road games 5, 23-7/12-4, best wins GW and DUQ, worst losses at UMass (12-18/5-11 A10), at Drexel (19-12/13-5 CAA)
St Louis - RPI 54, OOC road games 6, 24-7/13-3, best wins DUQ, MEN, worst losses at SIUE (18-13/12-4 OVC), (Tulane 21-11/11-7) or at Ball St (21-9/13-5 MAC)
Temple - RPI 71, OOC road games 5, 20-11/13-5, best wins #25 FLA, #21 USF, worst losses at QUIN (24-8/17-3 MAAC), at SMU (13-18/7-11)
Princeton - RPI 37, OOC road games 5, 23-5/12-2, best wins DUQ, Marist or Michigan, worst losses at DAY (14-14/7-9 A10), at Seton Hall (23-8/12-6 BE)

*This one is a real outlier as Louisville was in an opening stretch of going 1-4 and headed from #8 ranking to being dropped from the rankings by week 4 and not returning to start their climb until week 10. That start has pretty well been discounted from their current ranking, so beating them during that early stretch probably should be as well.

Because of RPI calculations you have to work pretty hard in a P5 to have a 50 range RPI so the last four in worked pretty hard - 25 of the first 40, and 29 of the top 50 are P5 so almost six per conference. And the opposite is true for teams in mid-majors.

Of these eight teams Auburn and Temple stand out for their quality of wins, and Princeton stands out for the quality of their losses.

What strikes me about the losses - the teams that are 'IN' lose to teams that all have losing records either overall or in conference, and the ones on the outside (with the exception of SMU and UMass and Dayton) all are teams that know how to win.

None of these teams scream for inclusion in the field and you can make arguments against any one of them and for any one of them. We will all be surprised if any of these teams actually made it to the second weekend so it isn't going to effect the overall competition and it doesn't matter that much to me - would like Princeton in just because they are a hold-over from an amateur, student athletic tradition, and would like to see Tonya rewarded, but I am not going to have sleepless nights.
I know I used to argue for a Rutgers or a St John's being included in the old BE days, but Rutgers especially used to play brutal OOC schedules and I was usually arguing against another power conference team's inclusion. Right now, looking at these eight teams, I would much rather see the whole slate reversed rather than reward really mediocre P5 teams, and I certainly hope at least a few of Charlie's predictions are proved false.

 

[UcMiami]

I am just not convinced by any of the Pac12 teams - with the exception of Stanford generally Pac12 teams have under-performed in the NCAA for as long as I can remember. So until proven wrong I see all of the top 4 seeded Pac12 teams as being 'easy' compared to any of the other teams on their seed lines. If that perception actually is correct than the Dallas and Bridgeport regions should be the easiest for #1 seeds since they will have a greater chance to face what are deemed 3 seeds in the elite 8.

 

[bballnut90]

http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/bracketology

According to ESPN's WBB home page, "Sixteen bids will be decided Saturday and Sunday, but as Selection Monday quickly approaches, the top-16 seeds already are set in Charlie Creme's projection." By this I assume they mean the seeds belonging to the teams in the top 16. While I'm sure he could change them again if he wants to, for what it's worth, here's where Charlie has them going:

Bridgeport:
1. Connecticut
2. UCLA
3. Ohio State
4. Florida State

Lexington:
1. South Carolina
2. Maryland
3. Louisville
4. Stanford

Sioux Falls:
1. Notre Dame
2. Texas
3. Arizona State
4. Texas A&M

Dallas:
1. Baylor
2. Oregon State
3. Kentucky
4. Syracuse

I think Maryland should get the top #2 seed and be matched up with Baylor. That would be easily the best projected regional final, as both players have really outstanding bigs and guard play.

The 2nd #2 seed should be Texas IMO. From the eye test, they aren't as good of a team as their record indicates (28-4 with 3 losses to Baylor), but 28-1 vs. non top 4 teams is outstanding. They also have quality wins over Tennessee and Stanford, two teams that have beat Oregon State.

Oregon State should be the #3 2nd seed. 4 losses all year to Stanford, Tennessee, Notre Dame and UCLA. Tennessee could be qualified as a bad loss, but it was early in the year and they played really great basketball in the Pac-12 tourney. They also have great wins over UCLA, Stanford, and Arizona State. They probably will jump Texas, but the two are interchangeable IMO.


After that, it's a bit of a crapshoot. UCLA, Arizona State, Louisville, and Ohio State all have their pros and cons. 2 of them will be sent to the regional of doom in Connecticut, and 2 will have a slightly better shot of making the Final Four, but it will be very difficult to knock off any of the top 4 this year.


Side note: what does the committee see in South Carolina that merits giving them the #2 overall seed over Notre Dame? This might be nitpicky, since I think the #6 and #7 overall teams are interchangeable and neither will have to face Connecticut prior to the title game, but if you look at body of work, Notre Dame has a better RPI, very similar wins, passes the eye test, and the grand daddy of them all: had a better showing against Connecticut even if the margin of victory only differed by 2 points. Are there many non-SC fans who think SC is a better team than Notre Dame?

 

[ctfjr]

I was thinking the same thing Sonny.A SC vs ND game will be good but I think ND comes out on top.

Baylor on our side of the bracket has me concerned . They are good and they are , as Trump would say , 'HUGE'.

But they have small hands

 

[Plebe]

I am just not convinced by any of the Pac12 teams - with the exception of Stanford generally Pac12 teams have under-performed in the NCAA for as long as I can remember. So until proven wrong I see all of the top 4 seeded Pac12 teams as being 'easy' compared to any of the other teams on their seed lines. If that perception actually is correct than the Dallas and Bridgeport regions should be the easiest for #1 seeds since they will have a greater chance to face what are deemed 3 seeds in the elite 8.

I don't know about "underpeformed"; I think it's more that they haven't been generally very good, and only in the last several years have begun to make waves. Cal made a surprising run to the Final Four a few years ago (lost a close game to Louisville). Arizona State was a #3 seed last year and lost a nail-biter to Florida State in the Sweet 16. Oregon State was definitely a disappointment last year, losing to Gonzaga on its home floor in the 2nd round.

 

[VA Huskie]

So ... an interesting point based on his last four in and first four out - with special reference to my long (very long) 'RPI, SOS ....' thread

The last four in are three Big Ten teams and one SEC team.
The first four out are an AAC, two A10 team, and an Ivy.

Indiana - RPI 45, OOC road games 3, best wins #16 MSU, Chattanooga, worst losses at Wis (7-22/3-15), NW (18-16/4-14)
Purdue - RPI 59, OOC road games 1, best wins #8 Lou*, IND, worst losses (BC 15-16/2-14 ACC), at Wis (7-22/3-15)
Auburn - RPI 57, OOC road games 5, best wins #12 KY, #25 FLA, worst losses at Marq (14-16/9-9 BE), UVA (16-15/6-10 ACC)
Iowa - RPI 65, OOC road games 3, best wins IND, PUR, worst losses PSU x2 (12-19/6-12), at ISU (13-17/5-13 B12)

St Bonaventure - RPI 35, OOC road games 5, 23-7/12-4, best wins GW and DUQ, worst losses at UMass (12-18/5-11 A10), at Drexel (19-12/13-5 CAA)
St Louis - RPI 54, OOC road games 6, 24-7/13-3, best wins DUQ, MEN, worst losses at SIUE (18-13/12-4 OVC), (Tulane 21-11/11-7) or at Ball St (21-9/13-5 MAC)
Temple - RPI 71, OOC road games 5, 20-11/13-5, best wins #25 FLA, #21 USF, worst losses at QUIN (24-8/17-3 MAAC), at SMU (13-18/7-11)
Princeton - RPI 37, OOC road games 5, 23-5/12-2, best wins DUQ, Marist or Michigan, worst losses at DAY (14-14/7-9 A10), at Seton Hall (23-8/12-6 BE)

*This one is a real outlier as Louisville was in an opening stretch of going 1-4 and headed from #8 ranking to being dropped from the rankings by week 4 and not returning to start their climb until week 10. That start has pretty well been discounted from their current ranking, so beating them during that early stretch probably should be as well.

Because of RPI calculations you have to work pretty hard in a P5 to have a 50 range RPI so the last four in worked pretty hard - 25 of the first 40, and 29 of the top 50 are P5 so almost six per conference. And the opposite is true for teams in mid-majors.

Of these eight teams Auburn and Temple stand out for their quality of wins, and Princeton stands out for the quality of their losses.

What strikes me about the losses - the teams that are 'IN' lose to teams that all have losing records either overall or in conference, and the ones on the outside (with the exception of SMU and UMass and Dayton) all are teams that know how to win.

None of these teams scream for inclusion in the field and you can make arguments against any one of them and for any one of them. We will all be surprised if any of these teams actually made it to the second weekend so it isn't going to effect the overall competition and it doesn't matter that much to me - would like Princeton in just because they are a hold-over from an amateur, student athletic tradition, and would like to see Tonya rewarded, but I am not going to have sleepless nights.
I know I used to argue for a Rutgers or a St John's being included in the old BE days, but Rutgers especially used to play brutal OOC schedules and I was usually arguing against another power conference team's inclusion. Right now, looking at these eight teams, I would much rather see the whole slate reversed rather than reward really mediocre P5 teams, and I certainly hope at least a few of Charlie's predictions are proved false.

Charlie correctly picked the 64 teams each of the last two years.

 

[Plebe]

I think Maryland should get the top #2 seed and be matched up with Baylor. That would be easily the best projected regional final, as both players have really outstanding bigs and guard play.

The 2nd #2 seed should be Texas IMO. From the eye test, they aren't as good of a team as their record indicates (28-4 with 3 losses to Baylor), but 28-1 vs. non top 4 teams is outstanding. They also have quality wins over Tennessee and Stanford, two teams that have beat Oregon State.

Oregon State should be the #3 2nd seed. 4 losses all year to Stanford, Tennessee, Notre Dame and UCLA. Tennessee could be qualified as a bad loss, but it was early in the year and they played really great basketball in the Pac-12 tourney. They also have great wins over UCLA, Stanford, and Arizona State. They probably will jump Texas, but the two are interchangeable IMO.


After that, it's a bit of a crapshoot. UCLA, Arizona State, Louisville, and Ohio State all have their pros and cons. 2 of them will be sent to the regional of doom in Connecticut, and 2 will have a slightly better shot of making the Final Four, but it will be very difficult to knock off any of the top 4 this year.


Side note: what does the committee see in South Carolina that merits giving them the #2 overall seed over Notre Dame? This might be nitpicky, since I think the #6 and #7 overall teams are interchangeable and neither will have to face Connecticut prior to the title game, but if you look at body of work, Notre Dame has a better RPI, very similar wins, passes the eye test, and the grand daddy of them all: had a better showing against Connecticut even if the margin of victory only differed by 2 points. Are there many non-SC fans who think SC is a better team than Notre Dame?

Apparently they gave the nod to South Carolina for having more top-50 wins than Notre Dame. Interestingly, however, with the latest movement in the RPI, as of today both teams have the same number (15) of top-50 wins, although four of those wins for Notre Dame are over teams 47-50. The committee could still give SC the edge due to having more wins over the tournament field: SC has 16 wins over other at-large-quality teams (if we include Auburn as an at-large team), while ND has only 12.

 

[bballnut90]

Apparently they gave the nod to South Carolina for having more top-50 wins than Notre Dame. Interestingly, however, with the latest movement in the RPI, as of today both teams have the same number (15) of top-50 wins, although four of those wins for Notre Dame are over teams 47-50. The committee could still give SC the edge due to having more wins over the tournament field: SC has 16 wins over other at-large-quality teams (if we include Auburn as an at-large team), while ND has only 12.

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that. I wish that for teams that have virtually identical resumes (both 1 loss teams to the #1 team, both with quality OOC wins and swept their Power 5 conference), people would go off of the eye test or that it would hold some merit. IMO, there is virtually no difference having 12 wins vs top 50 teams vs. 15. I'd be fine with SC getting the #2 seed if there was a really plausible reason/argument behind it, but I think the vast majority of WCBB fans feel Notre Dame is the 2nd best team in the country, and their resume is darn near flawless barring a 10 point loss at UCONN when they were without their best player.

 

[VAUConnFan]

8. Why are you rooting for Sioux Falls?

Sioux Falls looks like your classic underdog:
1. Drawing fans from a smaller popuation
2. No local rooting interests among the participating teams
3. I like the idea of tournaments going to cities off the beaten path. It will only continue if fans show up.

 

[UcMiami]

I don't know about "underpeformed"; I think it's more that they haven't been generally very good, and only in the last several years have begun to make waves. Cal made a surprising run to the Final Four a few years ago (lost a close game to Louisville). Arizona State was a #3 seed last year and lost a nail-biter to Florida State in the Sweet 16. Oregon State was definitely a disappointment last year, losing to Gonzaga on its home floor in the 2nd round.

Well - last year: five teams in, only two played to form -
Stanford lost as a 4 to #1 ND
ASU lost as a 3 to #2 FSU
Washington as a 6 lost to #11 Miami
Oregon State as a #3 lost at home to #11 Gonzaga
Cal as a 4 lost at home to a #5 Texas
There were only three teams that lost on their home court - the two Pac12 teams and KY who lost to #7 Dayton who went on to beat a #3 seed as well. There were only six upsets in the first round one of which was a Pac12 team. The Pac12 provided 33% of the upsets in the first two rounds in a negative way.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

I think Maryland should get the top #2 seed and be matched up with Baylor. That would be easily the best projected regional final, as both players have really outstanding bigs and guard play.

The 2nd #2 seed should be Texas IMO. From the eye test, they aren't as good of a team as their record indicates (28-4 with 3 losses to Baylor), but 28-1 vs. non top 4 teams is outstanding. They also have quality wins over Tennessee and Stanford, two teams that have beat Oregon State.

Oregon State should be the #3 2nd seed. 4 losses all year to Stanford, Tennessee, Notre Dame and UCLA. Tennessee could be qualified as a bad loss, but it was early in the year and they played really great basketball in the Pac-12 tourney. They also have great wins over UCLA, Stanford, and Arizona State. They probably will jump Texas, but the two are interchangeable IMO.


After that, it's a bit of a crapshoot. UCLA, Arizona State, Louisville, and Ohio State all have their pros and cons. 2 of them will be sent to the regional of doom in Connecticut, and 2 will have a slightly better shot of making the Final Four, but it will be very difficult to knock off any of the top 4 this year.


Side note: what does the committee see in South Carolina that merits giving them the #2 overall seed over Notre Dame? This might be nitpicky, since I think the #6 and #7 overall teams are interchangeable and neither will have to face Connecticut prior to the title game, but if you look at body of work, Notre Dame has a better RPI, very similar wins, passes the eye test, and the grand daddy of them all: had a better showing against Connecticut even if the margin of victory only differed by 2 points. Are there many non-SC fans who think SC is a better team than Notre Dame?

The Gamecocks have 1 more top 50 win than ND.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

Sioux Falls looks like your classic underdog:
1. Drawing fans from a smaller popuation
2. No local rooting interests among the participating teams
3. I like the idea of tournaments going to cities off the beaten path. It will only continue if fans show up.

Unless locals fill up the arena they won't have good attendance because it isn't easy for fans of the participating teams to get to Sioux Falls. USC won't have as many fans in Lexington as we did in Greensboro last season, but there will be a lot more than there would be in Sioux Falls. Louisville fans would have the best time in the above scenario - they wouldn't need a hotel room for the duration of the tournament. Not really fair.

 

[Plebe]

The Gamecocks have 1 more top 50 win than ND.

Not according to what I'm looking at: Both SC and ND are 15-1 vs. the RPI top 50.

 

[Gus Mahler]

Sioux Falls looks like your classic underdog:
3. I like the idea of tournaments going to cities off the beaten path. It will only continue if fans show up.

I agree that there's a lot to be said for this. As you know, Lincoln, NE did well two years ago. Maybe this is a better way to pack houses with interested fans.

 

[tomcat]

I am just not convinced by any of the Pac12 teams - with the exception of Stanford generally Pac12 teams have under-performed in the NCAA for as long as I can remember. So until proven wrong I see all of the top 4 seeded Pac12 teams as being 'easy' compared to any of the other teams on their seed lines. If that perception actually is correct than the Dallas and Bridgeport regions should be the easiest for #1 seeds since they will have a greater chance to face what are deemed 3 seeds in the elite 8.

I hope to attend the first two rounds at ASU next weekend, but I am inclined to agree, based on a little TV watching and what I remember about an ASU team that is fundamentally the same as last year. In a lot of ways, ASU reminds me of a really good mid-major team. They can get it together for some games, have one pure shooter and one tall-but-skinny big, and rely heavily on emotion.

 

[Plebe]

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that. I wish that for teams that have virtually identical resumes (both 1 loss teams to the #1 team, both with quality OOC wins and swept their Power 5 conference), people would go off of the eye test or that it would hold some merit. IMO, there is virtually no difference having 12 wins vs top 50 teams vs. 15. I'd be fine with SC getting the #2 seed if there was a really plausible reason/argument behind it, but I think the vast majority of WCBB fans feel Notre Dame is the 2nd best team in the country, and their resume is darn near flawless barring a 10 point loss at UCONN when they were without their best player.

I don't know if we can assume that. ND is barely ahead of SC in the AP poll (by 5 points), and SC is just ahead of ND in the coaches' poll (by 11 points). And one could also point to A'ja Wilson's injury during the UConn game as a contributing factor. If you look at their common matchups against UCLA, SC has the edge, because ND needed overtime to beat UCLA on a neutral court, whereas SC put away UCLA in regulation time in a true road game.

In the end, it's all splitting hairs. I'm personally a bit wary of the "eye test" because fans have a tendency to gravitate toward the better offensive team, which in this case is Notre Dame. I know that last year, I didn't think SC would even be able to hang with ND in the national semis, but ND needed a last-second bucket to salvage a 1-point win.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

Not according to what I'm looking at: Both SC and ND are 15-1 vs. the RPI top 50.

I got that from an interview I saw with Creme online. Maybe he was referring to road wins - USC has 5 top 50 wins on the road and ND has 4. He was referring to discussions with the committee in deciding who was the overall 2nd number 1 seed versus the number 3 overall number 1 seed.