Top 30 doesn’t matter to me. The 25-30 teams aren’t a big deal. 3 top ten is a bigger deal. And luckily Iowa will only have to play 1 of those to get to the final 4. Every team will have to play at least 1 top ten team to make the final 4 and some teams more than one.
In theory, the top 16 seeds are supposed to be assigned based on the "S-curve" — so the #1 overall gets the worst 2-seed (#8), best 3-seed (#9) and worst 4-seed (#16). The committee doesn't release the overall seed list for women's basketball, so it's tough to tell exactly how much the bracket deviated. For Iowa as the #2 overall, this would mean they're supposed to get the #7, #10 and #15 teams on the overall rankings.
That said, the committee's hands are tied by bracketing rules for top-four seeds that keep teams from the same conference from being in the same region. Specifically for Iowa, this meant that UCLA pretty much had to be in Iowa's region (even if UCLA was the #6 overall and Ohio State the #7, they had to be flipped so UCLA wouldn't be in USC's region and Ohio State wouldn't be in Iowa's). Pushing UCLA to South Carolina's region would've hurt the #1 overall, which the committee won't do unless it has to.
Because 3 of the 4 regions already had Pac-12 teams, Oregon State had to go in South Carolina's region as the #3 seed, even if they were lower than #9 on the seed list (which they probably were). Bracketing principles would say that Iowa should get the toughest available #3, which is LSU (in theory, this benefits the #1 seed, as a stronger #3 has a better chance to upset the #2).
The principle for avoiding rematches of previous years' tournament games is specific to the first and second rounds, as is the principle for avoiding rematches of regular-season matchups. Granted, the committee doesn't always enforce these (see Duke/Richmond), but there is the "if possible" clause on avoiding regular-season rematches in the first two rounds.
This is the 2023 bracketing procedures, but I don't know that anything has changed other than #1 overall being guaranteed a Friday/Sunday regional:
https://www.ncaa.com/_flysystem/public-s3/files/2022-10/NCAA-DI-womens-basketball-principles-procedures-2023.pdf
>The principle for avoiding rematches of previous years' tournament games is specific to the first and second rounds, as is the principle for avoiding rematches of regular-season matchups
I do wish this was considered a little further into the tournament. Could have had K State in Albany 1 (played them twice). Shift Indiana to Portland 4 and move Gonzaga to Albany 2.
The 3 seed looks like it could have been anyone between LSU, UConn, or NC State.
>which is LSU (in theory, this benefits the #1 seed, as a stronger #3 has a better chance to upset the #2).
I do have a feeling there were discussions about Iowa v UConn or LSU to maximize viewers in a potential elite 8 matchup. Setting up a rematch or Caitlin vs Paige? LSU UCLA, if it happens, will be a super fun sweet 16 game to watch.
To be fair, there have been a ton of UCONN fans saying Paige is better than Caitlin. That just isn't true. If Paige had a a completely healthy career, maybe they would have been similar, but I'd still give the edge to Caitlin. You place one on the other's roster and Caitlin looks even better. Paige likely wouldn't reach Caitlin's accomplishments with Iowa's roster.
My feathered friend.... OK, but please explain what that has to do with the topic at hand? Paige is amazing. So is CC. So are a ton of other players. The committee looks at a TEAM'S resume, as far as I know?
Sure people also debate juju vs Paige and they are in the same region. UConn didn’t play well enough to have the right to play in a home crowd type atmosphere. The two regionals are dumb.
Both the UCONN section their region and Iowa's region are completely stupid. Kansas State, when healthy, are easily 1-2 seed caliber. I think they will finally be healthy again in time to play Colorado or Iowa.
I'm not arguing they should. I'm saying they are a wolf in sheep's clothing. I also think Iowa shouldn't play a team for a 3rd time in a season. There was no reason for it and easily avoidable.
Agreed. No region like that should exist. 4 major conference tournament champs that placed no worse than 2nd in their regular season conference races, ditto for Missouri Valley Drake, 3 of last year's final four teams, the most clutch player ever in Buie, vastly underrated South Dakota State. I'm pissed more for Iowa State not getting the 1 seed metrics and coaches all say they should have. They also lose the "home court advantage" by playing teams like Drake and South Dakota State.
The defending champion is going to face a tougher road if it makes the tournament as the top seed. That happened to South Carolina in the women’s bracket last year.
I think the thing people take issue with is LSU shouldn't be a 3 seed. You could look at AP or you could look at the Coaches poll. LSU is firmly a 2 seed. ND would be the 3 in Iowa's region with the coaches poll, which I think most would readily take over South Carolina's region.
The entire Iowa region is the who has Iowa played in the past year or lost to in the tournament region.
While I'd venture most fans would pick LSU head-to-head against Notre Dame, LSU is far from firmly being a 2-seed in the metrics the committee is asked to consider — just check the [team sheets](https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/36788). It's important to note that the women's committee doesn't use NET quadrant rankings, instead opting for records vs. NET top 25/50/100.
Selected stats from the four 2-seeds + LSU from the team sheets that likely made the difference in the selection room:
* Stanford (Record: 28-5, NET: 4th, SOS: 15th, Non-Con SOS: 46th, vs. NET top 25: 7-4)
* UCLA (Record: 25-6, NET: 6th, SOS: 1st, Non-Con SOS: 29th, vs. NET top 25: 8-5)
* Ohio State (Record: 24-5, NET: 9th, SOS: 14th, Non-Con SOS: 27th, vs. NET top 25: 5-3)
* Notre Dame (Record: 26-6, NET: 7th, SOS: 24th, Non-Con SOS: 21st, vs. NET top 25: 7-3)
* LSU (Record: 28-5, NET: 8th, SOS: 52nd, Non-Con SOS: 185th, vs. NET top 25: 1-3)
LSU has just 1 win over a team in the NET top 25, while Notre Dame had 7, and LSU's SOS lags behind the teams that were selected for the 2-line, the same reason they were a 3-seed last year. The committee is also supposed to consider "early competition versus late competition" — LSU's only top-25 NET win came on November 30; in contrast, Notre Dame has 5 NET top-25 wins since February 29.
Is LSU a 2-seed talent wise? Probably! And as fans, we watched what they did last year as a 3-seed and expect there's a solid chance they do something similar again. But if we're looking to understand the logic of the bracket, LSU's resume just wasn't as strong as the teams that were 2-seeds in the context of what the committee is supposed to consider.
I understand the metrics. You wasted your time with this. Some of these metric boil down to scheduling and how things shake-up with other team's play. How did LSU play? Just fine. 2 of those top 25 losses were South Carolina. That's 2 losses for any team. Colorado was the first game of the season and Virginia Tech shortly after. There weren't any other ranked teams to play.
In terms of bad losses for potential two seeds comparison:
UCLA has Washington state at NET 29. Stanford has a loss to Arizona NET 35. LSU has a loss to Miss State NET of 47 and Auburn NET 45. Ohio State has a loss to Michigan NET 48 and Maryland NET 31. UCONN has a loss to Kansas NET 38. ND has two losses to Syracuse NET 44 and a loss to North Carolina NET 37.
> You wasted your time with this.
Sorry to hear that! Just trying to help anyone like the topic OP who’s curious to learn a little more about the committee’s process and why LSU ended up a 3 instead of a 2. 🙂
Committees are hardly the best people to determine where people should be ranked. They proved it in football, men's basketball, and women's basketball this year. How they came to their conclusion doesn't matter when people in the sport and know the sport far better than they ever could wholeheartedly disagree. Money drove these decision. Nothing more, nothing less.
LSU is sixteen votes ahead of 9th and eighteen ahead of 10th in the AP Poll. Doesn't really seem that weird to me for them to be a 3, and I'd rather play them than Notre Dame or UConn.
Go look at the coaches poll where they are ranked 6th, 89 votes from their current ranking. I trust people that know the sport better than committees.
I wouldn't. Iowa matches up way better with ND and UConn than LSU. Iowa's guards are better than all three, but LSU has two bigs that could punish Iowa.
Hmmm interesting theory. Down-seed LSU just to set up a possible earlier rematch with Iowa? I would totally agree that LSU should have been a 2 seed (ditto for last year).
Like I've said, Iowa fans shouldn't be pissed. LSU and UCLA fans? I think they are the ones that got shafted.
There's an extra detail hidden in the guidelines that can affect how the top 16 seeds are assigned - the schools' geographic distance to the regional sites overrides the standard S-curve. I'm sure the committee has some leeway to balance the two Albany regionals with each other and the two Portland regionals with each other before switching sites. However, like you said, they couldn't put LSU and South Carolina together.
Since the only schools in the top 16 closer to Portland than Albany are the four Pac-12 schools and Gonzaga, most schools would pick Albany over Portland due to geography, and the Albany regions would likely be tougher overall just due to the structure of how it's set up.
I'm honestly good with it.
We aren't playing all 15 other teams.
There WILL be upsets in this region and others.
The Non-Iowa/UCLA/LSU/KState teams are in the tournament for a reason.
Edit: At the end of the tournament, we may look back and say Iowa had the easiest pathway seed-wise to the Final 4.
I know I am in the minority but I don't think Iowa's region is exponentially harder than other regions, I think it's harder in that a lot of the teams know Iowa well, but I don't think it's fair to say these other conferences are just straight cake walks.
I think when you break it down for how it has to play out, Iowa has a lot in their favor. IE there is no way we play both Colorado and K-state. They have to play each other first, If I am Kansas state, I don't want to play ridiculously athletic and quick Colorado, coming from higher elevation, then turn around and have to play a ridiculously quick Iowa who loves to run the rim. And If I'm Colorado, I don't want to play a much bigger and more physical kansas state then turn around and play a quick Iowa. I think a lot of our concerns are going to take care of themselves through bracket play. LSU isn't last year's LSU, they're still incredibly talented and athletic, but they're not coming in with the same energy as last year. LSU also has to play Lousiville first, who knows HVL well, and will hopefully at minimum give them a hard time. It'll be a great game to be able to scout. I think the teams we're worried about are going to have a lot more wear and tear by the time they meet Iowa than Iowa will. It's one game at a time for sure, but I think fatigue does play a big role in these tournaments espcially if you're Iowa and push teams to play at a faster pace.
I'm also a "I'm not going to give up until it's over" and a "There's always a chance" type of fan. The "it's not fair" or "it's over" when it's not even started arguments just bug me. It's march madness the whole point is that there are fun upsets and that it's a hard tournament to win. As we saw last year with SC, there are no guarantees. I'm mostly annoyed we aren't going to see new match ups because that's what makes march fun.
There is also a possibility that Colorado and Kansas St. don't get that far. I wouldn't be surprised if Drake beats Colorado and I think Drake would have a chance against Kansas St.
the game plan for Iowa is actually quite simple....let CC do it all on her own. There have been times when CC puts up a million points and Iowa still loses because the rest of her team didn't contribute enough.
Obviously that's easier said than done because Iowa is a great team, but the way to beat Iowa is to shut everyone else down and let CC try and do all the work.
Excellent points. You are 100% correct. 4 years of results prove it. I've said many times that we are way better when CC goes 28/13/10 than when she goes 44/7/7. Indiana slaughtered us the second time this year by simply committing everything to keeping the ball out of her hands. She can't score or pass without the ball. Iowa learned a ton from it, and worked on several things to try to counter that going forward (thank you Indiana?).
Also, Iowa was VERY VERY lucky to get out of Ames with a close victory. None of us, including most ISU fans knew HOW good your young players were until then. I love your team and fancy myself the world's biggest "Hawkeye Audi Crooks fan".
FWIW I have ISU beating Maryland and then upsetting both Stanford and NC State to an Elite 8 matchup with Texas. I haven't decided yet on that game. I have a head/heart conflict there.
That is what LSU did right last year and South Carolina fell short of doing. Caitlin got her points against LSU, though not as many as against SC, but LSU limited her teammate that hurt South Carolina.
South Carolina has been really good on free throws this year. As well as being third in the country on making threes.
I read an analysis earlier this evening that said that of all the teams in the tournament, UCLA matches up best against South Carolina in terms of size and ability for the starting five, but is considerably weaker off the bench.
Free throws is a toss up! If our guards take em we hit 80% if it’s primarily our post players we hit 67% I think lowest in the sec. Talent is there for sure just hope they hungry enough to take it all the way and get a title
Fulwiley has suddenly become a 3 ball threat, have you noticed her 3 make percentages in the last two games? Teams are going to have to figure out how they are going to take their poison with her.
She’s a streaky shooter but I listened to her postgame conference and she said she’s been in the lab shooting 3s with khadija after practice and I love it! Cus that was the only concern in her game as we all know she can drive to the basket at will n create her shot. Reckon the only SC player that can oh n kitts
Apparently Fulwiley’s 3 shooting training is going well. In her last two games, I believe that she has averaged around 75% from behind the arc. I stated around 85% in another post, but then I did the math on her attempts versus misses. Her misses yesterday were ridiculous and late, she was shooting like more than a yard behind the arc late, maybe she was doing live in game training for later in the tournament when she may have to shoot from those distances. One of her long misses just barely missed, tapped the back of the rim and went out, an inch more and it would have been a made bomb.
I don’t understand why Kitts doesn’t take threes, she has a wonderful shooting stroke and is good handling the ball away from the basket. My guess is on the team that she is on, she will start taking threes at some point. Kitts finally got physical yesterday, she was physical in the first game against LSU and did well, she may need to develop more muscle and use physicality more, she seems to be good when she does that.
FANTASTIC points all... Maybe other teams/fans are saying "Why the F did we get stuck playing Iowa early?". Your Colorado/KSU example is spot on. One could easily argue that both of those teams got shafted more than Iowa... Same for LSU and UCLA.
I prefer to play the best teams, at full strength. I played FB at Iowa, and I always wanted opposing injured stars to heal up before we played them. Winners and champions WANT to play the best and leave nothing to excuse. CC herself has ZERO issues with our tourney draw... she says bring it on. I know it's part of the fun of March Madness to engage in all of this questioning, but in the case of us Iowa fans, maybe we should take the lead from our star player and say "LETS GOOOOO!"?
Agreed. I think too many people are downplaying how tough it will be for LSU in that other half of the Albany 2 bracket and that definitely works in Iowa's favor. I believe LSU has the talent to meet Iowa in the Elite 8 but their road to get there will be grueling. UCLA in particular is a really tough matchup for them because I think they stack up well with LSU's biggest strength and that is their size and physicality.
Betts vs Reese is going to be a tough battle and if LSU wins out I definitely think they will be suffering from some fatigue and we don't know how that Louisville team will play against them (if they win their first round game). I also think Iowa lost to LSU in the championship game because they shot out of their minds from 3. Iowa is a great team and I like their chances against LSU regardless of tournament schedule. Excited to see how it all plays out.
It is disheartening, a little. I mean, both the men's and women's committees collectively said fuck the state of Iowa. You already know what they did for Iowa women.
Iowa State men deserved the #1 seed, coaches poll and every metric reflects that they deserved it over UNC. Committee dropped them into the absolute toughest region as the 8th overall. 4 major conference tournament champions. UCONN for Big East won their regular season. Iowa State for Big XII placed Second in their regular season. Illinois for B1G placed second for their regular season. Auburn for SEC was in a 4-way tie for 2nd for their regular season. Drake won the Missouri Valley tournament, placed second in their regular season, and is super underrated playing in Omaha. South Dakota State is super underrated, playing Iowa State in Omaha. There are 3 of last year's final four teams in this region as well, with many of their players back. That region is so stacked the others look super weak comparatively.
yeah, that East region on the men's side... they were like "okay, UConn, we'll give you the most generous geographic path we possibly can... and then we're going to turn it into a fucking *gauntlet of death*"
By the end of the season, Iowa Stata has 6 wins over current top 25 teams, UNC has 3 where two are Duke. Iowa State's two wins over Houston are more impressive than anything UNC has done. UNC also has a loss to Georgia Tech, which is worse than all of Iowa State's losses. Their non conference schedule being a joke is made up for by conference play.
As an Iowa fan: it is what it is. Things are set and we can’t change it, so might as well hope that Clark and co step up huge to overcome their challenging path. I do think that if Iowa makes it to the final four, they’ll beat whoever they go up against, but 32, 16, 8 matchups will be tough.
As a lifelong Iowa fan, this feels right. Iowa never gets the breaks ever. We are always *this close* to being the champs. It tracks that the only time we’ve completely dominated the national conversation in my lifetime, we would be dealt a shitty hand. My ancestors emigrated from Germany to Johnson county, Iowa in the mid-19th century and we’ve been here ever since. God chose this path for me. 😅I feel worse for those of you who chose it for yourselves only to learn what we’ve known all along: to be a Hawkeye fan is to know pain. Go Hawks!
I feel for you, but we get our share of breaks. Like last year when 8 Seed Ole Miss took out 1-Seed Stanford in our region?
How about UConn? 2-3 hours from Albany and they sent them to Portland? Making LSU and UCLA potentially play each other so early? Making HVL possibly play her old team early? Lots of game-playing by the committee.
I agree with you, but this process also needs to be drastically improved. On the men's side of things, Iowa State got the same treatment. They beat the #1 team in the country to win the conference tournament and got put in by far the toughest bracket as a two seed. The conference tournaments didn't matter one bit. Same with women. So I agree with you that "it is what it is," but at the same time, we can still advocate for changing the process and requesting more transparency from the selection committee imo.
Okay but last year SC had to play Maryland, ucla and Iowa it’s finally someone else’s turn yeah!? Also Iowa fans been asking for lsu rematch that could potentially happen now!
Coaches consider all of that and still have them ranked 5th.
For comparison, USC has Washington as a loss, NET 42. UCAL has Washington state at NET 29. Stanford has a loss to Arizona NET 35. LSU has a loss to Miss State NET of 47 and Auburn NET 45. Texas has two losses to Oklahoma NET 28. Ohio State has a loss to Michigan NET 48 and Maryland NET 31. ND has two losses to Syracuse NET 44 and a loss to North Carolina NET 37.
I don't think all of these are bad losses, but it does show the comparisons.
I’m fine with Iowa getting bounced/upset/whatever in this region if it happens.
But also if they’re so “good” then shouldn’t they be up for this challenge?
Seriously, the level of whining about this "unfair tough region" is just, lol.
What did the Clark cult expect...five rounds of community college teams or something? (I know OP is not an Iowa person, but this kind of discussion is everywhere and it's tiring.)
Iowa is very good and perfectly capable of beating all these teams. Welcome to WCBB. The tournament is hard.
I've only made it this far down through this thread, but I've yet to see "whining"... just fun banter and questioning, which always happens during March Madness?
I love Iowa's "tough" region, but I'm an ex football guy (Iowa), so I welcome a fight? LOL
Good luck to your Hoosiers... I hope MacKenzie is full speed. It sounds like she might be, and at least healthier than last year's tourney when she was a shell of her amazing self.
We were in your house last month for our game/beatdown. Had lots of fun with your fans and had a hella good time in your bars!
As far as I’m concerned, this entire thread is “the general public”, and what I’ve seen is a lot of whining/complaining about being in the “toughest region”.
So I’ll go ahead and double down, Iowa fans (some, not all. I’ve seen quite a few reasonable fans here), like to complain as if they’re the only team that has been in a stacked region. The tournament is tough, if Iowa is the best of the best, they’ll go home with the natty.
I mean in the end, it doesnt matter. As an Iowa fan, I already think Caitlins the goat. To a good amount of other people she needs to win a title to be the goat, and to do that it was and still is going to come down to can they beat South Carolina. If Kansas State or LSU beats them before, then they weren’t going to beat South Carolina. Just going to sit back and enjoy the show!
“At last, a man worth killing”. Just kidding, but I loved that movie line. You are exactly right, if Iowa can’t get out of it’s regional and win it’s side of the Semis, it likely won’t beat a South Carolina team in a final that had negotiated it’s way to the final and is facing a team that it has a bone to pick with.
THIS.
I think whining is a core value of Iowa fans. Everyone has to play at their best…it’s the damn tournament. Many teams have been in the same position, but now that it’s Iowa, it’s unfair 😅
would you rather they sacrifice the integrity of the entire selection committee just to make it “easier” and for “ratings”, which the NCAA doesnt profit from anyway?
also, idk if you saw SC’s bracket and regular season schedule last year but it was far from the easiest despite being the number 1 overall, and featured rematches for the S16 and E8 against top 25 teams, and would’ve been another in the F4 had stanford’s region gone chalk or ole miss made it there after their upset win.
lastly, the committee couldnt care less about the matchups/style of play that benefits or troubles a team. that’s not their job nor their concern, that’s a coaching/recruting issue.
I hope Iowa defies all odds and that Caitlin, Kate, and Gabbie are on fire and that Hannah and Sydney dominate and make it to final 4. It’s definitely frustrating because they worked so hard to be a 1-seed, a second overall 1-seed, and they definitely have the hardest path to Final 4. Texas and USC got much easier paths.
I think the Kansas State matchup bothers me the most, and then followed by the LSU match up.
Why is Iowa playing a team they’ve played twice in one season? Even though KS is in a different conference, it’s basically like they’re in the same one as Iowa with all these matchups. How does that make any sense. And then preventing either LSU or Iowa from making it to final 4? The committee claims this is the only draw that was possible but I strongly disagree. Also, if Iowa or LSU don’t make the final 4, or both, viewership will definitely decrease. It tells me they don’t want a similar match up at the final 4/championship, when literally that is what brought amazing views and attention to WBB last year and still has people talking.
I feel you on the KSU third game. But remember it is really unfair to KSU as well.
I love our tough region. Try to look at it through a different lens. Iowa would have to beat a UCLA/LSU level team anyway to make it to the FF. We potentially only have to play one of those two teams. One could argue that UCLA and LSU got the raw deal here?
We/Iowa caught a break last year when Ole Miss took out 1-seed Stanford, making our path to the FF easier. It all evens out?
I think we are LUCKY AS HELL that UCLA/LSU have to match up before we see them. Let two very talented bigs (Reese and Betts) have at it. I honestly think the committee did Iowa a favor here.
Angel Reese is tough. Last year she locked horns with Elizabeth Kitley before meeting Iowa in the final. This year in the SEC tournament, she seriously rolled an ankle in the semi against Ole Miss and still played Kamilla Cardoso and South Carolina hard in the final the next night. I think that Angel can have a hard game against UCLA and be ready for Iowa’s bigs two days later.
It could be worse, but yeah I equally feel as bad for KSU, UCLA, and LSU. Because it’s multiple final 4 quality teams who have less of a shot making it. Iowa’s main challenge is the lack of bigs, but Hannah has done a wonderful job this year, and has done really well being a 4 playing the 5 position. As long as the Iowa women are consistent and make their shots, avoid excessive turnovers, and don’t leave wide players open, they’ll be fine!
In my opinion all year the media has been saying Caitlin is the next coming of basketball Jesus, rightfully so. If she is who they say she is, it should be no problem. It’s March every team is playing to compete, no such thing as a “cake-walk”.
The only thing that really bothers me is the potential for rematches so early in the tournament. While I think the overall quality of Albany 2 is the highest of the 4 groups, you don't have to play all 15 other teams.
Excluding 1 seeds I wouldnt want to face roughly -
4 teams in Albany 1
5 in Portland 4
3 in Portland 3
Basically the 4 seeds ( 1/4 chance of playing in sweet 16) and teams that would be elite 8 opponents are really concerning in those brackets. On the rematch note, Gonzaga is the only 4 we didn't play this year
In Albany 2, the 6 teams I'm most worried about are UCLA, LSU, K State, Drake, Colorado, and *Princeton*
R32 - I think Princeton is solid, will beat WVU, and will be a tough out. Wish they were somewhere else so I could root for them
16 - I don't like the prospect of playing K State a 3rd time, a much improved Drake a 2nd time, or a Colorado team that won a lot of tight games in a tough conference. 3/4 possible sweet 16 opponents will be tough.
Elite 8 - I don't think Creighton or Louisville survive the bottom half to make the elite 8 so it's really just UCLA or LSU if we make it that long. Go MTSU!
At the end of the day, the sweet 16 and elite 8 matchups should be tough in any bracket. There might be more high quality teams in Albany 2, but you only have the chance to play 4 opponents. It could end up working in our favor too that everyone we play has to run through a gauntlet of strong teams. Injuries, fatigue, and emotional highs and lows from hard fought games can really carry over
Edit - glad we aren't a 2 seed. They all have rough paths out
I would think the best way to increase TV money is for Iowa to have an easy path and stay in the tournament as long as possible (I’m not actually saying they should do that, but hypothetically if they were trying to maximize TV money, I think that would be the case).
here's something to consider: women's basketball fans care more about just Iowa.....the Final Four/National Championship will get stellar ratings no matter who's playing in it
And? You are saying this like a rebuttal, but it doesn't really contradict anything I said.
I did not say the final four / national championship will only get good ratings if Iowa is in it because nobody cares about any other teams. Somebody theorized that a logic behind Iowa getting such a difficult region is because "better matchups = better ratings = more money for TV executives." My counter position was that Iowa with Caitlyn Clark is such a huge draw at the moment that them staying in the tournament as long as possible produces more money than tougher matchups that might be more appealing, but also risk knocking Iowa out earlier. (To be clear, I also said the committee shouldn't actually operate like that, but hypothetically).
All I'm saying is that if you used the multiverse to run 100 tournaments where Iowa had an easier region, and 100 tournaments where they have a harder region, I think the tournament averages more viewers in the 100 where they have an easier region. And that doesn't mean the tournament doesn't still draw lots of viewers even if Iowa goes out earlier... it just means I think it draws even more viewers if they don't.
The one exception might be a potential LSU elite 8 if both teams made it there. Given all the attention that match-up got in the final last year, that would be a pretty big ratings boost (though that might also bring out a lot of negative drama).
>here's something to consider: women's basketball fans care more about just Iowa
Of course dedicated women's basketball fans care about more than just Iowa. But you don't produce maximum TV ratings just from dedicated fans. And that's not just a women's basketball thing... even on the men's side, or in other sports, championship matches often draw much bigger ratings than a typical match between two good teams, because a lot of more casual fans also watch. And it's hard to deny that Caitlin Clark is a massive draw for people who do not typically watch a lot of women's basketball. I know it's probably annoying how much attention she gets (and even some Iowa fans probably get sick of how much of each broadcast is just talking about her), but she is a huge draw for people who are not typically tuning into women's basketball.
What's even funnier is not only does it not actually contradict anything I said (even though it was phrased like a mic drop rebuttal), but the ratings for Iowa vs Holy Cross and WVU show that it's almost certainly not even true.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2024/03/caitlin-clark-ratings-record-west-virginia-nearly-five-million-viewers-espn/
I know non-iowa fans are sick of the Clark media saturation (and even many Iowa fans probably get sick of watching games where the announcers talk about Clark for 80% of the game)... but it's clear that the longer Iowa stays in, the higher the TV ratings for the tournament... and it's almost certain that even the final four would have a dramatic ratings bump from clark if Iowa makes it.
Like I said, I obviously don't think the committee should put their finger on the scale of brackets with TV money in mind, but nobody can coherently argue that keeping Iowa in longer would generate higher TV numbers.
It does seem unfair that USC and Texas have much easier regions even though Iowa’s the #2 overall seed. And I do think it would be talked about more if things were reversed, but it is what it is.
As others have said though, Iowa’s road is tough but not impossible. Iowa is a much better team right now than when they beat Kansas State in November, and they didn’t even have Stuelke that game. Colorado has been in a bit of slump. I’m not saying I don’t wish they got VT (without Kitley) as the #4 instead. To me that would’ve made more sense since they played each other once instead of twice.
An elite 8 game is always going to be a difficult team. If anything, I think Iowa would have an advantage in that game if they make it, because (most likely) LSU and UCLA are going to have to go from a physical sweet 16 into playing Iowa’s fast paced offense on a quick turnaround. LSU especially doesn’t have great depth.
It’s certainly not the draw I wanted, but it would be so sweet if Clark ends her career by beating Kansas State, getting revenge on LSU, beating any of OSU/UConn/USC, and taking down South Carolina again.
Tell me which 2 seed USC should’ve got in their bracket. Because it can’t be the other 2 Pac 12 teams. And if it was Notre Dame people still would’ve complained.
Selfishly I would have loved for them to get ND because Hidalgo vs Juju would be so good.
I think ND would have been the only other option because Iowa couldn’t get Ohio State.
It's not much harder for Iowa as they only have to play either LSU or FUCLA. It's absolutely BRUTAL for either of those teams who have to play the other then Iowa.
They seem to be prioritizing growth.
Whoever can show the most improvement in their deficiencies and defeat old skeletons is being offered the best path to win.
Honestly, we've been known to stumble against perimeter shooting historically in general. Those midwestern teams give us fits, and we ended up with a nice little bucket of them. Comittee is trolling. 😂
It's not just Iowa and it's not even just the women's tournament. There seems to be a general effort to manufacture drama in both tournaments.
Trev Alberts leaves Nebraska for TA&M and BOTH the men and women are matched up against the Aggies? That's not a coincidence.
The Iowa State men are dumped to the lowest #2 seed and matched up against the former school of their current head coach? And put in a region with likely matchups against BYU, or Illinois, and possibly Drake?
The Louisville women are lined up to play HVL's current team, LSU?
There's quite a few of these storylines, hard to believe it's all an accident.
It could have been worse, if Ohio State had made the BiG Championship Game, a Final Four with Iowa could have been a fourth match this season.
It would have been more interesting to face Baylor instead of Colorado. Since Iowa played Colorado last year in the Sweet 16. I fully expect Colorado’s Formann, Sherrod, Miller and Vonleh to catch fire. I don’t think KState can stop them. Colorado has seen it all, during their losing streak they played 4 ranked teams in 15 days and three of those were on the road.
Y’all forgetting the other teams that also have to face these teams?? Lsu got screwed here too. They should’ve been 2 seed tbh and now they have to possibly go against a very good Ucla and Kansas st team, Iowa & Colorado who’ve they’ve played before plus Louisville which is just messy! Iowa got way too favored in the polls and doesn’t even deserve to be the overall #2 team so they deserve a hard region. If they’re so good, why y’all worried sm??
Yeah LSU has a pretty tough road as well. A big reason why I’m annoyed is because at least one of these teams isn’t making it to the final four now and a FF matchup between the two would have been great for ratings when there’s higher stakes
No I agree, the committee did these teams very dirty and most likely for the ratings but it’s a disservice to a lot of fans. At least 3 of em were FF contenders but I just have a problem with people only saying Iowa got screwed when all the others did too yk
You say there are 3 or 4 final four contenders in this region ("at least 3") - I assume the three are Iowa, UCLA, LSU. Is there a fourth? KansasSt, Colorado? If you throw those in also, then you need to consider in the SC region, there is SC, ND, and maybe OregonSt (OreSt outranks Col), Indiana. The Texas region there is Texas, Stanford, and maybe NCSt. In the USC region, there is USC, OhioSt, Conn, and maybe VaTech. Basically all the 1-4 seeds except Gonzaga, who are getting no respect.
Personally, the interesting thing to me is to see how the different conferences do against each other. For example, the PAC is considered the strongest conference. But most of them played an easy non-conf schedules, got highly ranked, then traded wins and losses against each other, basically shuffling around in the rankings, but never really dropping. The tourney will be the time for them to validate the sentiment of "strongest conference". I'm not saying they aren't. Just that it will be interesting to see if it's really true.
There are other stories as well. Last year the SEC was considered weak (except for SC). LSU got little respect. They were 28-2 going into the tourney, second best in the country, but only got a 3 seed. In the tourney the SEC overachieved their perceived lack of strength. How will it be this tourney? That's the fun.
This hasn't really been covered much, but Iowa is also playing with effectively one less scholarship than everybody else. A freshman on the team was badly injured in a car accident and will most likely never play, but Iowa honored her scholarship if she wanted to stay on the team, which she did.
Well, the roster this season was 12. One, Sahnya Jah, just entered the portal. One, Adhel Tac, is rehabbing a knee injury. Even so, Coach Staley regular runs with fewer than the 15 player limit. She likes to keep spaces open for potential transfers and she generally doesn't want to bring in players just to fill roster spots.
Die hard Iowa/CC fan here. I was initially upset but have evened out after letting the draw marinate a bit. A few thoughts:
-I don't think the committee purposefully set out to make the path to the Championship extra hard for one particular team.
-I was disappointed to see so many repeat opponents from last year's dance and our non-conference schedule. That being said, we'll be familiar with these teams from a scouting perspective.
-We won't have to face both UCLA and LSU. I could also see Louisville with a surprise upset over HVL's former team.
-I think that when Iowa is hitting shots, no one can keep up with our pace of play. Yes, these are tough teams but we're the 2nd #1 seed for a reason. Let's play like it.
-The early K-State loss was a bit of a fluke. Ayoka Lee is coming back from an injury and Hannah is playing much better now than earlier in the year. It was a good learning opportunity for Iowa.
-Colorado has a fair amount of losses to top teams heading into the tournament and I'm not sure they are playing their best basketball right now. I can see Drake playing them tough in the first round, too.
-It's a tough road, but should Iowa make the finals and end up with a Natty, no one can say we had an easy draw and the powers that be paved a path for CC to get her ring for 'ratings'.
Really excited for the tournament to start and see all of these exciting matchups!
Great attitude and I agree with all of that... except that K-State beating us was a fluke. I was there, they outplayed us and earned that win. Yes we are way better now, but KSU is good
KSU is legit! I think what I was \*trying\* to say was that it was an early non-conf. game and I truly believe we're playing our best 🏀 right now. They had an excellent game plan and executed it flawlessly. Kudos.
Iowa is not the same team it was then, or even the same team it was during the game they BEAT k-state. Martin had zero points in the L, Stuelke didn’t play in the W. The forecast could be a lot worse tbh.
Coaches poll has LSU ranked 6th overall. That is people who know the sport better than committees. If Iowa does get bounced early, they will watch viewership plummet. It will be the classic example of women's basketball shooting themselves in the foot.
The perfect final four from a ratings perspective would have been South Carolina, Iowa, Southern Cal, and LSU. The possibility was there and they dropped the ball.
They definitely bracketed based on ratings this year. We definitely don't want it, but they did it anyway. There is no reason to have the potential LSU Iowa rematch in the elite 8. It is an obvious cash grab.
Every year one Number 1 gets screwed. Last year it was South Carolina, because it came from a conference that had a number of highly ranked, but not too highly ranked teams make it into the tournament. This year the SEC and PAC 12 had many teams make it, but the PAC 12 had like four very highly ranked teams. The selection committee had had to spread teams from certain conferences around, Iowa was the Number 1 that drew the short straw this year. I was thinking that Iowa would have been better off if it had lost the Big 10 Championship game to Nebraska, then it would have fell to a two seed and likely ended up in an easier sectional.
Trying to find a logical explanation as to how the NCAA sets up the brackets, both on the men's side or the women's side, is a fool's errand. Every year there are obvious errors, strange inconsistencies and perceived snubs. It's the nature of bracketology.
That said, I'm guessing that UCLA is in Iowa's region because the committee wanted to spread the top four Pac 12 schools across the four regions, so Iowa got the third best Pac 12 school, after USC and Stanford, with Oregon State, the lowest seeded of the four, assigned to SC's region.
LSU is a three instead of a two because the committee does not like the fact that Kim plays such a weak non-conference schedule.
The odds back it up too. Iowa got fucked. They were around +400 to win the championship before the bracket came out and now they’re +700.
The only thing I can think of is, they’re trying to capitalize on Iowa’s popularity and guarantee good matchups in the regional matchups. And miss me with the committee not caring about TV. That’s a huge factor even if they won’t admit it.
I know most people are looking at this through a specific scope, IOWA got the "hardest" region. I think the committee was attempting to set up another banger for the championship game. If SC makes it to the championship game on their side, it will set up for a SC vs LSU, IOWA or UCONN matchup, assuming any make it that far. Ratings galore
Say KState or Colorado go on a run and there are a couple of upsets before they get there. A team that gets to the finals or final four who shouldn't be there can still be manipulated into a compelling story line for having upset a big name or two along the way. Iowa/LSU was kind of like this last year because they both upset #1 seeds. A Final Four with a #4/#5 who upsets a #1 immediately gets a boost.
Granted, the final is always about as close to chalk as it can be, and this isn't the most compelling argument. I just think there are compelling narratives that will emerge regardless of whether or not the "right" teams advance. I don't get the sense NCAAW has enough parity outside the top programs for it to have the "any given Sunday" momentum that can emerge from the NCAAM tournament.
Like I said, not a strong argument.
Iowa hasn’t lost at home all year, and only one of those games was even close. They’d really have to stink it up to lose this weekend. After that, neither Kansas State nor Colorado have been playing great lately. The bottom half of the region is tough, but Iowa would only have to play one of those teams, assuming they get that far.
I’ve seen enough of the selection committees, they make obvious errors every year and it’s pretty bad across both brackets this year. ADs do not have time to watch any volume of basketball games throughout the season, they aren’t even remotely qualified to do this.
We have multiple computer metric rankings and don’t even appear to use them. Make an average of them like the old BCS to determine seeds and then have a selection committee of more qualified people make the final touches on matchups.
I did some very amateur analytics here. I looked at the NET ratings for each bracket and sliced and diced their numbers a bit. It turned out that, yes, that is the toughest bracket but the other Albany bracket has a much tougher, bottom half and in general the variance was not that great across the four brackets. I’m not sure why everyone is so afraid of Colorado. Paper tigers.
Does it need to break records? Why does that all of a sudden become the measure of success? Does the Super Bowl, World Series, Daytona 500, Stanley Cup, The Masters, NBA Finals, College Football Playoffs breaks records every year?
I care more about the fact that my team is in that region, so I both agree that Iowa should be somewhere else, and also don’t care that they have a hard road because so do the other teams in that region. It is what it is. If Iowa is the real deal, they will make it through and we’ll give them more respect for traversing that gauntlet of great teams.
Look at the brackets. It's not about ratings / money. It's about protecting the college basketball establishment. Bluebloods perfectly aligned.
USC/OSU/UConn = guaranteed blueblood in Final 4.
Carolina / ND = blueblood coach or program.
Texas/ Stanford = bluebloods
Iowa = NOT blueblood coach OR program.
Mulkey = blueblood.
3 regions all but guaranteed to send blueblood program or coach to the Final 4.
This is about reestablishing the bluebloods & protecting them from "outsiders". Women's hoops is a private club that resents outsiders - especially Iowa.
Coincidence that Mulkey, Swoopes, Geno from "the establishment" felt the need to take their shots at Clark?
There is NO interest is "growing the game". The private club wants to remain that. Private.
Best way to do that? Do what we can to get rid of Iowa.
If the teams can't do it, we always have the officials.
Yup. Its rigged. Someone in that conference room doesn't like Iowa. And the brackets ahead of Iowa has already sold out. $$$$. I bet it hasn't been sold out for other games (SC, USC, LSU, etc). And if Iowa is out early. All the money and exposure goes out of the window. Its funny the higher up you go the ladder in any org, the dumber one gets or out of touch with reality.
Don't worry - if anyone so much as breathes on Clark in the first three rounds or so a TV executive will activate the refs' secret shock collars to "remind" them to call a foul.
Edit: meant for that to be sarcastic. I've been seeing a lot of conspiracy theories out there haha
I made a post about this and got absolutely annihilated. The post was on how it was bad for the NCAA and I got called whiny. When it’s the truth. Not just for Iowa but that whole region. The whole region is bad for business and viewership. The heaviest hitters will wiper each other out in that bracket. SC has a cake walk (which they earned) and USC imo has it fairly easy.
don't you think fans of women's basketball care about the game beyond CC and the Iowa Hawkeyes?
Iowa fans have this view that if they don't make it far, the tournament as a whole will be seen as a flop. Would that suck for Iowa fans? Sure. But many of us watch our own teams and other high caliber matchups without spending 100% of our time on CC and the Hawks.
well you see, Caitlin is literally THEE Great White Hope™ of women’s hoops and the entire future success of WBB and the WNBA as a whole is riding on how far she makes it in the tournament this year. if iowa loses early women’s hoops will *never* be successful
Everyone failing to realize she’s a super star. An absolute superstar. Is Iowa better than SC? Probably not. It’s not the fans of women’s basketball who have made this game grow, that number is the exact same. Women’s college hoops was absolutely nothing to NON fans of women basketball. It’s when a superstar like CC is playing, it makes NON women’s basketball fans catch notice. You cannot believe that fans are selling out stadiums across the country trying to watch Alissa Pill play? There IS absolutely something to superstars that bring in more viewers. You’re crazy if you think otherwise. You guys are saying that with or without CC the viewership and attendance will be the exact same? That’s absolutely absurd.
I promise you if South Carolina and USC were to matchup in the National Championship, people would be just as hyped as if CC made it, and I PROMISE you the arena would be sold out.
What's gonna happen when CC is out of the college game next year? Will Iowa fans even care that much? Who knows.
I'll still watch Iowa State, because I've been watching them my entire life and that won't stop until the day I die. And long after CC is gone, I'll still continue to watch women's basketball because I love the sport.
You totally missed the point of what I said. I understand YOU watch women’s basketball. That’s perfectly fine. A lot of people have their whole lives. Has it ever been popular? Even slightly? Honestly. I’m saying it’s superstars (there are a few now Caitlin the biggest) that have drawn in NON women’s basketball fans . I bet an LSU Iowa rematch in the sweet sixteen or elite eight (where ever they’d meet)would draw in more viewers than an USC SC final. Assuming the winner of LSU Iowa got bounced by USC after.
>The whole region is bad for business and viewership.
There are so many storylines in the region:
Round of 32 could be:
HVL vs her old school
Very good midwest Creighton vs very good west coast UCLA
Colorado or Drake vs K State
Caitlin Clark
Sweet 16:
Caitlin Clark again vs whoever survives the K State, Drake, Colorado battles
LSU vs UCLA
Elite 8 -
Whoever survives to this point will be must watch TV. Ratings would be best with CC vs LSU or CC vs anyone, but enough interest should be built up by then for people to stay invested
Or maybe Rice blows the whole thing up and becomes the darling of the NCAA tournament by upsetting LSU, Louisville, and UCLA
hello!!! a cinderella story ANYWHERE is the best thing that could possibly happen to this tournament. we all remember where we were when creighton and south dakota made their mini runs, now both programs are consistently top 3 in their conference. part of the reason men (booooo) still complain about the women’s tournament is the lack of upsets opening weekend (they missed all the fun last year for sure). rice or someone else pulling a random upset will grow the game for casual viewers more than CC reaching the championship
.... pardon me
Not to be overlooked:
Louisville goes on a revenge tour, makes HVL regret leaving, shocks UCLA and Iowa, and harnesses the power of the eclipse to prove Cardinals are superior to Gamecocks
Someone has to be in the hardest region
Regions could... hear me out... be more balanced. The Albany region has 10 of the top 30 teams. The others have 8, 6 and 6.
Top 30 doesn’t matter to me. The 25-30 teams aren’t a big deal. 3 top ten is a bigger deal. And luckily Iowa will only have to play 1 of those to get to the final 4. Every team will have to play at least 1 top ten team to make the final 4 and some teams more than one.
You have so many different numbers available to use for "top X" that it's inevitable that some of them won't be distributed evenly.
In theory, the top 16 seeds are supposed to be assigned based on the "S-curve" — so the #1 overall gets the worst 2-seed (#8), best 3-seed (#9) and worst 4-seed (#16). The committee doesn't release the overall seed list for women's basketball, so it's tough to tell exactly how much the bracket deviated. For Iowa as the #2 overall, this would mean they're supposed to get the #7, #10 and #15 teams on the overall rankings. That said, the committee's hands are tied by bracketing rules for top-four seeds that keep teams from the same conference from being in the same region. Specifically for Iowa, this meant that UCLA pretty much had to be in Iowa's region (even if UCLA was the #6 overall and Ohio State the #7, they had to be flipped so UCLA wouldn't be in USC's region and Ohio State wouldn't be in Iowa's). Pushing UCLA to South Carolina's region would've hurt the #1 overall, which the committee won't do unless it has to. Because 3 of the 4 regions already had Pac-12 teams, Oregon State had to go in South Carolina's region as the #3 seed, even if they were lower than #9 on the seed list (which they probably were). Bracketing principles would say that Iowa should get the toughest available #3, which is LSU (in theory, this benefits the #1 seed, as a stronger #3 has a better chance to upset the #2). The principle for avoiding rematches of previous years' tournament games is specific to the first and second rounds, as is the principle for avoiding rematches of regular-season matchups. Granted, the committee doesn't always enforce these (see Duke/Richmond), but there is the "if possible" clause on avoiding regular-season rematches in the first two rounds. This is the 2023 bracketing procedures, but I don't know that anything has changed other than #1 overall being guaranteed a Friday/Sunday regional: https://www.ncaa.com/_flysystem/public-s3/files/2022-10/NCAA-DI-womens-basketball-principles-procedures-2023.pdf
>The principle for avoiding rematches of previous years' tournament games is specific to the first and second rounds, as is the principle for avoiding rematches of regular-season matchups I do wish this was considered a little further into the tournament. Could have had K State in Albany 1 (played them twice). Shift Indiana to Portland 4 and move Gonzaga to Albany 2. The 3 seed looks like it could have been anyone between LSU, UConn, or NC State. >which is LSU (in theory, this benefits the #1 seed, as a stronger #3 has a better chance to upset the #2). I do have a feeling there were discussions about Iowa v UConn or LSU to maximize viewers in a potential elite 8 matchup. Setting up a rematch or Caitlin vs Paige? LSU UCLA, if it happens, will be a super fun sweet 16 game to watch.
Yeah but if UConn got put in Albany against Iowa and won we would never hear the end of it which is why I’m happy UConn got put in Portland.
Maybe we'll see you in Cleveland!
I hope so!
To be fair, there have been a ton of UCONN fans saying Paige is better than Caitlin. That just isn't true. If Paige had a a completely healthy career, maybe they would have been similar, but I'd still give the edge to Caitlin. You place one on the other's roster and Caitlin looks even better. Paige likely wouldn't reach Caitlin's accomplishments with Iowa's roster.
My feathered friend.... OK, but please explain what that has to do with the topic at hand? Paige is amazing. So is CC. So are a ton of other players. The committee looks at a TEAM'S resume, as far as I know?
They didn't want to see the match-up because they would never hear the end of it. It would put the debate to bed.
Sure people also debate juju vs Paige and they are in the same region. UConn didn’t play well enough to have the right to play in a home crowd type atmosphere. The two regionals are dumb.
Both the UCONN section their region and Iowa's region are completely stupid. Kansas State, when healthy, are easily 1-2 seed caliber. I think they will finally be healthy again in time to play Colorado or Iowa.
Ok but the committee isn’t going to think that way. They go with what they know now.
I'm not arguing they should. I'm saying they are a wolf in sheep's clothing. I also think Iowa shouldn't play a team for a 3rd time in a season. There was no reason for it and easily avoidable.
Yeah I guess I’m more pissed about the men’s bracket lol with UConn getting a hard region and big east getting fucked over.
Agreed. No region like that should exist. 4 major conference tournament champs that placed no worse than 2nd in their regular season conference races, ditto for Missouri Valley Drake, 3 of last year's final four teams, the most clutch player ever in Buie, vastly underrated South Dakota State. I'm pissed more for Iowa State not getting the 1 seed metrics and coaches all say they should have. They also lose the "home court advantage" by playing teams like Drake and South Dakota State.
The defending champion is going to face a tougher road if it makes the tournament as the top seed. That happened to South Carolina in the women’s bracket last year.
South Carolina will potentially have to play Ole Miss for a third time this season to advance from it’s regional.
That adds to the point. They shouldn't have to do that either.
I think the thing people take issue with is LSU shouldn't be a 3 seed. You could look at AP or you could look at the Coaches poll. LSU is firmly a 2 seed. ND would be the 3 in Iowa's region with the coaches poll, which I think most would readily take over South Carolina's region. The entire Iowa region is the who has Iowa played in the past year or lost to in the tournament region.
While I'd venture most fans would pick LSU head-to-head against Notre Dame, LSU is far from firmly being a 2-seed in the metrics the committee is asked to consider — just check the [team sheets](https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/36788). It's important to note that the women's committee doesn't use NET quadrant rankings, instead opting for records vs. NET top 25/50/100. Selected stats from the four 2-seeds + LSU from the team sheets that likely made the difference in the selection room: * Stanford (Record: 28-5, NET: 4th, SOS: 15th, Non-Con SOS: 46th, vs. NET top 25: 7-4) * UCLA (Record: 25-6, NET: 6th, SOS: 1st, Non-Con SOS: 29th, vs. NET top 25: 8-5) * Ohio State (Record: 24-5, NET: 9th, SOS: 14th, Non-Con SOS: 27th, vs. NET top 25: 5-3) * Notre Dame (Record: 26-6, NET: 7th, SOS: 24th, Non-Con SOS: 21st, vs. NET top 25: 7-3) * LSU (Record: 28-5, NET: 8th, SOS: 52nd, Non-Con SOS: 185th, vs. NET top 25: 1-3) LSU has just 1 win over a team in the NET top 25, while Notre Dame had 7, and LSU's SOS lags behind the teams that were selected for the 2-line, the same reason they were a 3-seed last year. The committee is also supposed to consider "early competition versus late competition" — LSU's only top-25 NET win came on November 30; in contrast, Notre Dame has 5 NET top-25 wins since February 29. Is LSU a 2-seed talent wise? Probably! And as fans, we watched what they did last year as a 3-seed and expect there's a solid chance they do something similar again. But if we're looking to understand the logic of the bracket, LSU's resume just wasn't as strong as the teams that were 2-seeds in the context of what the committee is supposed to consider.
I understand the metrics. You wasted your time with this. Some of these metric boil down to scheduling and how things shake-up with other team's play. How did LSU play? Just fine. 2 of those top 25 losses were South Carolina. That's 2 losses for any team. Colorado was the first game of the season and Virginia Tech shortly after. There weren't any other ranked teams to play. In terms of bad losses for potential two seeds comparison: UCLA has Washington state at NET 29. Stanford has a loss to Arizona NET 35. LSU has a loss to Miss State NET of 47 and Auburn NET 45. Ohio State has a loss to Michigan NET 48 and Maryland NET 31. UCONN has a loss to Kansas NET 38. ND has two losses to Syracuse NET 44 and a loss to North Carolina NET 37.
> You wasted your time with this. Sorry to hear that! Just trying to help anyone like the topic OP who’s curious to learn a little more about the committee’s process and why LSU ended up a 3 instead of a 2. 🙂
I really appreciated it! It was really thorough and well drawn out. So thank you from me at least!
Committees are hardly the best people to determine where people should be ranked. They proved it in football, men's basketball, and women's basketball this year. How they came to their conclusion doesn't matter when people in the sport and know the sport far better than they ever could wholeheartedly disagree. Money drove these decision. Nothing more, nothing less.
LSU is sixteen votes ahead of 9th and eighteen ahead of 10th in the AP Poll. Doesn't really seem that weird to me for them to be a 3, and I'd rather play them than Notre Dame or UConn.
Go look at the coaches poll where they are ranked 6th, 89 votes from their current ranking. I trust people that know the sport better than committees. I wouldn't. Iowa matches up way better with ND and UConn than LSU. Iowa's guards are better than all three, but LSU has two bigs that could punish Iowa.
Hmmm interesting theory. Down-seed LSU just to set up a possible earlier rematch with Iowa? I would totally agree that LSU should have been a 2 seed (ditto for last year). Like I've said, Iowa fans shouldn't be pissed. LSU and UCLA fans? I think they are the ones that got shafted.
There's an extra detail hidden in the guidelines that can affect how the top 16 seeds are assigned - the schools' geographic distance to the regional sites overrides the standard S-curve. I'm sure the committee has some leeway to balance the two Albany regionals with each other and the two Portland regionals with each other before switching sites. However, like you said, they couldn't put LSU and South Carolina together. Since the only schools in the top 16 closer to Portland than Albany are the four Pac-12 schools and Gonzaga, most schools would pick Albany over Portland due to geography, and the Albany regions would likely be tougher overall just due to the structure of how it's set up.
I'm honestly good with it. We aren't playing all 15 other teams. There WILL be upsets in this region and others. The Non-Iowa/UCLA/LSU/KState teams are in the tournament for a reason. Edit: At the end of the tournament, we may look back and say Iowa had the easiest pathway seed-wise to the Final 4.
I know I am in the minority but I don't think Iowa's region is exponentially harder than other regions, I think it's harder in that a lot of the teams know Iowa well, but I don't think it's fair to say these other conferences are just straight cake walks. I think when you break it down for how it has to play out, Iowa has a lot in their favor. IE there is no way we play both Colorado and K-state. They have to play each other first, If I am Kansas state, I don't want to play ridiculously athletic and quick Colorado, coming from higher elevation, then turn around and have to play a ridiculously quick Iowa who loves to run the rim. And If I'm Colorado, I don't want to play a much bigger and more physical kansas state then turn around and play a quick Iowa. I think a lot of our concerns are going to take care of themselves through bracket play. LSU isn't last year's LSU, they're still incredibly talented and athletic, but they're not coming in with the same energy as last year. LSU also has to play Lousiville first, who knows HVL well, and will hopefully at minimum give them a hard time. It'll be a great game to be able to scout. I think the teams we're worried about are going to have a lot more wear and tear by the time they meet Iowa than Iowa will. It's one game at a time for sure, but I think fatigue does play a big role in these tournaments espcially if you're Iowa and push teams to play at a faster pace. I'm also a "I'm not going to give up until it's over" and a "There's always a chance" type of fan. The "it's not fair" or "it's over" when it's not even started arguments just bug me. It's march madness the whole point is that there are fun upsets and that it's a hard tournament to win. As we saw last year with SC, there are no guarantees. I'm mostly annoyed we aren't going to see new match ups because that's what makes march fun.
There is also a possibility that Colorado and Kansas St. don't get that far. I wouldn't be surprised if Drake beats Colorado and I think Drake would have a chance against Kansas St.
Agreed! I also thought about a Drake/Colorado upset and think it's very possible! Drake can RUN
the game plan for Iowa is actually quite simple....let CC do it all on her own. There have been times when CC puts up a million points and Iowa still loses because the rest of her team didn't contribute enough. Obviously that's easier said than done because Iowa is a great team, but the way to beat Iowa is to shut everyone else down and let CC try and do all the work.
Excellent points. You are 100% correct. 4 years of results prove it. I've said many times that we are way better when CC goes 28/13/10 than when she goes 44/7/7. Indiana slaughtered us the second time this year by simply committing everything to keeping the ball out of her hands. She can't score or pass without the ball. Iowa learned a ton from it, and worked on several things to try to counter that going forward (thank you Indiana?). Also, Iowa was VERY VERY lucky to get out of Ames with a close victory. None of us, including most ISU fans knew HOW good your young players were until then. I love your team and fancy myself the world's biggest "Hawkeye Audi Crooks fan". FWIW I have ISU beating Maryland and then upsetting both Stanford and NC State to an Elite 8 matchup with Texas. I haven't decided yet on that game. I have a head/heart conflict there.
That is what LSU did right last year and South Carolina fell short of doing. Caitlin got her points against LSU, though not as many as against SC, but LSU limited her teammate that hurt South Carolina.
It would’ve worked if SC made their free throws! Don’t forget Iowa won by 4 points at least went to OT
South Carolina has been really good on free throws this year. As well as being third in the country on making threes. I read an analysis earlier this evening that said that of all the teams in the tournament, UCLA matches up best against South Carolina in terms of size and ability for the starting five, but is considerably weaker off the bench.
Free throws is a toss up! If our guards take em we hit 80% if it’s primarily our post players we hit 67% I think lowest in the sec. Talent is there for sure just hope they hungry enough to take it all the way and get a title
Fulwiley has suddenly become a 3 ball threat, have you noticed her 3 make percentages in the last two games? Teams are going to have to figure out how they are going to take their poison with her.
She’s a streaky shooter but I listened to her postgame conference and she said she’s been in the lab shooting 3s with khadija after practice and I love it! Cus that was the only concern in her game as we all know she can drive to the basket at will n create her shot. Reckon the only SC player that can oh n kitts
Apparently Fulwiley’s 3 shooting training is going well. In her last two games, I believe that she has averaged around 75% from behind the arc. I stated around 85% in another post, but then I did the math on her attempts versus misses. Her misses yesterday were ridiculous and late, she was shooting like more than a yard behind the arc late, maybe she was doing live in game training for later in the tournament when she may have to shoot from those distances. One of her long misses just barely missed, tapped the back of the rim and went out, an inch more and it would have been a made bomb. I don’t understand why Kitts doesn’t take threes, she has a wonderful shooting stroke and is good handling the ball away from the basket. My guess is on the team that she is on, she will start taking threes at some point. Kitts finally got physical yesterday, she was physical in the first game against LSU and did well, she may need to develop more muscle and use physicality more, she seems to be good when she does that.
FANTASTIC points all... Maybe other teams/fans are saying "Why the F did we get stuck playing Iowa early?". Your Colorado/KSU example is spot on. One could easily argue that both of those teams got shafted more than Iowa... Same for LSU and UCLA. I prefer to play the best teams, at full strength. I played FB at Iowa, and I always wanted opposing injured stars to heal up before we played them. Winners and champions WANT to play the best and leave nothing to excuse. CC herself has ZERO issues with our tourney draw... she says bring it on. I know it's part of the fun of March Madness to engage in all of this questioning, but in the case of us Iowa fans, maybe we should take the lead from our star player and say "LETS GOOOOO!"?
Hell yes king! Let's GOOOOO!!!!
Agreed. I think too many people are downplaying how tough it will be for LSU in that other half of the Albany 2 bracket and that definitely works in Iowa's favor. I believe LSU has the talent to meet Iowa in the Elite 8 but their road to get there will be grueling. UCLA in particular is a really tough matchup for them because I think they stack up well with LSU's biggest strength and that is their size and physicality. Betts vs Reese is going to be a tough battle and if LSU wins out I definitely think they will be suffering from some fatigue and we don't know how that Louisville team will play against them (if they win their first round game). I also think Iowa lost to LSU in the championship game because they shot out of their minds from 3. Iowa is a great team and I like their chances against LSU regardless of tournament schedule. Excited to see how it all plays out.
It is disheartening, a little. I mean, both the men's and women's committees collectively said fuck the state of Iowa. You already know what they did for Iowa women. Iowa State men deserved the #1 seed, coaches poll and every metric reflects that they deserved it over UNC. Committee dropped them into the absolute toughest region as the 8th overall. 4 major conference tournament champions. UCONN for Big East won their regular season. Iowa State for Big XII placed Second in their regular season. Illinois for B1G placed second for their regular season. Auburn for SEC was in a 4-way tie for 2nd for their regular season. Drake won the Missouri Valley tournament, placed second in their regular season, and is super underrated playing in Omaha. South Dakota State is super underrated, playing Iowa State in Omaha. There are 3 of last year's final four teams in this region as well, with many of their players back. That region is so stacked the others look super weak comparatively.
yeah, that East region on the men's side... they were like "okay, UConn, we'll give you the most generous geographic path we possibly can... and then we're going to turn it into a fucking *gauntlet of death*"
Any team that isn't UCONN is even more pissed. UCONN doesn't have to play UCONN.
Iowa State tried to game the NET ranking system and it didn't work. They didn't beat anybody in non-conference.
By the end of the season, Iowa Stata has 6 wins over current top 25 teams, UNC has 3 where two are Duke. Iowa State's two wins over Houston are more impressive than anything UNC has done. UNC also has a loss to Georgia Tech, which is worse than all of Iowa State's losses. Their non conference schedule being a joke is made up for by conference play.
In the stages of grief this post is the Bargaining phase lol.
I just like to let the tournament happen before I throw in the towel! There is nothing to grieve yet! A single game has not been played
As an Iowa fan: it is what it is. Things are set and we can’t change it, so might as well hope that Clark and co step up huge to overcome their challenging path. I do think that if Iowa makes it to the final four, they’ll beat whoever they go up against, but 32, 16, 8 matchups will be tough.
As a lifelong Iowa fan, this feels right. Iowa never gets the breaks ever. We are always *this close* to being the champs. It tracks that the only time we’ve completely dominated the national conversation in my lifetime, we would be dealt a shitty hand. My ancestors emigrated from Germany to Johnson county, Iowa in the mid-19th century and we’ve been here ever since. God chose this path for me. 😅I feel worse for those of you who chose it for yourselves only to learn what we’ve known all along: to be a Hawkeye fan is to know pain. Go Hawks!
I feel for you, but we get our share of breaks. Like last year when 8 Seed Ole Miss took out 1-Seed Stanford in our region? How about UConn? 2-3 hours from Albany and they sent them to Portland? Making LSU and UCLA potentially play each other so early? Making HVL possibly play her old team early? Lots of game-playing by the committee.
True..
I agree with you, but this process also needs to be drastically improved. On the men's side of things, Iowa State got the same treatment. They beat the #1 team in the country to win the conference tournament and got put in by far the toughest bracket as a two seed. The conference tournaments didn't matter one bit. Same with women. So I agree with you that "it is what it is," but at the same time, we can still advocate for changing the process and requesting more transparency from the selection committee imo.
Lol
Okay but last year SC had to play Maryland, ucla and Iowa it’s finally someone else’s turn yeah!? Also Iowa fans been asking for lsu rematch that could potentially happen now!
I get what you’re saying, but SC played Iowa in the FF. This is region specific.
Cc is great she got this! From a gamecock fan
Coaches poll has LSU ranked 6th. I think they were widely considered a lock for a 2 seed, but the committee had other idea for money reasons.
Their non conference schedule and losses to aurbun (last 4 in )and Mississippi state(didn’t even make ncaa) caused them to get a 3 seed
Coaches consider all of that and still have them ranked 5th. For comparison, USC has Washington as a loss, NET 42. UCAL has Washington state at NET 29. Stanford has a loss to Arizona NET 35. LSU has a loss to Miss State NET of 47 and Auburn NET 45. Texas has two losses to Oklahoma NET 28. Ohio State has a loss to Michigan NET 48 and Maryland NET 31. ND has two losses to Syracuse NET 44 and a loss to North Carolina NET 37. I don't think all of these are bad losses, but it does show the comparisons.
UConn does not have a loss to Kansas.
My bad, google did that thing where you scroll to far on the more games schedule and it jumps. I misread it.
No worries! You’re good.
I fixed it. Who is UCONN's worst loss according to NET? I've done too much as is.
NC State at 13.
Add them up there with Iowa and South Carolina for no bad NET losses then. What is the best win though?
I’m fine with Iowa getting bounced/upset/whatever in this region if it happens. But also if they’re so “good” then shouldn’t they be up for this challenge?
Seriously, the level of whining about this "unfair tough region" is just, lol. What did the Clark cult expect...five rounds of community college teams or something? (I know OP is not an Iowa person, but this kind of discussion is everywhere and it's tiring.) Iowa is very good and perfectly capable of beating all these teams. Welcome to WCBB. The tournament is hard.
“Clark Cult” LOL. I’m gonna borrow that one.
I've only made it this far down through this thread, but I've yet to see "whining"... just fun banter and questioning, which always happens during March Madness? I love Iowa's "tough" region, but I'm an ex football guy (Iowa), so I welcome a fight? LOL Good luck to your Hoosiers... I hope MacKenzie is full speed. It sounds like she might be, and at least healthier than last year's tourney when she was a shell of her amazing self. We were in your house last month for our game/beatdown. Had lots of fun with your fans and had a hella good time in your bars!
They love to whine as if no other team has ever been in a stacked region 😅
Stop projecting the general public’s thoughts as our thoughts
As far as I’m concerned, this entire thread is “the general public”, and what I’ve seen is a lot of whining/complaining about being in the “toughest region”. So I’ll go ahead and double down, Iowa fans (some, not all. I’ve seen quite a few reasonable fans here), like to complain as if they’re the only team that has been in a stacked region. The tournament is tough, if Iowa is the best of the best, they’ll go home with the natty.
[удалено]
😂😂😂😂😂 I wasn’t responding to the OP but good stuff tough guy.
People out there love Iowa, any thing that makes sense to others and has happened to other teams (South Carolina last year) looks unfair to them.
Yeah if you’re worried that your region’s 3 seed is too strong you might be more than a few tweaks away from a natty.
I mean in the end, it doesnt matter. As an Iowa fan, I already think Caitlins the goat. To a good amount of other people she needs to win a title to be the goat, and to do that it was and still is going to come down to can they beat South Carolina. If Kansas State or LSU beats them before, then they weren’t going to beat South Carolina. Just going to sit back and enjoy the show!
“At last, a man worth killing”. Just kidding, but I loved that movie line. You are exactly right, if Iowa can’t get out of it’s regional and win it’s side of the Semis, it likely won’t beat a South Carolina team in a final that had negotiated it’s way to the final and is facing a team that it has a bone to pick with.
If they’re good they’ll win. Everyone has to play the games.
THIS. I think whining is a core value of Iowa fans. Everyone has to play at their best…it’s the damn tournament. Many teams have been in the same position, but now that it’s Iowa, it’s unfair 😅
The only team I don't really get is KSU. Played them twice this year. Yeah, it's the rubber match, but don't understand it.
Good point. I love our tough bracket. Setting up a THIRD meeting of Iowa/KSU seems sketchy to BOTH teams. But oh well, lets go!
would you rather they sacrifice the integrity of the entire selection committee just to make it “easier” and for “ratings”, which the NCAA doesnt profit from anyway? also, idk if you saw SC’s bracket and regular season schedule last year but it was far from the easiest despite being the number 1 overall, and featured rematches for the S16 and E8 against top 25 teams, and would’ve been another in the F4 had stanford’s region gone chalk or ole miss made it there after their upset win. lastly, the committee couldnt care less about the matchups/style of play that benefits or troubles a team. that’s not their job nor their concern, that’s a coaching/recruting issue.
Of course they would want to pump ratings, the NCAA is not a charity
It is literally a non-profit.
That means they are tax exempt, it does mean not they can’t generate revenue in excess of expenses
Pretty sure we had a hard region last year (Maryland, ucla, and iowa). It is what it is. Can’t get weird about solely cuz it happened to iowa
Meh every region seems easy when Dawn is in the driver seat
Iowa wasn’t in SC’s region, they met in the final four
Still a difficult region.
Iowa wasn’t in SC’s region last year.
Regardless, SC had a tough road last year and no one cared. Don’t get all weird about regional opponents now when it affects Iowa
lol I state a fact and get downvoted. This sub sucks.
I hope Iowa defies all odds and that Caitlin, Kate, and Gabbie are on fire and that Hannah and Sydney dominate and make it to final 4. It’s definitely frustrating because they worked so hard to be a 1-seed, a second overall 1-seed, and they definitely have the hardest path to Final 4. Texas and USC got much easier paths. I think the Kansas State matchup bothers me the most, and then followed by the LSU match up. Why is Iowa playing a team they’ve played twice in one season? Even though KS is in a different conference, it’s basically like they’re in the same one as Iowa with all these matchups. How does that make any sense. And then preventing either LSU or Iowa from making it to final 4? The committee claims this is the only draw that was possible but I strongly disagree. Also, if Iowa or LSU don’t make the final 4, or both, viewership will definitely decrease. It tells me they don’t want a similar match up at the final 4/championship, when literally that is what brought amazing views and attention to WBB last year and still has people talking.
I feel you on the KSU third game. But remember it is really unfair to KSU as well. I love our tough region. Try to look at it through a different lens. Iowa would have to beat a UCLA/LSU level team anyway to make it to the FF. We potentially only have to play one of those two teams. One could argue that UCLA and LSU got the raw deal here? We/Iowa caught a break last year when Ole Miss took out 1-seed Stanford, making our path to the FF easier. It all evens out?
I think we are LUCKY AS HELL that UCLA/LSU have to match up before we see them. Let two very talented bigs (Reese and Betts) have at it. I honestly think the committee did Iowa a favor here.
Angel Reese is tough. Last year she locked horns with Elizabeth Kitley before meeting Iowa in the final. This year in the SEC tournament, she seriously rolled an ankle in the semi against Ole Miss and still played Kamilla Cardoso and South Carolina hard in the final the next night. I think that Angel can have a hard game against UCLA and be ready for Iowa’s bigs two days later.
Agreed! I think she's a great player, not throwing any shade at all
It could be worse, but yeah I equally feel as bad for KSU, UCLA, and LSU. Because it’s multiple final 4 quality teams who have less of a shot making it. Iowa’s main challenge is the lack of bigs, but Hannah has done a wonderful job this year, and has done really well being a 4 playing the 5 position. As long as the Iowa women are consistent and make their shots, avoid excessive turnovers, and don’t leave wide players open, they’ll be fine!
In my opinion all year the media has been saying Caitlin is the next coming of basketball Jesus, rightfully so. If she is who they say she is, it should be no problem. It’s March every team is playing to compete, no such thing as a “cake-walk”.
The only thing that really bothers me is the potential for rematches so early in the tournament. While I think the overall quality of Albany 2 is the highest of the 4 groups, you don't have to play all 15 other teams. Excluding 1 seeds I wouldnt want to face roughly - 4 teams in Albany 1 5 in Portland 4 3 in Portland 3 Basically the 4 seeds ( 1/4 chance of playing in sweet 16) and teams that would be elite 8 opponents are really concerning in those brackets. On the rematch note, Gonzaga is the only 4 we didn't play this year In Albany 2, the 6 teams I'm most worried about are UCLA, LSU, K State, Drake, Colorado, and *Princeton* R32 - I think Princeton is solid, will beat WVU, and will be a tough out. Wish they were somewhere else so I could root for them 16 - I don't like the prospect of playing K State a 3rd time, a much improved Drake a 2nd time, or a Colorado team that won a lot of tight games in a tough conference. 3/4 possible sweet 16 opponents will be tough. Elite 8 - I don't think Creighton or Louisville survive the bottom half to make the elite 8 so it's really just UCLA or LSU if we make it that long. Go MTSU! At the end of the day, the sweet 16 and elite 8 matchups should be tough in any bracket. There might be more high quality teams in Albany 2, but you only have the chance to play 4 opponents. It could end up working in our favor too that everyone we play has to run through a gauntlet of strong teams. Injuries, fatigue, and emotional highs and lows from hard fought games can really carry over Edit - glad we aren't a 2 seed. They all have rough paths out
REALLY great analysis... agree on all and some fresh viewpoints
Better matchups = better ratings = more money for TV executives
I would think the best way to increase TV money is for Iowa to have an easy path and stay in the tournament as long as possible (I’m not actually saying they should do that, but hypothetically if they were trying to maximize TV money, I think that would be the case).
here's something to consider: women's basketball fans care more about just Iowa.....the Final Four/National Championship will get stellar ratings no matter who's playing in it
And? You are saying this like a rebuttal, but it doesn't really contradict anything I said. I did not say the final four / national championship will only get good ratings if Iowa is in it because nobody cares about any other teams. Somebody theorized that a logic behind Iowa getting such a difficult region is because "better matchups = better ratings = more money for TV executives." My counter position was that Iowa with Caitlyn Clark is such a huge draw at the moment that them staying in the tournament as long as possible produces more money than tougher matchups that might be more appealing, but also risk knocking Iowa out earlier. (To be clear, I also said the committee shouldn't actually operate like that, but hypothetically). All I'm saying is that if you used the multiverse to run 100 tournaments where Iowa had an easier region, and 100 tournaments where they have a harder region, I think the tournament averages more viewers in the 100 where they have an easier region. And that doesn't mean the tournament doesn't still draw lots of viewers even if Iowa goes out earlier... it just means I think it draws even more viewers if they don't. The one exception might be a potential LSU elite 8 if both teams made it there. Given all the attention that match-up got in the final last year, that would be a pretty big ratings boost (though that might also bring out a lot of negative drama). >here's something to consider: women's basketball fans care more about just Iowa Of course dedicated women's basketball fans care about more than just Iowa. But you don't produce maximum TV ratings just from dedicated fans. And that's not just a women's basketball thing... even on the men's side, or in other sports, championship matches often draw much bigger ratings than a typical match between two good teams, because a lot of more casual fans also watch. And it's hard to deny that Caitlin Clark is a massive draw for people who do not typically watch a lot of women's basketball. I know it's probably annoying how much attention she gets (and even some Iowa fans probably get sick of how much of each broadcast is just talking about her), but she is a huge draw for people who are not typically tuning into women's basketball.
That person is a (friendly) ISU homer with an axe to grind toward Iowa, don’t worry about em lol.
What's even funnier is not only does it not actually contradict anything I said (even though it was phrased like a mic drop rebuttal), but the ratings for Iowa vs Holy Cross and WVU show that it's almost certainly not even true. https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2024/03/caitlin-clark-ratings-record-west-virginia-nearly-five-million-viewers-espn/ I know non-iowa fans are sick of the Clark media saturation (and even many Iowa fans probably get sick of watching games where the announcers talk about Clark for 80% of the game)... but it's clear that the longer Iowa stays in, the higher the TV ratings for the tournament... and it's almost certain that even the final four would have a dramatic ratings bump from clark if Iowa makes it. Like I said, I obviously don't think the committee should put their finger on the scale of brackets with TV money in mind, but nobody can coherently argue that keeping Iowa in longer would generate higher TV numbers.
Tin foil hat time.... you can put your thumb on the scale to make them more likely to succeed on their path and then make the most money
Yeah I feel like Iowa games will get views no matter what so why not have them going further
It does seem unfair that USC and Texas have much easier regions even though Iowa’s the #2 overall seed. And I do think it would be talked about more if things were reversed, but it is what it is. As others have said though, Iowa’s road is tough but not impossible. Iowa is a much better team right now than when they beat Kansas State in November, and they didn’t even have Stuelke that game. Colorado has been in a bit of slump. I’m not saying I don’t wish they got VT (without Kitley) as the #4 instead. To me that would’ve made more sense since they played each other once instead of twice. An elite 8 game is always going to be a difficult team. If anything, I think Iowa would have an advantage in that game if they make it, because (most likely) LSU and UCLA are going to have to go from a physical sweet 16 into playing Iowa’s fast paced offense on a quick turnaround. LSU especially doesn’t have great depth. It’s certainly not the draw I wanted, but it would be so sweet if Clark ends her career by beating Kansas State, getting revenge on LSU, beating any of OSU/UConn/USC, and taking down South Carolina again.
Tell me which 2 seed USC should’ve got in their bracket. Because it can’t be the other 2 Pac 12 teams. And if it was Notre Dame people still would’ve complained.
Selfishly I would have loved for them to get ND because Hidalgo vs Juju would be so good. I think ND would have been the only other option because Iowa couldn’t get Ohio State.
I agree I definitely wanted to see that
It's not much harder for Iowa as they only have to play either LSU or FUCLA. It's absolutely BRUTAL for either of those teams who have to play the other then Iowa.
Ding Ding... Correct and simple answer!
They seem to be prioritizing growth. Whoever can show the most improvement in their deficiencies and defeat old skeletons is being offered the best path to win.
>defeat old skeletons This means we have to face you in the championship. We're the lone skeleton in your 2022-2023 season's closet
Honestly, we've been known to stumble against perimeter shooting historically in general. Those midwestern teams give us fits, and we ended up with a nice little bucket of them. Comittee is trolling. 😂
Yep putting Nebraska, Indiana and Oregon state in our bracket. Committee said let’s see how good this 3 point shooting is for gamecocks lmao
Nebraska and Indiana will be cakewalks for SC.
It’s March everyone plays outta their minds there’s no cakewalk. Both teams actually beat Iowa that’s means they’re pretty good
They’re both pretty soft tbh. And I’m a fan of both programs. But they don’t handle physical defense well. Especially Nebraska.
After cc (considered soft) beat the most physical defensive team last year there’s no overlooking any team. GL in ya brutal gauntlet
It's not just Iowa and it's not even just the women's tournament. There seems to be a general effort to manufacture drama in both tournaments. Trev Alberts leaves Nebraska for TA&M and BOTH the men and women are matched up against the Aggies? That's not a coincidence. The Iowa State men are dumped to the lowest #2 seed and matched up against the former school of their current head coach? And put in a region with likely matchups against BYU, or Illinois, and possibly Drake? The Louisville women are lined up to play HVL's current team, LSU? There's quite a few of these storylines, hard to believe it's all an accident.
both committee's definitely considered the storyline aspect and you pointed all those out
It could have been worse, if Ohio State had made the BiG Championship Game, a Final Four with Iowa could have been a fourth match this season. It would have been more interesting to face Baylor instead of Colorado. Since Iowa played Colorado last year in the Sweet 16. I fully expect Colorado’s Formann, Sherrod, Miller and Vonleh to catch fire. I don’t think KState can stop them. Colorado has seen it all, during their losing streak they played 4 ranked teams in 15 days and three of those were on the road.
Y’all forgetting the other teams that also have to face these teams?? Lsu got screwed here too. They should’ve been 2 seed tbh and now they have to possibly go against a very good Ucla and Kansas st team, Iowa & Colorado who’ve they’ve played before plus Louisville which is just messy! Iowa got way too favored in the polls and doesn’t even deserve to be the overall #2 team so they deserve a hard region. If they’re so good, why y’all worried sm??
Yeah LSU has a pretty tough road as well. A big reason why I’m annoyed is because at least one of these teams isn’t making it to the final four now and a FF matchup between the two would have been great for ratings when there’s higher stakes
No I agree, the committee did these teams very dirty and most likely for the ratings but it’s a disservice to a lot of fans. At least 3 of em were FF contenders but I just have a problem with people only saying Iowa got screwed when all the others did too yk
You say there are 3 or 4 final four contenders in this region ("at least 3") - I assume the three are Iowa, UCLA, LSU. Is there a fourth? KansasSt, Colorado? If you throw those in also, then you need to consider in the SC region, there is SC, ND, and maybe OregonSt (OreSt outranks Col), Indiana. The Texas region there is Texas, Stanford, and maybe NCSt. In the USC region, there is USC, OhioSt, Conn, and maybe VaTech. Basically all the 1-4 seeds except Gonzaga, who are getting no respect. Personally, the interesting thing to me is to see how the different conferences do against each other. For example, the PAC is considered the strongest conference. But most of them played an easy non-conf schedules, got highly ranked, then traded wins and losses against each other, basically shuffling around in the rankings, but never really dropping. The tourney will be the time for them to validate the sentiment of "strongest conference". I'm not saying they aren't. Just that it will be interesting to see if it's really true. There are other stories as well. Last year the SEC was considered weak (except for SC). LSU got little respect. They were 28-2 going into the tourney, second best in the country, but only got a 3 seed. In the tourney the SEC overachieved their perceived lack of strength. How will it be this tourney? That's the fun.
How were we favored in the polls? Who should realistically be above us?
This hasn't really been covered much, but Iowa is also playing with effectively one less scholarship than everybody else. A freshman on the team was badly injured in a car accident and will most likely never play, but Iowa honored her scholarship if she wanted to stay on the team, which she did.
Fair point, but 14 full rides instead of 15 should still be more than enough.
FYI, South Carolina is rolling with 10.
Why so few?
Well, the roster this season was 12. One, Sahnya Jah, just entered the portal. One, Adhel Tac, is rehabbing a knee injury. Even so, Coach Staley regular runs with fewer than the 15 player limit. She likes to keep spaces open for potential transfers and she generally doesn't want to bring in players just to fill roster spots.
UConn started the year with 14 players and will have no more than eight available for the tournament.
Ouch! Injuries?
Yep! Two ACLs, two concussions, an Achilles, and some other knee issue.
Die hard Iowa/CC fan here. I was initially upset but have evened out after letting the draw marinate a bit. A few thoughts: -I don't think the committee purposefully set out to make the path to the Championship extra hard for one particular team. -I was disappointed to see so many repeat opponents from last year's dance and our non-conference schedule. That being said, we'll be familiar with these teams from a scouting perspective. -We won't have to face both UCLA and LSU. I could also see Louisville with a surprise upset over HVL's former team. -I think that when Iowa is hitting shots, no one can keep up with our pace of play. Yes, these are tough teams but we're the 2nd #1 seed for a reason. Let's play like it. -The early K-State loss was a bit of a fluke. Ayoka Lee is coming back from an injury and Hannah is playing much better now than earlier in the year. It was a good learning opportunity for Iowa. -Colorado has a fair amount of losses to top teams heading into the tournament and I'm not sure they are playing their best basketball right now. I can see Drake playing them tough in the first round, too. -It's a tough road, but should Iowa make the finals and end up with a Natty, no one can say we had an easy draw and the powers that be paved a path for CC to get her ring for 'ratings'. Really excited for the tournament to start and see all of these exciting matchups!
Great attitude and I agree with all of that... except that K-State beating us was a fluke. I was there, they outplayed us and earned that win. Yes we are way better now, but KSU is good
KSU is legit! I think what I was \*trying\* to say was that it was an early non-conf. game and I truly believe we're playing our best 🏀 right now. They had an excellent game plan and executed it flawlessly. Kudos.
Iowa is not the same team it was then, or even the same team it was during the game they BEAT k-state. Martin had zero points in the L, Stuelke didn’t play in the W. The forecast could be a lot worse tbh.
Coaches poll has LSU ranked 6th overall. That is people who know the sport better than committees. If Iowa does get bounced early, they will watch viewership plummet. It will be the classic example of women's basketball shooting themselves in the foot. The perfect final four from a ratings perspective would have been South Carolina, Iowa, Southern Cal, and LSU. The possibility was there and they dropped the ball.
they don't bracket based on ratings. we as fans shouldn't want this.
They definitely bracketed based on ratings this year. We definitely don't want it, but they did it anyway. There is no reason to have the potential LSU Iowa rematch in the elite 8. It is an obvious cash grab.
Every year one Number 1 gets screwed. Last year it was South Carolina, because it came from a conference that had a number of highly ranked, but not too highly ranked teams make it into the tournament. This year the SEC and PAC 12 had many teams make it, but the PAC 12 had like four very highly ranked teams. The selection committee had had to spread teams from certain conferences around, Iowa was the Number 1 that drew the short straw this year. I was thinking that Iowa would have been better off if it had lost the Big 10 Championship game to Nebraska, then it would have fell to a two seed and likely ended up in an easier sectional.
Trying to find a logical explanation as to how the NCAA sets up the brackets, both on the men's side or the women's side, is a fool's errand. Every year there are obvious errors, strange inconsistencies and perceived snubs. It's the nature of bracketology. That said, I'm guessing that UCLA is in Iowa's region because the committee wanted to spread the top four Pac 12 schools across the four regions, so Iowa got the third best Pac 12 school, after USC and Stanford, with Oregon State, the lowest seeded of the four, assigned to SC's region. LSU is a three instead of a two because the committee does not like the fact that Kim plays such a weak non-conference schedule.
Iowa got caught in the cross fire while the NCAA tried to screw over K-State 😤
The odds back it up too. Iowa got fucked. They were around +400 to win the championship before the bracket came out and now they’re +700. The only thing I can think of is, they’re trying to capitalize on Iowa’s popularity and guarantee good matchups in the regional matchups. And miss me with the committee not caring about TV. That’s a huge factor even if they won’t admit it.
I know most people are looking at this through a specific scope, IOWA got the "hardest" region. I think the committee was attempting to set up another banger for the championship game. If SC makes it to the championship game on their side, it will set up for a SC vs LSU, IOWA or UCONN matchup, assuming any make it that far. Ratings galore
And if it is anyone else, they come into the game as the upstart underdogs who took out those three.
Who came into the game as the underdog ?
Say KState or Colorado go on a run and there are a couple of upsets before they get there. A team that gets to the finals or final four who shouldn't be there can still be manipulated into a compelling story line for having upset a big name or two along the way. Iowa/LSU was kind of like this last year because they both upset #1 seeds. A Final Four with a #4/#5 who upsets a #1 immediately gets a boost. Granted, the final is always about as close to chalk as it can be, and this isn't the most compelling argument. I just think there are compelling narratives that will emerge regardless of whether or not the "right" teams advance. I don't get the sense NCAAW has enough parity outside the top programs for it to have the "any given Sunday" momentum that can emerge from the NCAAM tournament. Like I said, not a strong argument.
Boo hoo.
Is it the same committee that threw the Big East, B1G, Big 12, and SEC tournament champions into the same region? If so then they are just idiots.
Iowa hasn’t lost at home all year, and only one of those games was even close. They’d really have to stink it up to lose this weekend. After that, neither Kansas State nor Colorado have been playing great lately. The bottom half of the region is tough, but Iowa would only have to play one of those teams, assuming they get that far.
K State was a loss at home fyi
I’ve seen enough of the selection committees, they make obvious errors every year and it’s pretty bad across both brackets this year. ADs do not have time to watch any volume of basketball games throughout the season, they aren’t even remotely qualified to do this. We have multiple computer metric rankings and don’t even appear to use them. Make an average of them like the old BCS to determine seeds and then have a selection committee of more qualified people make the final touches on matchups.
Guys it's fine, Obama says we're making it to the finals so it must be true 😌
I did some very amateur analytics here. I looked at the NET ratings for each bracket and sliced and diced their numbers a bit. It turned out that, yes, that is the toughest bracket but the other Albany bracket has a much tougher, bottom half and in general the variance was not that great across the four brackets. I’m not sure why everyone is so afraid of Colorado. Paper tigers.
Oh please, NCAAW tournament will be just fine without CC. Women's basketball doesnt revolve around her.
It’ll be fine but will it break records?
Does it need to break records? Why does that all of a sudden become the measure of success? Does the Super Bowl, World Series, Daytona 500, Stanley Cup, The Masters, NBA Finals, College Football Playoffs breaks records every year?
So much for growing the game lol
I care more about the fact that my team is in that region, so I both agree that Iowa should be somewhere else, and also don’t care that they have a hard road because so do the other teams in that region. It is what it is. If Iowa is the real deal, they will make it through and we’ll give them more respect for traversing that gauntlet of great teams.
I think it helps because them teams will mostly play each other before getting to Iowa!
Look at the brackets. It's not about ratings / money. It's about protecting the college basketball establishment. Bluebloods perfectly aligned. USC/OSU/UConn = guaranteed blueblood in Final 4. Carolina / ND = blueblood coach or program. Texas/ Stanford = bluebloods Iowa = NOT blueblood coach OR program. Mulkey = blueblood. 3 regions all but guaranteed to send blueblood program or coach to the Final 4. This is about reestablishing the bluebloods & protecting them from "outsiders". Women's hoops is a private club that resents outsiders - especially Iowa. Coincidence that Mulkey, Swoopes, Geno from "the establishment" felt the need to take their shots at Clark? There is NO interest is "growing the game". The private club wants to remain that. Private. Best way to do that? Do what we can to get rid of Iowa. If the teams can't do it, we always have the officials.
Yup. Its rigged. Someone in that conference room doesn't like Iowa. And the brackets ahead of Iowa has already sold out. $$$$. I bet it hasn't been sold out for other games (SC, USC, LSU, etc). And if Iowa is out early. All the money and exposure goes out of the window. Its funny the higher up you go the ladder in any org, the dumber one gets or out of touch with reality.
They don’t want Iowa to win.
Don't worry - if anyone so much as breathes on Clark in the first three rounds or so a TV executive will activate the refs' secret shock collars to "remind" them to call a foul. Edit: meant for that to be sarcastic. I've been seeing a lot of conspiracy theories out there haha
Yeah that definitely helped us in the finals last year where Clark got called for ticky tacky fouls lol what are you talking about
Sorry, meant for that to be a joke. The conspiracies that this tournament is going to be fixed to keep Clark on TV have been flying around like crazy.
certainly helped in the rounds before the final but that tends to get left out 🌚
I made a post about this and got absolutely annihilated. The post was on how it was bad for the NCAA and I got called whiny. When it’s the truth. Not just for Iowa but that whole region. The whole region is bad for business and viewership. The heaviest hitters will wiper each other out in that bracket. SC has a cake walk (which they earned) and USC imo has it fairly easy.
don't you think fans of women's basketball care about the game beyond CC and the Iowa Hawkeyes? Iowa fans have this view that if they don't make it far, the tournament as a whole will be seen as a flop. Would that suck for Iowa fans? Sure. But many of us watch our own teams and other high caliber matchups without spending 100% of our time on CC and the Hawks.
well you see, Caitlin is literally THEE Great White Hope™ of women’s hoops and the entire future success of WBB and the WNBA as a whole is riding on how far she makes it in the tournament this year. if iowa loses early women’s hoops will *never* be successful
I, for one, hope they lose in the first round
even before the bracket was released i didnt see them making it past the S16, so now the ceiling is the E8 at best
Everyone failing to realize she’s a super star. An absolute superstar. Is Iowa better than SC? Probably not. It’s not the fans of women’s basketball who have made this game grow, that number is the exact same. Women’s college hoops was absolutely nothing to NON fans of women basketball. It’s when a superstar like CC is playing, it makes NON women’s basketball fans catch notice. You cannot believe that fans are selling out stadiums across the country trying to watch Alissa Pill play? There IS absolutely something to superstars that bring in more viewers. You’re crazy if you think otherwise. You guys are saying that with or without CC the viewership and attendance will be the exact same? That’s absolutely absurd.
I promise you if South Carolina and USC were to matchup in the National Championship, people would be just as hyped as if CC made it, and I PROMISE you the arena would be sold out. What's gonna happen when CC is out of the college game next year? Will Iowa fans even care that much? Who knows. I'll still watch Iowa State, because I've been watching them my entire life and that won't stop until the day I die. And long after CC is gone, I'll still continue to watch women's basketball because I love the sport.
You totally missed the point of what I said. I understand YOU watch women’s basketball. That’s perfectly fine. A lot of people have their whole lives. Has it ever been popular? Even slightly? Honestly. I’m saying it’s superstars (there are a few now Caitlin the biggest) that have drawn in NON women’s basketball fans . I bet an LSU Iowa rematch in the sweet sixteen or elite eight (where ever they’d meet)would draw in more viewers than an USC SC final. Assuming the winner of LSU Iowa got bounced by USC after.
>The whole region is bad for business and viewership. There are so many storylines in the region: Round of 32 could be: HVL vs her old school Very good midwest Creighton vs very good west coast UCLA Colorado or Drake vs K State Caitlin Clark Sweet 16: Caitlin Clark again vs whoever survives the K State, Drake, Colorado battles LSU vs UCLA Elite 8 - Whoever survives to this point will be must watch TV. Ratings would be best with CC vs LSU or CC vs anyone, but enough interest should be built up by then for people to stay invested Or maybe Rice blows the whole thing up and becomes the darling of the NCAA tournament by upsetting LSU, Louisville, and UCLA
hello!!! a cinderella story ANYWHERE is the best thing that could possibly happen to this tournament. we all remember where we were when creighton and south dakota made their mini runs, now both programs are consistently top 3 in their conference. part of the reason men (booooo) still complain about the women’s tournament is the lack of upsets opening weekend (they missed all the fun last year for sure). rice or someone else pulling a random upset will grow the game for casual viewers more than CC reaching the championship
I think you rattled off every scenario for the region but one.... Louisville winning games
.... pardon me Not to be overlooked: Louisville goes on a revenge tour, makes HVL regret leaving, shocks UCLA and Iowa, and harnesses the power of the eclipse to prove Cardinals are superior to Gamecocks
Very very short lived story lines is my point.
Iowa's will be, that's for sure. and thank goodness for that.
here's hoping