New ESPN Bracketology

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:03 pm

greg1 wrote:when all is said and done, I just hope that they get into a bracket with Ohio State. I REALLY want to see a BG/OSU game THIS season. I think Jim Foster would have to change his shorts if he saw BG come up in his bracket.

I heard that! I really want to see that matchup as well. Davenport could give us trouble in the middle due to her height advantage but this BG team can beat anyone, anywhere. I'm convinced of that.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:56 am

greg1 wrote:when all is said and done, I just hope that they get into a bracket with Ohio State. I REALLY want to see a BG/OSU game THIS season. I think Jim Foster would have to change his shorts if he saw BG come up in his bracket.

Last night, Ohio State beat Indiana 72-62.

Y'all will recall Bowling Green beat Indiana 82-47.

If this battle of Ohio were to come to pass, perhaps we could mail him some adult diapers,

BGSUfalcons · Post by **BGSUfalcons** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:38 pm

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:Jerry Palm, of CSTV and collegeRPI.com, has us as a falling 6 seed playing in L.A. Kind of odd since we were a rising 5 seed in his last projection. He also has ball state as a rising 9 seed up from an 11.

I'm a bit worried about BG's seed, especially since the committee seems to search long and hard for reasons to keep the "little gals" down. BG's big win against IU is starting to look less impressive since IU is struggling in the Big 10. The loss against ND is looking worse since ND is playing so-so in the Big East. The wins against Temple and Delaware still look good, but are those wins enough for BG to get at least a 5 seed even with an undefeated MAC regular season and MAC tournament title? One would hope so, but the committee might think differently.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:41 pm

You ain't the only worried one. However, I think we'll get a 5-6 seed if we don't lose again. The competition for those spots has done little to distinguish itself thus far.

Bleeding Orange · Post by **Bleeding Orange** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:01 am

I've never understood bracketology. We are sitting here debating whether or not we are going to get anywhere from a 5-7 seed in the tournament, providing that we go undefeated for the rest of the year. If that is the case, I would guess that we will end up anywhere from 12-14 in the polls (and I could admittedly be wrong there, but that is my guess). That being the case, we would be determined, by both NCAA coaches and the media, to be among the top 15 teams in the country. Now, if we are to, at best, get a 5 seed in the tournament (based on current national and local projections), that would mean that there would be approximately 20 teams that the "committee" deems better than us, and based on what?

We are currently the 16th best team in the country, and with every big win, our stock is rising. Shouldn't we, by rights, be talking about at least a four seed? Who the hell is this committee to step in at the end of the season and say that coaches and the media were a little too optomistic about us? I don't mean to sound ignorant regarding the seeding system, but it, in all honesty, makes absolutely no sense to me. If we are the 16th best team in the country at the end of the year, shouldn't we be a four seed? After all, 4*4 = 16, still, right?

If I am, please tell me that I am stupid, and why. Danke.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:10 am

The polls and the bracket have absolutely no correlation whatsoever. The poll numbers are not even in the room. Bracketology isn't about how it should be, but rather about how it will be. History shows us that the women's committee is not very fond of "mid-major" schools. Even though we'll no doubt be polled in the top 15, I don't think there's much of a chance we get a 4 seed.

One only needs to look as far as last year to get proof of this. We were ranked, what 21-23 last year? We got a 12 seed. Right now, that's just how it is. The committee will see a number very close to 100 when they look at our SOS, and they'd place us 20-25 on the S curve if the season ended today. That's a 5-6 seed.

Look, the committee doesn't get to watch our team as much as we do. They don't get to see all the ingredients of a top 10-15 team -- Ali' leadership, Kate's calming influence, Carin's ability to take a game over with shooting, Golds' defense, Amber's contributions off the bench, all the deflections, the morphing defenses, etc etc. They just have a bunch of numbers compiled into team-by-team resumes. And when the year ends, there's a very good chance that there will be 16 teams in the country with better resumes than us, more quality wins, a tougher schedule, etc. I love our team, and I think we're legitimately in the second tier of teams beyond the top 8. But the committee doesn't get to see it because we're hidden, and the numbers will never be in our favor. Even with the brutal OOC schedule we ran through, our schedule strength will be worse than every team seeded around and ahead of us -- guaranteed.

It's not fair, but to an outsider, we will be seeded appropriately in their eyes.

Bleeding Orange · Post by **Bleeding Orange** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:18 am

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:The polls and the bracket have absolutely no correlation whatsoever.

I guess that statement is the essence of my problem, but your explanation makes sense (in terms of what the word "sense" means in relation to the NCAA (they have their own definitions of most meaningful words in the English language)).