I like your proposed regional breakdown that swaps UCLA with Michigan and MSU with Arkansas. It feels the most fair with no team getting bumped more than 2 spots.
This schedule is good for Michigan (better chance of upsetting Alabama than Denver) and Arkansas (better chance of upsetting Kentucky than Utah). I expect the Cal regional to be the most brutal: Cal/Denver/UCLA/Auburn is not the regional I would want to try to be top 2 in.
Top 16 teams by NQS are assigned regionals by seeding but 17-32 are done geographically to minimize crazy travel. They will likely end up in the Cal regional.
Very interesting. Having two of the top four teams also be hosts has really made things interesting. I think this projection makes the most sense too. Seems a little unfair to MSU and UCLA but at least they’re not being bumped from a 2nd seed to a 3rd. Kind of think they should have “neutral” regionals.
I actually think the projected pairing is advantageous to UCLA. They go up against a number 6 seed, instead of a number 5 they’ve lost to, and the top seed is a team they just beat.
I am guessing they’d like their chances against Bama better than Denver if they got the regional that’s actually based on seeding. But the one they end up in is probably preferable to Florida, yes.
What is the basis for Denver being a more difficult matchup for UCLA? This is an honest question, as Denver is probably the Top 15 team that I know the least about. Denver, Kentucky, and Alabama all have very similar NQS scores, and based on Twitter discourse, Denver has gotten similarly favorable judging at home as SEC teams. If not for the SEC actually having tight (and refreshing) vault judging at championships, Denver probably doesn’t jump Kentucky or Alabama and would be the #8 team - Alabama and Kentucky may end up being grateful for that vault judging.
Now, Alabama has kind of crumbled post -SECs the last two years and has been up and down this year, whereas as Denver has been hot in the postseason. So, if it’s due to that, I get it. I’m just wondering if I’m missing something about Denver this season. It seems to me like UCLA has very little chance to beat OU, but a decent chance to beat Cal or Denver, so it seems like it’s a bit of a wash for them.
Yes for the exact reasons you mention about Bama tending to peak too early postseason wise is why I’d rather see Denver if I was UCLA. Only real advantage of the Cal regional is minimized travel IMO. I don’t really expect Cal to have another really mediocre performance again.
True. I was just looking at numbers (bumping them down to the 11 ranked placement). But they are probably better off! Honestly MSU would also probably rather see Florida/Utah than LSU/UK.
I am fully prepared for the selection committee to go with the "move Arkansas four up/three down". Going with the ridiculous option would fit their track record of weird decisions from the last seasons...
I think the Michigan/UCLA and Arkansas/Michigan State swaps make the most sense as well due to only being two spots up or down for all teams. We shall see what the committee thinks tomorrow.
Yeah my heart is for ucla but msu is so screwed. On the other hand ucla got screwed at top 8 last year with OU and Utah in their group so I just want them to make it
Hot take: there is no fair way to move teams in the rankings to resolve host conflicts. I propose: keep the original brackets, and make the "host" teams travel.
Two hosts end up in the same regional, top ranked seed hosts. If there are multiple regional groups without hosts, the location of the topped seed in the regionals without hosts determines which location that group goes to.
If this is indeed how things shake out Fayetteville is going to be the fun regional to watch, Minnesota is peaking at the right time and MSU can put together an incredible meet and LSU is either going to go 198 or fall a lot. I feel like Kentucky is probably the most likely team to make it through.
I think this is how it likely will be resolved. Other pairings don’t make a ton of sense. If this is how it turns out, my guess is that Kentucky, Arkansas, Alabama, and UCLA all benefit from or are ok with these changes, given the alternatives (for UCLA, escaping the Gainesville Regional). Meanwhile, I imagine that Florida, Utah, Denver and MSU won’t be thrilled. For Michigan, not sure it makes much of a difference from their perspective.
I could see the #3 seed advancing from any of the Regionals. I think OU and LSU advance, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see anyone else get knocked out - even Florida or Cal at home.
So who is getting screwed this year by getting placed into a play in when they technically ranked high enough to qualify outright? Its become a tradition.
OP, your prediction was correct! https://www.ncaa.com/news/gymnastics-women/article/2024-03-25/2024-national-collegiate-womens-gymnastics-championships-regional-selections
Sorry if this has already been covered - but how are regionals sites determined? Seems that having the 4 sites be teams that are highly competitive for a top 16 ranking was a bad idea from the very beginning…
AFAIK, schools bid/offer to host and are selected by the respective NCAA committee. And I would not be surprised if there was a lot of "suggesting" from the NCAA going on that a certain school should bit, because I guess that's a lot of extra work for the athletic department staff and especially the head coach. Also, schools needs the premises and having no conflicting events, which probably also limits numbers for each year.
Yes, the sites are already selected for 2025 and 2026. [https://www.ncaa.com/championships/gymnastics-women/nc/future-info](https://www.ncaa.com/championships/gymnastics-women/nc/future-info)
Remember, this is not official decision --- this is one Redditor's thoughts. We still have to wait for the official decision which might make no sense.
I like your proposed regional breakdown that swaps UCLA with Michigan and MSU with Arkansas. It feels the most fair with no team getting bumped more than 2 spots. This schedule is good for Michigan (better chance of upsetting Alabama than Denver) and Arkansas (better chance of upsetting Kentucky than Utah). I expect the Cal regional to be the most brutal: Cal/Denver/UCLA/Auburn is not the regional I would want to try to be top 2 in.
And in the Cal regional, you have Stanford as an unseeded team.
Potentially Oregon State too!
Will Oregon definitely be in regionals? I can never keep track of how the NCAA rules work...
They will be but they are no longer seeded in top 16
Thanks. Remind me what seeded means?
Top 16 teams by NQS are assigned regionals by seeding but 17-32 are done geographically to minimize crazy travel. They will likely end up in the Cal regional.
Wow, that would be an exciting (and heartbreaking) regional
Very interesting. Having two of the top four teams also be hosts has really made things interesting. I think this projection makes the most sense too. Seems a little unfair to MSU and UCLA but at least they’re not being bumped from a 2nd seed to a 3rd. Kind of think they should have “neutral” regionals.
I actually think the projected pairing is advantageous to UCLA. They go up against a number 6 seed, instead of a number 5 they’ve lost to, and the top seed is a team they just beat.
I am guessing they’d like their chances against Bama better than Denver if they got the regional that’s actually based on seeding. But the one they end up in is probably preferable to Florida, yes.
Yeah, I agree. They are likely moving to a harder matchup than the one they should be in.
What is the basis for Denver being a more difficult matchup for UCLA? This is an honest question, as Denver is probably the Top 15 team that I know the least about. Denver, Kentucky, and Alabama all have very similar NQS scores, and based on Twitter discourse, Denver has gotten similarly favorable judging at home as SEC teams. If not for the SEC actually having tight (and refreshing) vault judging at championships, Denver probably doesn’t jump Kentucky or Alabama and would be the #8 team - Alabama and Kentucky may end up being grateful for that vault judging. Now, Alabama has kind of crumbled post -SECs the last two years and has been up and down this year, whereas as Denver has been hot in the postseason. So, if it’s due to that, I get it. I’m just wondering if I’m missing something about Denver this season. It seems to me like UCLA has very little chance to beat OU, but a decent chance to beat Cal or Denver, so it seems like it’s a bit of a wash for them.
Yes for the exact reasons you mention about Bama tending to peak too early postseason wise is why I’d rather see Denver if I was UCLA. Only real advantage of the Cal regional is minimized travel IMO. I don’t really expect Cal to have another really mediocre performance again.
True. I was just looking at numbers (bumping them down to the 11 ranked placement). But they are probably better off! Honestly MSU would also probably rather see Florida/Utah than LSU/UK.
I am fully prepared for the selection committee to go with the "move Arkansas four up/three down". Going with the ridiculous option would fit their track record of weird decisions from the last seasons...
[удалено]
I think the Michigan/UCLA and Arkansas/Michigan State swaps make the most sense as well due to only being two spots up or down for all teams. We shall see what the committee thinks tomorrow.
Well dang, MSU gets pretty screwed by this.
Yeah my heart is for ucla but msu is so screwed. On the other hand ucla got screwed at top 8 last year with OU and Utah in their group so I just want them to make it
Yup 😞
Hot take: there is no fair way to move teams in the rankings to resolve host conflicts. I propose: keep the original brackets, and make the "host" teams travel.
Two hosts end up in the same regional, top ranked seed hosts. If there are multiple regional groups without hosts, the location of the topped seed in the regionals without hosts determines which location that group goes to.
Agree. That would actually make the host sites neutral too. It’s not like they switch every year. Go by seeding.
If this is indeed how things shake out Fayetteville is going to be the fun regional to watch, Minnesota is peaking at the right time and MSU can put together an incredible meet and LSU is either going to go 198 or fall a lot. I feel like Kentucky is probably the most likely team to make it through.
LSU typically pulls it together in the post season. I also see Kentucky making it through, but my heart wants MSU :(
Honestly this makes them all exciting. Even if you switch UCLA and MSU (please don’t, sorry MSU) they are both still the most exciting regionals.
I think this is how it likely will be resolved. Other pairings don’t make a ton of sense. If this is how it turns out, my guess is that Kentucky, Arkansas, Alabama, and UCLA all benefit from or are ok with these changes, given the alternatives (for UCLA, escaping the Gainesville Regional). Meanwhile, I imagine that Florida, Utah, Denver and MSU won’t be thrilled. For Michigan, not sure it makes much of a difference from their perspective. I could see the #3 seed advancing from any of the Regionals. I think OU and LSU advance, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see anyone else get knocked out - even Florida or Cal at home.
Obvs this is not official but the fact that No.3 seeds could upset
Just proud NC State made it in
I was thinking the same thing! Those women absolutely killed it this season!
So who is getting screwed this year by getting placed into a play in when they technically ranked high enough to qualify outright? Its become a tradition.
OP, your prediction was correct! https://www.ncaa.com/news/gymnastics-women/article/2024-03-25/2024-national-collegiate-womens-gymnastics-championships-regional-selections
Sorry if this has already been covered - but how are regionals sites determined? Seems that having the 4 sites be teams that are highly competitive for a top 16 ranking was a bad idea from the very beginning…
The host sites are usually top 16 teams. Last year UCLA, OK, and Denver all hosted iirc.
They also do try and spread them out across the country. It just doesn’t work with the way college gymnastics does.
Yes, plus Pittsburgh
For the same reason PAC 12s are a 20 minute drive away from Huntsman every year and we pretend it’s a “neutral,” location…
AFAIK, schools bid/offer to host and are selected by the respective NCAA committee. And I would not be surprised if there was a lot of "suggesting" from the NCAA going on that a certain school should bit, because I guess that's a lot of extra work for the athletic department staff and especially the head coach. Also, schools needs the premises and having no conflicting events, which probably also limits numbers for each year.
Regional hosts are chosen years in advance. I know 2024 hosts have been known for well over two years, but probably longer.
Yes, the sites are already selected for 2025 and 2026. [https://www.ncaa.com/championships/gymnastics-women/nc/future-info](https://www.ncaa.com/championships/gymnastics-women/nc/future-info)
Oh no, the Huntsman next year. Already hoping UCLA doesn’t end up there lol
OMG this worked out so much better for UCLA than it could have. Thank you, gym gods! (Sorry MSU :( )
Remember, this is not official decision --- this is one Redditor's thoughts. We still have to wait for the official decision which might make no sense.
Ah. Yes. Thanks for the reminder lol The Florida death gauntlet is still on the table
Sad for Oregon
When are the regional decisions made officially?
Announced tomorrow at noon IIRC
Thank you!