|
|
Post by uconncat on Mar 2, 2015 8:23:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 2, 2015 11:07:41 GMT -5
I see Charlie has UNC and AZ State as 3 and 4 seeds in Spokane. As I said earlier, when it looked like TN and Baylor might be one and two seeds in OK, with UNC and AZ State as 3 and 4 seeds, I didn’t think Kim would be unhappy about facings AZ State rather than UNC. While UNC’s loss to Duke moderates that thought a bit, I doubt that Holly will be unhappy about the prospect of facing AZ State.
Of course, TN was ousted by MD last year, the committee may take that into consideration, but I've seen repeat matchups (CT-KY) before – I think the committee tries to avoid a third, but maybe not a second straight match up.
|
|
|
|
Post by meyers7 on Mar 2, 2015 12:42:27 GMT -5
I'd love Oregon St as our #2. Somebody new to play. And Mississippi St or Stanford (rematch) would be cool too.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockymtblue2 on Mar 2, 2015 14:21:40 GMT -5
It is about time that someone ranked Maryland over Tennessee. Hopefully the Comm. will too. I'd like to see Tenn knocked out early in SEC tourney. This lackluster team sheds true light on the careworn boast about the dominant SEC.
|
|
|
|
Post by milfordhusky on Mar 2, 2015 22:11:21 GMT -5
If we get Oregon State, Louisville, Mississippi State, and Stanford, I really like our chances.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icebear on Mar 3, 2015 6:44:18 GMT -5
It is about time that someone ranked Maryland over Tennessee. Hopefully the Comm. will too. I'd like to see Tenn knocked out early in SEC tourney. This lackluster team sheds true light on the careworn boast about the dominant SEC. Amen, Rocky on all counts. As much as I don't like Brenda as a coach she made mincemeat with the weak B1G and that is vastly better than the SEC. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 3, 2015 8:19:18 GMT -5
It has been my impression that the B1G is not one of the strongest of the top conferences, but I checked Sagarin, and he ranks it as the best conference overall.
I think it is partly because MD doesn't yet feel like a B1G team, I have to keep remaining myself that they are, (same with Rutgers to some extent) and there are no others who have been consistent powerhouses. No team (except MD) is one you would wince if they showed up in your bracket.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 3, 2015 8:51:39 GMT -5
I've been thinking more about what Icebear said, partly because I heard the same thing from someone else yesterday. One possibility is that we saw how dominant the old Big East was, that we use that as a measure of a strong conference, and any conference that isn't close to that standard is considered weak. I wonder if we have forgotten how dominant the Big East was? Let me count (because this is my post) the appearances in the Final Four over the last five years, and assign to each team the conference they were in before the big conference reshuffling. Then there are 20 appearances in the Final Four by those teams. Here is the table: | Conference | Appearances | Teams | | BE | 10 | 3 | | Pac 12 | 5 | 2 | | B12 | 4 | 3 | | ACC | 1 | 1 | | B10 | 0 | 0 | | SEC | 0 | 0 |
Half the appearance are by Big East teams, and it isn’t just UConn. The Big East has sent as many teams as any conference. Only the Big 12 can compare in terms of number of teams. No one is close in number of appearances. And there, at the bottom, along with the SEC, is the B10, with no teams and no appearances in the Final Four over the last five years. It is hard to think of a conference as a strong conference if they cannot send a single team to the Final Four over half a decade. [Edit], I had to go back to 2005 to find a FF with a B10 team in it, so they just barely get one in a decade. |
|
|
|
Post by atticusfinch on Mar 3, 2015 8:59:04 GMT -5
If we get Oregon State, Louisville, Mississippi State, and Stanford, I really like our chances. Boy, do I hope we get another shot at Stanford. That would be ever so delicious. AF |
|
|
|
Post by Icebear on Mar 3, 2015 10:01:06 GMT -5
I've been thinking more about what Icebear said, partly because I heard the same thing from someone else yesterday. One possibility is that we saw how dominant the old Big East was, that we use that as a measure of a strong conference, and any conference that isn't close to that standard is considered weak. I wonder if we have forgotten how dominant the Big East was? Let me count (because this is my post) the appearances in the Final Four over the last five years, and assign to each team the conference they were in before the big conference reshuffling. Then there are 20 appearances in the Final Four by those teams. Here is the table: | Conference | Appearances | Teams | | BE | 10 | 3 | | Pac 12 | 5 | 2 | | B12 | 4 | 3 | | ACC | 1 | 1 | | B10 | 0 | 0 | | SEC | 0 | 0 |
Half the appearance are by Big East teams, and it isn’t just UConn. The Big East has sent as many teams as any conference. Only the Big 12 can compare in terms of number of teams. No one is close in number of appearances. And there, at the bottom, along with the SEC, is the B10, with no teams and no appearances in the Final Four over the last five years. It is hard to think of a conference as a strong conference if they cannot send a single team to the Final Four over half a decade. [Edit], I had to go back to 2005 to find a FF with a B10 team in it, so they just barely get one in a decade. Phil, most of my assessment is based on what I see on the Big Ten network and knowing the teams history in person over several seasons. It was to be expected from the start that MD should dominate many of the usuals some of whom like PSU were going through staff and player personnel changes. I knew PSU would lose 15 this year I did not expect it to be 20+. Many teams with limited depth had some key injuries that wiped them out. The Big Ten has simply been down in the quality of what I see and MD brought its ACC game with them. |
|
|
|
Post by atticusfinch on Mar 3, 2015 10:06:53 GMT -5
I've been thinking more about what Icebear said, partly because I heard the same thing from someone else yesterday. One possibility is that we saw how dominant the old Big East was, that we use that as a measure of a strong conference, and any conference that isn't close to that standard is considered weak. I wonder if we have forgotten how dominant the Big East was? Let me count (because this is my post) the appearances in the Final Four over the last five years, and assign to each team the conference they were in before the big conference reshuffling. Then there are 20 appearances in the Final Four by those teams. Here is the table: | Conference | Appearances | Teams | | BE | 10 | 3 | | Pac 12 | 5 | 2 | | B12 | 4 | 3 | | ACC | 1 | 1 | | B10 | 0 | 0 | | SEC | 0 | 0 |
Half the appearance are by Big East teams, and it isn’t just UConn. The Big East has sent as many teams as any conference. Only the Big 12 can compare in terms of number of teams. No one is close in number of appearances. And there, at the bottom, along with the SEC, is the B10, with no teams and no appearances in the Final Four over the last five years. It is hard to think of a conference as a strong conference if they cannot send a single team to the Final Four over half a decade. I was thinking the same thing the other day but I came to it by asking which conference would give us a competitive 3 loss season. We're spoiled... the BE set a standard that no conference today seems able to match or even nearly reach. The much ballyhoo'ed SEC is decades behind the evolution curve of WCBB as set by the old BE. Olde Coach was spot on... the SEC brand of bump, thump, grab, and rebound ball is the game of the past and will always feed into the narrative that women's basketball is an inferior, whistle intensive, referee dependent game.... As crazy as it is, they are regularly touted to be the strongest conference. The ACC is a wasteland these days, the rest of the conferences are either in a form of basketball stasis or are actively backsliding. Where's the Big12 theses days... Baylor, OK, Texas Tech, Texas, KSU, .... Conferences and teams that rely as heavily upon stars, as the SEC does, will never find sustained success unless success is defined by watching two evenly matched teams playing bad basketball to a 1 point decision. It's competitive but is also uninteresting. How is it any better than watching two evenly matched people throw baked potatoes at each other? Over the last several decades the WCBB was moving to be a smarter, more elegant, more skills intensive, fundamentally sound brand of ball, but these days with the exception of UConn, ND, and a few occasional interlopers the game is losing ground. Geno's game has to be spread to a growing number of teams if WCBB is to thrive. The problem is not that the talent pool is too slim, but that the coaching pool is to0 slim. AF |
|
