03-18-2019, 08:04 PM
NCAA Women's Tournament Bracket
03-18-2019, 10:13 PM
Re game time: Be aware that the NCAA brackets are confusing about time except to those on the East Coast. There is no indication on the interactive bracket to indicate the time zone used.
Saturday's game will be approximately 3PM Pacific Deceiving-yourself Time.
The WBB brackets have the same issue that the WVB brackets had. The NCAA has not made any improvement to clarify the time zone used.
Saturday's game will be approximately 3PM Pacific Deceiving-yourself Time.
The WBB brackets have the same issue that the WVB brackets had. The NCAA has not made any improvement to clarify the time zone used.
Quote:Subject: Re: Different times on printable bracket vs interactive bracket
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 18:55:43 +0000
From: NCAASupport <.....>
To:
Yes, the interactive bracket is based on your time zone. Unfortunately, there is no way our logic can change the text for each bracket in a different time zone. Our apologies for the inconvenience.
On 11/27/18, 2:08 AM, "M_T wrote:
It is rather confusing that for someone outside the Eastern Time Zone, the times of the games on
https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/volleyball-women/d1/2018
and
https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/print/voll...en/d1/2018
are different.
I suspect that the interactive bracket is showing times based on the user's time zone while the
printable bracket is labeled as showing times as EST.
To avoid confusion, please indicate the time zone on the interactive bracket.
Re game time: Be aware that the NCAA brackets are confusing about time except to those on the East Coast. There is no indication on the interactive bracket to indicate the time zone used.
Saturday's game will be approximately 3PM Pacific Deceiving-yourself Time.
The WBB brackets have the same issue that the WVB brackets had. The NCAA has not made any improvement to clarify the time zone used.
Saturday's game will be approximately 3PM Pacific Deceiving-yourself Time.
The WBB brackets have the same issue that the WVB brackets had. The NCAA has not made any improvement to clarify the time zone used.
Quote:Subject: Re: Different times on printable bracket vs interactive bracket
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 18:55:43 +0000
From: NCAASupport <.....>
To:
Yes, the interactive bracket is based on your time zone. Unfortunately, there is no way our logic can change the text for each bracket in a different time zone. Our apologies for the inconvenience.
On 11/27/18, 2:08 AM, "M_T wrote:
It is rather confusing that for someone outside the Eastern Time Zone, the times of the games on
https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/volleyball-women/d1/2018
and
https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/print/voll...en/d1/2018
are different.
I suspect that the interactive bracket is showing times based on the user's time zone while the
printable bracket is labeled as showing times as EST.
To avoid confusion, please indicate the time zone on the interactive bracket.
I don't agree that the bracket was fair. Certainly one could say it was biased in favor of the SEC.
Tennessee (#60 SEC),
TCU (#58 Big 12)
Villanova (#56 Big East)
New Mexico (#55 MWC)
USC (#53 PAC-12)
Clemson (#51 ACC),
Auburn (#50 SEC),
Saint Mary's(CA) (#49 WCC)
Indiana (#48 Big 10)
Michigan (#46 Big 10),
Miami(OH) (#45 MAC)
Michigan State (#43 Big 10),
Cal (#42 PAC-12),
South Dakota (#40 Summit)
North Carolina (#38 ACC)
James Madison (#36 CAA)
UCLA (#35 PAC-12)
Ohio (#34 MAC)
While RPI is not a perfect guide, nor is it (obviously!) what the committee uses, it is at least objective.
Apparently the committee was determined to get 7 teams in for the SEC as they were also considering RPI #67 Arkansas as one of the 8 teams for the last 4 spots!
The ACC was the #1 RPI conference, and got 8 teams in. Congrats!
The PAC-12 was the #2 RPI conference, and got 6 teams in.
The Big 12 was #3 RPI, and got only 4 teams in. Ouch!
The Big Ten was #4 RPI, and got 6 teams in (3 in bottom 6)
The SEC was #5 RPI, and got 7 teams in (2 in bottom 3)
PAC-12 vs SEC seeds
- I've already indicated that I don't think Mississippi State had wins worthy of a #1 seed. Even Iowa had better wins. Mississippi State just played a weaker schedule, or lost when it went against stronger teams.
- South Carolina wasn't in the top 16 by RPI but they got seeded 4, so they get to host.
- As for Tennessee, has a lower rated team ever been allowed to play as an at-large team?
Tennessee (#60 SEC),
TCU (#58 Big 12)
Villanova (#56 Big East)
New Mexico (#55 MWC)
USC (#53 PAC-12)
Clemson (#51 ACC),
Auburn (#50 SEC),
Saint Mary's(CA) (#49 WCC)
Indiana (#48 Big 10)
Michigan (#46 Big 10),
Miami(OH) (#45 MAC)
Michigan State (#43 Big 10),
Cal (#42 PAC-12),
South Dakota (#40 Summit)
North Carolina (#38 ACC)
James Madison (#36 CAA)
UCLA (#35 PAC-12)
Ohio (#34 MAC)
While RPI is not a perfect guide, nor is it (obviously!) what the committee uses, it is at least objective.
Apparently the committee was determined to get 7 teams in for the SEC as they were also considering RPI #67 Arkansas as one of the 8 teams for the last 4 spots!
The ACC was the #1 RPI conference, and got 8 teams in. Congrats!
The PAC-12 was the #2 RPI conference, and got 6 teams in.
The Big 12 was #3 RPI, and got only 4 teams in. Ouch!
The Big Ten was #4 RPI, and got 6 teams in (3 in bottom 6)
The SEC was #5 RPI, and got 7 teams in (2 in bottom 3)
PAC-12 vs SEC seeds
Code:
RPI Seed RPI Seed
4 2 Stanford 8 1 Mississippi State
5 2 Oregon 16 4 Texas A&M
23 5 ASU 17 4 South Carolina
24 4 Oregon St 22 6 Kentucky
35 6 UCLA 30 7 Missouri
42 8 Cal 50 10 Auburn
53 out USC 60 11 Tennessee
81 out Arizona 67 out Arkansas
I don't agree that the bracket was fair. Certainly one could say it was biased in favor of the SEC.
Tennessee (#60 SEC),
TCU (#58 Big 12)
Villanova (#56 Big East)
New Mexico (#55 MWC)
USC (#53 PAC-12)
Clemson (#51 ACC),
Auburn (#50 SEC),
Saint Mary's(CA) (#49 WCC)
Indiana (#48 Big 10)
Michigan (#46 Big 10),
Miami(OH) (#45 MAC)
Michigan State (#43 Big 10),
Cal (#42 PAC-12),
South Dakota (#40 Summit)
North Carolina (#38 ACC)
James Madison (#36 CAA)
UCLA (#35 PAC-12)
Ohio (#34 MAC)
While RPI is not a perfect guide, nor is it (obviously!) what the committee uses, it is at least objective.
Apparently the committee was determined to get 7 teams in for the SEC as they were also considering RPI #67 Arkansas as one of the 8 teams for the last 4 spots!
The ACC was the #1 RPI conference, and got 8 teams in. Congrats!
The PAC-12 was the #2 RPI conference, and got 6 teams in.
The Big 12 was #3 RPI, and got only 4 teams in. Ouch!
The Big Ten was #4 RPI, and got 6 teams in (3 in bottom 6)
The SEC was #5 RPI, and got 7 teams in (2 in bottom 3)
PAC-12 vs SEC seeds
- I've already indicated that I don't think Mississippi State had wins worthy of a #1 seed. Even Iowa had better wins. Mississippi State just played a weaker schedule, or lost when it went against stronger teams.
- South Carolina wasn't in the top 16 by RPI but they got seeded 4, so they get to host.
- As for Tennessee, has a lower rated team ever been allowed to play as an at-large team?
Tennessee (#60 SEC),
TCU (#58 Big 12)
Villanova (#56 Big East)
New Mexico (#55 MWC)
USC (#53 PAC-12)
Clemson (#51 ACC),
Auburn (#50 SEC),
Saint Mary's(CA) (#49 WCC)
Indiana (#48 Big 10)
Michigan (#46 Big 10),
Miami(OH) (#45 MAC)
Michigan State (#43 Big 10),
Cal (#42 PAC-12),
South Dakota (#40 Summit)
North Carolina (#38 ACC)
James Madison (#36 CAA)
UCLA (#35 PAC-12)
Ohio (#34 MAC)
While RPI is not a perfect guide, nor is it (obviously!) what the committee uses, it is at least objective.
Apparently the committee was determined to get 7 teams in for the SEC as they were also considering RPI #67 Arkansas as one of the 8 teams for the last 4 spots!
The ACC was the #1 RPI conference, and got 8 teams in. Congrats!
The PAC-12 was the #2 RPI conference, and got 6 teams in.
The Big 12 was #3 RPI, and got only 4 teams in. Ouch!
The Big Ten was #4 RPI, and got 6 teams in (3 in bottom 6)
The SEC was #5 RPI, and got 7 teams in (2 in bottom 3)
PAC-12 vs SEC seeds
Code:
RPI Seed RPI Seed
4 2 Stanford 8 1 Mississippi State
5 2 Oregon 16 4 Texas A&M
23 5 ASU 17 4 South Carolina
24 4 Oregon St 22 6 Kentucky
35 6 UCLA 30 7 Missouri
42 8 Cal 50 10 Auburn
53 out USC 60 11 Tennessee
81 out Arizona 67 out Arkansas
So I am inclined to make a more holistic rather than technical assessment of the bracket, and while I think there may be marginal bias in favor of the SEC, I don't think it's as extreme as you say.
For example, whether Miss. St. deserved the final no. 1 seed or not, UConn would have claimed it over either Stanford or Oregon, and note that Miss. St. is bracketed to face Oregon in the Elite Eight in Portland. Whether Oregon was the 1 seed or Miss. St. was, I'm pretty sure everything thinks that matchup is favorable to Oregon, not MSU, notwithstanding that they are the lower seed. I'd be much happier to be Oregon yesterday than to be MSU.
Does it suck that Stanford is traveling east again? Yes, but unless we were bracketed in place of Oregon in Portland, that was inevitable - Chicago is actually the next closest region. And because the committee prioritizes 350 mile drives or less, it was inevitable Oregon would get the Portland two seed. Frankly, given their past three seasons, I think they are worthy of the kind of home regionals we've enjoyed for many years in the past in Sacramento.
As for RPI vs. seedings, note that Oregon State had a lower RPI (24) but better seed (4) than Kentucky (RPI 22, 6 seed). Same with UCLA (RPI 35, seed 6) vs. Missouri (RPI 30, seed 7). So I think that roughly balances out.
Rather, to me the main ways the PAC-12 got screwed were by the locations for our lower seeded teams: sending Cal as an 8 seed to Waco for what I think is the third time in the past 5 years, sending ASU to a Miami site whose other teams are quasi-local teams UCF and FGCU, and matching up UCLA with Tennessee, who remains dangerous even though their profile was the edge of the bubble this year.
And speaking of Tennessee, they had 5 RPI top-50 wins, 3 of which were away (at 28 Texas, vs. 47 Belmont, at 50 Auburn, vs. 50 Auburn, and at 30 Missouri), vs. Arizona's 2 RPI top-50 wins, both at home (vs. 23 ASU and vs. 42 Cal), and U$C's 2 RPI top-50 wins, one at home (at 35 UCLA, vs. 42 Cal). The committee has always cared more about good wins than bad losses, and I think that's as it should be - if I were UCLA, I would be way more concerned about facing Tennessee at a neutral site than facing Arizona or USC. Tennessee isn't going to win 6 games in a row, but they can threaten just about anyone on any night. Lest we forget, we only walked away with a 10 point victory, and that was when our offense was firing on all cylinders and we racked up 95 points.
Finally, yes, it'd be nice to play a new first-round opponent, but most of the first-round sites tried to pair with quasi-local lower seeds, which is as it should be. UCD fans deserve the chance to see their team in the tournament, and sending them to Miami or Waco or Storrs would make that very difficult.
ETA: I expect the Monday game won't tip off before 6 pm (which is when it was last year) - there are only three PDT or MDT first round sites - us, Corvallis, and Eugene, so I'd guess ESPN will want to preserve those games for the 6 and 8 pm PDT broadcast slots because those time slots are way too late for CDT or EDT tip-offs. IIRC, last year most of the Monday tip-offs didn't start before about 3 pm local time, and were mostly EDT games.
For example, whether Miss. St. deserved the final no. 1 seed or not, UConn would have claimed it over either Stanford or Oregon, and note that Miss. St. is bracketed to face Oregon in the Elite Eight in Portland. Whether Oregon was the 1 seed or Miss. St. was, I'm pretty sure everything thinks that matchup is favorable to Oregon, not MSU, notwithstanding that they are the lower seed. I'd be much happier to be Oregon yesterday than to be MSU.
Does it suck that Stanford is traveling east again? Yes, but unless we were bracketed in place of Oregon in Portland, that was inevitable - Chicago is actually the next closest region. And because the committee prioritizes 350 mile drives or less, it was inevitable Oregon would get the Portland two seed. Frankly, given their past three seasons, I think they are worthy of the kind of home regionals we've enjoyed for many years in the past in Sacramento.
As for RPI vs. seedings, note that Oregon State had a lower RPI (24) but better seed (4) than Kentucky (RPI 22, 6 seed). Same with UCLA (RPI 35, seed 6) vs. Missouri (RPI 30, seed 7). So I think that roughly balances out.
Rather, to me the main ways the PAC-12 got screwed were by the locations for our lower seeded teams: sending Cal as an 8 seed to Waco for what I think is the third time in the past 5 years, sending ASU to a Miami site whose other teams are quasi-local teams UCF and FGCU, and matching up UCLA with Tennessee, who remains dangerous even though their profile was the edge of the bubble this year.
And speaking of Tennessee, they had 5 RPI top-50 wins, 3 of which were away (at 28 Texas, vs. 47 Belmont, at 50 Auburn, vs. 50 Auburn, and at 30 Missouri), vs. Arizona's 2 RPI top-50 wins, both at home (vs. 23 ASU and vs. 42 Cal), and U$C's 2 RPI top-50 wins, one at home (at 35 UCLA, vs. 42 Cal). The committee has always cared more about good wins than bad losses, and I think that's as it should be - if I were UCLA, I would be way more concerned about facing Tennessee at a neutral site than facing Arizona or USC. Tennessee isn't going to win 6 games in a row, but they can threaten just about anyone on any night. Lest we forget, we only walked away with a 10 point victory, and that was when our offense was firing on all cylinders and we racked up 95 points.
Finally, yes, it'd be nice to play a new first-round opponent, but most of the first-round sites tried to pair with quasi-local lower seeds, which is as it should be. UCD fans deserve the chance to see their team in the tournament, and sending them to Miami or Waco or Storrs would make that very difficult.
ETA: I expect the Monday game won't tip off before 6 pm (which is when it was last year) - there are only three PDT or MDT first round sites - us, Corvallis, and Eugene, so I'd guess ESPN will want to preserve those games for the 6 and 8 pm PDT broadcast slots because those time slots are way too late for CDT or EDT tip-offs. IIRC, last year most of the Monday tip-offs didn't start before about 3 pm local time, and were mostly EDT games.
So I am inclined to make a more holistic rather than technical assessment of the bracket, and while I think there may be marginal bias in favor of the SEC, I don't think it's as extreme as you say.
For example, whether Miss. St. deserved the final no. 1 seed or not, UConn would have claimed it over either Stanford or Oregon, and note that Miss. St. is bracketed to face Oregon in the Elite Eight in Portland. Whether Oregon was the 1 seed or Miss. St. was, I'm pretty sure everything thinks that matchup is favorable to Oregon, not MSU, notwithstanding that they are the lower seed. I'd be much happier to be Oregon yesterday than to be MSU.
Does it suck that Stanford is traveling east again? Yes, but unless we were bracketed in place of Oregon in Portland, that was inevitable - Chicago is actually the next closest region. And because the committee prioritizes 350 mile drives or less, it was inevitable Oregon would get the Portland two seed. Frankly, given their past three seasons, I think they are worthy of the kind of home regionals we've enjoyed for many years in the past in Sacramento.
As for RPI vs. seedings, note that Oregon State had a lower RPI (24) but better seed (4) than Kentucky (RPI 22, 6 seed). Same with UCLA (RPI 35, seed 6) vs. Missouri (RPI 30, seed 7). So I think that roughly balances out.
Rather, to me the main ways the PAC-12 got screwed were by the locations for our lower seeded teams: sending Cal as an 8 seed to Waco for what I think is the third time in the past 5 years, sending ASU to a Miami site whose other teams are quasi-local teams UCF and FGCU, and matching up UCLA with Tennessee, who remains dangerous even though their profile was the edge of the bubble this year.
And speaking of Tennessee, they had 5 RPI top-50 wins, 3 of which were away (at 28 Texas, vs. 47 Belmont, at 50 Auburn, vs. 50 Auburn, and at 30 Missouri), vs. Arizona's 2 RPI top-50 wins, both at home (vs. 23 ASU and vs. 42 Cal), and U$C's 2 RPI top-50 wins, one at home (at 35 UCLA, vs. 42 Cal). The committee has always cared more about good wins than bad losses, and I think that's as it should be - if I were UCLA, I would be way more concerned about facing Tennessee at a neutral site than facing Arizona or USC. Tennessee isn't going to win 6 games in a row, but they can threaten just about anyone on any night. Lest we forget, we only walked away with a 10 point victory, and that was when our offense was firing on all cylinders and we racked up 95 points.
Finally, yes, it'd be nice to play a new first-round opponent, but most of the first-round sites tried to pair with quasi-local lower seeds, which is as it should be. UCD fans deserve the chance to see their team in the tournament, and sending them to Miami or Waco or Storrs would make that very difficult.
ETA: I expect the Monday game won't tip off before 6 pm (which is when it was last year) - there are only three PDT or MDT first round sites - us, Corvallis, and Eugene, so I'd guess ESPN will want to preserve those games for the 6 and 8 pm PDT broadcast slots because those time slots are way too late for CDT or EDT tip-offs. IIRC, last year most of the Monday tip-offs didn't start before about 3 pm local time, and were mostly EDT games.
For example, whether Miss. St. deserved the final no. 1 seed or not, UConn would have claimed it over either Stanford or Oregon, and note that Miss. St. is bracketed to face Oregon in the Elite Eight in Portland. Whether Oregon was the 1 seed or Miss. St. was, I'm pretty sure everything thinks that matchup is favorable to Oregon, not MSU, notwithstanding that they are the lower seed. I'd be much happier to be Oregon yesterday than to be MSU.
Does it suck that Stanford is traveling east again? Yes, but unless we were bracketed in place of Oregon in Portland, that was inevitable - Chicago is actually the next closest region. And because the committee prioritizes 350 mile drives or less, it was inevitable Oregon would get the Portland two seed. Frankly, given their past three seasons, I think they are worthy of the kind of home regionals we've enjoyed for many years in the past in Sacramento.
As for RPI vs. seedings, note that Oregon State had a lower RPI (24) but better seed (4) than Kentucky (RPI 22, 6 seed). Same with UCLA (RPI 35, seed 6) vs. Missouri (RPI 30, seed 7). So I think that roughly balances out.
Rather, to me the main ways the PAC-12 got screwed were by the locations for our lower seeded teams: sending Cal as an 8 seed to Waco for what I think is the third time in the past 5 years, sending ASU to a Miami site whose other teams are quasi-local teams UCF and FGCU, and matching up UCLA with Tennessee, who remains dangerous even though their profile was the edge of the bubble this year.
And speaking of Tennessee, they had 5 RPI top-50 wins, 3 of which were away (at 28 Texas, vs. 47 Belmont, at 50 Auburn, vs. 50 Auburn, and at 30 Missouri), vs. Arizona's 2 RPI top-50 wins, both at home (vs. 23 ASU and vs. 42 Cal), and U$C's 2 RPI top-50 wins, one at home (at 35 UCLA, vs. 42 Cal). The committee has always cared more about good wins than bad losses, and I think that's as it should be - if I were UCLA, I would be way more concerned about facing Tennessee at a neutral site than facing Arizona or USC. Tennessee isn't going to win 6 games in a row, but they can threaten just about anyone on any night. Lest we forget, we only walked away with a 10 point victory, and that was when our offense was firing on all cylinders and we racked up 95 points.
Finally, yes, it'd be nice to play a new first-round opponent, but most of the first-round sites tried to pair with quasi-local lower seeds, which is as it should be. UCD fans deserve the chance to see their team in the tournament, and sending them to Miami or Waco or Storrs would make that very difficult.
ETA: I expect the Monday game won't tip off before 6 pm (which is when it was last year) - there are only three PDT or MDT first round sites - us, Corvallis, and Eugene, so I'd guess ESPN will want to preserve those games for the 6 and 8 pm PDT broadcast slots because those time slots are way too late for CDT or EDT tip-offs. IIRC, last year most of the Monday tip-offs didn't start before about 3 pm local time, and were mostly EDT games.
03-19-2019, 07:37 AM
Great post and thanks for the thoughts and information 2006.
You covered a number of things I hadn’t thought of (yet). :)
For MT the bottom of my printed brackets say all times Eastern
You covered a number of things I hadn’t thought of (yet). :)
For MT the bottom of my printed brackets say all times Eastern
03-19-2019, 09:16 AM
(03-19-2019, 01:44 AM)M T Wrote: While RPI is not a perfect guide, nor is it (obviously!) what the committee uses, it is at least objective.My take on the seeding/RPI disparity is the opposite of yours: rather than the RPI showing that the seeding is inaccurate, I think the seeding confirms (for the umpteenth time) that the RPI is inaccurate. Kudos to the committee for giving the RPI the weight it deserves. RPI, R.I.P!
(03-19-2019, 01:44 AM)M T Wrote: While RPI is not a perfect guide, nor is it (obviously!) what the committee uses, it is at least objective.My take on the seeding/RPI disparity is the opposite of yours: rather than the RPI showing that the seeding is inaccurate, I think the seeding confirms (for the umpteenth time) that the RPI is inaccurate. Kudos to the committee for giving the RPI the weight it deserves. RPI, R.I.P!
03-19-2019, 09:22 AM
Oregon's second round will be on Sunday, so our west coast TV competition will be only the OSU second round. Would they rather show our matchup at 6, or 8? I guess it depends on who wins each...
03-19-2019, 01:19 PM
538's tournament article and predictions:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you...ournament/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201...ns/womens/
Stanford is currently given an 0.6% chance to win the championship.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you...ournament/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201...ns/womens/
Stanford is currently given an 0.6% chance to win the championship.
538's tournament article and predictions:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you...ournament/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201...ns/womens/
Stanford is currently given an 0.6% chance to win the championship.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you...ournament/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201...ns/womens/
Stanford is currently given an 0.6% chance to win the championship.
03-19-2019, 04:43 PM
(03-19-2019, 01:19 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: 538's tournament article and predictions:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you...ournament/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201...ns/womens/
Stanford is currently given an 0.6% chance to win the championship.
Thanks so much for these links, very interesting. Also interesting, curious, that the first one has pictures of 10 players and the one for Stanford is Jenna Brown! Wonder why they chose her, but suggests to me that whoever put this together isn't all that familiar with Stanford.
(03-19-2019, 01:19 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: 538's tournament article and predictions:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you...ournament/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201...ns/womens/
Stanford is currently given an 0.6% chance to win the championship.
Thanks so much for these links, very interesting. Also interesting, curious, that the first one has pictures of 10 players and the one for Stanford is Jenna Brown! Wonder why they chose her, but suggests to me that whoever put this together isn't all that familiar with Stanford.
03-20-2019, 03:14 PM
Re" Alanna - not just a fingernail
"She has played the last eight games with tape on her shooting hand after breaking the tip of her right ring finger on the first play of the game at USC on Feb. 17."
Per GoStanford in the Davis preview
"She has played the last eight games with tape on her shooting hand after breaking the tip of her right ring finger on the first play of the game at USC on Feb. 17."
Per GoStanford in the Davis preview
03-20-2019, 03:49 PM
(03-20-2019, 03:14 PM)mbdude Wrote: Re" Alanna - not just a fingernail
"She has played the last eight games with tape on her shooting hand after breaking the tip of her right ring finger on the first play of the game at USC on Feb. 17."
Per GoStanford in the Davis preview
https://gostanford.com/news/2019/3/20/wo...again.aspx
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(03-20-2019, 03:14 PM)mbdude Wrote: Re" Alanna - not just a fingernail
"She has played the last eight games with tape on her shooting hand after breaking the tip of her right ring finger on the first play of the game at USC on Feb. 17."
Per GoStanford in the Davis preview
https://gostanford.com/news/2019/3/20/wo...again.aspx
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
03-20-2019, 05:08 PM
(03-20-2019, 03:49 PM)82lsju Wrote:(03-20-2019, 03:14 PM)mbdude Wrote: Re" Alanna - not just a fingernail
"She has played the last eight games with tape on her shooting hand after breaking the tip of her right ring finger on the first play of the game at USC on Feb. 17."
Per GoStanford in the Davis preview
https://gostanford.com/news/2019/3/20/wo...again.aspx
That explains the drop off in outside shooting. I wonder if sitting out Davis will do any good, or if it doesn’t make much difference at this point.
(03-20-2019, 03:49 PM)82lsju Wrote:(03-20-2019, 03:14 PM)mbdude Wrote: Re" Alanna - not just a fingernail
"She has played the last eight games with tape on her shooting hand after breaking the tip of her right ring finger on the first play of the game at USC on Feb. 17."
Per GoStanford in the Davis preview
https://gostanford.com/news/2019/3/20/wo...again.aspx
That explains the drop off in outside shooting. I wonder if sitting out Davis will do any good, or if it doesn’t make much difference at this point.
03-21-2019, 11:35 AM
Short preview of Chicago Region. Re Alanna - "most versatile 6'4" player in the country"
http://www.espn.com/womens-college-baske...al-preview
http://www.espn.com/womens-college-baske...al-preview
Short preview of Chicago Region. Re Alanna - "most versatile 6'4" player in the country"
http://www.espn.com/womens-college-baske...al-preview
http://www.espn.com/womens-college-baske...al-preview
03-22-2019, 01:24 AM
Less data-driven, but still fun... here are President Obama's brackets:
https://www.obama.org/2019-ncaa/
He knocks Oregon out early, has us advancing to the Elite Eight, and picks UConn to win it all.
https://www.obama.org/2019-ncaa/
He knocks Oregon out early, has us advancing to the Elite Eight, and picks UConn to win it all.
Less data-driven, but still fun... here are President Obama's brackets:
https://www.obama.org/2019-ncaa/
He knocks Oregon out early, has us advancing to the Elite Eight, and picks UConn to win it all.
https://www.obama.org/2019-ncaa/
He knocks Oregon out early, has us advancing to the Elite Eight, and picks UConn to win it all.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »