[81alum]

On Monday, March 18 we will learn who our opponents will be in the tournament. 

In the meantime, Charlie Creme has us lined up against this path, if all the seeds held:
1st Round: Seattle University at Maples
2nd Round: Villanova at Maples
Sweet 16: Georgia at Spokane
Elite 8: Penn State at Spokane
Final 4: Connecticut
Championship: Baylor/Notre Dame if we beat Connecticut

Charlie Creme always persuades me that he is going to be largely correct; the trouble is, he never is correct.  He always seems to give Stanford a pretty favorable path in his predictions--and things seldom turn out quite so well.  In this case, I would be ecstatic to get that path, which I think is quite doable and could set up a revenge match against Connecticut in the final four.

However, Creme also has UCLA as a 3 seed inside the Spokane bracket, and UCLA might well knock off an overrated Penn State.  If Creme is correct that UCLA with a 3 will be kept inside the west, that could set up a fourth game against UCLA this year.  While I thought they had to spread conference teams out amongst the brackets--I also know there are many exceptions as there are rules in "bracketology."

In comparison with Creme, if we went strictly on the current rankings, we ought to be playing Delaware, Georgia, North Carolina or Louisville in the sweet 16 (so Georgia is a logical guess), and then Duke, California, Kentucky, or Penn State in the elite 8 (so again Creme's guess is logical.) 

Now, if we do RPI instead of rankings, things would be different yet.  Stanford is actually now 2nd in RPI.  Our Sweet 16 matchups on RPI would be either Nebraska, North Carolina, Dayton, or Purdue.  Our Elite 8 matchups would be either Duke, Penn State, Kentucky, or Tennessee.  (Cal drops to 9th in RPI, UCLA is 11th, so those teams would be matched up against our possible Elite 8 opponents in the sweet 16, and either of them would have to beat a higher RPI team to get to us.) 

In any case, if you scan over all the teams mentioned above, I think we have a pretty good idea that our opponents will come out of this list, one way or another.

[81alum]

On Monday, March 18 we will learn who our opponents will be in the tournament. 

In the meantime, Charlie Creme has us lined up against this path, if all the seeds held:
1st Round: Seattle University at Maples
2nd Round: Villanova at Maples
Sweet 16: Georgia at Spokane
Elite 8: Penn State at Spokane
Final 4: Connecticut
Championship: Baylor/Notre Dame if we beat Connecticut

Charlie Creme always persuades me that he is going to be largely correct; the trouble is, he never is correct.  He always seems to give Stanford a pretty favorable path in his predictions--and things seldom turn out quite so well.  In this case, I would be ecstatic to get that path, which I think is quite doable and could set up a revenge match against Connecticut in the final four.

However, Creme also has UCLA as a 3 seed inside the Spokane bracket, and UCLA might well knock off an overrated Penn State.  If Creme is correct that UCLA with a 3 will be kept inside the west, that could set up a fourth game against UCLA this year.  While I thought they had to spread conference teams out amongst the brackets--I also know there are many exceptions as there are rules in "bracketology."

In comparison with Creme, if we went strictly on the current rankings, we ought to be playing Delaware, Georgia, North Carolina or Louisville in the sweet 16 (so Georgia is a logical guess), and then Duke, California, Kentucky, or Penn State in the elite 8 (so again Creme's guess is logical.) 

Now, if we do RPI instead of rankings, things would be different yet.  Stanford is actually now 2nd in RPI.  Our Sweet 16 matchups on RPI would be either Nebraska, North Carolina, Dayton, or Purdue.  Our Elite 8 matchups would be either Duke, Penn State, Kentucky, or Tennessee.  (Cal drops to 9th in RPI, UCLA is 11th, so those teams would be matched up against our possible Elite 8 opponents in the sweet 16, and either of them would have to beat a higher RPI team to get to us.) 

In any case, if you scan over all the teams mentioned above, I think we have a pretty good idea that our opponents will come out of this list, one way or another.

[Griffins78]

I have assumed that Duke would be put in our bracket to play in the Elite Eight. I assumed we would be seeded 4th and Duke 5th (the highest No 2 seed) and because we have not played Duke - but Duke has played UConn and I think between us, Baylor, and Notre Dame - the "committee" will want us to play Duke as the lower seed to Baylor and ND.

I am OK with that because I think without Chelsea Gray, we match up better. And it'll be the big game we have to play to earn another Final Four. And we're in Spokane.

I hope the 3 other Pac-12 teams get placed in other regions. Cal certainly will. UCLA and Colorado might not but hope so.

[Griffins78]

I have assumed that Duke would be put in our bracket to play in the Elite Eight. I assumed we would be seeded 4th and Duke 5th (the highest No 2 seed) and because we have not played Duke - but Duke has played UConn and I think between us, Baylor, and Notre Dame - the "committee" will want us to play Duke as the lower seed to Baylor and ND.

I am OK with that because I think without Chelsea Gray, we match up better. And it'll be the big game we have to play to earn another Final Four. And we're in Spokane.

I hope the 3 other Pac-12 teams get placed in other regions. Cal certainly will. UCLA and Colorado might not but hope so.

[CompSci87]

Lately the committee has been placing #2 seeds by geography instead of following the S-curve. I.e., the top #2 seed plays in the regional closest to home, not the one with the bottom #1 seed. Dunno if that will happen this year or not.

[CompSci87]

Lately the committee has been placing #2 seeds by geography instead of following the S-curve. I.e., the top #2 seed plays in the regional closest to home, not the one with the bottom #1 seed. Dunno if that will happen this year or not.

[Yellowlab]

I think they cast bones, and then make prophesies.

[Yellowlab]

I think they cast bones, and then make prophesies.

[81alum]

Lately the committee has been placing #2 seeds by geography instead of following the S-curve. I.e., the top #2 seed plays in the regional closest to home, not the one with the bottom #1 seed. Dunno if that will happen this year or not.

If that is what they will do, then C.al would be the 2 in Spokane and we would get our rubber game in the Elite Eight.  The other teams (Duke, Penn State, and Kentucky) would all think getting sent to Spokane was a major geographic slight. 

So the committee will have a choice:  1) Send a west coast team to play east and an east coast team to play west to prevent conference matchups--making those 2s unhappy, or 2) make all the 2s happy with their geography by throwing away any effort to avoid conference rematches in the Elite Eight.  They could still avoid conference matchups through the sweet sixteen.  And they could rationalize putting Cal in Spokane by noting that we have only played them twice--not three times like UConn/Notre Dame etc.

If we wind up ranked 4 (and with UConn's loss tonight the case can be made that we should be ranked 3 now--our RPI is 2!) and Duke is ranked 5, would you really want to punish the best of the 2 seeds (Duke) by sending them all the way out west?  Wouldn't you give the best of the 2 seeds more favorable geography and punish a lower 2 seed?  That is probably why Creme has Penn State getting the boot out West to play us--but it could also be Kentucky.

Who would we rather play if we get that far?  Cal, Duke, Kentucky, or Penn State?  Duke seems better than they were last year even without Chelsea Gray, and I doubt that we are quite as good, so that match-up worries me.  They have three players shooting more than 40% from three--without Gray.  If we had Toni as a perimeter defender then I would worry about Duke less.  Cal worries me not just because they beat us, but because games become more defensive by the third time around and we are offensively challenged enough as it is.  I don't know much about Kentucky or Penn State.  I'm sure if I did I could find something to worry about with them too!

[81alum]

Lately the committee has been placing #2 seeds by geography instead of following the S-curve. I.e., the top #2 seed plays in the regional closest to home, not the one with the bottom #1 seed. Dunno if that will happen this year or not.

If that is what they will do, then C.al would be the 2 in Spokane and we would get our rubber game in the Elite Eight.  The other teams (Duke, Penn State, and Kentucky) would all think getting sent to Spokane was a major geographic slight. 

So the committee will have a choice:  1) Send a west coast team to play east and an east coast team to play west to prevent conference matchups--making those 2s unhappy, or 2) make all the 2s happy with their geography by throwing away any effort to avoid conference rematches in the Elite Eight.  They could still avoid conference matchups through the sweet sixteen.  And they could rationalize putting Cal in Spokane by noting that we have only played them twice--not three times like UConn/Notre Dame etc.

If we wind up ranked 4 (and with UConn's loss tonight the case can be made that we should be ranked 3 now--our RPI is 2!) and Duke is ranked 5, would you really want to punish the best of the 2 seeds (Duke) by sending them all the way out west?  Wouldn't you give the best of the 2 seeds more favorable geography and punish a lower 2 seed?  That is probably why Creme has Penn State getting the boot out West to play us--but it could also be Kentucky.

Who would we rather play if we get that far?  Cal, Duke, Kentucky, or Penn State?  Duke seems better than they were last year even without Chelsea Gray, and I doubt that we are quite as good, so that match-up worries me.  They have three players shooting more than 40% from three--without Gray.  If we had Toni as a perimeter defender then I would worry about Duke less.  Cal worries me not just because they beat us, but because games become more defensive by the third time around and we are offensively challenged enough as it is.  I don't know much about Kentucky or Penn State.  I'm sure if I did I could find something to worry about with them too!

[81alum]

Charlie Creme's final brackets have a few changes.  Again, if seedings held, we would play
1st Round: Stanford vs. Idaho at Maples
2nd Round: Stanford vs. Villanova at Maples
Sweet Sixteen: Stanford vs. Georgia/Delaware at Spokane
Elite Eight: Stanford vs. Penn State/Texas A&M at Spokane
Final Four: Stanford vs. Baylor

Creme keeps Duke near home at Norfolk and sends Penn State out West to us.  The more I look at it, it would be unlikely that it would be Duke or Kentucky if geography really is a factor, since those two teams are higher on the S-curve than Penn State and would benefit by staying closer to home back east.  But Cal is next behind Duke, and if Cal got its closest destination then it would be Cal in Spokane with us instead of Penn State.

The question is: what is more important to the Committee, geography or avoiding league match-ups.  The Committee has done it both ways over the last few years and has taken flack for both.  I think the fact that we avoided a third game with Cal in the Pac 12 tournament may militate toward the committee putting Cal in Spokane with us.  I would not be shocked.

Possible Delaware or Texas A&M match ups at Spokane would certainly spark interest, provided either of those teams knock off their higher seeded opponents first.

If we do make our way to the final four, Creme now has us up against Baylor instead of Connecticut.  Not sure why the change.

We shall find out tomorrow how accurate Creme actually is this time.

Creme discusses his reasons for his bracket, and specifically discusses the possibility that Stanford and Cal could both wind up in Spokane:
http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basket...acket-most

Note what he says about geography and the S-curve:

To fully evaluate how Bracketology was put together, here is the full S-curve. Keep in mind, though, that the committee no longer places team in the bracket based on this data. Rather, geographical consideration is given to the higher teams as they are placed on the bracket, which would explain, for instance, why Notre Dame and Duke ended up in the same region

[81alum]

Charlie Creme's final brackets have a few changes.  Again, if seedings held, we would play
1st Round: Stanford vs. Idaho at Maples
2nd Round: Stanford vs. Villanova at Maples
Sweet Sixteen: Stanford vs. Georgia/Delaware at Spokane
Elite Eight: Stanford vs. Penn State/Texas A&M at Spokane
Final Four: Stanford vs. Baylor

Creme keeps Duke near home at Norfolk and sends Penn State out West to us.  The more I look at it, it would be unlikely that it would be Duke or Kentucky if geography really is a factor, since those two teams are higher on the S-curve than Penn State and would benefit by staying closer to home back east.  But Cal is next behind Duke, and if Cal got its closest destination then it would be Cal in Spokane with us instead of Penn State.

The question is: what is more important to the Committee, geography or avoiding league match-ups.  The Committee has done it both ways over the last few years and has taken flack for both.  I think the fact that we avoided a third game with Cal in the Pac 12 tournament may militate toward the committee putting Cal in Spokane with us.  I would not be shocked.

Possible Delaware or Texas A&M match ups at Spokane would certainly spark interest, provided either of those teams knock off their higher seeded opponents first.

If we do make our way to the final four, Creme now has us up against Baylor instead of Connecticut.  Not sure why the change.

We shall find out tomorrow how accurate Creme actually is this time.

Creme discusses his reasons for his bracket, and specifically discusses the possibility that Stanford and Cal could both wind up in Spokane:
http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basket...acket-most

Note what he says about geography and the S-curve:

To fully evaluate how Bracketology was put together, here is the full S-curve. Keep in mind, though, that the committee no longer places team in the bracket based on this data. Rather, geographical consideration is given to the higher teams as they are placed on the bracket, which would explain, for instance, why Notre Dame and Duke ended up in the same region

[M T]

The NCAA policy & procedures for placing in the women's basketball bracket are at
  http://i.turner.ncaa.com/dr/ncaa/ncaa/re...edures.pdf

But it seems, like the Supreme Court and the Papal Conclave, they answer to no one.

I am beginning to suspect that travel costs (by the teams) isn't the reason they would have regionals becoming yet-another-rematch fests.  To heck with the best teams meeting at the NC, they just want more fans at more games.

[M T]

The NCAA policy & procedures for placing in the women's basketball bracket are at
  http://i.turner.ncaa.com/dr/ncaa/ncaa/re...edures.pdf

But it seems, like the Supreme Court and the Papal Conclave, they answer to no one.

I am beginning to suspect that travel costs (by the teams) isn't the reason they would have regionals becoming yet-another-rematch fests.  To heck with the best teams meeting at the NC, they just want more fans at more games.

[Viking_Guy]

MT--

More like Homeland Security than the other two, I think.  Because one of the first explanations they debuted was "security" of the players and teams - that any destination that involved multiple flights was inherently more risky to the teams involved because of the possibility of ...  well, they were never really clear on that.

You think it's bad in women's basketball, try some of the other sports, where seeding becomes a convenient fiction (see women's soccer, where somehow miraculously the California schools almost always end up playing each other before the Final Four - and, of course, up to a six-hour (I think) bus ride is much more secure than a plane flight).

VG

[Viking_Guy]

MT--

More like Homeland Security than the other two, I think.  Because one of the first explanations they debuted was "security" of the players and teams - that any destination that involved multiple flights was inherently more risky to the teams involved because of the possibility of ...  well, they were never really clear on that.

You think it's bad in women's basketball, try some of the other sports, where seeding becomes a convenient fiction (see women's soccer, where somehow miraculously the California schools almost always end up playing each other before the Final Four - and, of course, up to a six-hour (I think) bus ride is much more secure than a plane flight).

VG

[Viking_Guy]

Actually, one rumor I've heard is that the reason they haven't announced the sites for next year is that they're going to try to move back to the top 16 hosting the first two rounds, where possible.  Normally, the sites for next year would've been announced by now.  Trying to deal with the issues of pre-determined host sites without a local draw (Colombus may be one this year; Notre Dame will probably get sent there, but probably won't draw a brobdingnagian crowd), and also with the inherent problem of lower-seeded teams being given a brobdingnagian advantage against teams who have earned an advantage throughout the season.  This year, nearly half of the sites will have a lower seed hosting or no host.  Offhand, Iowa City, Spokane, Baton Rouge, Lubbock and Queens are sites where the hosts have no realistic shot at being top-4 seeds, and Boulder, Newark DE, College Park and Louisville are iffy (as in, the host is either on the 4 or 5 line, or in the case of Colorado, may be given a procedural bump up from a 6 seed to a 5 to make the bracket work).

It's especially a bummer because other Pac-12 and West Coast sites rarely or never get their act together to bid for a hosting slot, with the exceptions of Stanford and the Zags.  If Gonzaga gets to both host a sub-regional AND feed into the Spokane regional again (as a projected 11 seed), I'd cry foul if I was the #3 sent there (as UCLA was a couple of years ago).

VG

[Viking_Guy]

Actually, one rumor I've heard is that the reason they haven't announced the sites for next year is that they're going to try to move back to the top 16 hosting the first two rounds, where possible.  Normally, the sites for next year would've been announced by now.  Trying to deal with the issues of pre-determined host sites without a local draw (Colombus may be one this year; Notre Dame will probably get sent there, but probably won't draw a brobdingnagian crowd), and also with the inherent problem of lower-seeded teams being given a brobdingnagian advantage against teams who have earned an advantage throughout the season.  This year, nearly half of the sites will have a lower seed hosting or no host.  Offhand, Iowa City, Spokane, Baton Rouge, Lubbock and Queens are sites where the hosts have no realistic shot at being top-4 seeds, and Boulder, Newark DE, College Park and Louisville are iffy (as in, the host is either on the 4 or 5 line, or in the case of Colorado, may be given a procedural bump up from a 6 seed to a 5 to make the bracket work).

It's especially a bummer because other Pac-12 and West Coast sites rarely or never get their act together to bid for a hosting slot, with the exceptions of Stanford and the Zags.  If Gonzaga gets to both host a sub-regional AND feed into the Spokane regional again (as a projected 11 seed), I'd cry foul if I was the #3 sent there (as UCLA was a couple of years ago).

VG

[treefan]

MT--

More like Homeland Security than the other two, I think.  Because one of the first explanations they debuted was "security" of the players and teams - that any destination that involved multiple flights was inherently more risky to the teams involved because of the possibility of ...  well, they were never really clear on that.

You think it's bad in women's basketball, try some of the other sports, where seeding becomes a convenient fiction (see women's soccer, where somehow miraculously the California schools almost always end up playing each other before the Final Four - and, of course, up to a six-hour (I think) bus ride is much more secure than a plane flight).

VG

X_______________

[treefan]

MT--

More like Homeland Security than the other two, I think.  Because one of the first explanations they debuted was "security" of the players and teams - that any destination that involved multiple flights was inherently more risky to the teams involved because of the possibility of ...  well, they were never really clear on that.

You think it's bad in women's basketball, try some of the other sports, where seeding becomes a convenient fiction (see women's soccer, where somehow miraculously the California schools almost always end up playing each other before the Final Four - and, of course, up to a six-hour (I think) bus ride is much more secure than a plane flight).

VG

X_______________