ESPN's Way Too Early Rankings -- UConn moves up!

[WestCoastPup]

…. In the 2008-2009 season... Duke beat Stanford in Durham.... guess that is one reason why they gave Duke the #1 seed out west. If Duke had won the ACC tournament (they lost in OT to maryland in the finals), Duke would have been the #1 seed in Raleigh... and Stanford would have gotten the #1 in the West.

Wow, reminiscing about these match-ups makes me realize how far the mighty (Duke) have fallen... they were a staple in the Top 10 for seemingly decades … maybe this year they'll right the ship... they've had the talent recently, just not the results... fortunately, others have risen to take their place.

 

[triaddukefan]

Wow, reminiscing about these match-ups makes me realize how far the mighty (Duke) have fallen... they were a staple in the Top 10 for seemingly decades … maybe this year they'll right the ship... they've had the talent recently, just not the results... fortunately, others have risen to take their place.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Thanks for the accurate information. While recently OSU, Wash & Or have gone to the FF and it was a promising sign when they both made it, it's been Stanford that has been holding up the conference.

You're out of date w/ that statement. Stanford went to the FF 6 out of 7 years between 2008 and 2014. Cal went in 2013, Stanford made 1 more trip ('17) and Oregon St./Washington in '16 and Oregon in '19. So it really hasn't been Stanford holding up the conference for 5 years now, it's been a group effort.

 

[Alydar]

With respect, I feel like this analysis is really short on facts, and its claims don't actually fit the data. Here's the data for the past 5 tournaments:

In 2015, no PAC-12 teams made the Final Four. #4 Stanford was the auto-bid and was sent to Kentucky, #3 Oregon State was the only PAC-12 team to be in the West region (Spokane) and was rewarded with a second-round game against a dangerous #11 Gonzaga that upset them.
In 2016, #7 Washington got to the Final Four by beating #4 Stanford in Kentucky. #2 auto-bid Oregon State was rewarded for its conference title by having to upset #1 Baylor IN TEXAS to get to the Final Four.
In 2017, Autobid #2 Stanford upset #1 Notre Dame in Kentucky, a state which borders Indiana...
In 2018, no PAC-12 made the Final Four. 2/3 Elite Eight teams (#3 UCLA and #6 Oregon State) got there by upsetting higher ranked teams back East (UCLA beat #2 Texas in Missouri, one state over from Texas, and Oregon State beat Baylor in Kentucky).
In 2019, #2 Stanford was the auto-bid and was reward with a trip to Chicago against #1 Notre Dame (very close to a home game for the Domers). #2 Oregon got to stay in the Portland regional. That's probably the only game in all five season where region significantly benefited a PAC-12 team in an unfair way (i.e., the lower seeded PAC-12 benefited from geography - and even there, I think most people thought Oregon was a better team than MSU and they only ended up #2 because Stanford edged them in the PAC-12 championship game).


I don't know what year you have in mind, but the last time this happened Stanford was the auto-bid and a #1 seed with a 31-1 record and Duke was a #2 at-large that went 24-5. I'm pretty sure Stanford deserved the West #1 seed over Duke. If you're remembering a different year before 2012, then you're talking about the PAC-10 era, and therefore not the era any of the rest of us is talking about, which is the past 5-6 seasons.

You're out of date w/ that statement. Stanford went to the FF 6 out of 7 years between 2008 and 2014. Cal went in 2013, Stanford made 1 more trip ('17) and Oregon St./Washington in '16 and Oregon in '19. So it really hasn't been Stanford holding up the conference for 5 years now, it's been a group effort.

Sorry I was misleading. When I referred to "holding up the conference" I meant prior to the last 5 years. Stanford & USC are the only PAC12 schools to have a title (1982/83 & 1992) and other than the trees no PAC12 team has won a FF game since USC in 1986. USC won 2 back when all phones were land lines and it was a 32 team tournament with seeding was done on a regional basis. That meant that USC (and Stanford in 92) only had to beat mid-major western teams to make the FF. A lot like UCLA under Wooden.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Sorry I was misleading. When I referred to "holding up the conference" I meant prior to the last 5 years. Stanford & USC are the only PAC12 schools to have a title (1982/83 & 1992) and other than the trees no PAC12 team has won a FF game since USC in 1986. USC won 2 back when all phones were land lines and it was a 32 team tournament with seeding was done on a regional basis. That meant that USC (and Stanford in 92) only had to beat mid-major western teams to make the FF. A lot like UCLA under Wooden.

Stanford did carry the conference for a long time, I'll concede that point. But things have changed recently.

You just can't stop taking digs at the Pac though, can you? You're missing Stanford's 1990 Championship. I looked at the bracket for '90 and '92 and you are misleading again. By then the field was expanded to 48 teams. In '90 Stanford beat Hawaii, Ole Miss and Arkansas on their way to the FF, and in '92 UC Santa Barbara, Texas Tech and USC. I only see one mid major western team each year.

 

[Alydar]

Stanford did carry the conference for a long time, I'll concede that point. But things have changed recently.

You just can't stop taking digs at the Pac though, can you? You're missing Stanford's 1990 Championship. I looked at the bracket for '90 and '92 and you are misleading again. By then the field was expanded to 48 teams. In '90 Stanford beat Hawaii, Ole Miss and Arkansas on their way to the FF, and in '92 UC Santa Barbara, Texas Tech and USC. I only see one mid major western team each year.

I used a chart in Wikipedia that showed that seeding was done on a regional basis until 1996.
NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament - Wikipedia

Just trying to provide some balance to an overly-enthused OSU fan. To lay that out here without much if any supporting evidence begged for a response.
And while I may be criticizing some aspects of the PAC12 I love the conference as far as the quality of play compared to others. If you read my posts on conference strength threads you would know that I like the conference. I'm a night owl so no problem staying up till 2 to see the late games.

 

[LoTrader]

The OSU Fan you call "overly-enthused" is enthused for good reason. Let's pick up the discussion about the PAC-12's relative performance at the end of the 2019-20 season.

 

[nwhoopfan]

I used a chart in Wikipedia that showed that seeding was done on a regional basis until 1996.
NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament - Wikipedia

Just trying to provide some balance to an overly-enthused OSU fan. To lay that out here without much if any supporting evidence begged for a response.
And while I may be criticizing some aspects of the PAC12 I love the conference as far as the quality of play compared to others. If you read my posts on conference strength threads you would know that I like the conference. I'm a night owl so no problem staying up till 2 to see the late games.

That's a great link, tons of information.

Well, I might be overly enthused myself sometimes. There are visitors here from many different fan bases, a few of which are very vigorous supporters of their teams. I guess it keeps things interesting.

 

[meyers7]

The right WCBB experts know about her. Look where she is predicted to go in next year's WNBA draft.

2020 WNBA Mock Draft - WNBA - DraftSite.com
2020 WNBA mock draft: Big Board 2.0 with team projections

Who lives in the "biased, unreal world"?

Looks like you do. Of the players named and available for the draft (Ionescu, Carter, Dangerfield) they are all listed above Privic. What exactly were you trying to prove here?????

 

[LoTrader]

Looks like you do. Of the players named and available for the draft (Ionescu, Carter, Dangerfield) they are all listed above Privic. What exactly were you trying to prove here?????

I did not name Carter or Dangerfield.

If you are going to jump in on a conversation that took many turns throughout the 7 pages in this thread, it would be best if you went back and read all the entries on this thread. My conversation started out with one of the members stating that CW was a better athlete than any other guard in the NCAA. The conversation took many different turns, and I wasn't trying to "prove anything" other than I disagreed with the statement that CW was a better athlete than any other guard in the NCAA landscape. I stated there were better "athletes" at the guard position, and used Mikayla Pivec as an example. From there the conversation took many different branches, of which I would be happy to exchange views on any of them with you.