Sleeper final four

[jchusky]

Agree that they are loaded.
Whether winning makes them better or not is unclear. It is hard to repeat. It is hard to have the same drive, same hunger if you’ve won.
Absolutely a favorite.

following their offseason Stanford definitely has same drive. Haley Jones was quoted as saying "not surprised we being doubted again, time to prove people wrong" after being disrespected not being the #1 ranked team in the polls. Not to mention they brought back a 6th year Anna Wilson. Her experience and defense is HUGE for this team. This season my breakout player is Brink.

 

[Alydar]

I'm going with Louisville my rationale is projecting that Louisville will be placed in the Kansas region which is the region that will likely have the weakest and most vulnerable #1 seed. NC region most likely will be South Carolina, Washington region will most likely have Stanford. UCONN will be in the Bridgeport Region.

Unless Louisville is the overall 5th seed, in which case they will be placed in Bridgeport.

 

[Alydar]

I expected some pushback on this comment. As I said. The season has not begun yet. It's way too early to "ACTURATELY" predict who will make the final four 4 months from now. Everyone has their favorites, as I do. There are (IMO) 6 teams that can make the final 4 this year.
The only 2 teams that I would bet the farm they make the final four are the two best teams (IMO) in WCBB: UConn and SC. While Stanford is an elite team, and the reigning WCBB champion, I'm not sold they are a lock. I'm not sure they are the best team is their conference. Time will tell.

If they make the FF, I will look you up and give you your "props" in open forum, and tip the turban to you. But right now, there are just too many unknowns for me to suggest or accept that Stanford is a lock. The regional you're assigned to and the teams in your bracket have a lot to do with how easy or hard your road to the FF is. How many games does Stanford lose this year?

The west regional will likely get the weakest 2 seed once again. That has always been an edge for Stanford when they have been the 1 seed. (unless the weakest is a PAC12 team)

 

[saywho]

following their offseason Stanford definitely has same drive. Haley Jones was quoted as saying "not surprised we being doubted again, time to prove people wrong" after being disrespected not being the #1 ranked team in the polls. Not to mention they brought back a 6th year Anna Wilson. Her experience and defense is HUGE for this team. This season my breakout player is Brink.

For me, it is going to be our front court in general. From the recent scrimmage, Belibi looks like she stepped up her game in the off season developing some more moves away from the basket. Prechtel showed what she is capable at the end of last year and seems to have continued on that trajectory. Brink is going to be potentially the best player on the team. And Kiki Iriafen definitely looks like she is going to impress. And where I think Stanford will excel most is their defense. Anna Wilson and the Hull twins have always shown it. At the scrimmage Emma=Nnopu showed she may get some minutes for some tenacious defense. I think this years team is going to be significantly better than last years. Then again, so are many teams.

 

[nwhoopfan]

The west regional will likely get the weakest 2 seed once again. That has always been an edge for Stanford when they have been the 1 seed.

Well Maryland and Texas A&M didn't even get to Regional Finals last year, so pretty hard to say that was correct last season. Even if seeds held, I'd have a hard time saying Louisville was weaker than A&M.

I bet I could go back thru a bunch of brackets and shoot this theory completely full of holes. It's one of those things, might be a perception in someone's mind, doesn't make it true.

 

[nwhoopfan]

To satisfy my curiosity, I've been looking back at brackets over the years. For one thing, Stanford has been a #1 seed less often than I would have thought. For another, can anyone honestly tell me who the weakest #2 seed was among Penn St., Georgia, Iowa and Old Dominion in 1996? Or Alabama, Louisiana Tech, Colorado and Georgia in 1997? That's a real problem w/ making a claim that Stanford always gets the weakest #2 when they are a #1, because how are you going to accurately rank order all the #2 seeds from brackets a quarter century ago?

 

[Zinethar]

You wanted a sleeper and not one of the same suspects so I give you Vanderbilt. You can guess why .

 

[Alydar]

To satisfy my curiosity, I've been looking back at brackets over the years. For one thing, Stanford has been a #1 seed less often than I would have thought. For another, can anyone honestly tell me who the weakest #2 seed was among Penn St., Georgia, Iowa and Old Dominion in 1996? Or Alabama, Louisiana Tech, Colorado and Georgia in 1997? That's a real problem w/ making a claim that Stanford always gets the weakest #2 when they are a #1, because how are you going to accurately rank order all the #2 seeds from brackets a quarter century ago?

History has nothing to do with my comment. It's the system used by the NCAA. Sending teams to regions based on seed is done geographically. Say UConn is the top seed. They go to the East Region. The West region is the furthest site for any team in the country not in the PAC12 so it's either a PAC12 team or the 4th one seed who goes there. And the same applies with the 2 seeds. And given the policy of not putting 2 conference opponents in the same region (top 16) it's a guarantee that it will be the 8th seed going out west.
UConn benefits only because local arenas can almost be assured that UConn will be there and can outbid other arenas for the right.

That's why I've always been in favor of a one site championship tournament.

 

[nwhoopfan]

History has nothing to do with my comment. It's the system used by the NCAA. Sending teams to regions based on seed is done geographically.

Not really. #1 seeds they try to do by geography. After that it breaks down quickly.