It's very close but I think USC has the edge on Stanford in terms of resume even before factoring in H2H. USC has 8 wins vs. the NET top 25 compared to Stanford's 7. USC's strength of schedule (both overall and nonconference) is also higher, and they got the better OOC win (Ohio State on a neutral court). Not really sure why Creme thinks Stanford would be ahead of USC at this point.
I also disagree with his projection of Iowa ahead of Stanford and USC. Their resume of good wins just isn't as strong. One might argue that Iowa's worst loss (Nebraska) isn't as bad as Stanford's and USC's (Arizona/Washington) but to me that's a very minor difference.
I think PG play is the bigger concern to me about USC. I can’t remember the last final four team that didn’t have an elite guard in the backcourt. I know Juju is technically s SG but she doesn’t have the handle or passing ability for me to confided her anything other than a small forward.
I too am looking forward to seeing how the PAC-12 performs in the NCAA Tournament? Is the PAC-12 as strong as ranked all season? Is PAC-12 as strong or stronger than ranked all season? That is one of the reasons I would prefer to have Oregon State not play Stanford, USC, or UCLA until the Final 4. Seems like these are the only teams Oregon State has played for the past month.
Padilla is an excellent PG. Just not flashy
I don’t see it with her. Her handle is suspect as is her passing. Great shooter though.
I absolutely love your subtle digs at UCLA and Southern Cal.
About as subtle as playing heavy metal at a funeral.
Watkins has, I believe, the highest usage rate in the country. She has the ball in her hands a ton.
I don't think Texas can overtake Stanford or USC or Iowa for a 1 seed. A win over Iowa State today doesn't enhance their resume enough to overcome that gap.
I think the big 12 is kinda underrated. I think they'll have like 4 teams in the sweet 16 as long as the seeding is fair. Texas is really good. They have star role players. Shaylee Gonzalez was a star. Taylor Jones is really good, and depending on the matchup can go off. Aaliyah Moore looks better and better coming off injury. Shay Holle is a senior but a great role player. Their kryptonite is like Booker having a super off 6-21 game which could definitely happen. And sometimes they don't make enough 3s. But I like their odds to make a solid run. I know they kinda were trying to get over the elite 8 hump so id hate for that to be the mark of success.
But who would bump them? Every other team that might have taken that spot from them has also lost.
That's the thing IDK, just saying I won't be surprised if the committee pulls some chicanery us. It would be a shame if we don't be get host because it will 100% be a sold out crowd. 17000.
Well, it's nice to see that UConn fans aren't the only ones who think the committee is out to get them
I think Indiana will get the last #4 seed (overall #16) for the reason you state, Assembly Hall will be sold out. I think their seeding will also depend on what Teri Moren informs the committee on MacKenzie Holmes status, she was put in a tough situation in their QF loss but didn't look ready.
I still think if Texas wins, they get the #1 (#4 overall)(SC #1, Iowa #2, USC #3) seed. They took 2 of 3 from a very good Kansas State team that I wouldn't want to see in my bracket in the first two rounds. They lost a couple games within 2 weeks of losing their AA guard Rori Harmon while figuring it all out, will the committee take that into consideration? This year, outside of South Carolina I don't think there is much of a difference between the overall #2-#7 seeds which should make for a great tournament.
I believe, per Charlie Creme, the women’s basketball committee does not use the quadrant ranking system. They instead look at NET 1-25, NET 26-50, NET 51-100, and NET 101+.
I believe, per Charlie Creme, the women’s basketball committee does not use the quadrant ranking system. They instead look at NET 1-25, NET 26-50, NET 51-100, and NET 101+.
NCAA Statistics
stats.ncaa.org
Yes, and even more so when you look beyond the raw numbers to see which teams each beat.
They just got some help with Gonzaga falling in the WCC final.
I thought the committee's first reveal, where they were #7, was too harsh on them. They moved up to #4 in the next reveal, but that was as much because of others' losses as UCLA's wins. Their loss to Washington State was without Betts, which the committee is supposed to consider. I would grade their resume as ahead of Texas', but for sure no lower than #6 at this point.
