Beating a 2 seed by 51 points is a pretty solid statement for the overall #1.UCLA made a strong case for the number one overall seed. Apparently they even kept their starters in late to make sure they poured it on (that’s what I hear anyway).
I would say no. But in the past committee’s have liked to reward teams for winning their conference tournaments.Beating a 2 seed by 51 points is a pretty solid statement for the overall #1.
Equal intrigue with the 3rd and 4th #1s -- if Texas wins, do they move ahead of SC?
They don't have many bench options to go to. They were cycling out some starters throughout the 4th quarter. You heard wrong.UCLA made a strong case for the number one overall seed. Apparently they even kept their starters in late to make sure they poured it on (that’s what I hear anyway).
This isn't college football. Stop pushing the point spread crap.Beating a 2 seed by 51 points is a pretty solid statement for the overall #1.
Equal intrigue with the 3rd and 4th #1s -- if Texas wins, do they move ahead of SC?
I still believe they are, even after this game. Definitely a bizarre game as Iowa doesn't typically have a hard time scoring like they did in the first. Stuelke getting only 4 touches the entire game, when does that ever happen? Feuerbach going 0-5 from the field for the second day in a row is also surprising.Iowa is a good team, right? UCLA is utterly dismantling them.
Well it must've taken a few minute for Texas to build the lead to 10. 😆even more surprised that it was never within (10)?
Final, Texas 78, South Caroline 61 ...Now #4 Texas 57, #3 South Caroline 40 ...
"Pushing"? WTF does that mean. Newsflash, the committee doesn't consult me so I'm not "pushing" this to anyone.This isn't college football. Stop pushing the point spread crap.
No I'm one of those fans who despises the gambling mentality in the seeding process. Point spreads come from gamblers. You can see how that has stripped sportsmanship from competition. It is most prevalent in College football."Pushing"? WTF does that mean. Newsflash, the committee doesn't consult me so I'm not "pushing" this to anyone.
Let me guess, you're one of those 'fans" who yells at Charlie Creme for trying to predict what the committee will do.
Of course dominating a quality opponent matters. Will it be enough to move to UCLA to 1? I dont know. But whatever the probablity, it's higher than it was this morning.
Unfortunately we won't know for another week. It's a good time to take a break and catch up on some reading.Will today's results completely rearrange the committee's projected #1 seeds? Hmm.
Who knows, however I saw this and thought, huh, thinking points scored might nudge them to the top?What are we talking about? UCLA won by 51, UConn won by 49, but only UCLA was running up the score?
I think it's fair to say UConn is a deeper team than UCLA. Off the bench the Bruins play Dugalic and the younger Betts regularly. The rest, not so much. UCLA particularly lacking depth at guard. Bilic is listed as a guard, but she's not really a ballhandler/playmaker, so they pretty much have to have Rice or Leger-Walker on the floor at all times.Who knows, however I saw this and thought, huh, thinking points scored might nudge them to the top?