Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Phil, post: 5125283, member: 66"] I think I understand the motivation behind anointing UCLA is the number one team in the country. After all, they just played South Carolina the undisputed number one team in the country and beat them soundly. However, it's always helpful to check one's premises. Why does everyone agree that South Carolina is the undisputed number one team before yesterday? It's very common for the prior seasons national champion to be considered for the number one spot, and not get that position if a substantial portion of the team is graduated or left. They only lost one player of note, Cardoso, but maybe this game demonstrates her loss was much more significant than presumed. In other words, perhaps the initial rating of number one for South Carolina was too high. UCLA still won convincingly but if they beat the number two or number three team, would anybody still be seriously arguing they deserve to be number one? Another potential factor is that South Carolina had a bad game for some reason. Two clear examples: 1. Chloe Kitts entered the game as the team's leading scorer, averaging 14 points per game. She played only 12 minutes and scored two points. Why? 2. MiLaysia Fulwiley was last year's wunderkind, and the teams third leading scorer. She played three minutes and scored zero points. Why? I haven't read any explanations for either those two players (admittedly haven't looked hard) but when two of your top three scores basically don't show up, but doesn't mean UCLA did win but it arguably means that the win is as much on South Carolina as it is on UCLA. Putting UCLA ahead of UConn in the rankings would be surprising. I reviewed the last eight years and haven't found an example where the top team loses and someone other than the next best team moved up. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach