[81alum]

I am not a fan of the brutal schedule because it leaves too little time to get the frosh in games.  If S. Florida had been an easier game, it works much better.  I supposed they had little choice if they needed a game and this was the time and place to play one.  The other issue is that when evaluating teams we think they will say well they have an extra loss or two but look at that schedule, look at who they beat and give a very high seed, when what they will do is say well these teams played weaker schedules but look, two fewer losses (or whatever) so they get the seed instead.

I agree that seedings seem to put more weight on wins and losses than on strength of schedule, and this is not right. 

But Tara doesn't care that much about seedings, especially coming off of a national championship.  She is truly a developmental coach--her teams steadily improve during the course of each year, and I am sure she schedules (to the extent she can control it) to assist in that development.  Once her team gets to the tournament it needs to have developed sufficiently to be able to beat every other team in the nation, in whatever order.  What has to happen for the team to become that good?  Maybe it is a brutal preseason and Pac-12 schedule.

I also suspect that she allowed a particularly tough schedule because she knew a team coming off of a national championship season needed to be particularly challenged.  It would be a disaster for such a team to go undefeated prior to the tournament--it would inevitably lead to complacency and entitlement.  Knowing you can lose and being constantly challenged to improve is the name of the developmental game, where wins come from the classroom of Tara the basketball Professor rather than purely from the quality of recruits.  In this regard, Texas did us a favor.  Now, let's hope we won't have too many more of those "favors" along the way.

[81alum]

I am not a fan of the brutal schedule because it leaves too little time to get the frosh in games.  If S. Florida had been an easier game, it works much better.  I supposed they had little choice if they needed a game and this was the time and place to play one.  The other issue is that when evaluating teams we think they will say well they have an extra loss or two but look at that schedule, look at who they beat and give a very high seed, when what they will do is say well these teams played weaker schedules but look, two fewer losses (or whatever) so they get the seed instead.

I agree that seedings seem to put more weight on wins and losses than on strength of schedule, and this is not right. 

But Tara doesn't care that much about seedings, especially coming off of a national championship.  She is truly a developmental coach--her teams steadily improve during the course of each year, and I am sure she schedules (to the extent she can control it) to assist in that development.  Once her team gets to the tournament it needs to have developed sufficiently to be able to beat every other team in the nation, in whatever order.  What has to happen for the team to become that good?  Maybe it is a brutal preseason and Pac-12 schedule.

I also suspect that she allowed a particularly tough schedule because she knew a team coming off of a national championship season needed to be particularly challenged.  It would be a disaster for such a team to go undefeated prior to the tournament--it would inevitably lead to complacency and entitlement.  Knowing you can lose and being constantly challenged to improve is the name of the developmental game, where wins come from the classroom of Tara the basketball Professor rather than purely from the quality of recruits.  In this regard, Texas did us a favor.  Now, let's hope we won't have too many more of those "favors" along the way.