[81alum]

We are 2nd but by a razor thin margin over Louisville, who played some very uninspired basketball to eek out a win this weekend while we dominated. 

It is purely the wins I guess.  But if that is true, then why is Louisville ranked above Arizona?  Ridiculous now, but things will sort themselves out.  We do get to play Arizona at home.

The pollsters are conflicted.  Not a one voted to put us in 1st, but some did vote for Louisville and for Arizona for first.  Clearly those voters are the pure win/loss voters.

We will see about the coaches poll tomorrow.  We fell to 3rd in the last coaches poll, again by a razor thin margin to Louisville.

I want to play Louisville.  I think we would crush them right now.

[81alum]

We are 2nd but by a razor thin margin over Louisville, who played some very uninspired basketball to eek out a win this weekend while we dominated. 

It is purely the wins I guess.  But if that is true, then why is Louisville ranked above Arizona?  Ridiculous now, but things will sort themselves out.  We do get to play Arizona at home.

The pollsters are conflicted.  Not a one voted to put us in 1st, but some did vote for Louisville and for Arizona for first.  Clearly those voters are the pure win/loss voters.

We will see about the coaches poll tomorrow.  We fell to 3rd in the last coaches poll, again by a razor thin margin to Louisville.

I want to play Louisville.  I think we would crush them right now.

[2006alum]

Hard to put three-loss Stanford above a one-loss team that's beaten NC State, UConn, Kansas St, Maryland, Duke, and Stanford, and also over a one-loss team that's beaten Michigan, Kentucky, UConn, and Georgia Tech.  I agree that Louisville doesn't look like the #2 team in the country (although I'm not entirely convinced we do, either). 

I'd have had as my top five: SCAR, Stanford, NC State, Arizona, Louisville. I actually think we're the most complete team, but the one who runs the hottest and coldest within any given game. I think at our best we're better than anyone in the country; at our worst, we barely look like a top 25 team. Hard to rank us #1 after watching our third quarters against SCAR and Tennessee, or our first quarter against WSU...

[2006alum]

Hard to put three-loss Stanford above a one-loss team that's beaten NC State, UConn, Kansas St, Maryland, Duke, and Stanford, and also over a one-loss team that's beaten Michigan, Kentucky, UConn, and Georgia Tech.  I agree that Louisville doesn't look like the #2 team in the country (although I'm not entirely convinced we do, either). 

I'd have had as my top five: SCAR, Stanford, NC State, Arizona, Louisville. I actually think we're the most complete team, but the one who runs the hottest and coldest within any given game. I think at our best we're better than anyone in the country; at our worst, we barely look like a top 25 team. Hard to rank us #1 after watching our third quarters against SCAR and Tennessee, or our first quarter against WSU...

[joemontes]

Conference Rankings based on Ranked Teams in Jan 2, 2022 AP Polls :
*************************************************************************
(#01 = 25 pts, #02 = 24 pts, etc)


ACC  (76 pts)
***
#03)  Louisville
#05)  NC State
#16)  Georgia Tech
#17)  Duke
#19)  North Carolina
#20)  Notre Dame


SEC  (74 pts)
***
#01)  South Carolina
#07)  Tennessee
#13)  LSU
#15)  Georgia
#21)  Kentucky
#25)  Texas A&M


Big 10  (58 pts)
*****
#06)  Indiana
#08)  Michigan
#10)  Maryland
#22)  Iowa


Big 12  (46 pts  w/ 4 teams)
*****
#09)  Texas
#12)  Iowa State
#14)  Baylor
#23)  Oklahoma



PAC 12  (46 pts  w/ 2 teams)
******
#02)  Stanford
#04)  Arizona

[joemontes]

Conference Rankings based on Ranked Teams in Jan 2, 2022 AP Polls :
*************************************************************************
(#01 = 25 pts, #02 = 24 pts, etc)


ACC  (76 pts)
***
#03)  Louisville
#05)  NC State
#16)  Georgia Tech
#17)  Duke
#19)  North Carolina
#20)  Notre Dame


SEC  (74 pts)
***
#01)  South Carolina
#07)  Tennessee
#13)  LSU
#15)  Georgia
#21)  Kentucky
#25)  Texas A&M


Big 10  (58 pts)
*****
#06)  Indiana
#08)  Michigan
#10)  Maryland
#22)  Iowa


Big 12  (46 pts  w/ 4 teams)
*****
#09)  Texas
#12)  Iowa State
#14)  Baylor
#23)  Oklahoma



PAC 12  (46 pts  w/ 2 teams)
******
#02)  Stanford
#04)  Arizona

[TheFarm07]

I agree with 2006alum's sentiment. On the one hand, I was encouraged after the South Carolina game that perhaps a successful defense of our title crown even without a set PG is more in the realm of possibility than I had thought. Even without Kiana, we still have a boatload of talent that can go off even against a stout defense like South Carolina.

However, I am still worried and frustrated with our inconsistency and making unforced errors, whether with lazy passes or just plain protecting the ball from being poked out of our hands. We easily could be a one-loss team, both the South Florida and the South Carolina contests were imminently winnable.

I am also concerned that our possible over-reliance on being hot from long range to jumpstart the rest of our offense will be our Achilles' heel. Last year, we had both Williams and Jones being able to reliably create off the bounce when the shot clock was expiring. Now we just have one person who can initiate something out of nothing; I think Brink has the potential to do that too but she needs to stay out of foul trouble to have a more consistent impact, game-in & game out.

[TheFarm07]

I agree with 2006alum's sentiment. On the one hand, I was encouraged after the South Carolina game that perhaps a successful defense of our title crown even without a set PG is more in the realm of possibility than I had thought. Even without Kiana, we still have a boatload of talent that can go off even against a stout defense like South Carolina.

However, I am still worried and frustrated with our inconsistency and making unforced errors, whether with lazy passes or just plain protecting the ball from being poked out of our hands. We easily could be a one-loss team, both the South Florida and the South Carolina contests were imminently winnable.

I am also concerned that our possible over-reliance on being hot from long range to jumpstart the rest of our offense will be our Achilles' heel. Last year, we had both Williams and Jones being able to reliably create off the bounce when the shot clock was expiring. Now we just have one person who can initiate something out of nothing; I think Brink has the potential to do that too but she needs to stay out of foul trouble to have a more consistent impact, game-in & game out.

[chimera]

Those rankings are about what I thought they would be.  I would not vote Stanford #1 with three losses, certainly not above SC, who beat us.  SC should still be #1.  I don't think Louisville is all that great and UA is fairly untested aside from their Louisville win.  The teams who played tougher schedules like NC State, etc, have lost a few games.  I am happy not to see the team at #1 right now.  Less target on the back, fewer questions to answer about why a three loss team should be up there, etc.  I hope we have a full team and win two games this week, that's where I am on the whole thing - just stay healthy and available, and win!

[chimera]

Those rankings are about what I thought they would be.  I would not vote Stanford #1 with three losses, certainly not above SC, who beat us.  SC should still be #1.  I don't think Louisville is all that great and UA is fairly untested aside from their Louisville win.  The teams who played tougher schedules like NC State, etc, have lost a few games.  I am happy not to see the team at #1 right now.  Less target on the back, fewer questions to answer about why a three loss team should be up there, etc.  I hope we have a full team and win two games this week, that's where I am on the whole thing - just stay healthy and available, and win!

[81alum]

I am not arguing that we should be #1.

I am arguing that the same logic that says (correctly) that we should not be ranked 1 should also argue that Arizona should be ranked ahead of Louisville.

Arizona beat Louisville in head to head.
Arizona has no losses and Louisville has one.

If Louisville is to be forgiven for its head-to-head loss and greater number of losses, then so should we.  We shouldn't, and they shouldn't either.

[81alum]

I am not arguing that we should be #1.

I am arguing that the same logic that says (correctly) that we should not be ranked 1 should also argue that Arizona should be ranked ahead of Louisville.

Arizona beat Louisville in head to head.
Arizona has no losses and Louisville has one.

If Louisville is to be forgiven for its head-to-head loss and greater number of losses, then so should we.  We shouldn't, and they shouldn't either.

[chimera]

If we had not lost to Texas and S Florida, we may well have jumped SC even though we lost to them, since our loss, although to them, was "better" loss than theirs to Mizzouri.  Or more probably we would still be #2 but with some first place votes and much closer to SC at #1.  I think the UA and Louisville situation is a bit different because of our two other losses besides SC whereas with Louisville and UA it is "just" the head to head result. While UA has the head to head, their schedule has been weaker than Louisville overall, and the UA win was very early.  Does it all make sense?  Not really, but head to head and the polls do not mix well.  We see teams with similar records ranked lower than a team they beat fairly often, based on reputation sometimes, the eye test sometimes, and strength of schedule too, or that is what I supposed is swaying voters.

It is not the way I would do it if I had a vote, but the voters for the polls generally put a lot more weight on losses than how many good wins a team has.  It doesn't help us that the top teams we beat are now a bit lower with some other losses.  If COVID messes up a lot of games, we may see some crazy polling, if top teams play shorthanded and lose games they almost certainly win with a full squad.

[chimera]

If we had not lost to Texas and S Florida, we may well have jumped SC even though we lost to them, since our loss, although to them, was "better" loss than theirs to Mizzouri.  Or more probably we would still be #2 but with some first place votes and much closer to SC at #1.  I think the UA and Louisville situation is a bit different because of our two other losses besides SC whereas with Louisville and UA it is "just" the head to head result. While UA has the head to head, their schedule has been weaker than Louisville overall, and the UA win was very early.  Does it all make sense?  Not really, but head to head and the polls do not mix well.  We see teams with similar records ranked lower than a team they beat fairly often, based on reputation sometimes, the eye test sometimes, and strength of schedule too, or that is what I supposed is swaying voters.

It is not the way I would do it if I had a vote, but the voters for the polls generally put a lot more weight on losses than how many good wins a team has.  It doesn't help us that the top teams we beat are now a bit lower with some other losses.  If COVID messes up a lot of games, we may see some crazy polling, if top teams play shorthanded and lose games they almost certainly win with a full squad.

[Baez87]

Sometimes I forget that the AP poll is simply a composite of opinions of sports writers and broadcasters across the country. At those moments I see the ranking and total votes as a real assessment of the various competing teams' value. However, when I think of what might influences members of the press corps, I focus on how factors such as regional bias, subjective criteria, or even capricious opinions might shape the rankings. Then, at least in my mind, the rankings become pretty arbitrary. Clearly, the pollsters aren’t sitting in a board meeting discussion the merits of each team and games played, then discussing and dissecting each team's merits and results until a consensus is reached. Quite the contrary, the results that are compiled on Monday morning represent a bunch of opinions arrived at without a hint of accountability.
I see our musings on the Cardboard as just as valid (good and bad) as any of the voter polls.
This week's poll is a special challenge. SC is clearly a special team loaded with talent. They’ve beaten several top ten teams, which no other team has. Yet they got beaten by an unranked team this week, which usually results in a swift drop in the polls. Stanford, having lost to SC and to two other lower-ranked teams while beating three top ten teams, probably doesn’t have the "creds" for the current #1 ranking. Then consider Louisville, who lost to Arizona and doesn’t have a good enough record against top teams to ascend in the polls, although they probably are a sentimental favorite among the national press establishment. Arizona’s Adia Barnes probably has the biggest complaint for getting no respect for all she has done with her team in the past two years, yet she probably relishes the press treatment as a good team motivator.
Given all that and the fact that so many interruptions due to Covid are tainting the stats, it is probably best to ignore the current ranking week and entertain ourselves by doing an analysis of the writers and broadcasters who vote each week. Who are they and what might skew their votes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Poll

[Baez87]

Sometimes I forget that the AP poll is simply a composite of opinions of sports writers and broadcasters across the country. At those moments I see the ranking and total votes as a real assessment of the various competing teams' value. However, when I think of what might influences members of the press corps, I focus on how factors such as regional bias, subjective criteria, or even capricious opinions might shape the rankings. Then, at least in my mind, the rankings become pretty arbitrary. Clearly, the pollsters aren’t sitting in a board meeting discussion the merits of each team and games played, then discussing and dissecting each team's merits and results until a consensus is reached. Quite the contrary, the results that are compiled on Monday morning represent a bunch of opinions arrived at without a hint of accountability.
I see our musings on the Cardboard as just as valid (good and bad) as any of the voter polls.
This week's poll is a special challenge. SC is clearly a special team loaded with talent. They’ve beaten several top ten teams, which no other team has. Yet they got beaten by an unranked team this week, which usually results in a swift drop in the polls. Stanford, having lost to SC and to two other lower-ranked teams while beating three top ten teams, probably doesn’t have the "creds" for the current #1 ranking. Then consider Louisville, who lost to Arizona and doesn’t have a good enough record against top teams to ascend in the polls, although they probably are a sentimental favorite among the national press establishment. Arizona’s Adia Barnes probably has the biggest complaint for getting no respect for all she has done with her team in the past two years, yet she probably relishes the press treatment as a good team motivator.
Given all that and the fact that so many interruptions due to Covid are tainting the stats, it is probably best to ignore the current ranking week and entertain ourselves by doing an analysis of the writers and broadcasters who vote each week. Who are they and what might skew their votes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Poll

[81alum]

As we get more games played the Massey ratings look stronger, but are still out of whack with the AP: 

1 SC
2 Stanford
3 Texas
4 NC State
5 Arizona
6 Louisville

The South Carolina over Stanford and the Arizona over Louisville look solid and consistent.  Texas at 3 is a big difference with the polls.

Later this week undefeated but untested NC plays NC State which will be a big game for rankings.

[81alum]

As we get more games played the Massey ratings look stronger, but are still out of whack with the AP: 

1 SC
2 Stanford
3 Texas
4 NC State
5 Arizona
6 Louisville

The South Carolina over Stanford and the Arizona over Louisville look solid and consistent.  Texas at 3 is a big difference with the polls.

Later this week undefeated but untested NC plays NC State which will be a big game for rankings.

[TheFarm07]

We stay at #2 in the rankings as expected in the new AP poll, but Colorado broke into the Top 25 at #22, so Friday's game will be a showdown between two ranked teams.

Arizona dropped from #4 to #7 after their loss to USC.

[TheFarm07]

We stay at #2 in the rankings as expected in the new AP poll, but Colorado broke into the Top 25 at #22, so Friday's game will be a showdown between two ranked teams.

Arizona dropped from #4 to #7 after their loss to USC.

[WBB fan]

We stay at #2 in the rankings as expected in the new AP poll, but Colorado broke into the Top 25 at #22, so Friday's game will be a showdown between two ranked teams.

Arizona dropped from #4 to #7 after their loss to USC.

Not only stayed at #2 -- also picked up a few more higher votes. Last week, AP total was 694. This week, 703. Louisville remains just below us at #3 (5 points below this week, 3 last week), but still is getting 1st place votes vs none for Stanford.

[WBB fan]

We stay at #2 in the rankings as expected in the new AP poll, but Colorado broke into the Top 25 at #22, so Friday's game will be a showdown between two ranked teams.

Arizona dropped from #4 to #7 after their loss to USC.

Not only stayed at #2 -- also picked up a few more higher votes. Last week, AP total was 694. This week, 703. Louisville remains just below us at #3 (5 points below this week, 3 last week), but still is getting 1st place votes vs none for Stanford.

[81alum]

We stay at #2 in the rankings as expected in the new AP poll, but Colorado broke into the Top 25 at #22, so Friday's game will be a showdown between two ranked teams.

Arizona dropped from #4 to #7 after their loss to USC.

Not only stayed at #2 -- also picked up a few more higher votes. Last week, AP total was 694. This week, 703. Louisville remains just below us at #3 (5 points below this week, 3 last week), but still is getting 1st place votes vs none for Stanford.

Massey is getting more reliable as it gets more data.  Biggest outlier is North Carolina that the computer still ranks much more highly than the press.

SC 1
Stanford 2
NC State 3
Louisville 4
Tennessee 5
NC 6
Texas 7
UConn 8
Iowa State 9
Arizona 10
Maryland 11
Indiana 12

Oregon 19

Colorado 21

South Florida 35

Gonzaga 37
Oregon State 38

Utah 41

WSU 48
UCLA 49

USC 52

ASU 54

[81alum]

We stay at #2 in the rankings as expected in the new AP poll, but Colorado broke into the Top 25 at #22, so Friday's game will be a showdown between two ranked teams.

Arizona dropped from #4 to #7 after their loss to USC.

Not only stayed at #2 -- also picked up a few more higher votes. Last week, AP total was 694. This week, 703. Louisville remains just below us at #3 (5 points below this week, 3 last week), but still is getting 1st place votes vs none for Stanford.

Massey is getting more reliable as it gets more data.  Biggest outlier is North Carolina that the computer still ranks much more highly than the press.

SC 1
Stanford 2
NC State 3
Louisville 4
Tennessee 5
NC 6
Texas 7
UConn 8
Iowa State 9
Arizona 10
Maryland 11
Indiana 12

Oregon 19

Colorado 21

South Florida 35

Gonzaga 37
Oregon State 38

Utah 41

WSU 48
UCLA 49

USC 52

ASU 54

[joemontes]

I like that Louisville is staying ahead of NC State in the rankings as #3 overall and #4 overall respectively, 
since this will most likely mean that, as long as Stanford dominates PAC 12 play

-  Stanford as the Spokane Regional top seed and #2 overall seed will be on a collision course with Louisville 
as the Wichita Regional top seed and #3 overall seed, while 

-  South Carolina as the Greensboro Regional top seed and #1 overall seed will be on a collision course with NC State 
as the Bridgeport Regional top seed#4 overall seed (which Creme's Bracketology this week will most likely suggest, as well)

For me, NC State is a very complete team both offensively and defensively, while Louisville has superior defense
but average offense.  Unfortunately for NC State, though, they will most likely be bracketed with a UConn team
(which will most likely be be at full strength, including BUECKERS) in a Regional that's pretty much home turf for the Huskies.

[joemontes]

I like that Louisville is staying ahead of NC State in the rankings as #3 overall and #4 overall respectively, 
since this will most likely mean that, as long as Stanford dominates PAC 12 play

-  Stanford as the Spokane Regional top seed and #2 overall seed will be on a collision course with Louisville 
as the Wichita Regional top seed and #3 overall seed, while 

-  South Carolina as the Greensboro Regional top seed and #1 overall seed will be on a collision course with NC State 
as the Bridgeport Regional top seed#4 overall seed (which Creme's Bracketology this week will most likely suggest, as well)

For me, NC State is a very complete team both offensively and defensively, while Louisville has superior defense
but average offense.  Unfortunately for NC State, though, they will most likely be bracketed with a UConn team
(which will most likely be be at full strength, including BUECKERS) in a Regional that's pretty much home turf for the Huskies.

[WBB fan]

Can someone explain to me how U Conn can be listed as a co-host for the Bridgeport region (which appears to be the case) and be placed in that region for the NCAA tournament. I thought the rule was that a team couldn't be placed in a region it was hosting/co-hosting. This certainly was the case a few years back on a rule change that meant Stanford could no longer participate in a regional it hosted at Maples. Have the rules changed again more back to where they were?  Or is it incorrect that UConn is an official co-host for Bridgeport?

[WBB fan]

Can someone explain to me how U Conn can be listed as a co-host for the Bridgeport region (which appears to be the case) and be placed in that region for the NCAA tournament. I thought the rule was that a team couldn't be placed in a region it was hosting/co-hosting. This certainly was the case a few years back on a rule change that meant Stanford could no longer participate in a regional it hosted at Maples. Have the rules changed again more back to where they were?  Or is it incorrect that UConn is an official co-host for Bridgeport?

[crackpot]

Can someone explain to me how U Conn can be listed as a co-host for the Bridgeport region (which appears to be the case) and be placed in that region for the NCAA tournament. I thought the rule was that a team couldn't be placed in a region it was hosting/co-hosting. This certainly was the case a few years back on a rule change that meant Stanford could no longer participate in a regional it hosted at Maples. Have the rules changed again more back to where they were?  Or is it incorrect that UConn is an official co-host for Bridgeport?

Wait, I thought it was required to have one regional within easy driving distance of Storrs and that UConn had to be in it regardless of seed?

[crackpot]

Can someone explain to me how U Conn can be listed as a co-host for the Bridgeport region (which appears to be the case) and be placed in that region for the NCAA tournament. I thought the rule was that a team couldn't be placed in a region it was hosting/co-hosting. This certainly was the case a few years back on a rule change that meant Stanford could no longer participate in a regional it hosted at Maples. Have the rules changed again more back to where they were?  Or is it incorrect that UConn is an official co-host for Bridgeport?

Wait, I thought it was required to have one regional within easy driving distance of Storrs and that UConn had to be in it regardless of seed?

[WBB fan]

Can someone explain to me how U Conn can be listed as a co-host for the Bridgeport region (which appears to be the case) and be placed in that region for the NCAA tournament. I thought the rule was that a team couldn't be placed in a region it was hosting/co-hosting. This certainly was the case a few years back on a rule change that meant Stanford could no longer participate in a regional it hosted at Maples. Have the rules changed again more back to where they were?  Or is it incorrect that UConn is an official co-host for Bridgeport?

Wait, I thought it was required to have one regional within easy driving distance of Storrs and that UConn had to be in it regardless of seed?

Well, maybe that's an ESPN requirement for them to televise the tournament.

[WBB fan]

Can someone explain to me how U Conn can be listed as a co-host for the Bridgeport region (which appears to be the case) and be placed in that region for the NCAA tournament. I thought the rule was that a team couldn't be placed in a region it was hosting/co-hosting. This certainly was the case a few years back on a rule change that meant Stanford could no longer participate in a regional it hosted at Maples. Have the rules changed again more back to where they were?  Or is it incorrect that UConn is an official co-host for Bridgeport?

Wait, I thought it was required to have one regional within easy driving distance of Storrs and that UConn had to be in it regardless of seed?

Well, maybe that's an ESPN requirement for them to televise the tournament.

[qwerty49]

Can someone explain to me how U Conn can be listed as a co-host for the Bridgeport region (which appears to be the case) and be placed in that region for the NCAA tournament. I thought the rule was that a team couldn't be placed in a region it was hosting/co-hosting. This certainly was the case a few years back on a rule change that meant Stanford could no longer participate in a regional it hosted at Maples. Have the rules changed again more back to where they were?  Or is it incorrect that UConn is an official co-host for Bridgeport?

Wait, I thought it was required to have one regional within easy driving distance of Storrs and that UConn had to be in it regardless of seed?

Well, maybe that's an ESPN requirement for them to televise the tournament.

Shhhh…..not out loud!

[qwerty49]

Can someone explain to me how U Conn can be listed as a co-host for the Bridgeport region (which appears to be the case) and be placed in that region for the NCAA tournament. I thought the rule was that a team couldn't be placed in a region it was hosting/co-hosting. This certainly was the case a few years back on a rule change that meant Stanford could no longer participate in a regional it hosted at Maples. Have the rules changed again more back to where they were?  Or is it incorrect that UConn is an official co-host for Bridgeport?

Wait, I thought it was required to have one regional within easy driving distance of Storrs and that UConn had to be in it regardless of seed?

Well, maybe that's an ESPN requirement for them to televise the tournament.

Shhhh…..not out loud!

[teejers1]

Can someone explain to me how U Conn can be listed as a co-host for the Bridgeport region (which appears to be the case) and be placed in that region for the NCAA tournament. I thought the rule was that a team couldn't be placed in a region it was hosting/co-hosting. This certainly was the case a few years back on a rule change that meant Stanford could no longer participate in a regional it hosted at Maples. Have the rules changed again more back to where they were?  Or is it incorrect that UConn is an official co-host for Bridgeport?

Wait, I thought it was required to have one regional within easy driving distance of Storrs and that UConn had to be in it regardless of seed?

Well, maybe that's an ESPN requirement for them to televise the tournament.

UConn can have Bridgeport, afaic, as long as Stanford isn't in the same regional.  UConn will be a formidable #2 (or #1) seed wherever.  I don't want to see Redux of Men's #1 seed with Emeka Okafor's UConn #2 (they of course won the whole thing that year).  That was the year of the Alabama heartbreak . . . and at the time, having UConn in Stanford's bracket helped ease the pain as I don't think Stanford would have come out of that Regional anyway (but sure would have liked the Cardinal to have had a chance to try).

[teejers1]

Can someone explain to me how U Conn can be listed as a co-host for the Bridgeport region (which appears to be the case) and be placed in that region for the NCAA tournament. I thought the rule was that a team couldn't be placed in a region it was hosting/co-hosting. This certainly was the case a few years back on a rule change that meant Stanford could no longer participate in a regional it hosted at Maples. Have the rules changed again more back to where they were?  Or is it incorrect that UConn is an official co-host for Bridgeport?

Wait, I thought it was required to have one regional within easy driving distance of Storrs and that UConn had to be in it regardless of seed?

Well, maybe that's an ESPN requirement for them to televise the tournament.

UConn can have Bridgeport, afaic, as long as Stanford isn't in the same regional.  UConn will be a formidable #2 (or #1) seed wherever.  I don't want to see Redux of Men's #1 seed with Emeka Okafor's UConn #2 (they of course won the whole thing that year).  That was the year of the Alabama heartbreak . . . and at the time, having UConn in Stanford's bracket helped ease the pain as I don't think Stanford would have come out of that Regional anyway (but sure would have liked the Cardinal to have had a chance to try).

[WBB fan]

Bracketology from Her Hoop Stats -- not quite the same as Charlie Creme. Has Stanford as #2 overall, in Spokane region, with #2 there LSU. U Conn is #9 overall.

https://herhoopstats.substack.com/p/her-...dium=email

[WBB fan]

Bracketology from Her Hoop Stats -- not quite the same as Charlie Creme. Has Stanford as #2 overall, in Spokane region, with #2 there LSU. U Conn is #9 overall.

https://herhoopstats.substack.com/p/her-...dium=email

[joemontes]

Bracketology from Her Hoop Stats -- not quite the same as Charlie Creme. Has Stanford as #2 overall, in Spokane region, with #2 there LSU. U Conn is #9 overall.

https://herhoopstats.substack.com/p/her-...dium=email

Yes, frankly this is the most likely scenario, but hoping that Louisville can somehow outplay NC State in their ACC battles,
thereby switching Louisville's Wichita Regional to align with Stanford's Spokane Regional in the National Semis, 
because I feel that this is the best set-up for Stanford to get back to the National Championship game.

[joemontes]

Bracketology from Her Hoop Stats -- not quite the same as Charlie Creme. Has Stanford as #2 overall, in Spokane region, with #2 there LSU. U Conn is #9 overall.

https://herhoopstats.substack.com/p/her-...dium=email

Yes, frankly this is the most likely scenario, but hoping that Louisville can somehow outplay NC State in their ACC battles,
thereby switching Louisville's Wichita Regional to align with Stanford's Spokane Regional in the National Semis, 
because I feel that this is the best set-up for Stanford to get back to the National Championship game.