[OCcardinal]

I just have a feeling that the NCAA Committee will bunch up Stanford and 
UConn on one side of the bracket, and will upgrade Iowa to a 1-seed
on the heels of how strongly they finished their Big 10 season, with 
wins over projected 1-seed Indiana, projected 2-seed Mayland and
projected 3-seed Ohio State. 

We'll see. I don't think the committee gets as wrapped up in conference tournament performances as AP writers do. Kentucky certainly didn't get a big bump for beating S. Carolina in the SEC championship last season (and beating S. Carolina certainly didn't do them any good as they lost to an 11 seed in the first round).

Also, Iowa also only beat Indiana by 1 point at home (having lost to Indiana on the road).  Remember, five days before that Iowa lost by 26 points to MD on the road. If the committee is like AP voters and they grant Iowa bonus points for momentum, then Iowa will be a #1 seed. But I personally think Iowa started too far behind. Similarly, I think Stanford started too far ahead to drop from the 1 seed spot. Moreover, Stanford had one of the toughest, if not THE toughest, schedule for the final month of the season and yet still finished with 4 top 25 wins (3 on the road) in that month. Iowa finished the last month with 4 top 25 wins too but none on the road (they lost their two top-25 road games in that time).  In the last 4 weeks Iowa's NET ranking rose from 8th to 6th.  Stanford's went from 4th to...4th.

[OCcardinal]

I just have a feeling that the NCAA Committee will bunch up Stanford and 
UConn on one side of the bracket, and will upgrade Iowa to a 1-seed
on the heels of how strongly they finished their Big 10 season, with 
wins over projected 1-seed Indiana, projected 2-seed Mayland and
projected 3-seed Ohio State. 

We'll see. I don't think the committee gets as wrapped up in conference tournament performances as AP writers do. Kentucky certainly didn't get a big bump for beating S. Carolina in the SEC championship last season (and beating S. Carolina certainly didn't do them any good as they lost to an 11 seed in the first round).

Also, Iowa also only beat Indiana by 1 point at home (having lost to Indiana on the road).  Remember, five days before that Iowa lost by 26 points to MD on the road. If the committee is like AP voters and they grant Iowa bonus points for momentum, then Iowa will be a #1 seed. But I personally think Iowa started too far behind. Similarly, I think Stanford started too far ahead to drop from the 1 seed spot. Moreover, Stanford had one of the toughest, if not THE toughest, schedule for the final month of the season and yet still finished with 4 top 25 wins (3 on the road) in that month. Iowa finished the last month with 4 top 25 wins too but none on the road (they lost their two top-25 road games in that time).  In the last 4 weeks Iowa's NET ranking rose from 8th to 6th.  Stanford's went from 4th to...4th.

[stopandpop]

Brink just named 2nd. team All-American by "The Athletic" NCAAW panel

Aliyah Boston or Caitlin Clark? The Athletic’s women’s basketball player of the year - The Athletic

[stopandpop]

Brink just named 2nd. team All-American by "The Athletic" NCAAW panel

Aliyah Boston or Caitlin Clark? The Athletic’s women’s basketball player of the year - The Athletic

[mbdude]

Creme now predicting Stanford slides to a 2, Iowa to 1, in latest bracketology. Basing it on recent success (toward end of season) over full body of work. the bracket with Card as 2 looks okay to me

[mbdude]

Creme now predicting Stanford slides to a 2, Iowa to 1, in latest bracketology. Basing it on recent success (toward end of season) over full body of work. the bracket with Card as 2 looks okay to me

[joemontes]

Creme now predicting Stanford slides to a 2, Iowa to 1, in latest bracketology. Basing it on recent success (toward end of season) over full body of work. the bracket with Card as 2 looks okay to me

I totally agree. This latest bracketology, which makes good sense to me, looks like Godsend for Stanford:

1 South Carolina
2 Maryland
vs
1 Iowa
2 UConn

1 Indiana
2 Utah
vs
1 Virginia Tech
2 Stanford

As far as the intra-Regional matchups are concerned, I'm a little bit of worried about Ohio State
and their full court press which completely throttled Indiana in their Big 10 tournament semifinal game. 

1 South Carolina  vs.  4 North Carolina
2 Maryland          vs.  3 Notre Dame
vs
1 Iowa                vs.  4 Texas
2 UConn              vs.  3 Duke

1 Indiana             vs.  4 UCLA
2 Utah                 vs.  3 LSU
vs
1 Virginia Tech      vs.  4 Villanova
2 Stanford            vs.  3 Ohio State

[joemontes]

Creme now predicting Stanford slides to a 2, Iowa to 1, in latest bracketology. Basing it on recent success (toward end of season) over full body of work. the bracket with Card as 2 looks okay to me

I totally agree. This latest bracketology, which makes good sense to me, looks like Godsend for Stanford:

1 South Carolina
2 Maryland
vs
1 Iowa
2 UConn

1 Indiana
2 Utah
vs
1 Virginia Tech
2 Stanford

As far as the intra-Regional matchups are concerned, I'm a little bit of worried about Ohio State
and their full court press which completely throttled Indiana in their Big 10 tournament semifinal game. 

1 South Carolina  vs.  4 North Carolina
2 Maryland          vs.  3 Notre Dame
vs
1 Iowa                vs.  4 Texas
2 UConn              vs.  3 Duke

1 Indiana             vs.  4 UCLA
2 Utah                 vs.  3 LSU
vs
1 Virginia Tech      vs.  4 Villanova
2 Stanford            vs.  3 Ohio State

[Card10Fan]

I concur with you both. From all the brackets I've seen the past 10 days, Stanford as a #2 seed looks the best. We'd have to go through #3 seed Ohio State, #1 seed Virginia Tech, and would meet Indiana in the Final 4. Plus the projection is we'd be in Seattle so that's a lot of travel for Virginia Tech. 

Will see this evening with selection sunday!

[Card10Fan]

I concur with you both. From all the brackets I've seen the past 10 days, Stanford as a #2 seed looks the best. We'd have to go through #3 seed Ohio State, #1 seed Virginia Tech, and would meet Indiana in the Final 4. Plus the projection is we'd be in Seattle so that's a lot of travel for Virginia Tech. 

Will see this evening with selection sunday!

[2006alum]

I concur with you both. From all the brackets I've seen the past 10 days, Stanford as a #2 seed looks the best. We'd have to go through #3 seed Ohio State, #1 seed Virginia Tech, and would meet Indiana in the Final 4. Plus the projection is we'd be in Seattle so that's a lot of travel for Virginia Tech. 

Will see this evening with selection sunday!

That would be the dream path to the final. May it be!

[2006alum]

I concur with you both. From all the brackets I've seen the past 10 days, Stanford as a #2 seed looks the best. We'd have to go through #3 seed Ohio State, #1 seed Virginia Tech, and would meet Indiana in the Final 4. Plus the projection is we'd be in Seattle so that's a lot of travel for Virginia Tech. 

Will see this evening with selection sunday!

That would be the dream path to the final. May it be!

[81alum]

Well, slipping to a 2 seed is not indicated by the stats.  Massey has us at 3, NET at 4.  Furthermore, nothing has happened since our UCLA loss to change Creme's earlier predictions of a 1 seed for us other than his "nagging feeling" that this year's committee puts more weight on recent performance than last year's committee.  So this is worse than reading tea leaves.

That said, a 2 seed is not necessarily bad for us--if it turns out just the way Creme has drawn it up.  But it never does.  The way Creme puts together brackets is notoriously inaccurate--its predictive value has been nil for years.  I sometimes think he puts a lot more thought into his brackets than the committee does into the official one.  This latest revision on his part is probably just to cover his bases and keep interest in his predictions stirred up, so that all the top 7 teams have been 1 seeds for him at one point or another recently.

I also don't know how well we would match up with Virginia Tech.  But we only have to wait a few hours to know for sure where things stand.

[81alum]

Well, slipping to a 2 seed is not indicated by the stats.  Massey has us at 3, NET at 4.  Furthermore, nothing has happened since our UCLA loss to change Creme's earlier predictions of a 1 seed for us other than his "nagging feeling" that this year's committee puts more weight on recent performance than last year's committee.  So this is worse than reading tea leaves.

That said, a 2 seed is not necessarily bad for us--if it turns out just the way Creme has drawn it up.  But it never does.  The way Creme puts together brackets is notoriously inaccurate--its predictive value has been nil for years.  I sometimes think he puts a lot more thought into his brackets than the committee does into the official one.  This latest revision on his part is probably just to cover his bases and keep interest in his predictions stirred up, so that all the top 7 teams have been 1 seeds for him at one point or another recently.

I also don't know how well we would match up with Virginia Tech.  But we only have to wait a few hours to know for sure where things stand.

[M T]

81alum, I agree with you.  I don't know what made him change things as he did.  (Readership through controversy? I don't know.)   Stanford has not performed to what I think they're capable of.  A good part of that is other teams aiming for us and performing well.  A part of that was how the whistle blows.  But I still think we should be a #1 seed.  

I feel like we're a bunch of farmers looking at clouds coming and making guesses on whose crops are going to get more rain.

[M T]

81alum, I agree with you.  I don't know what made him change things as he did.  (Readership through controversy? I don't know.)   Stanford has not performed to what I think they're capable of.  A good part of that is other teams aiming for us and performing well.  A part of that was how the whistle blows.  But I still think we should be a #1 seed.  

I feel like we're a bunch of farmers looking at clouds coming and making guesses on whose crops are going to get more rain.

[BostonCard]

Quick question, why was the PAC-12 tournament a week before selection day, and almost two weeks before the first tournament game is to be played.  Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s probably a good thing to get some rest, but give all the extra time, it seems that the compressed end of year PAC-12 schedule might have been unnecessary.  To wit, we played 2/17, 2/20, 2/23, 2/25, 3/2, 3/3, and, had we won, would have played 3/4, which would have been 7 games in 16 days.  We have since not played any games since and the first game of the tournament is 3/17.  Could we really not have played the pac-12 tournament Friday/Saturday/Sunday or Saturday/Sunday/Monday?

I’m going to guess that the answer is “TV”, but I am sick of the conference putting TV considerations ahead of the athletes welfare or academics.

BC

[BostonCard]

Quick question, why was the PAC-12 tournament a week before selection day, and almost two weeks before the first tournament game is to be played.  Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s probably a good thing to get some rest, but give all the extra time, it seems that the compressed end of year PAC-12 schedule might have been unnecessary.  To wit, we played 2/17, 2/20, 2/23, 2/25, 3/2, 3/3, and, had we won, would have played 3/4, which would have been 7 games in 16 days.  We have since not played any games since and the first game of the tournament is 3/17.  Could we really not have played the pac-12 tournament Friday/Saturday/Sunday or Saturday/Sunday/Monday?

I’m going to guess that the answer is “TV”, but I am sick of the conference putting TV considerations ahead of the athletes welfare or academics.

BC

[CompSci87]

I believe the reason is so as to give the women their own weekend instead of overlapping with the Pac-12 men's tournament.

[CompSci87]

I believe the reason is so as to give the women their own weekend instead of overlapping with the Pac-12 men's tournament.

[BostonCard]

Still doesn’t explain why they ran the games Wed-Sat.  It would have made a lot more sense to run them Thurs - Sun or even have the play-in Friday, most of the games on Saturday and Sunday, and the championship Monday night.

BC

[BostonCard]

Still doesn’t explain why they ran the games Wed-Sat.  It would have made a lot more sense to run them Thurs - Sun or even have the play-in Friday, most of the games on Saturday and Sunday, and the championship Monday night.

BC

[Maple Leaf]

Creme now predicting Stanford slides to a 2, Iowa to 1, in latest bracketology. Basing it on recent success (toward end of season) over full body of work. the bracket with Card as 2 looks okay to me

I totally agree. This latest bracketology, which makes good sense to me, looks like Godsend for Stanford:

1 South Carolina
2 Maryland
vs
1 Iowa
2 UConn

1 Indiana
2 Utah
vs
1 Virginia Tech
2 Stanford

As far as the intra-Regional matchups are concerned, I'm a little bit of worried about Ohio State
and their full court press which completely throttled Indiana in their Big 10 tournament semifinal game. 

1 South Carolina  vs.  4 North Carolina
2 Maryland          vs.  3 Notre Dame
vs
1 Iowa                vs.  4 Texas
2 UConn              vs.  3 Duke

1 Indiana             vs.  4 UCLA
2 Utah                 vs.  3 LSU
vs
1 Virginia Tech      vs.  4 Villanova
2 Stanford            vs.  3 Ohio State

Texas lost to Iowa St in the B12 Championship game earlier today.

[Maple Leaf]

Creme now predicting Stanford slides to a 2, Iowa to 1, in latest bracketology. Basing it on recent success (toward end of season) over full body of work. the bracket with Card as 2 looks okay to me

I totally agree. This latest bracketology, which makes good sense to me, looks like Godsend for Stanford:

1 South Carolina
2 Maryland
vs
1 Iowa
2 UConn

1 Indiana
2 Utah
vs
1 Virginia Tech
2 Stanford

As far as the intra-Regional matchups are concerned, I'm a little bit of worried about Ohio State
and their full court press which completely throttled Indiana in their Big 10 tournament semifinal game. 

1 South Carolina  vs.  4 North Carolina
2 Maryland          vs.  3 Notre Dame
vs
1 Iowa                vs.  4 Texas
2 UConn              vs.  3 Duke

1 Indiana             vs.  4 UCLA
2 Utah                 vs.  3 LSU
vs
1 Virginia Tech      vs.  4 Villanova
2 Stanford            vs.  3 Ohio State

Texas lost to Iowa St in the B12 Championship game earlier today.

[Card10Fan]

Still doesn’t explain why they ran the games Wed-Sat.  It would have made a lot more sense to run them Thurs - Sun or even have the play-in Friday, most of the games on Saturday and Sunday, and the championship Monday night.

BC

I think you like to complain. I don’t think our team or coaches are complaining about having extra time to rest and prepare before the opening rounds

I’ve been to almost every Pac12 WBB tourney the past decade. It’s always two weekends before the NCAA first round and the weekend before the the men’s Pac12 tourney. The championship game is always on Sunday. This is not some new phenomenon to those who actually attend and follow women’s college basketball. The Pac12 Wbb championship Sunday game was the same day as the Big10, ACC, SEC conference tourney finals.

[Card10Fan]

Still doesn’t explain why they ran the games Wed-Sat.  It would have made a lot more sense to run them Thurs - Sun or even have the play-in Friday, most of the games on Saturday and Sunday, and the championship Monday night.

BC

I think you like to complain. I don’t think our team or coaches are complaining about having extra time to rest and prepare before the opening rounds

I’ve been to almost every Pac12 WBB tourney the past decade. It’s always two weekends before the NCAA first round and the weekend before the the men’s Pac12 tourney. The championship game is always on Sunday. This is not some new phenomenon to those who actually attend and follow women’s college basketball. The Pac12 Wbb championship Sunday game was the same day as the Big10, ACC, SEC conference tourney finals.

[stopandpop]

Well, slipping to a 2 seed is not indicated by the stats.  Massey has us at 3, NET at 4.  Furthermore, nothing has happened since our UCLA loss to change Creme's earlier predictions of a 1 seed for us other than his "nagging feeling" that this year's committee puts more weight on recent performance than last year's committee.  So this is worse than reading tea leaves.

That said, a 2 seed is not necessarily bad for us--if it turns out just the way Creme has drawn it up.  But it never does.  The way Creme puts together brackets is notoriously inaccurate--its predictive value has been nil for years.  I sometimes think he puts a lot more thought into his brackets than the committee does into the official one.  This latest revision on his part is probably just to cover his bases and keep interest in his predictions stirred up, so that all the top 7 teams have been 1 seeds for him at one point or another recently.

I also don't know how well we would match up with Virginia Tech.  But we only have to wait a few hours to know for sure where things stand.

6'6 post Elizabeth Kitley of VA Tech. was ACC POY; 18.6 ppg and 10.5 rb/game.  I subscribe to the ACC Network and have watched the Hokies play several times.  Kitley very smart on the block.  Post up moves are at a WNBA level.  Reliable mid-range jumper.  She has a good cast of complimentary players around her.  

I would not take them lightly.

[stopandpop]

Well, slipping to a 2 seed is not indicated by the stats.  Massey has us at 3, NET at 4.  Furthermore, nothing has happened since our UCLA loss to change Creme's earlier predictions of a 1 seed for us other than his "nagging feeling" that this year's committee puts more weight on recent performance than last year's committee.  So this is worse than reading tea leaves.

That said, a 2 seed is not necessarily bad for us--if it turns out just the way Creme has drawn it up.  But it never does.  The way Creme puts together brackets is notoriously inaccurate--its predictive value has been nil for years.  I sometimes think he puts a lot more thought into his brackets than the committee does into the official one.  This latest revision on his part is probably just to cover his bases and keep interest in his predictions stirred up, so that all the top 7 teams have been 1 seeds for him at one point or another recently.

I also don't know how well we would match up with Virginia Tech.  But we only have to wait a few hours to know for sure where things stand.

6'6 post Elizabeth Kitley of VA Tech. was ACC POY; 18.6 ppg and 10.5 rb/game.  I subscribe to the ACC Network and have watched the Hokies play several times.  Kitley very smart on the block.  Post up moves are at a WNBA level.  Reliable mid-range jumper.  She has a good cast of complimentary players around her.  

I would not take them lightly.

[chimera]

I think we all agree that the seeding doesn't matter that much, not nearly as much as the match-ups.  There is less hype with a #2 seed and maybe some chip on the shoulder attitude that could help, or it could be deflating to miss out on what seemed a sure thing #1 seed when the season started.

What matters most is what Stanford team we see.  The team that struggled in the conference season on offense and looked possibly tired at the end could lose to anyone decent.  The focused and aggressive Stanford team with the very tough defense could beat anyone.  As Jones and Brink go, so goes Stanford.  If they are both on throughout the tournament, we can win it all, if one or both struggles, we have problems.

[chimera]

I think we all agree that the seeding doesn't matter that much, not nearly as much as the match-ups.  There is less hype with a #2 seed and maybe some chip on the shoulder attitude that could help, or it could be deflating to miss out on what seemed a sure thing #1 seed when the season started.

What matters most is what Stanford team we see.  The team that struggled in the conference season on offense and looked possibly tired at the end could lose to anyone decent.  The focused and aggressive Stanford team with the very tough defense could beat anyone.  As Jones and Brink go, so goes Stanford.  If they are both on throughout the tournament, we can win it all, if one or both struggles, we have problems.

[BostonCard]

Still doesn’t explain why they ran the games Wed-Sat.  It would have made a lot more sense to run them Thurs - Sun or even have the play-in Friday, most of the games on Saturday and Sunday, and the championship Monday night.

BC

I think you like to complain. I don’t think our team or coaches are complaining about having extra time to rest and prepare before the opening rounds

I’ve been to almost every Pac12 WBB tourney the past decade. It’s always two weekends before the NCAA first round and the weekend before the the men’s Pac12 tourney. The championship game is always on Sunday. This is not some new phenomenon to those who actually attend and follow women’s college basketball. The Pac12 Wbb championship Sunday game was the same day as the Big10, ACC, SEC conference tourney finals.

I was also wrong.  The tournament did give the finalists a day to rest between the semi-final match on Friday and the final on Sunday (good).  And yes, the flip side of compressing the games is that there is more time to rest before the NCAA tournament.

But still, by pursuing a tournament that runs from Wed. to Sunday, they unnecessarily compressed the schedule at the end of the year.  Running the tournament Friday through Sunday with the championship on Tuesday would still have given teams plenty of rest, and wouldn’t have forced the end of year crunch the last two weeks of the season.  That’s not a complaint on behalf of the team, since teams with a play-in game were even more adversely affected; it’s a complaint on behalf of the players.  To the extent that we pay lip service to academics and athlete well-being, maybe we should schedule accordingly?

BC

[BostonCard]

Still doesn’t explain why they ran the games Wed-Sat.  It would have made a lot more sense to run them Thurs - Sun or even have the play-in Friday, most of the games on Saturday and Sunday, and the championship Monday night.

BC

I think you like to complain. I don’t think our team or coaches are complaining about having extra time to rest and prepare before the opening rounds

I’ve been to almost every Pac12 WBB tourney the past decade. It’s always two weekends before the NCAA first round and the weekend before the the men’s Pac12 tourney. The championship game is always on Sunday. This is not some new phenomenon to those who actually attend and follow women’s college basketball. The Pac12 Wbb championship Sunday game was the same day as the Big10, ACC, SEC conference tourney finals.

I was also wrong.  The tournament did give the finalists a day to rest between the semi-final match on Friday and the final on Sunday (good).  And yes, the flip side of compressing the games is that there is more time to rest before the NCAA tournament.

But still, by pursuing a tournament that runs from Wed. to Sunday, they unnecessarily compressed the schedule at the end of the year.  Running the tournament Friday through Sunday with the championship on Tuesday would still have given teams plenty of rest, and wouldn’t have forced the end of year crunch the last two weeks of the season.  That’s not a complaint on behalf of the team, since teams with a play-in game were even more adversely affected; it’s a complaint on behalf of the players.  To the extent that we pay lip service to academics and athlete well-being, maybe we should schedule accordingly?

BC

[treetop11]

Well, slipping to a 2 seed is not indicated by the stats.  Massey has us at 3, NET at 4.  Furthermore, nothing has happened since our UCLA loss to change Creme's earlier predictions of a 1 seed for us other than his "nagging feeling" that this year's committee puts more weight on recent performance than last year's committee.  So this is worse than reading tea leaves.

That said, a 2 seed is not necessarily bad for us--if it turns out just the way Creme has drawn it up.  But it never does.  The way Creme puts together brackets is notoriously inaccurate--its predictive value has been nil for years.  I sometimes think he puts a lot more thought into his brackets than the committee does into the official one.  This latest revision on his part is probably just to cover his bases and keep interest in his predictions stirred up, so that all the top 7 teams have been 1 seeds for him at one point or another recently.

I also don't know how well we would match up with Virginia Tech.  But we only have to wait a few hours to know for sure where things stand.

I would happily take the #2 seed in the bracket that Creme put together. I would be easier that the other 3 regions IMO. However, as you mention Creme can be inaccurate and we could get stuck with some match ups.

[treetop11]

Well, slipping to a 2 seed is not indicated by the stats.  Massey has us at 3, NET at 4.  Furthermore, nothing has happened since our UCLA loss to change Creme's earlier predictions of a 1 seed for us other than his "nagging feeling" that this year's committee puts more weight on recent performance than last year's committee.  So this is worse than reading tea leaves.

That said, a 2 seed is not necessarily bad for us--if it turns out just the way Creme has drawn it up.  But it never does.  The way Creme puts together brackets is notoriously inaccurate--its predictive value has been nil for years.  I sometimes think he puts a lot more thought into his brackets than the committee does into the official one.  This latest revision on his part is probably just to cover his bases and keep interest in his predictions stirred up, so that all the top 7 teams have been 1 seeds for him at one point or another recently.

I also don't know how well we would match up with Virginia Tech.  But we only have to wait a few hours to know for sure where things stand.

I would happily take the #2 seed in the bracket that Creme put together. I would be easier that the other 3 regions IMO. However, as you mention Creme can be inaccurate and we could get stuck with some match ups.

[stopandpop]

I have said before that this team was never hungry from the get-go.  You can look at all five losses or the big leads we gave up during the season and into the Tourney.  A hungry team would have won every one of those games considering the size and talent on this team.

That's why I'm hoping we're seeded #2.  Perhaps a 2-seed might generate the (missing) motivation for this team to not only prove the Committee wrong, but carry them to the Final Four.

[stopandpop]

I have said before that this team was never hungry from the get-go.  You can look at all five losses or the big leads we gave up during the season and into the Tourney.  A hungry team would have won every one of those games considering the size and talent on this team.

That's why I'm hoping we're seeded #2.  Perhaps a 2-seed might generate the (missing) motivation for this team to not only prove the Committee wrong, but carry them to the Final Four.

[qwerty49]

I think we all agree that the seeding doesn't matter that much, not nearly as much as the match-ups.  There is less hype with a #2 seed and maybe some chip on the shoulder attitude that could help, or it could be deflating to miss out on what seemed a sure thing #1 seed when the season started.

What matters most is what Stanford team we see.  The team that struggled in the conference season on offense and looked possibly tired at the end could lose to anyone decent.  The focused and aggressive Stanford team with the very tough defense could beat anyone.  As Jones and Brink go, so goes Stanford.  If they are both on throughout the tournament, we can win it all, if one or both struggles, we have problems.

Absolutely agree with you.  All of us agree there's a high level of talent on this team, but I do think it really comes down to Jones and Brink.  Many others have stepped up and can step up, but Haley and Cam are just at another level.

[qwerty49]

I think we all agree that the seeding doesn't matter that much, not nearly as much as the match-ups.  There is less hype with a #2 seed and maybe some chip on the shoulder attitude that could help, or it could be deflating to miss out on what seemed a sure thing #1 seed when the season started.

What matters most is what Stanford team we see.  The team that struggled in the conference season on offense and looked possibly tired at the end could lose to anyone decent.  The focused and aggressive Stanford team with the very tough defense could beat anyone.  As Jones and Brink go, so goes Stanford.  If they are both on throughout the tournament, we can win it all, if one or both struggles, we have problems.

Absolutely agree with you.  All of us agree there's a high level of talent on this team, but I do think it really comes down to Jones and Brink.  Many others have stepped up and can step up, but Haley and Cam are just at another level.

[TheFarm07]

Greenville Regional #1:

Top 4 Seeds: #1 South Carolina, #2 Maryland, #3 Notre Dame, #4 UCLA

Pac-12: #4 UCLA vs. #13 Sacramento State, #7 Arizona vs. #10 West Virginia

Greenville Regional #2:

Top 4 Seeds: #1 Indiana, #2 Utah, #3 LSU, #4 Villanova

Pac-12: #2 Utah vs. #15 Gardner-Webb, #5 Washington State vs. #12 Florida Gulf Coast

Lindy's UNLV are seeded #11 against #6 Michigan with #3 LSU next up in this region.

Seattle Regional #3:

Top 4 Seeds: #1 Virginia Tech, #2 UConn, #3 Ohio State, #4 Tennessee

Pac-12: #8 USC vs. #9 South Dakota State

Seattle Regional #4:

We got the final #1 seed! - We open up against the winner of a play-in game between Southern and Sacred Heart, but then we could have a rematch with Gonzaga as we would face the winner of Ole Miss and the Zags and then a Sweet 16 matchup potentially looms with #4 Texas or #5 Louisville and then Tara's toughest defensive assignment, to try to contain Caitlin Clark and #2 Iowa for a spot in the Final Four.

Top 4 Seeds: #1 Stanford, #2 Iowa, #3 Duke, #4 Texas

Pac-12: #1 Stanford vs. #16 Southern/Sacred Heart, #6 Colorado vs. #11 Middle Tennessee State

[TheFarm07]

Greenville Regional #1:

Top 4 Seeds: #1 South Carolina, #2 Maryland, #3 Notre Dame, #4 UCLA

Pac-12: #4 UCLA vs. #13 Sacramento State, #7 Arizona vs. #10 West Virginia

Greenville Regional #2:

Top 4 Seeds: #1 Indiana, #2 Utah, #3 LSU, #4 Villanova

Pac-12: #2 Utah vs. #15 Gardner-Webb, #5 Washington State vs. #12 Florida Gulf Coast

Lindy's UNLV are seeded #11 against #6 Michigan with #3 LSU next up in this region.

Seattle Regional #3:

Top 4 Seeds: #1 Virginia Tech, #2 UConn, #3 Ohio State, #4 Tennessee

Pac-12: #8 USC vs. #9 South Dakota State

Seattle Regional #4:

We got the final #1 seed! - We open up against the winner of a play-in game between Southern and Sacred Heart, but then we could have a rematch with Gonzaga as we would face the winner of Ole Miss and the Zags and then a Sweet 16 matchup potentially looms with #4 Texas or #5 Louisville and then Tara's toughest defensive assignment, to try to contain Caitlin Clark and #2 Iowa for a spot in the Final Four.

Top 4 Seeds: #1 Stanford, #2 Iowa, #3 Duke, #4 Texas

Pac-12: #1 Stanford vs. #16 Southern/Sacred Heart, #6 Colorado vs. #11 Middle Tennessee State