RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

About South Carolina, is it just me that I felt .... ?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ridor



Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 958
Location: Frederick, Maryland


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 7:27 am    ::: About South Carolina, is it just me that I felt .... ? Reply Reply with quote

First of all, it is refreshing to see a different team winning the national championship. It is more awesome that Dawn Staley finally got her national championship in Dallas. It was awesome that the UpstartsMississippi State sent UConn home in a big upset.

but is it just me that I felt that this tournament was somewhat incomplete because South Carolina did not dethrone UConn to win the national championship? Is it just me that I cannot help feeling that South Carolina must thank Mississippi State for beating UConn to clear the way to win the crown? You know, IN the last 3 meetings, South Carolina was 0-3 against UConn so because of that record, I felt this tournament was somewhat half-full in some capacity since SC did not conquer the ultimate obstacle to win everything.

Cheers,

R-


WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 2880
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 8:24 am    ::: Re: About South Carolina, is it just me that I felt .... ? Reply Reply with quote

ridor wrote:
First of all, it is refreshing to see a different team winning the national championship. It is more awesome that Dawn Staley finally got her national championship in Dallas. It was awesome that the UpstartsMississippi State sent UConn home in a big upset.

but is it just me that I felt that this tournament was somewhat incomplete because South Carolina did not dethrone UConn to win the national championship? Is it just me that I cannot help feeling that South Carolina must thank Mississippi State for beating UConn to clear the way to win the crown? You know, IN the last 3 meetings, South Carolina was 0-3 against UConn so because of that record, I felt this tournament was somewhat half-full in some capacity since SC did not conquer the ultimate obstacle to win everything.

Cheers,

R-


Or maybe it feels incomplete because the defending national champs did not finish the job and reach the national championship to make this a debatable topic ?



_________________
2-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-2-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
NoDakSt



Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 3244
Location: Attilan


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 8:45 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

the storybook ending is for the reigning champs to be dethroned in the national title game. But......

I felt that if Mississippi State won the title fans would say that that the real championship game was the OT semifinal. You hear that a lot when a favored team bows out early.

South Carolina won, and won in front of a big TV audience that in no doubt was at peaked curiosity because UCONN wasn't a contender.



_________________
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 53684
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 8:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I wouldn't say incomplete. The final did seem anticlimactic after the upset in the semis.



_________________
She wants to dance, she loves to dance, she's got to dance
Fighting Artichoke



Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 2640



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 10:01 am    ::: Re: About South Carolina, is it just me that I felt .... ? Reply Reply with quote

ridor wrote:
First of all, it is refreshing to see a different team winning the national championship. It is more awesome that Dawn Staley finally got her national championship in Dallas. It was awesome that the UpstartsMississippi State sent UConn home in a big upset.

but is it just me that I felt that this tournament was somewhat incomplete because South Carolina did not dethrone UConn to win the national championship? Is it just me that I cannot help feeling that South Carolina must thank Mississippi State for beating UConn to clear the way to win the crown? You know, IN the last 3 meetings, South Carolina was 0-3 against UConn so because of that record, I felt this tournament was somewhat half-full in some capacity since SC did not conquer the ultimate obstacle to win everything.

Cheers,

R-


Who knows what would happened if UConn and South Carolina met in the NC game? While you can cite the 3-0 record of clear wins by UConn, remember that last season in the tournament, UConn destroyed Miss. St by 60 points! Clearly that didn't affect the Bulldogs in the semi-final game against UConn, unless it made Huskies overconfident. Props to the Gamecocks for winning it all!


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 10913



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 10:34 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This kind of stuff happens.

There's often good luck involved. It's part of the tournament. Matchups, injuries, upsets all change the playing board.

2013 is one of the most obvious when in Griner's senior year Louisville did everyone else a favor by upsetting the huge favorite Baylor.

2014, as undefeated UConn and undefeated Notre Dame head towards an unprecedented showdown of unbeaten teams, Natalie Achonwa tears her ACL in the regional final.

This year, South Carolina was sent West, but received what is widely viewed as the easiest region. Then its anticipated according to seed Semi Final opponent Notre Dame lost its all American center Turner to an ACl injury. Then Miss St knocked out not one but TWO of the highly regarded finals opponents in Baylor and UConn.

But they still won. They're still champions. These things are just part of the tournament. Who knows what would have happened if no upsets or injuries had occurred. Might have had the same outcome, might not. But there's still only one winner.


FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 432



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 10:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Incomplete isn't anywhere near the top of the list of adjectives that I'd use to describe this FF. Interesting, engaging, competitive, exciting, emotional, without foregone conclusion are all terms that come to my mind. Seeing UConn demolish their opponent in the title game by an avg of 24 pts year after year is no longer of any interest to me, with all due respect to Stewart, Jefferson, et al. This was a far better FF. Kudos to both Miss St and South Carolina for their roles.


summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 4028
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 10:56 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Not really. The best games have often been in the semis. My memory isn't what it used to be or I could call them up, but ISTM that there was at least one other big defeat of UConn-Miss in the semis, and it was by Tennessee. Wink



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 2880
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 11:01 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

summertime blues wrote:
Not really. The best games have often been in the semis. My memory isn't what it used to be or I could call them up, but ISTM that there was at least one other big defeat of UConn-Miss in the semis, and it was by Tennessee. Wink



Which time would you be referring too ?



_________________
2-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-2-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
zvyn3



Joined: 20 Jul 2013
Posts: 403
Location: Tennessee


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 12:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I felt the tournament as a whole was rather lackluster with the exception of the UConn vs. Mississippi State semifinal game.


linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 2600



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 12:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Another interesting thing is that since 2001 UConn has been beaten 4 times in the FF and the winners of those games all lost in the final. I'm not sure about 2005, 2006, & 2007 but other than in those years not one team anywhere in UConn's half of the bracket has won a title.


CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 16643
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 12:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
Another interesting thing is that since 2001 UConn has been beaten 4 times in the FF and the winners of those games all lost in the final. I'm not sure about 2005, 2006, & 2007 but other than in those years not one team anywhere in UConn's half of the bracket has won a title.


In 2006, UConn lost to Duke in the Elite Eight in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Duke lost to Maryland in the national championship game.


linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 2600



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 1:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

When some of the most astute fans of the game are saying that they aren't bothering to watch the championship game there needs to be an examination of other options.

The only interesting thing about a single elimination format is the drama of games all being do or die. Other than that most of the games are either boring and/or one-sided and due to inevitable upsets there ends up being only 4-5 games between the top-rated teams. I've always felt that shortening the field to 32 teams would allow the NCAA to reduce the field to 8 after the first weekend and then be able to have a double elimination tournament like they have in baseball & I believe in softball. This type of format would produce many more great match ups, would still provide a lot of do or die games and be a better showcase for the best teams in wcbb.


Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 892



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 1:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

zvyn3 wrote:
I felt the tournament as a whole was rather lackluster with the exception of the UConn vs. Mississippi State semifinal game.


While there were a number of ho-hum games, I thought there were a fair number of interesting games.

The Texas A&M Penn game was a nailbiter. It ended up being a major disappointment for those who like upsets with Penn blowing their 21 point lead, but it was exciting to watch.

The Cal LSU game came down to the wire and was fun to watch.

The Chattanooga attempt to upset Louisville was fun for a while but fell apart in the end.

It's hard to beat an overtime game such as the Notre Dame Purdue game.

The South Carolina Arizona State game was a lot of fun to watch.

For sheer excitement though watching Quinnipiac upset Marquette then take down Miami was probably the best part of the overall tournament.

I was pulling for South Florida over Missouri so I was disappointed in the result but the game was a good one to watch. Similarly for Florida Gulf Coast against Miami — I didn't get the result I wanted but it was a fun game to watch.

However, as I look to the games it's curious to note that most of the games that were close or interesting were first two rounds. In theory was supposed to have the blowouts in the first two rounds and then the games are supposed to get closer, but many of the must-see games were first or second round.

Not a single Sweet 16 game ended in single digits. However, the Elite eight games with the exception of Connecticut Oregon, were all close games. Arguably South Carolina Florida State was never in serious question but it was a decent game to watch, and Stanford over Notre Dame by a single point while Mississippi State be Baylor in overtime qualify as some of the better games ever.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 10913



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 1:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
When some of the most astute fans of the game are saying that they aren't bothering to watch the championship game there needs to be an examination of other options.

The only interesting thing about a single elimination format is the drama of games all being do or die. Other than that most of the games are either boring and/or one-sided and due to inevitable upsets there ends up being only 4-5 games between the top-rated teams. I've always felt that shortening the field to 32 teams would allow the NCAA to reduce the field to 8 after the first weekend and then be able to have a double elimination tournament like they have in baseball & I believe in softball. This type of format would produce many more great match ups, would still provide a lot of do or die games and be a better showcase for the best teams in wcbb.


Instead of repeating ad nauseum the same non-starter, I suggest in the future you simply not watch the first two days of the tournament. Then you'll have your 32 team bracket.

Small schools are never going to vote to give up their automatic qualifier spots. And school presidents are never going to agree to triple the number of days required for the tournament by making it double elimination. There is zero similarity to softball. They play double headers and back to back to back days in softball. Just as an example, UCF played four games in three days last year. You want them to do that in basketball?


linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 2600



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 3:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
linkster wrote:
When some of the most astute fans of the game are saying that they aren't bothering to watch the championship game there needs to be an examination of other options.

The only interesting thing about a single elimination format is the drama of games all being do or die. Other than that most of the games are either boring and/or one-sided and due to inevitable upsets there ends up being only 4-5 games between the top-rated teams. I've always felt that shortening the field to 32 teams would allow the NCAA to reduce the field to 8 after the first weekend and then be able to have a double elimination tournament like they have in baseball & I believe in softball. This type of format would produce many more great match ups, would still provide a lot of do or die games and be a better showcase for the best teams in wcbb.


Instead of repeating ad nauseum the same non-starter, I suggest in the future you simply not watch the first two days of the tournament. Then you'll have your 32 team bracket.

Small schools are never going to vote to give up their automatic qualifier spots. And school presidents are never going to agree to triple the number of days required for the tournament by making it double elimination. There is zero similarity to softball. They play double headers and back to back to back days in softball. Just as an example, UCF played four games in three days last year. You want them to do that in basketball?




Just because an idea is politically unpopular we shouldn't talk about it? The only reason wcbb plays a 64 team tournament is political and IMO that is a poor basis for a tournament format. Teams play 3 games in 3 days right now in holiday tournaments and most of the players did more than that when they were in AAU. And maybe conditioning should be part of winning a championship. An 8 team double elimination can be played easily with 3 games a week for each team. Teams are taken out of classes all season. Why suddenly is it such an issue in the beginning of spring?

And I'll stop promoting my idea when others stop posting ad nauseum how UConn games are one-sided bores and/or unwatchable. UConn is going to beat the crap out of a lot teams for the foreseeable future and it isn't going to change so maybe those people should just shut up?


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 10913



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 3:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
linkster wrote:
When some of the most astute fans of the game are saying that they aren't bothering to watch the championship game there needs to be an examination of other options.

The only interesting thing about a single elimination format is the drama of games all being do or die. Other than that most of the games are either boring and/or one-sided and due to inevitable upsets there ends up being only 4-5 games between the top-rated teams. I've always felt that shortening the field to 32 teams would allow the NCAA to reduce the field to 8 after the first weekend and then be able to have a double elimination tournament like they have in baseball & I believe in softball. This type of format would produce many more great match ups, would still provide a lot of do or die games and be a better showcase for the best teams in wcbb.


Instead of repeating ad nauseum the same non-starter, I suggest in the future you simply not watch the first two days of the tournament. Then you'll have your 32 team bracket.

Small schools are never going to vote to give up their automatic qualifier spots. And school presidents are never going to agree to triple the number of days required for the tournament by making it double elimination. There is zero similarity to softball. They play double headers and back to back to back days in softball. Just as an example, UCF played four games in three days last year. You want them to do that in basketball?




Just because an idea is politically unpopular we shouldn't talk about it? The only reason wcbb plays a 64 team tournament is political and IMO that is a poor basis for a tournament format. Teams play 3 games in 3 days right now in holiday tournaments and most of the players did more than that when they were in AAU. And maybe conditioning should be part of winning a championship. An 8 team double elimination can be played easily with 3 games a week for each team. Teams are taken out of classes all season. Why suddenly is it such an issue in the beginning of spring?

And I'll stop promoting my idea when others stop posting ad nauseum how UConn games are one-sided bores and/or unwatchable. UConn is going to beat the crap out of a lot teams for the foreseeable future and it isn't going to change so maybe those people should just shut up?


Here, we can fix both problems at once. Let the Power 5 have their own 32 team tournament. Get rid of the small conference auto bids and get rid of UConn all in one fell swoop. Problems solved. There you go. Fixed.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 3533
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 3:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I agree with the OP that it would have been most dramatic if defending champion UConn had lost in the final game. That would have broken UConn's four game NC streak, 112 game winning streak, and Auriemma's 11 game winning streak in NC final games . . . during the orgasmic game rather than during preliminary petting. It would have been a more dramatically timed hurt on UConn, producing a bigger climax of national glee.

The second most dramatic would have been Miss. St. winning the NC over S. Carolina. They would have done so by beating three #1's and never having lost during the season to UConn. Morgan William and Vic Schaefer would have been historic heroes.

The third and least dramatic is what happened. The NC winner, S. Carolina, ends up never having played a #1 in the tournament and being a team that lost to UConn during the season, leaving a greater feeling of uncertainty as to who was really the best team. Morgan William falls from epic goddess status to fourth quarter bench player. Schaefer loses some historical luster.
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 2880
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 4:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

were these same hypothesis concluded when BG and baylor loss to Louisville in 2012 and UCONN went on to win the nati ?



_________________
2-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-2-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 10913



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 4:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
I agree with the OP that it would have been most dramatic if defending champion UConn had lost in the final game.


I disagree. The most dramatic would have been if Oregon had beaten UConn in the regional final.

A 10 seed upsetting the 1, 2 and 3 seed in its region, the 1 on one of its own home courts, to reach the FF for the first time.

The end of UConn's final four streak.

An entire week for excitement to build over a final four without the specter of UConn inevitability.

Two first time final four teams, three teams that had never won a tournament, a week to get excited about a wide open, unpredictable final four.

THAT would have been the most dramatic and exciting.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 7979
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 5:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
I agree with the OP that it would have been most dramatic if defending champion UConn had lost in the final game.


I disagree. The most dramatic would have been if Oregon had beaten UConn in the regional final.

A 10 seed upsetting the 1, 2 and 3 seed in its region, the 1 on one of its own home courts, to reach the FF for the first time.

The end of UConn's final four streak.

An entire week for excitement to build over a final four without the specter of UConn inevitability.

Two first time final four teams, three teams that had never won a tournament, a week to get excited about a wide open, unpredictable final four.

THAT would have been the most dramatic and exciting.


Perhaps the post you quoted was made with the actual FF participants in mind?



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 14868
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 9:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

zvyn3 wrote:
I felt the tournament as a whole was rather lackluster with the exception of the UConn vs. Mississippi State semifinal game.


I sort of felt this way too, for the most part. There weren't a lot of underdog stories, save Oregon and Quinnipiac. I thought the other semi was pretty good, too. But for the most part, this tournament felt really flat to me. Maybe it was the lack of an emotional investment (when your teams are in the WNIT at best, it's hard to GAF about the NCAAs). Maybe it was the jacked up bracket and dubious at-large bids. For me, it's also a sense of jadedness, in terms of the coverage. It's harder and harder to enjoy a series of games where it's clear the network has no idea what to say beyond a few storylines and can't be arsed to do research beyond that.



_________________
"Silence must be heard, noise should be observed
The time has come to learn, that silence...
SILENCE MUST BE HEARD..."
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 432



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/17 10:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
When some of the most astute fans of the game are saying that they aren't bothering to watch the championship game there needs to be an examination of other options.

The only interesting thing about a single elimination format is the drama of games all being do or die. Other than that most of the games are either boring and/or one-sided and due to inevitable upsets there ends up being only 4-5 games between the top-rated teams. I've always felt that shortening the field to 32 teams would allow the NCAA to reduce the field to 8 after the first weekend and then be able to have a double elimination tournament like they have in baseball & I believe in softball. This type of format would produce many more great match ups, would still provide a lot of do or die games and be a better showcase for the best teams in wcbb.


Point taken, but going to best 2 out of 3, or to double elimination, is going to make it even more unlikely that the Miss State's of the world, or even the SC's, best UConn and go on to win the tournament.


NFL1



Joined: 20 Mar 2008
Posts: 119
Location: Ithaca, NY


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/26/17 6:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
zvyn3 wrote:
I felt the tournament as a whole was rather lackluster with the exception of the UConn vs. Mississippi State semifinal game.


I sort of felt this way too, for the most part. There weren't a lot of underdog stories, save Oregon and Quinnipiac. I thought the other semi was pretty good, too. But for the most part, this tournament felt really flat to me. Maybe it was the lack of an emotional investment (when your teams are in the WNIT at best, it's hard to GAF about the NCAAs). Maybe it was the jacked up bracket and dubious at-large bids. For me, it's also a sense of jadedness, in terms of the coverage. It's harder and harder to enjoy a series of games where it's clear the network has no idea what to say beyond a few storylines and can't be arsed to do research beyond that.


For me the on the court games this year were WAY better than the previous few years, last year we had three underdogs in the FF, and it was really exciting to see and meet newcomers to the FF without the ND, TN, and other "usuals" in the mix. Having several upsets, or even really really close upsets by teams who are talented and leagues who you never expect to be ahead of more traditional teams by 20, even if they lose in the end.

This year the worst part of the whole tourney was the experience and atmosphere around the games themselves. When you usually are a PART of the experience more up close and personal with open practices, autographs with all 4 teams, their friends/family/fans, and much more, the reason to travel TO the games loses value - you can see more on TV, but can't feel the electricity in the stands.

And, I can say, the electricity and excitement in the arena was higher and more infectious by mid game of the semi-finals...I was not disappointed, people in my section would have been happy with either team winning in the end.


SCGamecock



Joined: 31 May 2015
Posts: 49



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/10/17 7:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WNBA 09 wrote:
were these same hypothesis concluded when BG and baylor loss to Louisville in 2012 and UCONN went on to win the nati ?


Of course not. Smh.. and people are also forgetting that SC lost a major part of their team to injury prior to the tournament as well.

Like it's previously been said, the NCAA tournament winner almost always has a little luck on their side. SC made it through without facing another #1 seed (Notre Dame), a team remarkably bigger than them (Baylor) or a team that currently has a mental edge over them (UConn). But in the end, none of that matters if you don't win the games in front of you.. SC did and those teams didn't.

The real fact of the matter here is that SC is familiar with Miss State and knows how to play them. UConn likely went into that game expecting the same thing from last year, but this year's Miss State team was MUCH improved and had the chip on their shoulder (something I don't think UConn was expecting). I've never seen Miss State play as aggressively as they played in that UConn game, nobody was probably beating them that night. On the other hand, A'ja Wilson was also playing on another level during the tournament.. she wasn't the same Wilson that UConn saw in Storrs. She was fighting through double and triple teams (see the Stanford game) all tournament and had a look in her eye that said "I'm not losing". Call me bias, but I think the right team won. Cool


Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 599
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/14/17 11:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
When some of the most astute fans of the game are saying that they aren't bothering to watch the championship game there needs to be an examination of other options.

The only interesting thing about a single elimination format is the drama of games all being do or die. Other than that most of the games are either boring and/or one-sided and due to inevitable upsets there ends up being only 4-5 games between the top-rated teams. I've always felt that shortening the field to 32 teams would allow the NCAA to reduce the field to 8 after the first weekend and then be able to have a double elimination tournament like they have in baseball & I believe in softball. This type of format would produce many more great match ups, would still provide a lot of do or die games and be a better showcase for the best teams in wcbb.


That's interesting: Usually one does not dwell with the other; as with the men's NCAA tournament, its the upsets of higher seeded teams that help make the tournaments exciting and unpredictable, rather than boring and one-sided. Of course some years there are several top or "blue blood" programs that can argue the same chances of winning it all as the others can, so if they all make it to the Final Four that can make things more interesting.

But if the games are typically one-sided blowouts and routes, then usually "inevitable" upsets do not occur. The top seeds proceed as predicted and end up playing the other top seeds.

But as for this topic I agree with the above posters: Notre Dame, Baylor, and UConn all had the opportunity to play South Carolina but they didn't take care of their business. USC played the team that beat Notre Dame, and played the team that beat Baylor and UConn, and went 2-0. I can't see how any of that is South Carolina's fault.....


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin