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

Selection Monday
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
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
ucbart



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 1356
Location: New York


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 8:01 am    ::: Selection Monday Reply Reply with quote

I don't know if I'm allowed to start this thread, being a part-time poster at best, but I have a little time before work, so I thought I would get the conversation going.

I'm starting to think this could look something like this:

Albany:
1. UCONN
2. Texas
3. Florida State
4. Georgia

Lexington:
1. Louiville
2. South Carolina
3. UCLA
4. Stanford

Kansas City:
1. Notre Dame
2. Baylor
3. Tennessee
4. Texas A&M

Spokane:
1. Mississippi State
2. Oregon
3. Ohio State
4. South Florida

And save me the USF thing...it was either them or NC State and I wanted to give the AAC a little good news. HA! Even though I don't think it'll happen.

I think we have five #1 seeds, thus I put MSU(who is hurt by their SECT loss) out in Spokane to protect the S curve.....which I think for the top 8 seeds, has to be followed. I don't know if the committee will do what's right, but I think this is fair.


patsweetpat



Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2068
Location: Culver City, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 10:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I think this looks okay. I think you did a good job.


RavenDog



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5837



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 10:36 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Texas needs a break from being put in the UConn region again. They're most likely not going to make the final four anyways but should be given more consideration from the Committee.

For me, I'd scrap the whole thing and play only the top eight teams for the National Championship at one venue. The other teams that didn't quality can play for some other recognition or trophy.




Last edited by RavenDog on 03/10/18 10:47 am; edited 1 time in total
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 7589
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 10:40 am    ::: Re: Selection Monday Reply Reply with quote

ucbart wrote:
I don't know if I'm allowed to start this thread, being a part-time poster at best, but I have a little time before work, so I thought I would get the conversation going.

I'm starting to think this could look something like this:

Albany:
1. UCONN
2. Texas
3. Florida State
4. Georgia

Lexington:
1. Louiville
2. South Carolina
3. UCLA
4. Stanford

Kansas City:
1. Notre Dame
2. Baylor
3. Tennessee
4. Texas A&M

Spokane:
1. Mississippi State
2. Oregon
3. Ohio State
4. South Florida

And save me the USF thing...it was either them or NC State and I wanted to give the AAC a little good news. HA! Even though I don't think it'll happen.

I think we have five #1 seeds, thus I put MSU(who is hurt by their SECT loss) out in Spokane to protect the S curve.....which I think for the top 8 seeds, has to be followed. I don't know if the committee will do what's right, but I think this is fair.


Notre Dame also lost there conf championship , so most likely they will be shipped to Spokane & Msst will get the benefit of the doubt from the committee and get sent to KC due to there regular season performance going undefeated. We've seen the Msst & Oregon match up and how that unfolds , Notre Dame vs Oregon could be stellar. Oregon state gave them a run for their money earlier this season as i think the ducks would also . Match-ups , Match-ups , Match-ups Exclamation



_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
ucbart



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 1356
Location: New York


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 11:18 am    ::: Re: Selection Monday Reply Reply with quote

WNBA 09 wrote:
ucbart wrote:
I don't know if I'm allowed to start this thread, being a part-time poster at best, but I have a little time before work, so I thought I would get the conversation going.

I'm starting to think this could look something like this:

Albany:
1. UCONN
2. Texas
3. Florida State
4. Georgia

Lexington:
1. Louiville
2. South Carolina
3. UCLA
4. Stanford

Kansas City:
1. Notre Dame
2. Baylor
3. Tennessee
4. Texas A&M

Spokane:
1. Mississippi State
2. Oregon
3. Ohio State
4. South Florida

And save me the USF thing...it was either them or NC State and I wanted to give the AAC a little good news. HA! Even though I don't think it'll happen.

I think we have five #1 seeds, thus I put MSU(who is hurt by their SECT loss) out in Spokane to protect the S curve.....which I think for the top 8 seeds, has to be followed. I don't know if the committee will do what's right, but I think this is fair.


Notre Dame also lost there conf championship , so most likely they will be shipped to Spokane & Msst will get the benefit of the doubt from the committee and get sent to KC due to there regular season performance going undefeated. We've seen the Msst & Oregon match up and how that unfolds , Notre Dame vs Oregon could be stellar. Oregon state gave them a run for their money earlier this season as i think the ducks would also . Match-ups , Match-ups , Match-ups Exclamation


I know ND lost 3 games, but let’s be honest, ND is the 4th #1 seed and I don’t think MSU should be punished for one loss and get Baylor. Baylor could be a #1 seed themselves, as everyone agrees! Not to mention, based on the eye test, Oregon just doesn’t deserve to have the 4th #1 seed. I think Schaefer would welcome Spokane, since as you said in your post, is about matchups.


WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 7589
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 11:41 am    ::: Re: Selection Monday Reply Reply with quote

ucbart wrote:
WNBA 09 wrote:
ucbart wrote:
I don't know if I'm allowed to start this thread, being a part-time poster at best, but I have a little time before work, so I thought I would get the conversation going.

I'm starting to think this could look something like this:

Albany:
1. UCONN
2. Texas
3. Florida State
4. Georgia

Lexington:
1. Louiville
2. South Carolina
3. UCLA
4. Stanford

Kansas City:
1. Notre Dame
2. Baylor
3. Tennessee
4. Texas A&M

Spokane:
1. Mississippi State
2. Oregon
3. Ohio State
4. South Florida

And save me the USF thing...it was either them or NC State and I wanted to give the AAC a little good news. HA! Even though I don't think it'll happen.

I think we have five #1 seeds, thus I put MSU(who is hurt by their SECT loss) out in Spokane to protect the S curve.....which I think for the top 8 seeds, has to be followed. I don't know if the committee will do what's right, but I think this is fair.


Notre Dame also lost there conf championship , so most likely they will be shipped to Spokane & Msst will get the benefit of the doubt from the committee and get sent to KC due to there regular season performance going undefeated. We've seen the Msst & Oregon match up and how that unfolds , Notre Dame vs Oregon could be stellar. Oregon state gave them a run for their money earlier this season as i think the ducks would also . Match-ups , Match-ups , Match-ups Exclamation


I know ND lost 3 games, but let’s be honest, ND is the 4th #1 seed and I don’t think MSU should be punished for one loss and get Baylor. Baylor could be a #1 seed themselves, as everyone agrees! Not to mention, based on the eye test, Oregon just doesn’t deserve to have the 4th #1 seed. I think Schaefer would welcome Spokane, since as you said in your post, is about matchups.


If i had to judge from the eye test , id say Louisville is the weakest 1 seed . But those 2 wins over Notre Dame will lift them ahead . Not sure id put ND ahead of Baylor with the eye test though . Id have it
#1 UCONN
#2 Baylor
#3 Miss State
#4 Notre Dame-Louisville Nod to Louisville .



_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3129
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 12:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It looks okay. The one problem is that you can't have UCLA and Stanford in the same region according to the NCAA principles, but you can fix that by putting Stanford in the Kansas City Region.

I will be posting my full bracket after the end of the Buffalo - Central Michigan game.


Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 975



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 12:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Texas was in the same region as UConn in 2015 and 2016 but not 2017.

In my opinion, that may be enough to persuade the committee to avoid that matchup another year, but maybe that's what they did in 2017 and the slate is clean.

South Carolina has not been in the same region as UConn in the last three years which is one of the reason some people project to be in the same region.

The other two possibilities for the two seed and the same region as UConn are Baylor and Oregon. I think they want to give Oregon the benefit of staying West, and given that Baylor is almost certainly stronger than Mississippi State although inexplicably will not get a one seat they certainly should not be in the same region as Connecticut. The S-curve is mostly dead, but it would be a violation of both the S-curve and geography to put Baylor in the same region as UConn


Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 975



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 12:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Much of the discussion about whether Baylor deserves a number one seed focuses on whether are better than Notre Dame. I agree with those who argue that the body of work of Notre Dame exceeds that of Baylor and Notre Dame deserves a one seed.

However, I haven't seen as much discussion about what I think is the right comparison — Baylor versus Mississippi State.

For most of the season, it was a moot point, because Mississippi State was undefeated and seemed on a path to remain that way. While that in itself was not a legitimate argument, I fully understand that had we reach selection Monday with Mississippi State undefeated, no one would be questioning whether they deserved a top seed.

That's not where we are. Mississippi State, like Baylor has a single loss.

In both cases, the loss was to a quality team. South Carolina and UCLA are the eighth and ninth teams per Massey ratings so very very close. South Carolina has a slightly stronger record, but UCLA has the stronger strength of schedule.

Much of the disdain for Baylor has centered on its strength of schedule. Yet per Massey they have the eighth best strength of schedule in the country and Mississippi State is for spots lower at 12.

So if the records are virtually identical and Baylor has a better strength of schedule and a better rating, what's the basis for selecting Mississippi State ahead of Baylor?


PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14443
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 1:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm wondering what in the world Texas has done to earn a No. 2 seed? They have stayed close to some good teams, but they only have two wins over ranked teams, and the most recent was more than three months ago.


BD22



Joined: 27 Nov 2016
Posts: 26
Location: Southeast


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 1:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Why are we just putting Notre Dame in though? Three losses that were all 'good' losses, except when they lost to Louisville by 4000 points. They have 7 wins over current Top 25 teams... MSST has 9 and their only loss in the championship against SC.

I'm not saying you're wrong or that what I just said is the best way to determine it, but I just don't get how you can have them as the #2 overall seed then drop them all the way down for one 'good' loss.


mikeyc22



Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 2332



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 1:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
I'm wondering what in the world Texas has done to earn a No. 2 seed? They have stayed close to some good teams, but they only have two wins over ranked teams, and the most recent was more than three months ago.


Agreed, but who would you elevate to the 2 line?


mikeyc22



Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 2332



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 1:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I just have a feeling they won’t put SC with UConn. I could see the following shaking out, but who really knows:

Albany: UConn/Texas
KC: MSU/Baylor
Lexington: Lou/SC
Spokane: ND/Oregon

Just unsure if the committee would put MSU and Baylor together.


Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 975



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 1:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If that's a response to me, I never okk them as the number two overall seed. That's an artifact of the way the polls work.

They started the season ranked number seven in the AP poll (oddly that's probably a better assessment than the assessments of a month ago.)

The nature of polls are that if you start out high and don't lose you will bubble up if the teams ahead of you lose.

They moved up from 7th to 6 and 27 November when Baylor lost and move down to 9th.

They moved up from 6th to 5th on 11 December when Texas lost and drop to eighth.

We stayed there until 8 January when a second loss by South Carolina forced the voters to move them down to ninth so they moved to 4th.

They went up one more spot or more precisely, Notre Dame lost a second game and move down so Mississippi State was up to third on 15 January.

The following week Louisville lost so Mississippi State moved up to second.

Connecticut didn't lose so Mississippi State reached their ceiling.

This is not a dispassionate analysis that says Mississippi State is the second best team in the country it's merely an artifact of teams ahead of them losing.

They didn't really have the strength of schedule to support it but they did have a pretty good Massey ratings so voters are comfortable leaving them in second place. It didn't look like there was anyone in the SEC they could challenge them, although that would turn out to be wrong, so they became anointed as the obvious and inevitable overall two seed.

At they actually played Baylor or Louisville or Notre Dame things would've been different.

So personally, I saw them as just hanging on to the fourth number one seed and when they lost I move them down a bit in my mind. A small move, but a move nonetheless.


BD22



Joined: 27 Nov 2016
Posts: 26
Location: Southeast


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 1:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Phil wrote:
If that's a response to me, I never okk them as the number two overall seed. That's an artifact of the way the polls work.

They started the season ranked number seven in the AP poll (oddly that's probably a better assessment than the assessments of a month ago.)

The nature of polls are that if you start out high and don't lose you will bubble up if the teams ahead of you lose.

They moved up from 7th to 6 and 27 November when Baylor lost and move down to 9th.

They moved up from 6th to 5th on 11 December when Texas lost and drop to eighth.

We stayed there until 8 January when a second loss by South Carolina forced the voters to move them down to ninth so they moved to 4th.

They went up one more spot or more precisely, Notre Dame lost a second game and move down so Mississippi State was up to third on 15 January.

The following week Louisville lost so Mississippi State moved up to second.

Connecticut didn't lose so Mississippi State reached their ceiling.

This is not a dispassionate analysis that says Mississippi State is the second best team in the country it's merely an artifact of teams ahead of them losing.

They didn't really have the strength of schedule to support it but they did have a pretty good Massey ratings so voters are comfortable leaving them in second place. It didn't look like there was anyone in the SEC they could challenge them, although that would turn out to be wrong, so they became anointed as the obvious and inevitable overall two seed.

At they actually played Baylor or Louisville or Notre Dame things would've been different.

So personally, I saw them as just hanging on to the fourth number one seed and when they lost I move them down a bit in my mind. A small move, but a move nonetheless.


I was responding to you so thanks for the thoughtful reply! Personally, I believe it should be UConn, Louisville, MSST and Baylor, but I can certainly respect your opinion.


Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 975



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 1:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mikeyc22 wrote:
I just have a feeling they won’t put SC with UConn. I could see the following shaking out, but who really knows:

Albany: UConn/Texas
KC: MSU/Baylor
Lexington: Lou/SC
Spokane: ND/Oregon

Just unsure if the committee would put MSU and Baylor together.


Putting Texas in the same region as Connecticut would mean it would be the third time in four years that the committee has placed in the same region.

Something like that has happened before. Kentucky was the two seed in the same region as Connecticut in three out of four years:

2015 Kentucky (2 seed)

2013 Kentucky (2 seed)
2012 Kentucky (2 seed)

But my recollection is that Mitchell was quite critical of the decision and my guess is that the committee won't repeat it.

I don't know of any easy way to find out whether there are other pairs of teams that have ended up in the same region three or more times in four years but with the collective knowledge of the participants here, I bet if it hass happened, someone will know.[/list]


Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 975



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 1:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If we make the plausible assumption that no one here would disagree that Connecticut will get the overall top seed, I think it's fair to say that there are four legitimate contenders for three slots.

It is interesting to play the numbers game as well as apply the eye test, and I think multiple knowledgeable participants can all make a case for just about any order of the next four teams.

While that speculation is interesting and fun, it's my opinion that being the four seed versus a five seed is more important.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3129
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 2:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

To Phil - While I am a big supporter of Massey ratings in evaluating the quality of teams, the cold hard truth is that the Committee isn't. Everyone agrees about who the top 5 teams. UConn is a clear number 1. I believe that Louisville is now the number 2 on the basis of 2 wins over Notre Dame and only a loss to Florida St and Connecticut. Mississippi St is number 3 based on going through the SEC, the number 1 conference, regular season undefeated, before losing to South Carolina. They also have a win over Oregon. Notre Dame is 4 based on its only losses being to teams ranked ahead of them and 5 wins over teams that will be top 4 seeds. Baylor, as good as they may be, only showed it on the court with 3 wins over Texas and a win over Stanford without Brittney McPhee. Their loss to UCLA is essentially equivalent to Louisville's loss to Florida St or Mississippi St's loss to South Carolina, but their wins are not comparable. That makes them 5. Indeed, if there is any deviance from that list it would be between 3 and 4

On the issue of the S-curve, the new principles signaled somewhat of a return to it, but with some new impediments. I have had difficulty seeding the top 16 for that reason, but expect I will wind up with:

UConn - S Carolina
Louisville - Texas
Mississippi St - Baylor
Notre Dame - Oregon

These matchups would not be an S-curve, but would be caused by other seeding principles affecting the 9-16 teams.


Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 975



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 2:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm aware that the committee doesn't pay much attention to Massey ratings.

Is my fervent, although possibly naïve hope that if committee members care enough about the sport they will be paying attention to what knowledgeable people are saying and may even stumble upon this forum. If enough people make the argument that the RPI is nonsensical and there are better ways of assessing the strength of teams, maybe it will eventually sink in. I can dream, can't I?


Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 975



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 2:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm not buying that the SEC is the best conference.

According to Massey ratings, the ACC, Pac 12 and SEC a locked in a virtual battle for second with the Big 12 a fair step above those three.

https://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?s=cbw2018&sub=298893&c=1

Sagarin has the Pac 12 in first place modestly ahead of the big 12, followed by the ACC in third. The SEC is fourth just a tiny margin ahead of the Big Ten. Then as a gap until you get to the nonpower conferences, so according to that measure the SEC is just a smidgen ahead of the weakest power conference.

What metrics (RPI doesn't count) rate the SEC as the top conference?

However, while I'm interested in the overall ranking of conferences, that's not the right metric for determining whether going undefeated in conference is worth noting.

This should be mathematically obvious. Consider conference A with one very strong team and nine others to ranked from 20 to 50

Conference B has one very strong team to other teams in the top 10 and seven teams and triple digit ratings.

The strong team and conference A is highly likely to go undefeated in conference, while the top team in conference be is much less likely to go undefeated in conference despite the fact that conference a from top to bottom is much higher rated the conference B.

I frankly think it's an artificial metric, chosen solely because you wanted to make a positive comment about South Carolina but if one is interested in that metric, it makes more sense to look at the second best teams in the conference not the overall conference strength.

For example, (using Massey ratings) let's look the strength of the second best team in each conference.

ACC 5
B12 7
SEC 8
Pac 12
B10 17

The SEC is in the middle, so the fact that Baylor went undefeated in the big 12 is more impressive than Mississippi State's run, and helps explain why no one in the ACC went undefeated.


linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 3644



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 2:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The thing that most seem to agree with is that there are 5 teams competing for 4 one seeds. The fairest solution is to put whomever are the weakest 2 teams in the same region as the one and two. The fly in the ointment is that the weakest one seed would go to Spokane and Oregon has been hard-wired into the west region. Why? Other 2 seeds rarely get that consideration. In fact historically when the west's best has been a two seed they have benefited from getting the weakest one seed simply as a matter of geography. If Oregon were to be sent east then the weakest one seed and strongest two seed could be paired up in Spokane.
Or maybe the committee could invoke their right to move any team up or down one seed line and make Oregon a 3 in Spokane and balance things by putting the weakest 4 seed there.


Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 975



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 2:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
. UConn is a clear number 1. I believe that Louisville is now the number 2 on the basis of 2 wins over Notre Dame and only a loss to Florida St and Connecticut. Mississippi St is number 3 based on going through the SEC, the number 1 conference, regular season undefeated, before losing to South Carolina. They also have a win over Oregon. Notre Dame is 4 based on its only losses being to teams ranked ahead of them and 5 wins over teams that will be top 4 seeds. Baylor, as good as they may be, only showed it on the court with 3 wins over Texas and a win over Stanford without Brittney McPhee. Their loss to UCLA is essentially equivalent to Louisville's loss to Florida St or Mississippi St's loss to South Carolina, but their wins are not comparable. That makes them 5. Indeed, if there is any deviance from that list it would be between 3 and 4


I think your argument in favor of Louisville is solid.

You put Mississippi State ahead of Notre Dame but conceded the ordering could be questioned. I agree. Notre Dame's body of work is far better than Mississippi States.

That only leaves the ordering of Baylor and Mississippi State.

Both teams had three opponents in the top 10.

Mississippi State faced Oregon, South Carolina and South Carolina (ranked 6, 8, Cool.
Baylor faced Texas, Texas and Texas (ranked 7, 7, 7)

You'd be hard-pressed to find another pair of teams whose top opponents are closer.

The tiebreaker is that Mississippi State had two wins and a loss while Baylor had three wins. In my book, three wins is better than two wins.

For reasons that completely escape me, people often dismiss Baylor's opponents, essentially treating Texas is as they are a single opponent. If anything, playing the same team three times is tougher than playing three separate teams of comparable strength. Do you disagree?


Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 975



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 2:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

As an important aside, one of the reasons that some pundits aren't pushing harder for Baylor as a top seed is the loss of Wallace. I get that.

Preinjury, I was adamant that Baylor was being unfairly dismissed. I concede now that it's a much closer call.

However, two related things worth noting. Baylor's last game against Texas was without Wallace, so we see that they can play at a high level without her. She's very impressive and I didn't think anyone could step into her shoes. While I still agree with that, I did watch Morris play and she was quite impressive. Not quite Wallace, but not quite the drop off that I had anticipated.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3129
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 3:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

On the issue of who is the best conference, there are different ways of looking at the issue. The SEC has the strongest top 6: the ACC has the strongest top 8; the Pac 12 has the fewest weak teams.

Evaluating Mississippi St vs Baylor, I would take exception with your comparison in two ways. First, I would put South Carolina ahead of Texas. But more importantly, if you look at the next 5 toughest games you see the real difference. Baylor has UCLA, Stanford, Oklahoma St twice and Oklahoma. Mississippi St has Tennessee, Georgia, Texas A&M twice, and Missouri. It also has wins over Arizona St, Green Bay, Virginia, LSU and Oklahoma St and Syracuse, all teams that should make the tournament. While I would agree that the top games are comparable, the depth of wins is so dramatically different that the edge has to go to MSU.


FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 1071



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 4:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I don't see why the "strongest conference" is even a factor. Using that concept, UConn ought to be a 3 seed, and we'd be left with four 1-seeds that we can all agree with. The right metric is the strongest schedule of each team, including both conference and OOC games.


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
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
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