http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/tournament/bracket

The bracket is out. Is this the UCONN invitational? Is everyone else playing for second place? Who got screwed? Who got seeded too high?

I've seen a lot of South Dakota State fans on the ESPN message boards complaining in all the projections that 6 and 7 seeds were too low, but they got put in as a 7 against 10 seed TCU, with a possible match-up against 2 seed Baylor in the second round. They played a great non-conference schedule, but are in a weak conference (Summit League), so they have a good rpi, but a bad strength of schedule.

Tennessee is seeded the lowest they've ever been - a 5. UT has NEVER missed the sweet 16 in the tournament's history - is this the year? The possible second round meeting with 4 seed Iowa State might end the streak (god, I hope so!).

Did Stanford deserve the #1 seed out west over Duke? They have a pretty good argument, but Duke claims a stronger conference than the Pac 10.

Who seriously wants to play Rutgers on their home floor as a 7 seed? You think Auburn is looking forward to that game in the second round?

I was just going to say to watch out for South Dakota State. They got screwed with a #7 seed. They only lost to Maryland - a #1 seed- by 12 earlier this season and the coach said she wouldn't want to see them in her area of the bracket.

Their only other loss in the season was to Oakland University in their league, whom was 26-6 and played Georgia to a 3 point loss. Definitely a 2 team league, but the top 2 teams in the Summit League can play a bit. Although OU had several poor losses..

Anyways, SDS was actually undefeated with Big 10, PAC 10 and Big 12 opponents this season. They played teams from the big conferences.... I think Baylor will take them out, but they might give them a tough game.

Go Lady Terps......#1 SEED!!!

I was going to post this in response to Cyd's blog about the Tennesee loss to Ball St., but I decided to post here instead.

I respect Coach Summitt immensely. She is absolutely a superb coach and motivator, and I have enjoyed watching her teams play. Having said that, I grew tired of the attention she and her team were getting this season. During the ESPN Women's Selection Show, we saw more photos of Pat and the Lady Vols than anyone else....BY FAR. They were a 5 seed, for goodness sakes. Why not spend time with some other programs...like Auburn, who had its best year in decades and WON the confernce Tennessee plays in, or Maryland, who overcame a slow start to the season to get to a number one seed?

I think it's great for women's basketball that Tennessee lost. And I also think we are seeing much more parity in the sport han ever before. Witness last night's results: many higher seeds won games.

Pat and the Tennessee program are legends, it makes perfect sense that ESPN would focus on such a quality program and it's name recognition associated to women's basketball.

I agree that Tennessee and Pat are legends. But in regards to the NCAA tournament. There 64 teams that are in the tournament. If you went just on who ESPN talked about, you'd think it was a four team tournament.

ESPN has always catered to a handful of teams in women's bball - Tennessee, UConn, Duke, North Carolina mainly and these are the teams that they focus on. It's just like their coverage of baseball. The Yankees could be in last place, but guess who would be on every chance ESPN could put them on.

I wouldn't expect equal coverage for all the teams in the tournament. But I would like to hear about other teams who had good seasons and earned high seeds.

Big shout out to the Lady Spartans for knocking off number 1 seed Duke and State's former coach to get into the Sweet 16!

I know Pat and her program are legendary, but don't you think interest in the women's game would grow if we started to showcase other teams too? I mean, really, during the ESPN selection, they showed Pat and her team at EVERY commercial break and they were the only team and coach interviewed.

I think the women's battle for second place is going to be great (no one can beat UConn, IMO). Was good to see MSU beat an overrated Duke team --no way they should have been a #1 seed. And Baylor has been exposed already; they'll be going home after playing the Lady Cards from UofL. And I don't know whether my Pitt Panthers have enough firepower to upset Oklahoma on Sunday, but it would be awesome if we were the team that caused Ms. Paris to pay back her scholarship money!!!

I don't follow women's hoops at all but how o earth does the NCAA justify Michigan State and Rutgers (9 and 7 seeds respectively) home court advantage against a 1 and 2 seed? I realize they choose these venues ahead of time and that they need to picks venues where they will draw crowds (although from the clips on ESPN that didn't seem to work too well) but that just seems ridiculous to me. The higher seeds are the ones that should be accomodated...otherwise they lose a good chunk of the advantage and motivation of securing a high seed.

You are right: they choose them several years in advance and it is based on where they think they can get crowds. In the past, when there was so much distance between the top 10 women's teams in the country and everyone else, they could get away with it. In 2007, for example, Pitt was a #8 seed and hosted #1 seed Tennesee. At that time, Pitt wasn't a real threat to the Lady Vols, so it was no big deal for them to play on our home court. Pitt will host the 1st and 2nd rounds again in 2010, and we've know about that for 3 years. The gap is narrowing, though, and for that reason I do think they need to re-think the strategy.

They keep changing the way the women's tournament sub-regional sites are chosen. Back when they first expanded the field to 64 teams and up until 2002, the top four seeds in each region automatically hosted a sub-regional (unless there was a scheduling conflict at a given location). So, if you were seeded 1-4 in any region, you would play the first two games of the tournament on your home court (assuming you won the first game). It was a simple way of doing things, but it got to be where nearly the same 16 teams hosted every year.

Then came the year that Iowa State was awarded first and second round games by virtue of having earned a 3 seed (2002). Ames had already been selected as the site of the Midwest Regional ahead of time, meaning ISU could have four consecutive home games on their way to the Final Four. People like Pat Summitt threw a fit and said it wasn't fair for lower seeded teams to have four home games to get them to the national semi-finals (Tennessee had been sent to the Midwest Region that year). It didn't matter because ISU was upset by the 11 seed, BYU in the second round. But there was enough of a stink over the situation (not just about ISU) that they decided to go to predetermined hosting sites.

In 2003, the NCAA decided to allow schools or leagues to bid on hosting duties ahead of time, still following the traditional 16 sites. The host school is automatically guaranteed to be placed in their home arena if they make the tournament - all in the name of putting (more) fans in the seats. Then they decided to emulate the men's tournament and switch to eight sites, hoping fewer sites would mean more fans in one location. Yeah, that didn't work out so well. Attendance dropped each year they tried that. So they decided to go back to having 16 sub-regional sites this season, again still all open for bidding ahead of time. Many schools this year ended up getting lower seeds (Rutgers at a 7, Michigan State as a 9) and knocked off higher seeded teams.

Is this fair? Depends on how you look at it. These teams bid fair and square - not all sites are guaranteed to draw crowds, even in the largest markets (USC hosted in Los Angeles this weekend and had the poorest attended first round games at less than 1300 tickets sold - for BOTH games) don't necessarily draw well. But you had Maryland hosting and drawing over 10,000 for their two first round games. If a school doesn't like having to play on another schools home court, they have the right to bid for the next available year. If they don't bid, I don't honestly believe they have a right to complain. They have the opportunity to take advantage of the current system (rules prohibit schools from hosting more than twice in any three year period) as much as they are capable.

A new rule that would seem to address this issue affects the regional sites. California bid to host a regional site this year, but the rules changed so that, while teams CAN host first and second round games, they CANNOT host regional games if the event is to take place on a floor the host school has played on more than three times during the current season. Cal tried to move the dates to Oracle Arena in Oakland, but there was a conflict in dates, so had to stick with the original deal. Meanwhile, Oklahoma bid to host a regional in Oklahoma City. OU had played fewer than three games on that floor, allowing them to claim the court was "neutral." So, the Sooners get to stay in Oklahoma City since they advanced to the Sweet 16 since it's not their court, but the Bears were shipped to another region entirely since Haas Pavilion is their home court.

Ok, so why all the fuss? The women's game is nowhere near the level of popularity as the men's game. People will buy tickets for the men's tournament games months before the field is even set. The women's college game simply does not draw that kind of support for whatever reason. Not all teams have a good product on the court, quite honestly. I've seen games played by teams either in person or on tv that if it was the first women's game I'd ever seen, I'd probably never bother to see another ever again. Why? Sloppy, unskilled, disorganized, you name it.

There really aren't any easy answers to why the women's tournament isn't as successful as the men's. They've tried mixing things up, copying aspects of what the men do, but not much has worked so far.

The real reason behind it is that before, the top 4 seeds in each region hosted; this was the pre-ESPN era. Once ESPN bought the rights to the tourney, it created scheduling and financial nightmares, making it near impossible to air live. For instance, if they announced the brackets on a Saturday, ESPN would only have a few days to make the television schedule, set up at different locations, market, etc.

ESPN also didn't want to compete with CBS and the men, which is why you often see the women's games on odd Monday/Tuesday times, while the men get the prime weekend slots.

Because ESPN makes more money for the NCAA than say...attendance at the games (btw, the women aren't allowed to sell corporate sponsorships, which is dumb), ESPN gets to call the shots and make the rules. The bottom line is that it's all about the almighty dollar.....which is the American way!

I have a three letter response to this argument: N-I-T. The folks at ESPN don't seem to have a problem getting crews to campuses for the men's NIT on only one or two days' notice. So I can't buy the argument that it's too difficult to get crews to 16 sites that are announced 5 days before the first game. In addition, by the last weekend of the conference tournaments, it's pretty evident which teams will at least get the top 3 seeds in each region, so ESPN can certainly have crews ready to go.

ESPN loves to tout that they are the home of the women's championship. I just wish they would treat the house with more respect.

ESPN aside...they did just broadcast a great game if you're a fan of Stanford Women's Basketball, of which my supervisor and I are...Jayne Appel just set a new Standford record, scoring 45 points in the regional final against Iowa State. Have never seen her so dominant. Bring on UConn...hope I don't jinx them!

My Lady Terps

Um, 46 points, actually. The game plan was to play her one-on-one since double and triple teaming her allowed Stanford to hit 13 3s against us in November. She was just unstoppable in the paint, having outscored us by herself at halftime. I would like to think that if some of our wide-open shots had fallen at just about any point during the game, the final result would have at least been closer. Nisleit was 5-7 from three point range, but the rest of the team combined to go 2-17. Not good. We got beaten by a better team that was playing close to home and had a ton of fans there. Plus we were one of the last 8 teams playing (not counting the WNIT) - I will never complain about that.

So the national title will come down to Connecticut and Louisville tomorrow night. I honestly don't know if I will watch it or not. I'm pretty tired of UCONN and considering their track record agains UL this year, the outcome shouldn't be too much in doubt. I hope I am surprised, but I think most people knew going in to the NCAAs that this was the UCONN Invitational and everyone else would be playing for second place. UCONN hasn't even had a single-digit contest this year. Good luck to Louisville - you're gonna need it!

UConn really opened the door for Stanford in the first twelve minutes, but they didn't do much with the opportunity. Renee Montgomery has been a fun player to watch and I hope she gets to go out a national champion. It astounds me how inept the refs still are in the women's game- calls made on what they anticipate happening instead of what does is pretty much the norm.

Tell me about it! The people they have officating these big games are some of the worst I've seen for years at venues around the Big 12. Apparently, that's the best they can do. A few do a consistently good job, but when you watch the refs come out onto the floor before a game starts and know how the game will be called (regardless of what the rule book says) just from recognizing them, it's a bad sign.

Congratulations Huskies on an incredible (but kind of boring)year! They should still be awfully good next year, too, but will miss Renee.

They showed so much of them due to the fact they were the two time defending champions.We'll see the same thing with U.Conn next year