The field is set and the teams are making their preparations to either travel or host. Did your team make it? No surprise: UCONN, Stanford, Tennessee, and Nebraska are the #1 seeds. Ohio State, Texas A&M, Notre Dame, and Duke are the 2s. A&M played their way up to a 2 by winning the Big 12 tournament.

One interesting match-up that stands out to me: Iowa (8) vs Rutgers (9) at Stanford. C. Vivian Stringer of Rutgers coached at Iowa for years in the 80s and 90s, taking them to a Final Four before heading out east to Jersey. There was discussion on whether or not Rutgers would even make the tournament at all. Stringer had said if they didn't make the NCAAs, they wouldn't accept a WNIT invitation. The head of the selection committee (an Iowa associate athletic director) said it was a "coincidence" that Iowa and Rutgers play each other in the first round. Uh-huh. Riiiight.

Here is a link to this year's bracket:

http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketba...rnament/bracket

Stanford vs UC Riverside
UCLA vs NC State

Those are the Pac-10 schools that made the 2010 NCAA Tournament. GO PAC-10!!!

I managed to dig up some computer rankings on women's basketball to compare to the field to help me with picking out a bracket. Basically, I simply took the average ranking of the 5 computers (Moore, Sagarin, Dolphin, Massey and the RPI) and effectively seeded a tournament. This was the result:

1 UConn/Stanford/Tennessee/Nebraska
2 Texas A&M/Notre Dame/Duke/Ohio St
3 Oklahoma/West Virginia/Baylor/Texas
4 Florida St/Xavier/Kentucky/Oklahoma St
5 St. John's/Georgetown/UCLA/Gonzaga
6 Michigan St/Iowa St/Louisiana St/Vanderbilt
7 Wisconsin/Georgia/Virginia/Georgia Tech
8 DePaul/Middle Tennessee/Rutgers/USC
9 Hartford/Iowa/Dayton/Fresno St
10 Michigan/Mississippi St/Vermont/North Carolina
11 Temple/Texas Christian/Princeton/N.C. State
12 San Diego St/James Madison/Bowling Green/Tulane
13 Lehigh/Louisiana Tech/Marist/Liberty
14 S.D. State/Northern Iowa/Chattanooga/East Tennessee
15 Cleveland St/Lamar/Riverside/Hampton
16 Portland St/St. Francis/Southern/Austin Peay

I decided to focus in on all the teams that were either 2 spots or more away from their seed line as viewed by the computers or who there were not in both the computer and committee fields.

Seeded Higher by Committee
Mississippi St
Temple
James Madison
Iowa St
Georgia
Virginia
Texas Christian
Noth Carolina St
Green Bay
UALR

Seeded Higher by Computers
Fresno St
Texas
UCLA
DePaul
Gonzaga
Mid Tennessee St
Northern Iowa
USC
Michigan

What really jumps out of the list is a regional difference. The computers look much more favorable on teams in the west while being much less impressed than the committee by teams in the southeast. In the men's tournament most of the obvious discrepancies I can account for by particular teams being hot/cold or injuries being taken into account (the seeds of Notre Dame, Texas and Purdue are examples). I haven't been following closely enough to know if that's a factor here, but I don't think this is a one-year blip. I haven't done this particular exercise before, but I know that Massey and Sagarin the last couple of years have rated the PAC-10 teams noticeably higher and the ACC teams noticeably lower than the committee.

So...I guess the question is: what does this mean? Is there something about the distribution of team quality in the east vs. the west that causes the computers to overrate the western teams? I suppose it's possible. I think there is a tendency for computer rankings to weight all games evenly so that a team that plays ten very good teams and ten very bad teams will be rated as having played an average schedule, but to actually post a good record against such a schedule is probably harder than playing twenty average teams. Or maybe there's something about the way margin of victory factors in that biases the results, maybe toward teams that play a fast pace and have bigger scores?

But I have to at least wonder if there's a bias in the way the teams are viewed by the committee. For a long time, almost all the strong programs in women's basketball were in the southeast, and I wonder if that has a legacy effect. Maybe wins over brand name schools (of which there are many more in the southeast) are viewed as good wins, even if the brand--say Old Dominion or Louisiana Tech--isn't really that good any more. Or maybe it's just having more good teams, you have more opportunities to score good wins. I'm guessing that a 4-8 record against the top 50 is viewed more positively than 1-1, even though the latter is arguably better.

Anybody who really follows women's basketball have any thoughts on this?

That's interesting data. The west definitely has fewer quality teams to choose from, some of that simply by virtue of having only one "power" conference (Pac 10, which is down this year). I think reputation does still have a lot to do with committee decisions when it comes right down to it. I know they say it doesn't, but it seems like they say a lot of things that don't add up every year.

I cannot think of a reason why the Pac 10 would be rated higher. The ACC is rated lower probably because the best teams in the league are weighed down by the worst teams, in terms of strength of schedule. If a team had a tough road in non-conference games, they're more likely to receive more 'love' from the committee. I'm guessing that is what has saved Pac 10 teams recently (without looking it up) when they have made the tournament. You take a conference like the Big 12 that is consistently tough top to bottom and your NCAA-bound teams are going to be seeded pretty high (our lowest seed out of seven teams this year was Texas as a 6). I had mentioned a quote from UT coach Gail Goestenkors about how she was surprised at the level of play in the Big 12 when she arrived from Duke. Someone didn't do her homework before she got to Austin.

For years, the SEC was the league in women's basketball. As the sport has grown, so has the talent level across the country. More programs have emerged in the last 10 years that are consistently good, or at least competitive more often than not (Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas A&M, Arizona State, California, Utah, BYU, to name a few). So, I think there is more representation from the west than there has been before. But it's never going to be an even balance, IMO.

The computers are not supposed to weigh things like margin of victory, but generally look at who you've beat and lost to and who your opponents have beat and lost to. Committees will try to weigh in factors like injuries (as mentioned) and how teams have played at the end of the season. Strength of schedule plays a big part in how teams are viewed. You can be ranked in the top 25 and have a great record, but if you haven't played anyone, you're not necessarily going to have anything to show for it at the end of the season if you don't win your conference's automatic bid to the Dance.

Take Wisconsin-Green Bay. They were ranked for several weeks, had a shiny 27-4 record after the regular season was done. They lost in the Horizon League semifinals. With that record, they should be guaranteed an at-large berth, right? Look closer. Their final rpi was 66 (not great). Their final strength of schedule was 260 (bloody terrible). They beat two rpi to 50 teams the week of and after Thanksgiving. Their four losses were to teams with rpi ratings between 124 and 224. They got in as a 12 seed (playing 5 seed Virginia tonight in the Iowa State sub-regional) and were probably one of the last two or three teams selected. The saving grace this year is that there was not a big pool of attractive at-large teams available. This could be an instance of there not being a bias towards eastern and/or 'name' teams. Honestly, I didn't think they deserved to get in with that weak of a schedule, but the committee was probably hard pressed to find a suitable replacement had they not chosen W-GB.

I suppose if they had a hard scientific formula that no rational person could debate as to who gets in and who does not, there wouldn't be as much to talk about before the games even begin. The only way it truly hurts is if people don't talk about it at all, right?

you did notice that Green Bay beat Virginia last night so the selection committee looked pretty smart with picking GB

Yes, I was at the game, so I knew that. It still doesn't change the fact that, in my eyes, they did not deserve to make the field this year. Virginia played like they didn't care in the first half and were able to make a game of it after being down 16 points in the second half when Green Bay went 12 minutes without a field goal. Virginia's only scoring came from ACC Player of the Year, Monica Wright. Had she received any help at all, the Cavs would have won, most likely. We'll find out if they (GB) truly deserved the invitation tomorrow.

The 1st round attendance numbers were released for the 16 host sites. Pretty sad, honestly. Even the numbers in Ames were disappointing (our lowest ever for hosting NCAA games).

First Round Attendance at NCAA Women’s Basketball Sites

10,922 - Knoxville, TN (SAT)
6,738 - Ames, IA (SUN)
6,325 - Norfolk, VA (SUN)
6,173 - Notre Dame, IN (SUN)
5,645 - Stanford, CA (SAT)
5,368 - Norman, OK (SUN)
5,156 - Pittsburgh, PA (SUN)
4,122 - Cincinnati, OH (SUN)
3,812 - Durham, NC (SAT)
3,656 - Seattle, WA (SAT)
3,560 - Louisville, KY (SAT)
3,327 - Minneapolis, MN (SUN)
3,178 - Austin, TX (SUN)
2,572 - Berkeley, CA (SAT)
2,357 - Tallahassee, FL (SAT)
1,455 - Tempe, AZ (SAT)

The sweet 16 is set!!

Saturday's games:

Memphis Region
1) Tennessee vs 4) Baylor
11) San Diego State vs 2) Duke

Sacramento Region
1) Stanford vs 5) Georgia
3) Xavier vs 7) Gonzaga

Sunday's games:

Dayton Region
1) Connecticut vs 4) Iowa State
3) Florida State vs 7) Mississippi State

Kansas City Region
1) Nebraska vs 4) Kentucky
3) Oklahoma vs 2) Notre Dame

There are actually several lower seeds still alive! Four of the original top 16 teams are already done. The Big 12 and SEC both have four teams remaining. The biggest surprises are obviously Gonzaga and San Diego State. Iowa State played SDSU last year in Hawaii and it does not surprise me at all to see them doing this well at this point. Jene Morris is a very talented athlete. And the Zags played their asses off to beat A&M. Fun to see some new teams in the later rounds now and then (as long as it's not at the expense of YOUR team).

Go Lady Zags!!

I'm a little surprised there hasn't been more activity on this thread as there has been in past years.

Anyway, the Elite 8 field is now set with winners moving on to the Final Four!

Memphis region:
4) Baylor v. 2) Duke, Monday 6 p.m. CST, ESPN

Sacramento region:
3) Xavier v. 1) Stanford, Monday 8 p.m. CST, ESPN

Dayton region:
3) Florida State v. 1) Connecticut, Tuesday 6 p.m. CST, ESPN

Kansas City region:
4) Kentucky v. 3) Oklahoma, Tuesday 8 p.m. CST, ESPN


Big 12 - 2 teams
ACC - 2 teams
Big East, A-10, Pac 10, SEC - 1 team each

The Final Four is set!

Sunday @ 6 p.m. CST: Oklahoma v. Stanford
Sunday @ 8 p.m. CST: Baylor v. Connecticut

Both games are on ESPN. Will be interesting to see how Stanford responds to their near loss in the regional final to Xavier (winning on a buzzer-beater). And it will be interesting to see what kind of game plan UCONN uses for defending Baylor's Griner.

I hope Baylor can find a way to beat UCONN. I would like to see Baylor in the finals and I don't care who wins between OU and Stanford.

Stanford will play UCONN Tuesday night at 7:30 CST on ESPN for the national title. Stanford was the last team to defeat UCONN and that was in the 2008 NCAA tournament. Stanford's only loss this year is to the Huskies.

Some game details for the semifinals are on the Big 12 thread.

UCONN beat Stanford, 53-47 last night in what had to be one of the WORST games ever played by teams ranked #1 and #2 playing for a national title EVER. If this had been the first women's game I had ever seen, it probably would also be the last. The halftime score was 20-12, Stanford. UCONN had nothing in the first half and Stanford had nothing in the second until the end when they knocked down some desperation 3s to make the score respectable. Stanford's Jayne Appel was injured and useless for the whole game (0-12 from the floor). She couldn't move to the basket, jump, or rebound, but coach Tara left her in despite the obvious pain from her ankle. Can't help but think that was a liability for them. Anyway, not a fun game, but UCONN becomes the first women's team to win back-to-back titles with undefeated seasons.

Here are the final rankings for the ESPN poll (AP does not publish a post-tournament poll):

1. Connecticut (31) 39-0, 775
2. Stanford 36-2, 744
3. Oklahoma 27-11, 678
4. Baylor 27-10, 676
5. Xavier 30-4, 652
6. Duke 30-6, 591
7. Nebraska 32-2, 550
8. Tennessee 32-3, 538
9. Kentucky 28-8, 537
9. Florida State 29-6, 537
11. Notre Dame 29-6, 500
12. Gonzaga 29-5, 397
13. Iowa State 25-8, 357
14. Texas A&M 26-8, 336
15. Ohio State 31-5, 306
16. West Virginia 29-6, 287
17. Georgetown 26-7, 218
18. St. John's 25-7, 215
19. Georgia 25-9, 202
20. San Diego State 23-11, 174
21. Mississippi State 21-13, 170
22. Oklahoma State 24-11, 121
23. UCLA 25-9, 106
24. Vanderbilt 23-11, 74
25. LSU 21-10, 53
25. Texas 22-11, 53

OTHERS RECEIVING VOTES:
Michigan State 52, Wisconsin-Green Bay 46, Virginia 29, Hartford 29, Middle Tennessee 19, Arkansas-Little Rock 15, Dayton 11, California 7, Vermont 5, Princeton 4, Marist 3, DePaul 2, Gardner-Webb 2, Temple 2, Lehigh 1, Tulane 1

From UCONN's website, the NCAA All-Tournament Team was announced for this year...

Maya Moore was named the 2010 NCAA Final Four Most Outstanding Player, while Tina Charles joined her on the All-Tournament Team. Stanford's Nnemkadi Ogwumike and Kayla Pedersen as well as Oklahoma's Danielle Robinson were also named to the All-Tournament Team.

Stanford played so well and I can't believe they didn't hang on for the win.