Maryland wins 2015 Women's Basketball Regular Season and Tourny

[B1GOSU]

http://www.bigten.org/sports/w-baskbl/recaps/030815aae.html

Maryland beats Ohio State, 77-74, in Big Ten final

Terrapins earn Big Ten's automatic qualifier to NCAA Tournament

March 08, 2015



HOFFMAN ESTATES, Ill. (AP) Lexie Brown scored 19 points, and No. 4 Maryland beat Ohio State 77-74 Sunday night to capture the Big Ten tournament title and cap a perfect run through the conference.



The Terrapins (30-2) will enter the NCAA Tournament with 24 straight wins and their eyes locked on another big run after reaching the Final Four last season.



They made a seamless transition to the Big Ten after 37 years in the ACC, going 18-0 in conference play. No other Maryland basketball team - men's or women's - had gone unbeaten in league competition.



But they sure got all they could handle in this one, hanging on after Ohio State (23-10) cut a 15-point lead to one.




Final Regular Season Standings:

1. Maryland 30-2 .938 18-0 1.000 (2015 B1G Women's Basketball Regular Season & Tournament Champions)
2. Iowa 24-7 .774 14-4 .778
3. Ohio State 23-10 .697 13-5 .722
4T. Northwestern 23-8 .742 12-6 .667
4T. Rutgers 21-9 .700 12-6 .667
6. Minnesota 23-9 .719 11-7 .611
7. Nebraska 21-10 .677 10-8 .556
8. Michigan 16-14 .533 8-10 .444
9. Michigan State 16-15 .516 7-11 .389
10. Illinois 15-16 .484 6-12 .333
11. Wisconsin 9-20 .310 5-13 .278
12. Indiana 15-15 .500 4-14 .222
13T. Purdue 11-20 .355 3-15 .167
13T. Penn State 6-24 .200 3-15 .167

 

[ecojew]

It's pretty clear from the results so far this year that UMd was much better positioned to enter the B1G than we were, especially where many of the non-revenue sports were concerned. UMd was collecting ACC payouts, which, while not the same as B1G payouts will become for both schools, were still far better than the meagre payouts from the BE. So, while UMd was still in a deficit situation regarding its athletic budget, it was nowhere near as severe as ours was, and it hasn't recently undergone a stadium expansion the way we did. At least we defeated them in football and wrestling but we've fared rather poorly in everything else. Sports where RU should be doing very well, like men's soccer and men's lacrosse did not/have not been performing to expectations.

 

[Knight Time Fan]

Originally posted by ecojew:
It's pretty clear from the results so far this year that UMd was much better positioned to enter the B1G than we were, especially where many of the non-revenue sports were concerned. UMd was collecting ACC payouts, which, while not the same as B1G payouts will become for both schools, were still far better than the meagre payouts from the BE. So, while UMd was still in a deficit situation regarding its athletic budget, it was nowhere near as severe as ours was, and it hasn't recently undergone a stadium expansion the way we did. At least we defeated them in football and wrestling but we've fared rather poorly in everything else. Sports where RU should be doing very well, like men's soccer and men's lacrosse did not/have not been performing to expectations.

Since I have to be honest that I only follow a lot of the non-revenue sports very loosely, you would have to be a lot more specific for me to completely understand your point.

I'm fairly sure that Maryland simply was better at a number of sports than RU was - both basketballs, women's lacrosse and field hockey come to mind. The ACC was a better conference for a selection of non-revenue sports than the BE. Even softball, which I do follow, I don't really think of either the BE or ACC when I think of the sport, but actually, even there the ACC technically had more highly ranked teams.

I'm not sure that I tie that into budgetary issues per se, or, for that matter, would call it being better positioned to enter the B1G. I say that not because it may not be true that they were, but I don't think there should be any indication that they were trying to "position themselves", it just was the state of being. Rutgers, OTH, made some moves to specifically position themselves, including the stadium expansion and the resumption of wrestling, if I understand correctly.

Posted by Doug

 

[BeKnighted]

It's generally understood in the D.C. area that one reason Maryland was willing to join the B1G and to foresake the ACC was that it had grossly overspent on sports over the previous decade, and needed to find a way to recoup what it had spent. Whatever you think of the state of RU's sports budget, Maryland was in much worse shape financially before the B1G invitation.

That spending, at least outside of football, translated into some pretty good success. Maryland teams in non-revenue sports routinely did well in the NCAAs. And whatever I think personally of Brenda Frese, she has revived the women's basketball team, which had fallen into the doldrums.

 

[bac2therac]

While many here seem to despise Brenda, I really like her and her passion and she is simply a helluva basketball coach. To each his or her own I guess.

 

[bingethinker]

Originally posted by BeKnighted:
It's generally understood in the D.C. area that one reason Maryland was willing to join the B1G and to foresake the ACC was that it had grossly overspent on sports over the previous decade, and needed to find a way to recoup what it had spent. Whatever you think of the state of RU's sports budget, Maryland was in much worse shape financially before the B1G invitation.

Your last sentence isn't true. When the Big Ten expanded, Maryland had $83 million in athletic debt. Rutgers had $95 million in athletic debt. The first page of a quick Google search will offer sources on that ranging from the Washington Post to Bloomberg Sports.

Maryland's front-loaded deal with the B1G (UMD gets 85% of a full B1G payout this year opposed to the 35% Rutgers receives) and the additional $35 million "travel stipend" it received from the conference helped its short-term budget outlook greatly.

 

[BeKnighted]

Originally posted by bingethinker:

Originally posted by BeKnighted:
It's generally understood in the D.C. area that one reason Maryland was willing to join the B1G and to foresake the ACC was that it had grossly overspent on sports over the previous decade, and needed to find a way to recoup what it had spent. Whatever you think of the state of RU's sports budget, Maryland was in much worse shape financially before the B1G invitation.

Your last sentence isn't true. When the Big Ten expanded, Maryland had $83 million in athletic debt. Rutgers had $95 million in athletic debt. The first page of a quick Google search will offer sources on that ranging from the Washington Post to Bloomberg Sports.

Maryland's front-loaded deal with the B1G (UMD gets 85% of a full B1G payout this year opposed to the 35% Rutgers receives) and the additional $35 million "travel stipend" it received from the conference helped its short-term budget outlook greatly.

The debt is only part of the story, and honestly probably not the most important part. RU incurred significant debt for HPSS expansion, but there was a corresponding revenue increase, as the football program got stronger and attendance increased. Maryland was experiencing flat or declining revenues from football and everything else even while it incurred more debt. Meanwhile, Maryland was carrying the most sports in the ACC, and just months before the B1G invite the Terps cut half a dozen sports to try to bring the athletic budget into balance.

And Maryland getting the front-loaded money is not inconsistent with that point. If anything, it suggests that the Terps needed the money more than RU (which probably is true, if for no other reason, because it cost much more for Maryland to leave the ACC than for RU to leave the AAC).

 

[ecojew]

My point in using the word "positioned" was not to imply that UMd was doing many things specifically to gain a B1G invite, as RU did, but just to say that membership in the ACC, with its great emphasis on many of the non-revenue sports, left UMd far more "ready" to compete with B1G schools than the lower level of competition in the BE left RU. UMd was going up against major universities like UNC, UVa, FSU, Clemson, NC State, Duke and others while RU was competing against schools like Providence, DePaul, SHU, Villanova, etc., the much smaller "CYOs" as many on the football board call them, that had far less to invest in those sports. And the discrepancy in conference payouts between the ACC and the BE just exacerbated the gap.

As for wrestling, I can't recall RU dropping the sport. But there was a coaching change several years back that led to a greater emphasis on the sport that prepared us better to compete in what is by far the nation's most competitive conference in that sport. RU was in the Top 25 all season long, despite losing 7 dual meets. But all 7 of those teams were in the Top 20, most in the Top 10. And RU defeated two other teams in the Top 25 along the way.

I don't really follow most of the non-revenue sports but I did start paying attention to the results of all of our teams this year due to the B1G competition. We clearly weren't ready to compete at a B1G level in volleyball, field hockey, or in men's bball (though in the latter case, it isn't something that could blamed on a lack of competition in the BE). The big surprises to me have been our lack of competitiveness in men's soccer and men's lacrosse. I expected far better results in those sports and am left wondering how our men's soccer program was allowed to decline from the top of the sport to its current state. But those two sports seem to be places where RU can improve and do so fairly rapidly so hopefully that will happen.

Besides wrestling and football (relatively), women's bball and women's soccer have been bright spots for RU this year. And volleyball, while not winning its B1G meets, did very well OOC and has built up a following that could help yield recruiting benefits in the near future.

But overall, the B1G money can't start getting here soon enough.

 

[bingethinker]

Originally posted by BeKnighted:

Originally posted by bingethinker:

Originally posted by BeKnighted:
It's generally understood in the D.C. area that one reason Maryland was willing to join the B1G and to foresake the ACC was that it had grossly overspent on sports over the previous decade, and needed to find a way to recoup what it had spent. Whatever you think of the state of RU's sports budget, Maryland was in much worse shape financially before the B1G invitation.

Your last sentence isn't true. When the Big Ten expanded, Maryland had $83 million in athletic debt. Rutgers had $95 million in athletic debt. The first page of a quick Google search will offer sources on that ranging from the Washington Post to Bloomberg Sports.

Maryland's front-loaded deal with the B1G (UMD gets 85% of a full B1G payout this year opposed to the 35% Rutgers receives) and the additional $35 million "travel stipend" it received from the conference helped its short-term budget outlook greatly.

The debt is only part of the story, and honestly probably not the most important part. RU incurred significant debt for HPSS expansion, but there was a corresponding revenue increase, as the football program got stronger and attendance increased. Maryland was experiencing flat or declining revenues from football and everything else even while it incurred more debt. Meanwhile, Maryland was carrying the most sports in the ACC, and just months before the B1G invite the Terps cut half a dozen sports to try to bring the athletic budget into balance.

And Maryland getting the front-loaded money is not inconsistent with that point. If anything, it suggests that the Terps needed the money more than RU (which probably is true, if for no other reason, because it cost much more for Maryland to leave the ACC than for RU to leave the AAC).

The debt is the story. And you're talking as if Rutgers football is bringing in Texas or Ohio State money. It isn't and I know it isn't. The fact is Rutgers needs money as badly as Maryland did, but for some reason you want to act as if Rutgers was operating from a position of strength. It wasn't then and it isn't now. If it was, it would've gotten a better deal from the B1G.

However you slice it, Maryland continues to perform at a high level athletically and that's the whole point of sponsoring sports. Maryland is in a position to win as many conference titles in its first season in the B1G as Rutgers has won in its entire athletic history. If I'm to split hairs over two schools with athletic deficits, I'm glad to have choosen the one that still manages to routinely win national titles and conference championships.

 

[BeKnighted]

Originally posted by bingethinker:

Originally posted by BeKnighted:

Originally posted by bingethinker:

Originally posted by BeKnighted:
It's generally understood in the D.C. area that one reason Maryland was willing to join the B1G and to foresake the ACC was that it had grossly overspent on sports over the previous decade, and needed to find a way to recoup what it had spent. Whatever you think of the state of RU's sports budget, Maryland was in much worse shape financially before the B1G invitation.

Your last sentence isn't true. When the Big Ten expanded, Maryland had $83 million in athletic debt. Rutgers had $95 million in athletic debt. The first page of a quick Google search will offer sources on that ranging from the Washington Post to Bloomberg Sports.

Maryland's front-loaded deal with the B1G (UMD gets 85% of a full B1G payout this year opposed to the 35% Rutgers receives) and the additional $35 million "travel stipend" it received from the conference helped its short-term budget outlook greatly.

The debt is only part of the story, and honestly probably not the most important part. RU incurred significant debt for HPSS expansion, but there was a corresponding revenue increase, as the football program got stronger and attendance increased. Maryland was experiencing flat or declining revenues from football and everything else even while it incurred more debt. Meanwhile, Maryland was carrying the most sports in the ACC, and just months before the B1G invite the Terps cut half a dozen sports to try to bring the athletic budget into balance.

And Maryland getting the front-loaded money is not inconsistent with that point. If anything, it suggests that the Terps needed the money more than RU (which probably is true, if for no other reason, because it cost much more for Maryland to leave the ACC than for RU to leave the AAC).

The debt is the story. And you're talking as if Rutgers football is bringing in Texas or Ohio State money. It isn't and I know it isn't. The fact is Rutgers needs money as badly as Maryland did, but for some reason you want to act as if Rutgers was operating from a position of strength. It wasn't then and it isn't now. If it was, it would've gotten a better deal from the B1G.

However you slice it, Maryland continues to perform at a high level athletically and that's the whole point of sponsoring sports. Maryland is in a position to win as many conference titles in its first season in the B1G as Rutgers has won in its entire athletic history. If I'm to split hairs over two schools with athletic deficits, I'm glad to have choosen the one that still manages to routinely win national titles and conference championships.

I don't know what makes you think that I'm saying that RU was in a position of strength compared to Maryland. That's not my point at all. My point is that Maryland spent a lot of money to be good at a bunch of sports, and succeeded, but as a result faced significant financial pressures that made it more interested in joining the B1G. (And the narrative here in the D.C. area confirms that - Maryland's administration was close to apologetic about the decision, explaining it purely in terms of the financial benefits, a real contrast to how RU's administration pitched the conference change.)

 

[bingethinker]

Originally posted by BeKnighted:

Originally posted by bingethinker:

Originally posted by BeKnighted:

Originally posted by bingethinker:

Originally posted by BeKnighted:
It's generally understood in the D.C. area that one reason Maryland was willing to join the B1G and to foresake the ACC was that it had grossly overspent on sports over the previous decade, and needed to find a way to recoup what it had spent. Whatever you think of the state of RU's sports budget, Maryland was in much worse shape financially before the B1G invitation.

Your last sentence isn't true. When the Big Ten expanded, Maryland had $83 million in athletic debt. Rutgers had $95 million in athletic debt. The first page of a quick Google search will offer sources on that ranging from the Washington Post to Bloomberg Sports.

Maryland's front-loaded deal with the B1G (UMD gets 85% of a full B1G payout this year opposed to the 35% Rutgers receives) and the additional $35 million "travel stipend" it received from the conference helped its short-term budget outlook greatly.

The debt is only part of the story, and honestly probably not the most important part. RU incurred significant debt for HPSS expansion, but there was a corresponding revenue increase, as the football program got stronger and attendance increased. Maryland was experiencing flat or declining revenues from football and everything else even while it incurred more debt. Meanwhile, Maryland was carrying the most sports in the ACC, and just months before the B1G invite the Terps cut half a dozen sports to try to bring the athletic budget into balance.

And Maryland getting the front-loaded money is not inconsistent with that point. If anything, it suggests that the Terps needed the money more than RU (which probably is true, if for no other reason, because it cost much more for Maryland to leave the ACC than for RU to leave the AAC).

The debt is the story. And you're talking as if Rutgers football is bringing in Texas or Ohio State money. It isn't and I know it isn't. The fact is Rutgers needs money as badly as Maryland did, but for some reason you want to act as if Rutgers was operating from a position of strength. It wasn't then and it isn't now. If it was, it would've gotten a better deal from the B1G.

However you slice it, Maryland continues to perform at a high level athletically and that's the whole point of sponsoring sports. Maryland is in a position to win as many conference titles in its first season in the B1G as Rutgers has won in its entire athletic history. If I'm to split hairs over two schools with athletic deficits, I'm glad to have choosen the one that still manages to routinely win national titles and conference championships.

I don't know what makes you think that I'm saying that RU was in a position of strength compared to Maryland. That's not my point at all. My point is that Maryland spent a lot of money to be good at a bunch of sports, and succeeded, but as a result faced significant financial pressures that made it more interested in joining the B1G. (And the narrative here in the D.C. area confirms that - Maryland's administration was close to apologetic about the decision, explaining it purely in terms of the financial benefits, a real contrast to how RU's administration pitched the conference change.)

Instead of following the D.C. narrative, I'd encourage you to YouTube Maryland's announcement presser and read articles written during that time before saying random things...even on a message board. As an alumnus and a Terrapin Club member, I'm telling you that UMD was very transparent about the financial implications, but the academic affiliation and CIC membership were the lead by all Maryland officials when speaking publically. The University cares about becoming a true B1G university. Maryland, like Rutgers, wants the billion dollar endowment and the high academic ranking. The relative few million Maryland's move from the ACC to the B1G funnels to the athletic department pales in comparison to the move the University's economic impact will have on the state. It's fun for message board fans to spat about football stadium expansions, and that's to be expected, but athletic money is really peanuts compared to the much broader picture, which is what truly drove this decision. The athletic money is part of that, of course, but that was more of a university-level consideration. When the Governor and Senate President were looped in to the conversation, I'm certain that $20 million versus $45 million in athletic money was mentioned, but it's not what sealed the deal.

Regarding Maryland's expenditures, you're right. Debbie Yow mismanaged funds, but I wouldn't say she over-invested in the athletic programs. Her problem was that she went on a facilities building rampage last decade while she was doing silly stuff like paying more for women's basketball assistant coaches than she would for their male counterparts. Spending per student-athlete was pretty middling in the ACC under Yow and her coaches salaries were fairly pro rata. I feel comfortable saying that our good to elite programs thrived in spite of her, not because of her. Thank goodness she's NC State's problem now. If you're ever interested in a good chuckle, head over to Pack Pride and watch them stew over her.

My only point in all this is that your comment about Maryland being in significantly worse financial position that Rutgers is simply not true. I contemplated calling it hyperbole, but its an inaccurate statement. Look at the financials. Look at when the football stadium bonds fall off the books. Look at revenue coming in now. Look at the projections. Maryland expects to be in the black in 5 years.

 

[BeKnighted]

In case it's not clear, I live in the D.C. area and followed what was going on at Maryland pretty closely. Plenty of decisionmakers made it clear that the money was a key factor. (Mind you, I'm not saying it wasn't at RU - it was.) The key difference between RU and Maryland, honestly, was that the ACC generated more money than the Big East, and Maryland spent that money on athletic programs, which is why Maryland is doing better in general than RU in the B1G.

 

[bac2therac]

Beknighted is pretty much spot on here.

 

[ScarletDave]

I know it's been talked about a lot and this isn't the thread but I just think that us getting 35% of a share while participating 100% as a member and giving the conference 100% of the benefits of our ticket, bowl, and TV set revenue, is so stupid.

 

[BeKnighted]

Originally posted by ScarletDave:
I know it's been talked about a lot and this isn't the thread but I just think that us getting 35% of a share while participating 100% as a member and giving the conference 100% of the benefits of our ticket, bowl, and TV set revenue, is so stupid.

Well, compare it to the AAC deal, even for 2014-15 standing alone, and you can see why RU took it.

 

[RU old timer]

We don't like Brenda. We don't like Geno. Etc. Etc. I think it is unfortunately called jealousy.

 

[RU old timer]

For me, the Brenda + Crystal Langhorne combo hurt the most...not having Crystal prevented us from winning a national championship. Will always bother me.. Since we had so many pieces of the puzzle...we needed one more piece (Langhorne) to cut down the nets.

 

[Knight Time Fan]

Originally posted by RU old timer:
We don't like Brenda. We don't like Geno. Etc. Etc. I think it is unfortunately called jealousy.

It may be, and probably is, with some.

For myself, it isn't routed in jealousy.

I don't particularly dislike Geno. I don't like his public persona particularly, but it doesn't extend to thinking negatives about him as a person or coach. If he coached my team, I'd probably like him, personality not withstanding.

Brenda is a different case, in her case, I don't care for her coaching style. Her, Peck and others of the "rah rah clap clap" variety. At times, there have been suggestions of recruiting issues and suggestions that she doesn't do x's and o's much. I don't have to like her and I would say I don't - but I don't wish her any personal ill, either.

Oddly, I really tend to like Joe McKeown of Northwestern, Harry Parretta, Sue Semrau and a host of others. I don't even mind Kim Mulkey. OTH, Hatchell, Landers and Mathew Mitchell among others leave me cold.

Posted by Doug

 

[BeKnighted]

Originally posted by RU old timer:
We don't like Brenda. We don't like Geno. Etc. Etc. I think it is unfortunately called jealousy.

I've said before that Geno has grown on me over the years, and I never had the depth of dislike that others did.

Brenda's a different story. There are the recruiting rumors, of course, but she also has a history of having really talented teams that don't do as well as they should - the 2007 team that lost in the 2nd round to Mississippi comes to mind in particular. Also, she can't stay off the court, which really annoys me.

 

[RUJMM78]

I like coaches like Geno and Freese because they are arrogant and back up their talk by winning at the highest level of competition.Rutgers fans have been too self satisfied having Stringer lose ten plus games per season which won't get you a high NCAA seed.It all gets back to fan expectations .

 

[bac2therac]

Originally posted by RU-JMM78:

I like coaches like Geno and Freese because they are arrogant and back up their talk by winning at the highest level of competition.Rutgers fans have been too self satisfied having Stringer lose ten plus games per season which won't get you a high NCAA seed.It all gets back to fan expectations .

agree. Brenda backs her talk up and quite frankly I don't see her really as annoying really. She is competitive and does not like to lose and obviously pushes the right buttons. Maryland is top 15 if not top 10 mainstay year after year after year yet RU has largely not only been absent from the top 25 the past several years until this year but I can recall only maybe 2-3 years during CVS tenure where we were a top 10 mainstay

 

[BeKnighted]

The perception of Frese is interesting. She's had a good run the last 4 years, but Maryland ended 2011 at #23 and ended 2010 unranked (and of course, behind Rutgers in 2007 and 2008).

 

[Knight Time Fan]

Originally posted by BeKnighted:
The perception of Frese is interesting. She's had a good run the last 4 years, but Maryland ended 2011 at #23 and ended 2010 unranked (and of course, behind Rutgers in 2007 and 2008).

and these folks have obviously never watched the show they did for a couple of seasons some time ago (Inside the Turtle or something like that, I can't remember the name, but it was instead of a coaches show, per se) which raised my general coolness about Brenda to new heights.

Posted by Doug

 

[bac2therac]

I will give Brenda a pass for thhose two seasons since they centered around her sons illness

 

[bingethinker]

Originally posted by BeKnighted:
The perception of Frese is interesting. She's had a good run the last 4 years, but Maryland ended 2011 at #23 and ended 2010 unranked (and of course, behind Rutgers in 2007 and 2008).

I'm not sure I understand. Yes, with the talent she has, one would think Frese would have at least one more national title on her resume.

With that said, since Maryland won the national title, she's gone 286-62, winning three conference championships while making four Elite Eights and a Final Four just last season. In the last decade, she's had double digit losses just once and has been ranked in the AP top-10 more often than every school except UConn, Stanford, Duke, Tennessee, Baylor, and UNC. Connecticut and Tennessee aside, most schools would kill for that 10-year stretch, right?

 

[BeKnighted]

bac's original premise was more or less that she's always got her team in the top 10. She's done very well, no doubt, but not quite at that level.

 

[bingethinker]

Originally posted by BeKnighted:

bac's original premise was more or less that she's always got her team in the top 10. She's done very well, no doubt, but not quite at that level.

What level would that be? UConn's level? Tennessee's level? Because those are the only programs that have clearly bested her during her time in College Park. I understand that C. Vivian Stringer has never been at that level, but I would think there's some objectivity here.

 

[Knight Time Fan]

Originally posted by bingethinker:

Originally posted by BeKnighted:

bac's original premise was more or less that she's always got her team in the top 10. She's done very well, no doubt, but not quite at that level.

What level would that be? UConn's level? Tennessee's level? Because those are the only programs that have clearly bested her during her time in College Park. I understand that C. Vivian Stringer has never been at that level, but I would think there's some objectivity here.

By winning percentage, Brenda is the 18th most successful active D1 coach, just ahead of Coach Stringer (#20). Her record is very impressive, no doubt.

But BeK answered the comment that she is always top 10, and she isn't. It is impressive that she has finished in the top 10 in 6 of the last 10 years, but 2007, 2010, 2011 and 2013 were all not ended in the top 10. And yes, it is better than Rutgers has finished. So? I don't think BeK is comparing her to CVS, just discussing her in the abstract.

That doesn't change the fact that she leaves me cold, I'm not a fan. Just because a coach is successful doesn't require that I like them. Technically, you don't have to be a fan of your own favorite team's coach. Just read the message board.

Posted by Doug

And PS - the poster above who liked Geno's and Brenda's backed-up arrogance - that is exactly what I don't like. I don't like what I call aggressive personalities - I respect those who back it up (Geno and Brenda) and don't respect those who are full of air. But it doesn't translate to "like".
This post was edited on 3/13 12:24 AM by Knight Time Fan

 

[bac2therac]

I would say that behind UConn, Tennessee, Stanford, Baylor, and Notre Dame (although Muffet did have a couple of lean years) Maryland would rank right there just behind them over the past decade

whether she should have won more national championships? are we actually debating that? its pretty tough when you have schools like Tennessee and UConn in your way, RU fans should know that and CVS has in the past 7 years pretty much underachieved with her talent as well.

 

[MADHAT1]

Originally posted by bac2therac:

I would say that behind UConn, Tennessee, Stanford, Baylor, and Notre Dame (although Muffet did have a couple of lean years) Maryland would rank right there just behind them over the past decade

whether she should have won more national championships? are we actually debating that? its pretty tough when you have schools like Tennessee and UConn in your way, RU fans should know that and CVS has in the past 7 years pretty much underachieved with her talent as well.

Agree, Rutgers WBBwith the proper support ( not just the HOF HC's name) might be up there with those programs.
Vivian's no slouch when it comes to coaching, recruiting enough quality players depth seems to be a problem., in my opinion.

 

[B1GOSU]

http://www.bigten.org/sports/w-baskbl/spec-rel/031615aaa.html

Seven Selected to NCAA Tournament

Maryland earns No. 1 seed and will host First and Second Rounds in College Park, Md. as part of the Spokane Region

ROSEMONT, Ill. - Seven Big Ten women's basketball teams were selected to compete in the 2015 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship. Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State and Rutgers will all be taking part in this year's tournament.







Maryland, winners of the Big Ten regular season and tournament championships, enters the NCAA Tournament as a No. 1 seed in the Spokane Region. The Terrapins, who went undefeated in Big Ten play in their inaugural season, will host No. 16 New Mexico State in College Park, Md., on Saturday at 1:30 p.m. ET on ESPN2. Maryland is coming off an NCAA Final Four appearance in 2014 and won the National Championship in 2006. With a first-round win, the Terps will square off against No. 8 Princeton or No. 9 Green Bay.





In the Oklahoma City Region, Iowa drew a No. 3 seed and will face 14th-seeded American at Carver-Hawkeye Arena at 2:30 p.m. ET on Friday on ESPN2. The Hawkeyes are undefeated on their home court this season and enter the tournament with their highest seed since 1996. If the Hawkeyes advance, they would tip with the winner of No. 6 Washington and No. 11 Miami (Fla.).





Northwestern travels to Waco, Texas as a No. 7 seed and will face No. 10 Arkansas on Friday at noon ET on ESPN2. The Wildcats are making their first tournament appearance since 1997 and, like the Hawkeyes, are a part of the Oklahoma City Region. Northwestern could face the winner of No. 2 Baylor-No. 15 Northwestern State in the second round.





Minnesota enters the tournament as a No. 8 seed and will take on No. 9 DePaul in the first round of the Oklahoma City Region in Notre Dame, Ind., on Friday at 5 p.m. ET on ESPN2. The Gophers are making their first tournament appearance since 2009. Should Minnesota advance, it would take on either top-seeded Notre Dame or No. 16 Montana.



Rutgers is a No. 8 seed and will face No. 9 Seton Hall as part of the Albany Region in Storrs, Conn. The Scarlet Knights return to the NCAA Tournament for the first time since 2012 and will tip with the Pirates on Saturday at 6:30 p.m. ET on ESPN2. With a win, Rutgers would face No. 1 Connecticut or No. 16 St. Francis BRK in the second round.





Nebraska is a No. 9 seed and is set to play No. 8 Syracuse on Friday at 7:30 p.m. ET on ESPN2 in Columbia, S.C. The Huskers have won their first-round game in each of the last two NCAA Tournament. In the Greensboro Region, Nebraska would face either No. 1 South Carolina or No. 16 Savannah State in second round action.





Ohio State drew a No. 5 seed and is slated against No. 12 James Madison on Saturday at 1:30 p.m. ET on ESPN2 in Chapel Hill, N.C. The Buckeyes are making their first appearance in the NCAA Tournament since 2012. With a win, Ohio State would play the winner of No. 4 North Carolina and No. 13 Liberty in the second round. Like Nebraska, the Buckeyes are in the Greensboro Region.



http://www.bigten.org/sports/w-baskbl/spec-rel/031715aaa.html


Michigan Advances to WNIT

The Michigan women's basketball team will host Cleveland State on Wednesday, March 18 in First Round of the 2015 Women's National Invitation Tournament (WNIT).

March 16, 2015



ROSEMONT, Ill. - The Michigan women's basketball team will host Cleveland State on Wednesday, March 18 in First Round of the 2015 Women's National Invitation Tournament (WNIT).



Michigan becomes the eighth Big Ten women's basketball team to garner a postseason berth as seven conference teams were selected for the NCAA Tournament. With a win, the Wolverines would advance to play the winner of the Toledo-Wright State game in Second Round.

It is the sixth straight season that Michigan has qualified for postseason play, the longest streak in program history after earning five straight bids from 1998-2002.This will mark the second-consecutive and seventh overall WNIT appearance for Michigan, who is 9-5 all-time in the tournament.



The Maize and Blue finished with a 16-14 overall record and earned the conference's automatic bid after finishing eighth in Big Ten play.