NCAA First Two Rounds

WCBBNUT

WCBBNUT

2,500+ Posts
Obviously we will be hosting the first two rounds of the tournament at the Moody.

I have gotten a few emails about tickets that reference a reserved ticket, a GA ticket and a student ticket, but when I click on the link there is no place to buy a reserved ticket.

Has anybody figured out reserved seating? I seem to recall this was an issue last year as well.
 
WCBBNUT said:
Obviously we will be hosting the first two rounds of the tournament at the Moody.

I have gotten a few emails about tickets that reference a reserved ticket, a GA ticket and a student ticket, but when I click on the link there is no place to buy a reserved ticket.

Has anybody figured out reserved seating? I seem to recall this was an issue last year as well.
Click to expand...
I'm a season ticket holder, and I didn't have any problems purchasing my reserved tickets on March 4th. The seats haven't been assigned yet, and there was a note that there's no guarantee of getting my regular season ticket location.
 
STHAustin said:
I'm a season ticket holder, and I didn't have any problems purchasing my reserved tickets on March 4th. The seats haven't been assigned yet, and there was a note that there's no guarantee of getting my regular season ticket location.
Click to expand...
Where did you go to do that? I’ve logged into my account as a season ticket holder and I only see GA. :idk:
 
Last edited:
Frustrating. Just tried again and only see GA and student. I got that email on March 4 as well as the follow up with the corrected link but cannot find a reserved ticket even though the email references it.
 
WCBBNUT said:
Obviously we will be hosting the first two rounds of the tournament at the Moody.

I have gotten a few emails about tickets that reference a reserved ticket, a GA ticket and a student ticket, but when I click on the link there is no place to buy a reserved ticket.

Has anybody figured out reserved seating? I seem to recall this was an issue last year as well.
Click to expand...
I had some trouble with mine. I clicked on the link as soon as I got it and bought tickets. THEN, they sent out another email saying disregard the first one. That’s when I looked again at my receipt and saw I had purchased General Admission. So I sent them an email, told them what happened and to convert mine to Reserved or cancel it so I could start over. They fixed it and charged the balance to my card

Call or send an email and I’m sure they will fix you up,
 
HornView said:
I had some trouble with mine. I clicked on the link as soon as I got it and bought tickets. THEN, they sent out another email saying disregard the first one. That’s when I looked again at my receipt and saw I had purchased General Admission. So I sent them an email, told them what happened and to convert mine to Reserved or cancel it so I could start over. They fixed it and charged the balance to my card

Call or send an email and I’m sure they will fix you up,
Click to expand...
Thanks. Exact same thing happened to me last year. Ive been a season ticket holder for 20+ years. You would think I (and UT Athletics) would have gotten better at this by now. My friends who sit in my section are having the same problem.
 
HornView said:
I had some trouble with mine. I clicked on the link as soon as I got it and bought tickets. THEN, they sent out another email saying disregard the first one. That’s when I looked again at my receipt and saw I had purchased General Admission. So I sent them an email, told them what happened and to convert mine to Reserved or cancel it so I could start over. They fixed it and charged the balance to my card

Call or send an email and I’m sure they will fix you up,
Click to expand...

O.K. Thank you for sharing your experience. My spouse did the same thing. I just looked at the receipt. She'll be contacting the box office first thing in the morning.
 
kdRDEoR.png



This is how badly the NCAA/ESPN want to highlight Caitlin Clark and JuJu Watkins.
 
racerx5908 said:
kdRDEoR.png



This is how badly the NCAA/ESPN want to highlight Caitlin Clark and JuJu Watkins.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's pretty damn ridiculous. However, if we could be the 2 seed in the same region where USC is the 1, and we can avoid any top-caliber SEC teams along the way, then I really like that draw b/c I think our chances to make the final4 with USC as the opponent are as good or better than any of the other regions.
 
racerx5908 said:
kdRDEoR.png



This is how badly the NCAA/ESPN want to highlight Caitlin Clark and JuJu Watkins.
Click to expand...
The only bad loss we have is OU - both of them. For whatever reason they were a tough matchup for us. But Baylor was a couple of days after Rori went out and we had no time to recalculate. We beat them the next time. KState is a good team. That was an honest loss. But we’ve beaten them twice since - once without Lee and once with. We have 30 wins and 4 losses with a net ranking of 3. Only South Carolina has a better record. I can maybe get my head around Iowa being ahead of us, but not Stanford or USC.

If the powers that be are trying for ratings, then it should be SC, Iowa, Texas and USC in that order.

It SHOULD be SC, UConn, Texas and Stanford. It won’t be. But it should be.
 
It SHOULD be SC, UConn, Texas and Stanford. It won’t be. But it should be.[/QUOTE]

Our key problem is SOS, which is 41!
 
All this fretting by UT-based blogs, forums, and social media about how if the Men's team will get into the tournament and where they will land in the bracket just annoys the crap out of me. Barely a mention of the women's team, as usual. No mention that this will be the 4th straight year of the tournament for our coach and team.

No respect.
 
racerx5908 said:
All this fretting by UT-based blogs, forums, and social media about how if the Men's team will get into the tournament and where they will land in the bracket just annoys the crap out of me. Barely a mention of the women's team, as usual. No mention that this will be the 4th straight year of the tournament for our coach and team. No respect.
Click to expand...
I understand your feelings, but I think there has been some significant progress on this front. Women’s sports, in general, has been getting increasing visibility witness all the national attention on Caitlyn Clark. In Bohl’s article today he starts out talking about the problems with the men’s program but then gushes about Vic and then Madi. Danny Davis has been doing a great job for us. I’ve read many posts on the men’s forums with folks talking about how they’d like Vic to take over the men’s program. While I have no doubt Coach Victor Ernest Schaefer could transform that program as well, hands off our guy, ya bunch of losers. :smile1: :smokin:
 
I get annoyed, too, but then I look at the cable channel lineup. Now there are women's games and replays on CBSSports, B10, Fox and Fox Sports, sometimes on CW and USA, plus the ESPN networks ... in the past, we would have curling or darts or a replay of a men's game filling in when there was a cancellation or change in programming. I like to think the networks have recognized that a women's game has an audience. I have ATT Uverse, which ATT wants to shut down as soon as all of us go away. Will switch to streaming or Spectrum in July when LHN ends. Any recommendations appreciated.
:hookem:
 
Last edited:
I keep reading that women’s basketball games are drawing more viewers than men’s games on CBS and FOX. I hope that is really the case because we all know money is the driving force as to who gets the attention and airtime.
It’s been awhile since we’ve had to watch a Longhorns game on the dreaded “whip around “ coverage. I’m grateful to ESPN for embracing the women’s game and I think it is, or will pay off for them which is fantastic for women’s basketball in turn. The national championship game is on ABC this year which speaks volumes.

If my memory serves me (and that is always questionable) I had to watch the Texas national championship game on the “B side” of cable on ESPN which were not as good of quality as the main channels on the “A Side”. I don’t remember the rest of the tournament being broadcast. The point is women’s basketball has come a long ways and the past couple years have been a huge surge of interest and coverage.
 
HornView said:
I keep reading that women’s basketball games are drawing more viewers than men’s games on CBS and FOX. I hope that is really the case because we all know money is the driving force as to who gets the attention and airtime.
It’s been awhile since we’ve had to watch a Longhorns game on the dreaded “whip around “ coverage. I’m grateful to ESPN for embracing the women’s game and I think it is, or will pay off for them which is fantastic for women’s basketball in turn. The national championship game is on ABC this year which speaks volumes.

If my memory serves me (and that is always questionable) I had to watch the Texas national championship game on the “B side” of cable on ESPN which were not as good of quality as the main channels on the “A Side”. I don’t remember the rest of the tournament being broadcast. The point is women’s basketball has come a long ways and the past couple years have been a huge surge of interest and coverage.
Click to expand...
I have also heard that the women’s game has been getting better ratings than the men’s game and some of the higher profile women’s games this year (SC v LSU and some Iowa games) have gotten better ratings than some of the football games. Hope that’s true!
 
By Bracketolgy we get Norfolk state who has MDAA and NCstate Transfer Diamond a really good G who is tough but we should get past them cause they have no size but in the 1st round last year they gave SC a scare they are well coached and similar to Jackson state univ in the sense of they might stick around for 3 quarters b4 we pull off. Then the winner of Maryland and Tenn. This is the part I hate Tenn is NOT A 7seed off eye test alone. I don’t wanna face Jewel and the monster Rickea Jackson cause we have NOBODY that can check her well maybe Amina but that’s asking a lot. Idk anything other than Sellers and Mcdaniels for terps I guess similar to poor mans OU but I literally haven’t seen them this year as the big ten has been all Clark and OSU, Indy, and surprisingly Wisc. What do Yal think???
 
The committees (in all sports) have never seeded exactly based on RPI or NET; they evaluate the "nitty gritty" as they call it in order to scrutinize wins and losses against highly ranked teams, and make comparisons when evaluating teams against each other.

Based on what I read on a different forum, this is what the committee uses:

NCAA Statistics

I know Texas fans want a #1 seed, and Vic was lobbying for one in the post-game press conference on Tuesday. He was asked if Texas "deserves" a #1 seed, and he says we've done everything we can, and we've won 30 games. He talks about all the adversity and injuries Texas has faced this season (as if that is going to matter to the committee).

The thing is, Texas did NOT do everything they can. Vic scheduled a truly pathetic non-conference schedule that basically consisted of UConn at home (and that is our best win of the season and was with Rori Harmon in the lineup). No other non-conference team Texas played are expected to make the NCAA tournament. Arizona is a bubble team, and we won in Tucson. Texas' NET non-conference SOS is 159. Overall NET SOS is 41. Those are the numbers that will hurt Texas the most. And, only having 12 wins against NET Top 50 teams; the other top teams vying for a #1 seed all have more; UConn only has 9 wins against NET Top 50 teams, and they are being equally knocked down by the committee.

That 159 non-conference SOS for Texas is a travesty. LSU's is 189. Oregon State's is 304. Stanford's is 46. Southern Cal's is 93. Everyone else in the Top 10 is no worse than 30. With that type of non-conference schedule, we never even gave ourselves a chance to rack up more than one impressive win.
 
Moooooo said:
The committees (in all sports) have never seeded exactly based on RPI or NET; they evaluate the "nitty gritty" as they call it in order to scrutinize wins and losses against highly ranked teams, and make comparisons when evaluating teams against each other.

Based on what I read on a different forum, this is what the committee uses:

NCAA Statistics

I know Texas fans want a #1 seed, and Vic was lobbying for one in the post-game press conference on Tuesday. He was asked if Texas "deserves" a #1 seed, and he says we've done everything we can, and we've won 30 games. He talks about all the adversity and injuries Texas has faced this season (as if that is going to matter to the committee).

The thing is, Texas did NOT do everything they can. Vic scheduled a truly pathetic non-conference schedule that basically consisted of UConn at home (and that is our best win of the season and was with Rori Harmon in the lineup). No other non-conference team Texas played are expected to make the NCAA tournament. Arizona is a bubble team, and we won in Tucson. Texas' NET non-conference SOS is 159. Overall NET SOS is 41. Those are the numbers that will hurt Texas the most. And, only having 12 wins against NET Top 50 teams; the other top teams vying for a #1 seed all have more; UConn only has 9 wins against NET Top 50 teams, and they are being equally knocked down by the committee.

That 159 non-conference SOS for Texas is a travesty. LSU's is 189. Oregon State's is 304. Stanford's is 46. Southern Cal's is 93. Everyone else in the Top 10 is no worse than 30. With that type of non-conference schedule, we never even gave ourselves a chance to rack up more than one impressive win.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I feel being the highest #2 seed (if that happens) might be in our best interest.
 
brnkj said:
Honestly, I feel being the highest #2 seed (if that happens) might be in our best interest.
Click to expand...
I absolutely have to agree with you. I see no real advantage at being a No. 1 seed unless your motive is to tout you made the Sweet Sixteen. For everyone else, they know they will eventually have to play a pesky team to get through to the end of the tournament. One game at a time, prepare, prepare, prepare.
 
brnkj said:
Honestly, I feel being the highest #2 seed (if that happens) might be in our best interest.
Click to expand...
While the committee does try to adhere to the traditional S-curve, they are obligated to avoid placing teams in the Top 16 who are in the same conference in the same region. Why does that matter? Well, even if Texas is ranked as the highest overall #2 seed, that doesn't guarantee we will be placed in the same Region as the weakest #1 seed. I actually think UCLA is considered the highest #2 seed; but, they can't be placed in the same region as another PAC school.

The women's tourney uses only two cities instead of four as Regional host sites; this year they are Albany, NY and Portland, OR. So, selling tickets could also play a role in certain seeding decisions and benefit teams like UConn and Oregon State.

Most analysts agree on the Top 8 overall seeds, but perhaps not the exact order:

1) South Carolina (SEC)
2) Iowa (B1G)
3) Stanford (PAC)
4) USC (PAC)
5) Texas (Big 12)
6) UCLA (PAC)
7) Ohio State (B1G)
8) LSU (SEC)

If the committee had those exact rankings, they then have to "bump" some of the #2 seeds up/down to avoid placing teams from the same conference in the same region. So, UCLA, Ohio State, and LSU would get bumped; as a result of achieving their objective, the committee could also "bump" Texas down.

The reshuffled Top 8 seeds could then look something like this:

1) South Carolina (SEC)
2) Iowa (B1G)
3) Stanford (PAC)
4) USC (PAC)
5) Texas (Big 12)
6) LSU (SEC)
7) UCLA (PAC)
8) Ohio State (B1G)

Based on geography, South Carolina and Iowa will be #1 seeds in Albany, NY. And, most likely UConn will be a #3 seed in one of those two regionals. Personally, I won't to avoid playing UConn in what amounts to a road game.

Oregon State has a slim chance of being placed in the Portland, OR regional if Stanford and USC are #1 seeds there. Because Colorado is projected as the fifth Top 16 team from the PAC, one regional will have to have two PAC schools among the Top 4. So, we could still face a possible road game in Oregon.
 
I've never liked Charlie Creme. I just looked at his latest "bracketology." He has us having to beat Tennessee in our second game, then NC State, then USC (California one), and then South Carolina to get to the final game. Tennessee being a 7 seed is ludicrous, given how they've been playing. USC looked fantastic against Stanford in the PAC-12 final. We'll see. I've never seen a committee duplicate Charlie's brackets.
 
Well, Creme was correct one year ago about Louisville being sent to our sub-regional.

As for Tennessee, they are a very talented team. But, they their record is 19-12, and their NET is #30. So, that is in line with a 7-9 seed, IMO. If they are a #7 seed, they can't be sent to #2 seed LSU's home sub-regional since they are both in the SEC; that leaves only three other #2 seeds to host Tennessee. And, Ole Miss is also projected as a #7 seed; same logic in that they have to go somewhere other than LSU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Season Confidence Prediction

Rank your win/loss confidence predictions for the season.

Season Confidence
Prediction Thread

100 Day Countdown 2024

Help us count down to game day with your favorite player pics.

100 Day Countdown 2024

Recent Threads

Back
Top