Talk:1984 NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject College Basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college basketball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College BasketballWikipedia:WikiProject College BasketballTemplate:WikiProject College Basketballcollege basketball articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's sport: Basketball Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Women's basketball task force.

Oregon -at-large bid, or automatic?[edit]

Per NCAA source, Oregon was an at-large bid in 1984. However, That source also indicates that the Northern Pacific had an automatic bid in 1984. Both Oregon and Oregon State appeared in the tournament, Oregon had the better conference record, and no post-season conference tournament. Thus, it seems likely that the one symbol "@" in page 141 of the NCAA source should be a "*". I have an email to the NCAA for clarification

I received an email response from the NCAA confirming that my assumption is correct. I fully understand that my say so doesn't constitute a RS, however, the email indicated that the NCAA will be correcting their records books, so the updated record book, typically released in the fall, should have the corrected information.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logo[edit]

Thanks to Rick Nixon of the NCAA who provided copies of the pre-2002 logos, which were not available online.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]