Bracket first impressions

[southie]

We're talking about the "true" seed list, not any bracketing adjustments made for conference conflicts.

However they for some reason didn't mind putting Duke and UNC in the same regional even though they were both among the first 4 teams selected from the same conference.

There was no way to avoid it that I could see. I believe the rule is that they try to avoid placing teams from same conference in same region, but they start with that principle for the 1-line teams first.

I guess they could have swapped UConn and Duke, but that's trying to work things for the 3-line teams. Or, swap ND/NC with Oklahoma, but then OU would have been in a region with another SEC team.


UCLA--------SCarolina----Texas---------USC
NC State----Duke--------TCU-----------UConn
LSU----------NC-----------ND-----------Oklahoma
Baylor-------Maryland-----Ohio State---Kentucky


Two ACC teams on the 2-line. Two ACC teams on the 3-line. Two SEC teams on the 2-line and 1-line.

 

[JstVisiting]

There was no way to avoid it that I could see. I believe the rule is that they try to avoid placing teams from same conference in same region, but they start with that principle for the 1-line teams first.

I guess they could have swapped UConn and Duke, but that's trying to work things for the 3-line teams. Or, swap ND/NC with Oklahoma, but then OU would have been in a region with another SEC team.


UCLA--------SCarolina----Texas---------USC
NC State----Duke--------TCU-----------UConn
LSU----------NC-----------ND-----------Oklahoma
Baylor-------Maryland-----Ohio State---Kentucky


Two ACC teams on the 2-line. Two ACC teams on the 3-line. Two SEC teams on the 2-line and 1-line.

True. Best way to solve it is probably to swap North Carolina with Georgia Tech.

 

[TAK]

The more I look at the different metrics, it certainly seems like Notre Dame has the most reasons to complain about their seeding.

Agreed. Notre Dame is going to snap out of its losing funk for the tournament. With this seeding, Notre Dame will be angry and motivated to boot. Watch out.

 

[Plebe]

There was no way to avoid it that I could see. I believe the rule is that they try to avoid placing teams from same conference in same region, but they start with that principle for the 1-line teams first.

I guess they could have swapped UConn and Duke, but that's trying to work things for the 3-line teams. Or, swap ND/NC with Oklahoma, but then OU would have been in a region with another SEC team.


UCLA--------SCarolina----Texas---------USC
NC State----Duke--------TCU-----------UConn
LSU----------NC-----------ND-----------Oklahoma
Baylor-------Maryland-----Ohio State---Kentucky


Two ACC teams on the 2-line. Two ACC teams on the 3-line. Two SEC teams on the 2-line and 1-line.

You’re right! Was no way to avoid it.

What a great topology problem. Anyone else here remember the Seven Bridges of Königsberg from math class in high school?

 

[Gamecockfan77]

LSU is not beating FSU. Wouldn’t be shocked if FSU won by 10+

Ole Miss will upset Baylor

I'd be pretty surprised if LSU lost to FSU but I guess it's interesting matchup on paper.

 

[FanInNC]

True. Best way to solve it is probably to swap North Carolina with Georgia Tech.

Orrrr just drop Carolina out entirely… sort of as an eye for an eye. The men get in despite being 1-12 against tournament teams … the women are left at home!

 

[Gamecockfan77]

I don't worry about fairness too much. But, I did look at the USC/UConn corner of the bracket and wince. Besides the overall 4/5 matchup/rematch in the elite 8, there's a very dangerous Iowa team lurking in there, too.

I'm not sure how dangerous Iowa is away from their home court.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

I have nothin against him, I just think his November projections are bs. Long about mid- february they start lining up

I think it's probably pretty easy to pick 66 of the teams after conference season is over.

Then you have maybe two spots and 3 or 4 teams and you are also probably looking at other brackets and perhaps getting input from committee.

Getting seed lines is harder.

 

[triaddukefan]

Orrrr just drop Carolina out entirely… sort of as an eye for an eye. The men get in despite being 1-12 against tournament teams … the women are left at home!

I get the impression that you don't care for Chapel Hill at all

 

[Plebe]

Orrrr just drop Carolina out entirely… sort of as an eye for an eye. The men get in despite being 1-12 against tournament teams … the women are left at home!

Forcing women to pay for the sins of men ... a tale as old as time

 

[JstVisiting]

I'm not sure how dangerous Iowa is away from their home court.

Iowa WBB is Antaeus confirmed.

 

[Plebe]

I don't understand how North Carolina is ahead of Notre Dame if we are assuming an S-curve was used.

NET ranking has ND at #5 and NC at #20. But, in NET Q1 wins, ND is 6-5 and NC- 7-5. ND beat NC in Chapel Hill. And, NC with a terrible home loss to RPI #111 Virginia.

Sure seems like Q1 wins were important, but not in UConn's case who was 5-3, and Baylor who was 3-6.

The NET Nitty Gritty Report for NCAA Women's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com

The NET Nitty Gritty Report for 2025 NCAA Women's College Basketball. This Is a Duplication of the Report Used by the Tournament Selection Committee to Determine At-Large Teams with Quadrants

www.warrennolan.com

It looks like someone online spread some misinformation earlier regarding the true seed list. Here's the official true seed list I just came across:

Quite a bit to chew on here in terms of how they placed the 3 seeds.

I've certainly seen the committee penalize teams in recent years for the “late season fade” but I thought #9 was the lowest ND would land. No way should they be behind LSU and UNC. But then again they got matched with what I consider the most favorable 2 seed ... so that's a tradeoff I would take in the unthinkable scenario of being a ND fan

 

[GamecockFam]

I have to say that the 3/6 seed pairings in the second round intrigue me more than the 4/5.

Lots of upset potential with these pairings (assuming they all make it to the second round):

(3) LSU / (6) Florida State
(3) Kansas State / (6) Iowa
(3) Oklahoma / (6) Michigan
(3) North Carolina / (6) West Virginia

 

[FanInNC]

I have to say that the 3/6 seed pairings in the second round intrigue me more than the 4/5.

Lots of upset potential with these pairings (assuming they all make it to the second round):

(3) LSU / (6) Florida State
(3) Kansas State / (6) Iowa
(3) Oklahoma / (6) Michigan
(3) North Carolina / (6) West Virginia

Now there we go! West Virginia women with extra motivation against Carolina. Can at least deal some sort of pay back on the Heels for taking the spot of the WV men.

 

[FanInNC]

It looks like someone online spread some misinformation earlier regarding the true seed list. Here's the official true seed list I just came across:

View attachment 107922

Quite a bit to chew on here in terms of how they placed the 3 seeds.

Ok … can someone explain how this shook out? Why wouldn’t it be :

2/3 State Notre Dame
2/3 Duke LsU
2/3 TCU Okla
2/3 UConn UNC

 

[nwhoopfan]

Okay, now that North Carolina men beat San Diego St. by about 100 in the play in game maybe we can stop the kvetching? If the Heels shouldn't have been there, what does that say about the Aztecs?

 

[Plebe]

Ok … can someone explain how this shook out? Why wouldn’t it be :

2/3 State Notre Dame
2/3 Duke LsU
2/3 TCU Okla
2/3 UConn UNC

They have a “principle” where the top 4 teams from a conference are supposed to put in separate regionals if they're in the top 4 seed lines. But as noted above, the distribution of SEC and ACC teams in the top 3 seed lines made it impossible to fully follow this principle.

But the committee works from top to bottom, so it looks like they followed this principle as long as they could until they were forced to violate it.

When they got to #9 Notre Dame, they followed their principle and moved them to the regional with Texas and TCU. Next up was #10 LSU, which was put in the UCLA-NC State regional. Next was #11 Oklahoma, placed with USC-UConn.

And finally, that left UNC nowhere to go but into the SC-Duke regional.

 

[triaddukefan]

Okay, now that North Carolina men beat San Diego St. by about 100 in the play in game maybe we can stop the kvetching? If the Heels shouldn't have been there, what does that say about the Aztecs?

(Edited ) a tarheel

 

[WBBTakeover]

Ok … can someone explain how this shook out? Why wouldn’t it be :

2/3 State Notre Dame
2/3 Duke LsU
2/3 TCU Okla
2/3 UConn UNC

This would've been preferable to a potential UNC/Duke Part 3. LSU is hobbled, relatively small, and can't defend.

 

[southie]

They have a “principle” where the top 4 teams are supposed to put in separate regionals if they're in the top 4 seed lines. But as noted above, the distribution of SEC and ACC teams in the top 3 seed lines made it impossible to fully follow this principle.
But the committee works from top to bottom, so it looks like they followed this principle as long as they could until they were forced to violate it.
When they got to #9 Notre Dame, they followed their principle and moved them to the regional with Texas and TCU. Next up was #10 LSU, which was put in the UCLA-NC State regional. Next was #11 Oklahoma, placed with USC-UConn.
And finally, that left UNC nowhere to go but into the SC-Duke regional.

Something is still confusing. The rankings you listed have:

9. Notre Dame
10. LSU
11. Oklahoma
12. North Carolina

Notre Dame couldn't be in same region as #8 NC State (ACC).
LSU couldn't be in same region as #2 South Carolina (SEC).
Oklahoma couldn't be in same region as #3 Texas (SEC).

So, the committee needed to procedurally bump Notre Dame down first and foremost. Why they didn't place ND in #2 South Carolina's region (bumping them down one spot) leaves me scratching my head. Instead, they bumped them down two spots into #3 Texas' region.

LSU was procedurally bumped up one spot to #9; that makes perfect sense.

After that, all they had to do was flip flop Oklahoma (bumped down one spot) and North Carolina (bumped up one spot). Instead, they bumped North Carolia up two spots which resulted in them bumping Notre Dame down two spots.

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious.

 

[Plebe]

So, the committee needed to procedurally bump Notre Dame down first and foremost. Why they didn't place ND in #2 South Carolina's region (bumping them down one spot) leaves me scratching my head. Instead, they bumped them down two spots into #3 Texas' region.

Because that would have put them in the same region as Duke, which is also an ACC team.

 

[southie]

Because that would have put them in the same region as Duke, which is also an ACC team.

But the committee still ended up placing another (lower-ranked) ACC team, North Carolina in the same region as Duke.

Are you saying that based on the team rankings, they first most moved #9 Notre Dame away from #8 NC State, and left them put in Texas' region (even though #11 Oklahoma and #12 North Carolina would have to be bumped, as well)? So, the end result was ND gets bumped down 2 spots, and UNC gets bumped up 2 spots and ends up 1 spot ahead of fellow ACC-team ND on the 3-seed line? Seems like they over-complicated things.

 

[Plebe]

But the committee still ended up placing another (lower-ranked) ACC team, North Carolina in the same region as Duke.

Are you saying that based on the team rankings, they first most moved #9 Notre Dame away from #8 NC State, and left them put in Texas' region (even though #11 Oklahoma and #12 North Carolina would have to be bumped, as well)? So, the end result was ND gets bumped down 2 spots, and UNC gets bumped up 2 spots and ends up 1 spot ahead of fellow ACC-team ND on the 3-seed line? Seems like they over-complicated things.

Yes, that's what I meant when I said, "But the committee works from top to bottom, so it looks like they followed this principle as long as they could until they were forced to violate it."

It's stated in the committee's "principles and procedures" document that they place teams in the bracket from top to bottom, from 1 to 68 (I forget the exact wording, so paraphrasing). So it kinda makes sense they would follow this principle with teams 9, 10 and 11 until they were left no other choice with team 12.

 

[JstVisiting]

Okay, now that North Carolina men beat San Diego St. by about 100 in the play in game maybe we can stop the kvetching? If the Heels shouldn't have been there, what does that say about the Aztecs?

Idk about the particulars of their resume vs whoever they beat out, but predictive strength and performance in the tourney is not the same as earning the bid.

Imaginary season where Lauren Betts and every other UCLA starter suffers injury on opening night, Bruins go 15-15, then every starter is 100% day after Big Ten Tourney. That UCLA team would almost certainly cruise to victory in a play in game, but that wouldn’t mean they deserved to be there.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Idk about the particulars of their resume vs whoever they beat out, but predictive strength and performance in the tourney is not the same as earning the bid.

Imaginary season where Lauren Betts and every other UCLA starter suffers injury on opening night, Bruins go 15-15, then every starter is 100% day after Big Ten Tourney. That UCLA team would almost certainly cruise to victory in a play in game, but that wouldn’t mean they deserved to be there.

Yeah makes sense. It just seems like more often than not the "don't deserve to be there" teams go out and do something like this. I did hear their resume was bad, especially record against Quad 1 teams. I just looked at West Virginia's schedule, I guess the resume is better by the metrics, but just looking at wins and losses it doesn't seem very compelling to me. Certainly not one of the bigger snubs of all time.

 

[JstVisiting]

Yeah makes sense. It just seems like more often than not the "don't deserve to be there" teams go out and do something like this. I did hear their resume was bad, especially record against Quad 1 teams. I just looked at West Virginia's schedule, I guess the resume is better by the metrics, but just looking at wins and losses it doesn't seem very compelling to me. Certainly not one of the bigger snubs of all time.

I think it's just people hate North Carolina. I'm ok with that.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Washington looked good early but Columbia controlled most of 2nd half. 63-60 final. Columbia's coach made some adjustments. Coach Langley did nothing. Not impressed.

 

[Plebe]

Washington looked good early but Columbia controlled most of 2nd half. 63-60 final. Columbia's coach made some adjustments. Coach Langley did nothing. Not impressed.

So ... not much consolation that Langley finally had a breakthrough season and got an at-large bid?

Actually, the committee ranked Columbia #41 and Washington #42, so this game played out almost perfectly chalk with a one-possession win for the Ivy representative.

 

[nwhoopfan]

So ... not much consolation that Langley finally had a breakthrough season and got an at-large bid?

Actually, the committee ranked Columbia #41 and Washington #42, so this game played out almost perfectly chalk with a one-possession win for the Ivy representative.

It's certainly a step forward, but this was a winnable game that UW let slip away.

Excellent FT defense by Columbia, they held UW to 3-10 from the charity stripe. In a 3 point game...yeah, Dawgs should've won this one.

 

[12au]

So through two games do we think these Ivy teams are better than Virginia Tech? Seems like they've had a respectable showing. In particular I didn't expect Washington to lose that one.