As I pointed out yesterday, if they haven't changed the rules (and there is no indication they have changed them) then applying the rules , subject to the override of the agreements to allow regional hosts to play at home and a literal application of the rules sends UConn to ND.
The point of this argument, as an astute fan picked up on when I ran it past her last night, isn't that the committee will send UConn to ND, but that they won't which means they must have some flexibility. And if they do have flexibility, they do not HAVE to send UConn to Louisville.
It frees them up to apply the underlying principles.
The original decision to emphasize geography was to concede that economics trumped the S-curve. As Charlie points out, the decision to allow teams to host was a further nod to economics. The rules aren't pure economics, they still want to give preference to teams who have earned the top positions in the list, but when sites were neutral, given that preference was almost equivalent to sending teams to the closest venue. They didn't literally want to say, Top seed, where would you like to play", but given neutral locations, sending the top four teams to the closest locations, in order, was effectively the selection committee granting that option.
They missed that the best available option changes a lot when the regionals are not neutral. So, rather than slavishly send to the closest option, they can choose the underlying goal of sending the top four seeds, in order, tot he site most desirable to them. One minor nice aspect is that you do not even have to debate whether UConn or ND is number one. Either order, they would choose the same things.
They still have to deal with 2 seeds, and whether location or match ups should reign, but for the top seeds, I think Charlie has sussed out how the committee will think.
