Committee top 16 reveal tonight!

[southie]

I feel like they should restructure this set up since we now have super conferences where 12 of the 16 projected seeded teams come from 2 conferences.

LSU as your regional final matchup after going undefeated is infinitely more terrifying than facing Louisville the same round.

I get what you're saying, but I don't see that changing any time soon; it's been in place ever since UConn/Rutgers from the Big East were matched up as the top two seeds in the same regional years ago. And, that's how the men's tourney does it, too, I believe.

UConn is going to get an SEC team as its 2-seed; it will either be Vanderbilt, Texas, or LSU (the current 4th place team in the SEC standings).

 

[Stagnant]

If South Carolina wins out and they end up as the 3rd #1 seed; I expect them to not be happy about it. I remember that Dawn complained last year during the selection show and indicated South Carolina shouldn’t bother playing such a tough schedule if they aren’t rewarded for it.

I expect similar if they win the toughest conference tournament and get nothing for it.

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

The word "competitive" is extremely subjective and open to interpretation.

My point was that Tennessee's 2-point loss (at home) to Texas (one game pointed out by one poster) when compared to their blowout losses at UConn, South Carolina, Ole Miss and a home rout against Miss. State doesn't give "competitive" feel for those 5 losses overall. What about their "close" 2-point loss at home to hapless Texas A&M where they trailed the entire game and trailed by as many as 20 points? Is that "competitive" to you?

The 12 Committee beholder votes are used to value disparate, possibly conflicting &1, information in order to determine the at-large bids, the S-Curve, and the bracketed S-Curve.

&1 Tennessee (NET 22):

• Loss to NET 66: Texas A&M (Quad 3)
• Loss to NET 37: Mississippi State (Quad 2)
• Close loss to NET 23: NC State (Quad 1B)
• Close loss to NET 4: Texas (Quad 1)
• Blowout losses to NET 1 (UConn), NET 2 (UCLA), NET 3 (SC)
• 10 Losses
• 4-8 Quad 1 Record
• Most significant win: NET 26 Alabama
• NETSOS of 5.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

I wouldn't complain with the #3 , but if Carolina knocked off Texas, LSU or Oklahoma and Tennessee, Kentucky or Ole Miss in SECT then there would definitely be an argument.

I felt Carolina was appropriately seeded last season.

 

[HuskyNan]

 

[southie]

I wouldn't complain with the #3 , but if Carolina knocked off Texas, LSU or Oklahoma and Tennessee, Kentucky or Ole Miss in SECT then there would definitely be an argument.

I felt Carolina was appropriately seeded last season.

While each committee is different, I don't get the feeling this one will drop UCLA from #2 if they go undefeated the rest of their B1G games regardless of what SC does in the in the SEC tourney; UCLA would also rack up some impressive wins in their conference tournament.

In the end, it doesn't matter (too much) who's the 2-seed and who's the 3-seed as UCLA and S. Carolina are in different conferences and the 2-line teams in their regional can't be from their own conference. Now, if S. Carolina and Texas were competing for the 2 and 3 national seeds, then it would be more important. UCLA, like UConn, will most likely get a 2-line team from the SEC (like Vandy/Texas and LSU), while the 2-seeds from the SEC (S. Carolina and Vandy/Texas) will most likely draw a 2-line team from the B1G/ACC.

 

[visitingcock]

Thanks @HuskyNan . Could you post this as a stand-alone thread ? Maybe on the General Board?

I would be interested to low (if anybody knows) how these two factors interplay. Is the seed determined by an average of the two? If so, the averages are interesting:

UCLA: 3/1=4 (2)
UConn: 1/4=5 (2.5)
SCar: 3/2.=5 (2.5)
Texas: 4/3 =7 (3.5)

Based on these averages, UCLA would be the one seed. I would assume UConn to be the two seed based on an undefeated season and SCar at 3 which leaves Texas at 4.

Of course, SCar and Texas (and LSU) can all adjust based on this next week and the SEC tournament). I don’t have any hesitation in saying UConn will sweep out and little hesitation about UCLA.

Averaging the two rankings is even more interesting when looking at the potential two seeds because we have teams like LSU and Minnesota with high NET rankings but relatively low WAB rankings

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

Thanks @HuskyNan . Could you post this as a stand-alone thread ? Maybe on the General Board?

I would be interested to low (if anybody knows) how these two factors interplay. Is the seed determined by an average of the two? If so, the averages are interesting:

UCLA: 3/1=4 (2)
UConn: 1/4=5 (2.5)
SCar: 3/2.=5 (2.5)
Texas: 4/3 =7 (3.5)

Based on these averages, UCLA would be the one seed. I would assume UConn to be the two seed based on an undefeated season and SCar at 3 which leaves Texas at 4.

Of course, SCar and Texas (and LSU) can all adjust based on this next week and the SEC tournament). I don’t have any hesitation in saying UConn will sweep out and little hesitation about UCLA.

Averaging the two rankings is even more interesting when looking at the potential two seeds because we have teams like LSU and Minnesota with high NET rankings but relatively low WAB rankings

“It’s up to the Committee” &1 on how to use information in their team sheets. (youtube @3:42 for NET and WAB).

&1 For example, for seeding:

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

I feel like they should restructure this set up since we now have super conferences where 12 of the 16 projected seeded teams come from 2 conferences.

LSU as your regional final matchup after going undefeated is infinitely more terrifying than facing Louisville the same round.

The rule mitigates “unfairness” to teams from the same conference, at the expense of top seeded teams of other (smaller) conferences.

• (a) The most unfair scenarios to the latter are when a #1 team is forced to meet the #5 team (instead of the #8 team), or when a #1 team is forced &1 to meet the #6 team (instead of the #8 team) and the #2 team is forced &1 to meet the #5 team (instead of the #7 team);
• (b) There is another rule that there is no cap on the number of teams coming from the same conference.
• Both of these rules favor the P4 conferences.

There are loud coaches that will complain incessantly about changing either of these rules vs ensuring that the top seeds, should they be from smaller conferences, get rewarded for being the top seeds or other teams from smaller conferences get to play in the NCAAT.

&1 which seems to be happening this year.

 

[southie]

The rule mitigates “unfairness” to teams from the same conference, at the expense of top seeded teams of other (smaller) conferences.

• (a) The most unfair scenarios to the latter are when a #1 team is forced to meet the #5 team (instead of the #8 team), or when a #1 team is forced &1 to meet the #6 team (instead of the #8 team) and the #2 team is forced &1 to meet the #5 team (instead of the #7 team);
• (b) There is another rule that there is no cap on the number of teams coming from the same conference.

There are loud coaches that will complain incessantly about changing either of these rules vs ensuring that the top seeds, should they be from smaller conferences, get rewarded for being the top seeds or other teams from smaller conferences get to play in the NCAAT.

&1 which seems to be happening this year.

The NCAA softball and women's volleyball committees do not make exceptions in their seeding of the Top 16 teams as it pertains to conference affiliations; they use the straight S-curve. Many fans/coaches want them to do what basketball does to avoid teams from the same conference meeting up prior to the Final Four.

 

[meyers7]

Re: Tennessee

I know this is not about the top 16 teams but can Tennessee really get into the NCAA tournament with only 16 wins?

We had this discussion a couple weeks ago about how Tennessee would always get into the dance because of who they are. I agreed with that at the time..

But with only 16 wins and 2 games left against LSU and Vanderbilt (they could definitely lose both) how can they still possibly get in? They have lost a bunch of games in a roll now.

Of course they can get in by winning their tournament but if they dont?

How does the NCAA justify putting a team in with only 16- 18 wins and not winning their conference tournament?

TN is getting in the tourney, even if they lose out the season. They are most likely going to end up #7 in the SEC. Tied with Kentucky and Georgia at 8-8. But I think they have the tie breakers?? With Alabama at #10 (but they'll probably be 21-10). I think the NCAA will take all 10. That would include TN. (they took 10 last year)

Besides, they're TN, if they can find any reason to include them, they will. (whether they deserve it or not)

 

[Cuango]

I thought we, as the top seed, got the weakest #2? Is that not right?
Imagine my surprise when I see LSU in our bracket and Iowa in South Carolina’s bracket! In what universe is Iowa better than LSU?

 

[Cuango]

If South Carolina wins out and they end up as the 3rd #1 seed; I expect them to not be happy about it. I remember that Dawn complained last year during the selection show and indicated South Carolina shouldn’t bother playing such a tough schedule if they aren’t rewarded for it.

I expect similar if they win the toughest conference tournament and get nothing for it.

Don’t look now, but they have Iowa as their number 2! Hard to imagine a better draw than that!

 

[Centerstream]

I thought we, as the top seed, got the weakest #2? Is that not right?
Imagine my surprise when I see LSU in our bracket and Iowa in South Carolina’s bracket! In what universe is Iowa better than LSU?

I'm not sure how the selection committee works, and don't care to know, but maybe they are taking into account that UConn has played Iowa and SoCar has played LSU (and could play again)?

 

[southie]

I thought we, as the top seed, got the weakest #2? Is that not right?
Imagine my surprise when I see LSU in our bracket and Iowa in South Carolina’s bracket! In what universe is Iowa better than LSU?

That is not "right", and hasn't been the guideline for several years.

LSU cannot be in the same regional with SEC members, South Carolina and Texas/ Vandy as two of them are likely to be #1 seeds. So, LSU as a 2-seed is required to be paired with #1 UConn or #1 UCLA to avoid intra-conference matchups with any #1 seeds from the SEC. It just doesn't matter anymore who the "strongest/weakest" 2-seeds are; it's about re-positioning certain teams based on conference.

Iowa and Michigan from the B1G can't be placed as the 2 or 3 seed as fellow B1G member UCLA.

 

[BBallF]

I'm not sure how the selection committee works, and don't care to know, but maybe they are taking into account that UConn has played Iowa and SoCar has played LSU (and could play again)?

So what? The teams are supposed to be ranked absolutely. #1 overall should play #8 overall. If they ever did that in the men's tourney there would be a huge problem.

 

[BigTenGuy]

I thought we, as the top seed, got the weakest #2? Is that not right?
Imagine my surprise when I see LSU in our bracket and Iowa in South Carolina’s bracket! In what universe is Iowa better than LSU?

When you watch LSU and Iowa play, LSU is the clearly superior team. But the NET, WAB & SOS metrics paint a more complicated picture:

Team	NET	WAB	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	AVG NET Ws	AVG NET Ls	NET SOS	NET NON-CON SOS
LSU	5	10	5--4	4--0	3--0	12--0	153	7	36	279
Iowa	9	5	7--5	6--0	2--0	7--0	84	12	3	36

 

[southie]

So what? The teams are supposed to be ranked absolutely. #1 overall should play #8 overall. If they ever did that in the men's tourney there would be a huge problem.

That's how it was done using the traditional S-curve in both men's and women's brackets. Women changed shortly after Big East members UConn and Rutgers faced off for the fourth time (I think) in a season culminating in an Elite 8 matchup as the 1/2 seeds in their region.

 

[Woof]

Who cares about conferences??? If you want to get an easier path, have a better season. There is no way that a team that has earned an easier path should be punished just so either Texas or SC doesn't have to play LSU a fourth time. But it doesn't matter because UCLA will probably end up the overall top seed. WAB is a joke.

 

[BBallF]

That's how it was done using the traditional S-curve in both men's and women's brackets. Women changed shortly after Big East members UConn and Rutgers faced off for the fourth time (I think) in a season culminating in an Elite 8 matchup as the 1/2 seeds in their region.

I rememberer when there really were regions and regionals. Once you create any exceptions to a straight meritocratic selection you create issues, favoritism, and the like.

 

[Centerstream]

So what? The teams are supposed to be ranked absolutely. #1 overall should play #8 overall. If they ever did that in the men's tourney there would be a huge problem.

If every team is ranked absolutely, then why is there a need for the Selection Committee?
Plug every team that qualifies for the tournament into the spreadsheet according to the what the final algorithm comes up with, and there you have the entire bracket. No human interaction. But I am guessing that this doesn't happen. If it did, every bracketology "expert" bracket would be the same as the NCAA bracket. Has this ever been the case?

 

[Cuango]

That is not "right", and hasn't been the guideline for several years.

LSU cannot be in the same regional with SEC members, South Carolina and Texas/ Vandy as two of them are likely to be #1 seeds. So, LSU as a 2-seed is required to be paired with #1 UConn or #1 UCLA to avoid intra-conference matchups with any #1 seeds from the SEC. It just doesn't matter anymore who the "strongest/weakest" 2-seeds are; it's about re-positioning certain teams based on conference.

Iowa and Michigan from the B1G can't be placed as the 2 or 3 seed as fellow B1G member UCLA.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

2026 WCBB NCAAT Bracketology Teams by Overall Seeding:

• Number in () is the NET on the day on/before the Bracketology date.
• AQ means “Automatic Qualifier” for a Conference.

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

NCAA Dashboard (2/23/2026) appended to ESPN Bracketology (2/24/2026) to provide insight on:

• (a) the Hypothesis Testing continuum of the 37 At-Large (Type &1 = 2) Qualifiers;
• (b) the 68-team Bracketed S-Curve (Overall Seed (OSeed)).

The NCAA procedures for (a), S-Curve and (b) are here.

&1 Type = 1 (Automatic Qualifier) and 2 (At-large Qualifier).

Top 20 Overall Seed | Remaining Schedule

• 1. UConn | Torvik Schedule
• 2. UCLA | Torvik Schedule
• 3. South Carolina | Torvik Schedule
• 4. Texas | Torvik Schedule
• 5. Michigan | Torvik Schedule
• 6. Iowa | Torvik Schedule
• 7. Vanderbilt | Torvik Schedule
• 8. LSU | Torvik Schedule
• 9. Maryland | Torvik Schedule
• 10. Louisville | Torvik Schedule
• 11. Duke | Torvik Schedule
• 12. TCU | Torvik Schedule
• 13. Ohio St. | Torvik Schedule
• 14. Michigan St. | Torvik Schedule
• 15. Oklahoma | Torvik Schedule
• 16. Kentucky | Torvik Schedule
• 17. Minnesota | Torvik Schedule
• 18. West Virginia | Torvik Schedule
• 19. North Carolina | Torvik Schedule
• 20. Ole Miss | Torvik Schedule

By Conference Bids: Conference Standings | Conference Tournaments

 

[hoopsfan22]

If every team is ranked absolutely, then why is there a need for the Selection Committee?
Plug every team that qualifies for the tournament into the spreadsheet according to the what the final algorithm comes up with, and there you have the entire bracket. No human interaction. But I am guessing that this doesn't happen. If it did, every bracketology "expert" bracket would be the same as the NCAA bracket. Has this ever been the case?

They should just have AI do it. It could generate the entire bracket in seconds and we're done.

 

[visitingcock]

They should just have AI do it. It could generate the entire bracket in seconds and we're done.

No eyeball test ?

 

[Centerstream]

They should just have AI do it. It could generate the entire bracket in seconds and we're done.

My point is that you don't need AI. According to posters here on the BY, the Selection Committee uses specific criteria to determine the schools that are selected for the tournament. These are things such as, (but not only these) NET, Quad wins and losses, etc. These are absolute. Just rank the teams accordingly and you have your bracket with zero human intervention.
And I realize that this isn't really what is done and probably never will be done. Thus the need for the Selection Committee.

 

[hoopsfan22]

No eyeball test ?

Do people really have much objection to what the computers are spitting out with respect to formulas like NET? You could always develop a more complete formula if it's insufficient. Maybe a team gets screwed here or there, whatever screwed means in this context, but I'd argue in the long run the computers will create less problems than humans.

 

[Vowelguy]

My point is that you don't need AI. According to posters here on the BY, the Selection Committee uses specific criteria to determine the schools that are selected for the tournament. These are things such as, (but not only these) NET, Quad wins and losses, etc. These are absolute. Just rank the teams accordingly and you have your bracket with zero human intervention.
And I realize that this isn't really what is done and probably never will be done. Thus the need for the Selection Committee.

They are not. For one, while you can rank each category, how do you combine them? And there are non-tangible criteria. Like eye test. Like injuries.

 

[YKCornelius]

Hey experts - I'm trying to find out if there's another reveal before the selection weekend, and all I've come up with is the day before official brackets are out. Is this correct?

BRS24, I don't know if you have received a response already to your question, but the second reveal will be 1100 EST on ESPN this coming Sunday (01 March).