Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="UcMiami, post: 4252287, member: 199"] In defense of the committee I think this was a particularly difficult year to sort out seedings. With covid issues and various injuries team records were tough to sort out. Add in an unusually inconsistent level of play by all teams (except for NC State and Stanford - USF was ranked when they lost to them - every other top ten team lost to at least one unranked opponent) it was pretty hard to sort out good wins from bad wins and good losses from bad losses. As happens consistently, the committee over seeds the lesser at large power 5 teams and under seeds non-p5 teams and I agree that FGCU and Princeton were obvious errors - the AP and coaches poll members saw much clear than the committee on them, but then those same folks were wrong about Baylor and Iowa, BYU and Kentucky. Upsets happen in March - even perfect seeding can't prevent it and I don't think Creighton or SD or Villanova or Belmont were under seeded by more than a line or two, nor did any team make a strong case to replace Iowa or Baylor on the two line. People talk about Parity and I think there is a broadening of the talent available in the womens game, but I think the real difference is there is both more institutional support for WCBB across all schools and a much better pool of coaches in the game. Not long ago ADs had no pressure to replace under performing WCBB coaches and there were a whole lot of really poor coaches getting paychecks. [/QUOTE]