Tennessee 2025, part 2

[southie]

What I’ve really been considering is the impact that the sheer size of the SEC has on strength of schedule. Right now, Massey has SOS as Texas, South Carolina, UCLA, Tennessee and LSU. Oklahoma, Kentucky and Vanderbilt are in the top 15. I think this is something of a ‘rising tide carries all boats’ phenomena. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how tough the schedule is, teams still have to win the games. LSU played a cupcake non conference schedule but has 5 ranked wins (plus Duke, not ranked at the time). LSU get criticism on this board a lot, but they won meaningful games. Tennessee hasn’t. Personally, I think losing 9 of 11 games at the end of the season along with the rest of their body of work should keep them out. It probably won’t, but it should.

You make several good points. But, the use of a subjective word like "meaningful" stood out to me. Is that the exact word in the committee's guidelines? Or, are you using that word to describe Q1 wins? Tennessee is 5-11 in NET Q1 which include wins over Kentucky, Alabama, and Georgia. Those 5 wins are "meaningful".

• Those 5 wins are more than the 4 NET Q1 wins which TCU has and the Frogs are projected to host a sub-regional; TCU's strength of schedule is 154, while Tennessee's is 21
• Those 5 wins are more than the 3 NET Q1 wins which West Viriginia has and the Mountaineers are projected to host a sub-regional.
• Those 5 wins equal the number of NET Q1 wins which Minnesota has and the Gophers are projected to host a sub-regional; Minnesota's strength of schedule is 179, while Tennessee's is 21
• Those 5 wins are more than teams like North Carolina, Texas Tech and Georgia who are all projected to be seeded higher than Tennessee
• Those 5 wins are the same quantity as teams like Michigan State, Ole Miss, and Kentucky who are all projected to be seeded higher than Tennessee and borderline chances to host a sub-regional; all three of them have SOS greater than 118

I think several posters are spinning their personal dislike of Tennessee and ignoring the facts. Tennessee is in and will be no worse than a 9-seed, and most likely a 7-seed, IMO. They scheduled non-conference games like UCLA, Louisville, and NC State which is a much better trio than so many teams like LSU; committee will not punish them for scheduling "tough" despite losing those games.

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

The NET Nitty Gritty Report for 2026 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

 

[Gamecockfan77]

"completely fallen apart"

what record should a #30-35 team have had in those last 10 games?

I think they would've been favored in 3 games. They won 2.

I don't know.

Finishing on a seven game losing streak, losing 10/12, taking 2 of Tennessee's 3 worst losses in history, having your coach say the team quit and doesn't play hard, suspending and benching your best players seems pretty bad to me.

Even if you did beat Missouri at home in the midst of it.

 

[TheFarmFan]

I think the confusion here is that the committee selects based on "Body of Work", by which metric Tennessee is very clearly in, with 5 Q1 wins and very few losses to bad teams.

If the committee were picking based in "who's peaking in March" (which is how many fans fill out their brackets, since it's the best way to assess the likelihood of a deep tournament run), then I would agree that Tennessee doesn't belong and Stephen F. Austin would be a better candidate for an at-large bid!

 

[Bone Dog]

I think the confusion here is that the committee selects based on "Body of Work", by which metric Tennessee is very clearly in, with 5 Q1 wins and very few losses to bad teams.

If the committee were picking based in "who's peaking in March" (which is how many fans fill out their brackets, since it's the best way to assess the likelihood of a deep tournament run), then I would agree that Tennessee doesn't belong and Stephen F. Austin would be a better candidate for an at-large bid!

This.

 

[ucmiami2]

I think the confusion here is that the committee selects based on "Body of Work", by which metric Tennessee is very clearly in, with 5 Q1 wins and very few losses to bad teams.

If the committee were picking based in "who's peaking in March" (which is how many fans fill out their brackets, since it's the best way to assess the likelihood of a deep tournament run), then I would agree that Tennessee doesn't belong and Stephen F. Austin would be a better candidate for an at-large bid!

The committee does have a 'recency' bias built into their guidelines, initially based on the one 1-16 upset because two star players were injured pre-tournament, but updated more recently. January-March performance is more important, and Feb-Mar is significant. Regardless of schedule, a 7 game losing streak and 2-10 final stretch will be discussed. I still think they get in, but a 16-13 overall record will be close to a record for inclusion if it isn't an actual record. And an 8-9 record against conference teams (including the one and done tournament) will also be in record territory. Just as USC at 17-13, 9-10 with a weaker schedule is also recordish!

 

[DefenseBB]

With new 18 team super conferences, the committee needs to revamp some of their seeding protocols. Many teams will now only play a team in their conference one time, not 2 or 3 times. To scramble their 1-68 snake seeding to “avoid conference foes” due to familiarity no longer applies.

Which is more important: the teams that earned the top 4 seeds or the conference opponents who didn’t? Why would or should Vandy or LSU be rewarded to move their seeding in favor of the SEC and penalize UConn and UCLA? Rightfully or wrongly the Big 10 may get 10 or 11 bids. The SEC might get 10. So the current committee is bound by rules when good conferences might get 6 so rules were made to disperse the teams.

These schools already chose their money so stop rewarding them further…it is what it is and seed accordingly.