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.

 

[southie]

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.

You make good points. But, all those 4 teams in this scenario are penalized. It's Texas and South Carolina who benefit (I think that's what you were implying overall). Still, Texas and LSU met twice this season. Texas and Vandy would have met twice had the conference tourney seeds gone chalk to the semi-finals. And, South Carolina and LSU did play twice. So, what does the committee do with LSU since they played Texas and South Carolina more than once? Revamping the rule still would force LSU to get paired with UConn or UCLA.

I'll never forget back in 2016 where Texas had a very good team and was having a tremendous season. And, our ceiling was the Final Four as UConn had a very special team that season and there was no way they weren't winning the title. But, because the PAC 12 had four teams among the Top 16 seeds, Arizona State was 'bumped" up and Texas drew the short straw and was paired with UConn as the 2-seed in the Bridgeport Regional. Our fans were devasted.

Until your team is impacted negatively as a result of the committee's intra-conference "rules", you don't realize the consequences.

 

[Puppy Love]

You make good points. But, all those 4 teams in this scenario are penalized. It's Texas and South Carolina who benefit (I think that's what you were implying overall). Still, Texas and LSU met twice this season. Texas and Vandy would have met twice had the conference tourney seeds gone chalk to the semi-finals. And, South Carolina and LSU did play twice. So, what does the committee do with LSU since they played Texas and South Carolina more than once? Revamping the rule still would force LSU to get paired with UConn or UCLA.

I'll never forget back in 2016 where Texas had a very good team and was having a tremendous season. And, our ceiling was the Final Four as UConn had a very special team that season and there was no way they weren't winning the title. But, because the PAC 12 had four teams among the Top 16 seeds, Arizona State was 'bumped" up and Texas drew the short straw and was paired with UConn as the 2-seed in the Bridgeport Regional. Our fans were devasted.

Until your team is impacted negatively as a result of the committee's intra-conference "rules", you don't realize the consequences.

This was the view from my section in Bridgeport in 2016. 😆 My sister lives outside San Antonio and I sent her this photo.

 

[Puppy Love]

@southie - Sorry, I tried to edit to take out the emoji as I realized it might seem rude (didn’t mean it that way), but it wasn’t happening.

 

[USMC(ret)]

Credit to Coach Caldwell for shouldering the blame for the dismal season after the early exit from the NCAA tournament. Wish her the best going forward.

 

[UConnCat]

Not sure if this is referring to an asst possibly leaving Tenn for Rutgers or players announcing plans to enter the portal when it opens.

 

[Centerstream]

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!

Any team that is on a 7 game losing streak when the commitee selects, which means they haven't won a game in March or in the last two weeks of February, does not belong in any NCAA tournament. The committee is rewarding a really, really bad team.
Give teams from other conferences a chance to lose in the first round.
If they can make specific rules regarding who can play who in certain rounds, make rules about winning and losing and making the tournament.

 

[HuskyFan1125]

IMO the situation at Tennessee is just roster management. Tennessee is a top school and can draw top players. However it has to be players that will fit into their coaches style of play. I think that is the issue here. Caldwell so much as mentioned that in her presser about changing things in January. She just has to recruit her players that will work in her system which may not always be a selection of top 25 players. But that’s just me. I think she can regroup in the off season.

 

[my2cents]

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

No team that has lost it's last 7 games ( now 8) should be in the tournament regardless of SOS or any other parameter.

 

[Bone Dog]

IMO the situation at Tennessee is just roster management. Tennessee is a top school and can draw top players. However it has to be players that will fit into their coaches style of play. I think that is the issue here. Caldwell so much as mentioned that in her presser about changing things in January. She just has to recruit her players that will work in her system which may not always be a selection of top 25 players. But that’s just me. I think she can regroup in the off season.

Agree, and disagree. Top recruits are still drawn to Tennessee and that’s important. And you’re right that roster management seems to have been the problem. But if Kim recruits to fit her ‘system’, if that’s what it is, then they will never make it back to the top ranks. That system is ad hoc at best. It’s what you do when you’re rebuilding at a new school. It’s not something you can build a team culture around. It’s definitely not a style of play you aim to sustain.

I was impressed by how well she’d recruited for this season and thought it meant she could abandon the ‘hockey style’ baloney. And there were signs she might be thinking about it given Cooper’s and Spearman’s minutes. But in the end she mainly stuck with it and the team collapsed.

If she gets another season, she should take it as an opportunity to retool her approach. She has the players — assuming they all stay — to build a winning season and be competitive. She’s still a front court and a couple of years from climbing back into the top ten. But she can’t squander the talent she’s assembled in this same way again.

 

[BRS24]

NGL, this is a little confusing ?

 

[WBBTakeover]

Kim Caldwell is killing their brand. This isn't just a basketball issue. It's a perception issue. Her character flaws are becoming more noticeable every time she opens her mouth to speak. This is not a salvageable situation, IMO.

I thought that they could wait it out another year, but now--I'm not so sure. They may need to cut bait and hire a coach (Tammi Reiss?) who is mature, accomplished, and possesses the right traits (charisma, empathy, passion) to help the program rebuild its tattered brand sooner rather than later.

 

[EricSD]

Kim's comments are complete hogwash. By abandoning the hockey line substitutions, she also "had to" abandon the full court press? Ridiculous and ignorant.

UConn full court presses for much of the game and could go longer if needed, but scores are usually so far out of reach in half 2 that it makes no sense to do that. She does NOT need to sub literally every 2 minutes. She could do 5 minute stretches. Back in Vivian Stringer's days, Rutgers would unleash "40 minutes of hell" and press the entire game without resorting to Kim's gimmick defense.

There are articles out there that talk about the Tennessee practices putting the track team practices to shame (meaning they are intense and fast paced etc.). These are 18-22 year-olds and if they are in great shape, it's totally possible to play intense full court press even if you leave your line in longer.

And as far as identity goes, she never REALLY was committed to the system. Sure she hockey lined for much of the season, but her other coaching "strategy" was to reward players from line 2 who played well to be starters next game, and demote players from line 1 to come off the bench. Crazy. How does that work in practices for chemistry? How good would UConn be if there was no consistency with our starters being on the floor in practice together?

Basically, though, she's saying she doesn't know how to coach a team other than her method that worked in Division II. As someone said here, there's a reason literally NO OTHER top team coaching staff uses this gimmick of a coaching strategy.

By the way did anyone catch one of the freshmen on the bench when a Tennessee player (maybe Spearman) was driving to the basket midway thru Q4? She went one on 3 into traffic, spun left, right, left, right, and traveled. Then the camera pans to the bench and the player says "What t#e f ***? Pass the ball!!"

Abandoning the gimmick defense had zero to do with her inability to teach anything resembling offense. It harkened back to the old Pat strategy - recruit athletes, play one on one basketball, jack up a shot, and crash the boards. THAT is not a strategy of success, but Caldwell puts the blame in the wrong place. She blames abandoning her scheme when she should have talked about her inability to teach any kind of coherent offense.

 

[GoChips20]

IMO the situation at Tennessee is just roster management. Tennessee is a top school and can draw top players. However it has to be players that will fit into their coaches style of play. I think that is the issue here. Caldwell so much as mentioned that in her presser about changing things in January. She just has to recruit her players that will work in her system which may not always be a selection of top 25 players. But that’s just me. I think she can regroup in the off season.

I’ve seen this a lot and I don’t understand what about this year’s roster was ill-suited for her system. Cooper seems like a premier fit for a high-speed pressing lineup with her length and athleticism and Barker/Spearman are mobile bigs who can handle that better than most 4s/5s. To me the wrong style of player would be a Tess Darby type. I genuinely do want to understand if there was a style misfit because all I can think of is that they weren’t a great shooting team

 

[BRS24]

IMO, a high volume pressing team needs a few things - athleticism, bit of speed, and most importantly, an understanding of how, when, and where to press. If A happens, then B, if not, then C, etc, etc. The entire team needs to work in unison. UConn defenders are usually on the same page with pressing, where TN last night seemed to be, let's do it and if it doesn't work, peel off.

 

[Geew1992]

I’ve seen this a lot and I don’t understand what about this year’s roster was ill-suited for her system. Cooper seems like a premier fit for a high-speed pressing lineup with her length and athleticism and Barker/Spearman are mobile bigs who can handle that better than most 4s/5s. To me the wrong style of player would be a Tess Darby type. I genuinely do want to understand if there was a style misfit because all I can think of is that they weren’t a great shooting team

I think it’s that they are all the same type of player. Part of the system is shooting 3s, and a lot of them, yet none of them are 3 point shooters. There’s zero leadership. They don’t pass the ball well.

Darby may not have the speed but she could shoot the 3. And they were a way better team with her last year.