Women’s Sweet 16 without 2 top seeds - The Athletic

[BRS24]

Women’s Sweet 16 without 2 top seeds: A sign of parity, flawed teams or both?​

No. 1 seeds Stanford and Indiana lost early: Does that signal a change in women's hoops?

Losing in the second round shouldn’t be considered a failure. Upsets are no longer surprises in the women’s bracket.

theathletic.com

"Neither the Cardinal nor the Hoosiers expected to be the poster children for this tournament’s embrace of anarchy. Each team had a spectacular start to the regular season, picking up multiple quality nonconference wins — Stanford defeated Tennessee, Gonzaga, and FGCU, and Indiana knocked off the Lady Vols and North Carolina before Big Ten play. Both shot to the top of their conference standings. Both eventually peaked at No. 2 in the AP poll. But each suffered a loss in its regular-season finale and then in the semifinal round of their conference tournaments. Neither team was playing its best basketball heading into March."

Much of this is what has already been discussed in threads here.

 

[tigers4ever]

Yep, just a sad commentary on the seeding committee.

 

[TheFarmFan]

Yep, just a sad commentary on the seeding committee.

Huh? There was literally no one saying Indiana wasn't deserving of a 1 seed. No one.