I just have completed and posted a detailed analysis of the Women's Soccer Committee's decisions on #3 seeds for the NCAA Tournament. If you're interested, you can find it here. Teaser: Perhaps the Committee engaging in "seed balancing" among the top 4 conferences explains Southern California not getting at least a #3 seed?
So let’s review. USC had more than a credible profile to get a 2 and shoulda been a lock for a 3. Guess they’ll take the 4 seed and do their damndest to make the committee look like the total buffoons they are (which by the way will rob one of the two strongest teams in the country to get out of the sweet 16. UCLA and Santa Clara are in the same boat
I just have completed and posted a detailed analysis of the Women's Soccer Committee's decisions on #4 seeds for the NCAA Tournament. If you're interested, you can find it here. Teaser: All pretty mundane with three obvious #4 seeds and the fourth a "just pick one of them" from a group of 7 qualified and pretty indistinguishable teams.
I just have completed and posted a detailed analysis of the Women's Soccer Committee's decisions on at large positions for the NCAA Tournament. If you're interested, you can find it here. Teaser: This is the year in which the Committee made a clear demarcation between the top 5 "power" conferences and the other conferences. In a bit, I'll do a commentary on all the Committee's decisions this year, but from where I sit this is a watershed year.
I just have completed and posted the conclusion I take away from my detailed analyses of the Women's Soccer Committee's seeding and at large selection decisions for this year's NCAA Tournament. If you're interested, you can find it here. Teaser: If you believe teams that finish far down in their conference standings or don't make their conference's tournaments should not be playing in the NCAA Tournament, the Committee has given a resounding answer: If you're talking about teams from the top 5 conferences (i.e., the Power conferences), "WRONG."