The top four issues facing the 2021 NCAA women’s basketball tournament selection committee

Last year, we lost not only the NCAA women’s tournament, but also the intrigue that the Monday squad brings. It is exciting to know that in less than 24 hours we will have a key in hand for the 2021 women’s basketball tournament and the games scheduled in San Antonio.

All the debate and speculation that disappeared in an instant, 12 months ago, are back in full force. We can expect one of the NCAA’s most unpredictable tournaments.

But before that, the NCAA women’s selection committee continues to analyze all the data, games, criteria and impact of COVID-19. Many questions remain. Here are some of the most urgent ones with the arrival of Monday’s Team and the Special Women’s Team (ESPN / ESPN App, 7:00 pm Eastern time).

What will be the order of the eight best teams?

Competitively, this may be the most open tournament in years, as perhaps eight or nine teams can win the national championship. Stanford, UConn, Texas A&M, South Carolina, NC State, Maryland and Baylor have resumes worthy of a No. 1 seed.

There is usually a distinct cut at the top, one or two teams that stand out above a small group of the next best contenders. Last season, for example, the top finishers – Baylor, South Carolina, Maryland and Oregon – were clear when the 2020 tournament was canceled. At this point in 2019, five teams were in contention for the four No. 1 seeds. This year, all seven teams mentioned – and perhaps Louisville – have a legitimate claim.

Stanford seems to have the best overall curriculum. UConn has only one defeat and dominated the Big East just as the American did. South Carolina and Texas A&M still have the highest quality wins (15 and 11 wins in the top 50 on NET, respectively). But more questions than usual will have to be asked about No. 1 and No. 2 seeds as the selection committee finalizes the key.

Will the committee see the NC State curriculum as better than that of South Carolina? Does Maryland, with its regular Big Ten season and tournament titles, rank better than Texas A&M, which won the SEC regular season title but lost in the league tournament championship game? The SEC being the best rated conference on NET and the Big Ten, fourth, playing a role in decision making? Will Baylor’s Big 12 sweep and move to No. 3 on the NET to help Lady Bears get past the rest of the competition?

The answers will be apparent in Monday’s spread.

How will the committee assess the impact of the coronavirus on the season?

Some coaches lost games due to COVID-19. Some teams have had long breaks in their seasons. Other teams had shorter intervals related to the coronavirus, but returned to play with little preparation time. And Stanford took a trip that lasted more than two months.

There is no denying that the pandemic has affected coast-to-coast programs. And we don’t even know the extent of how things were affected behind the scenes, whether it was the anxiety of playing during a pandemic, training with just a handful of players, or late departures for road trips while the teams waited for test results.

Much of the impact of the coronavirus is immeasurable. How does the committee take this or all of this into account?

In accordance with all indications from the first two revelations, the committee will evaluate the teams in the most objective way possible. They will be assessed for their game on the court using the 14 established criteria. Talent availability is one of those items and will likely be closely scrutinized when resumes are similar.

In a normal season, the process is about the games, the results, how the teams played and who they defeated. That will still be the focus.

What to do with the bubble?

Not all bubbles are created equal. Although all bubble teams in each season have flaws – they wouldn’t be in the bubble if they didn’t – in some seasons the bubble teams are stronger than others. This is not one of those years. With no Ivy League participants and no state of Ohio – which would have been a tournament team had it not been for a self-imposed post-season ban – essentially two more spots have been opened.

That alone softened the bubble, making the committee dig deeper to find 64 teams. Add to that that many teams played fewer games and that midfielders had fewer opportunities to show up and we have a bubble that has Power 5 conference teams with records of or around 0.500 – Washington State, Wake Forest, Mississippi State , Notre Dame, Ole Miss, Oklahoma – or others with a profound shortage of quality wins (UCF, BYU, Seton Hall, Houston).

Ole Miss showed something by defeating Kentucky (twice), Arkansas and Alabama last month, but the rebels were still 4 to 10 in the SEC season and 11 to 11 overall. This is hard to ignore.

I have DePaul on the pitch and I don’t feel very good about it. The Blue Demons have lost four of their last five games, one of which went to Butler, who is in 276th place on NET.

But are the other options noticeably better? The answer is no. When assessing their strengths and weaknesses, most of these teams end up looking the same. The committee has to choose between them and find the four inside. It hasn’t been easy in the past two months. It won’t be easy in the next few hours either.

How much will it affect the total number of games played on a team’s curriculum?

Oregon State and Rutgers came out of long layoffs and played very well, but the COVID-19 breaks left them with fewer games – 17 for Castors and 18 for Scarlet Knights – than most teams.

South Florida (21 games) and Michigan (19) also had long breaks and were not as good after them. Having fewer games gives the committee less to evaluate, along with how the team played after their break. During the first revelation of the first 16 in mid-February, the indication was that having less to look at harmed these teams. Now that more games have been played – but still not as many as a team like Stanford (27) or South Carolina (26) – will the discrepancy matter so much?

The way the Scarlet Knights and Beavers are sown will contain the answer to that question.

Rutgers probably hurt his chance of getting into the top four more by losing to Iowa in the Big Ten tournament than in just 18 games. But after seeing that 73-62 defeat against the Hawkeyes, I can’t help wondering if the Scarlet Knights’ assessment would have been more complete if they hadn’t lost games against Maryland, Michigan and Indiana.

Oregon State played a non-conference game. A team like the state of South Dakota – designed for 9th place, as well as the Beavers in our final bracket – played with nine. This kind of discrepancy must be resolved.