Women's college basketball debate: Who will earn the NCAA Tournament final No. 1 seed?

The Athletic’s debate series features two writers breaking down a specific topic. In this edition, Chantel Jennings and Sabreena Merchant debate which teams should earn the No. 1 seeds in the NCAA Tournament.

Sabreena Merchant: Over the last seven NCAA Tournaments (what I would consider the current era after UConn’s four-peat), at least two No. 1 seeds have made the Final Four every year. Three of the top seeds made the national semifinals in three seasons. Suffice it to say, in addition to validating a team’s regular-season resume, there is predictive value in earning a No. 1 seed on Selection Sunday.

As we look ahead to the reveal of the bracket, arguably the most consequential decision is which four seeds will top each region and which will battle for the last No. 1 seed.

Chantel Jennings: It seems like the No. 1 overall seed and the fourth No. 1 seed are both up for debate. But let’s start with the créme de la créme. When it comes to the No. 1 overall seed, last season, this was a moot point. It went to the undefeated SEC champions South Carolina, which — unsurprisingly — won the national title.

This year? Not so fast. I think South Carolina has the resume to be there, but it seems like — especially with its come-from-behind victory in the Big Ten tournament title game — so does UCLA.

Merchant: To me, this isn’t actually a conversation.

Jennings: Oh, well, this was shorter than anticipated then.

Merchant: The Bruins were the top overall seed in each of the NCAA’s top-16 seeding reveals, and since then, they’ve added a win over crosstown rival USC (which will be another No. 1 seed). That Big Ten tournament championship win would seemingly balance out the prior loss to the Trojans, leaving UCLA in the same spot as before. When you also consider that the Gamecocks were a No. 2 seed in that last reveal, there is too much ground for South Carolina to make up.

Jennings: Fair points. Now I remember why I dislike arguing with you.

But, since the last reveal, South Carolina has gone 4-0 against Quad 1 opponents, and the Bruins have gone 4-1. This might come down to how much emphasis the 12-member committee puts on recency. Yes, the Bruins have that win over the Trojans, but they also have a loss in which they looked … befuddled? Lesser than? Unimpressive enough that it knocked them out of the No. 1 AP spot? You were there in person, which adjective best fits?

Merchant: Dispiriting.

Jennings: Ah, yes, the exact word you think of with the No. 1 overall seed. Committee members can take eye-test into account too, so I don’t think it’s out of the question to look back at the most recent loss (for UCLA: less than two weeks ago; for South Carolina: also dispiriting/unimpressive loss … but a month ago). So, perhaps this comes down to how much the committee is swayed by recency?

Merchant: The Gamecocks certainly hope recency plays a large role because their loss to UConn was more egregious than either of UCLA’s defeats, and that’s before we get to South Carolina falling to the Bruins back in November, when the Gamecocks were essentially noncompetitive after the first quarter.

Jennings: Yikes on a bike, as our podcast pal Zena Keita would say … I think it’s worth noting that South Carolina, which had been a No. 1 seed in the committee’s first reveal, dropped to the two-line in the committee’s second reveal after that UConn loss (and they had only picked up wins over Arkansas, Vandy and Ole Miss). So, it appears recency had its say in that argument.

Since that second reveal, South Carolina has wins over Top 25 teams like Kentucky, Oklahoma and Texas — all of which are likely to host in the opening rounds. So, does that recency show up the same way for the bracket selection? It might. And if so, I wonder how that will impact the final No. 1 overall seed because it might come down to a UConn versus Texas debate.

Merchant: Agreed, both of us believe that the Trojans will be the third No. 1 seed, which leaves one spot for either the Huskies or the Longhorns. Given my contention that the overall body of work matters more than one loss in the final week of the regular season, I think Texas will be excused for its loss to South Carolina in the SEC final, which will be classified as a neutral site but was basically a road game. The Longhorns have nine more Quad 1 wins than UConn, which should give them the edge here.

Jennings: UConn’s strength of schedule (No. 54 nationally) is definitely its downfall in this argument, but even so, the Huskies rank No. 1 in the NET. The teams have only one common opponent: South Carolina. As we’ve already stated: UConn ran the Gamecocks out of their own gym, while the Longhorns squeaked by on their home court. I can understand the committee leaning toward Texas on this one given the massive discrepancy in Quad 1 wins. But, if the committee goes with UConn in that final position, it indicates that how a team finished the season held more weight than other factors, which could hint at how the committee will consider potential at-large bids or seeding positions that will be revealed later in the show.

(Also, isn’t it fun trying to guess what 12 different people are thinking and valuing and how they’re weighing those factors? Sports!)

Merchant: The committee has already shown us what it values, at least in terms of this specific pairing. The second seeding reveal came after UConn and Texas had defeated South Carolina, and the Longhorns were four spots ahead of the Huskies then. Based on that precedent, UConn’s romp through the Big East tournament shouldn’t be enough to vault it into a No. 1 seed.

Jennings: Ultimately, this might not matter that much because with the committee seeding on an S-curve, Texas and UConn would most likely still be placed in the same region and could meet in the Elite Eight either way (which, frankly, is a pretty favorable matchup for the Huskies if they’re knocking down 3s).

Merchant: In a sense, that’s true. But also, other than LSU in 2023, it has been 14 years since a non-No. 1 seed won the title (Texas A&M in 2011), so there is something to it!

(Photo: Eakin Howard / Getty Images)