My question wasn’t about #1 teams losing before the Elite 8; rather, about how much difference there really was in the #1 and #2 seeding. Though obviously, your point illustrates that, in a way. More specifically, was it more because the #1 road is easier than that of the #2 team? Of the #2 seeds that have lost out in the last three years, with the exception of OSU in ’05, it has been in the second round to MUCH lower seeded teams. Doesn’t really point to it being a more difficult road. What you’re saying only happened once in the last three years to OSU in '05. They were the only #2 team in the last three years who got knocked out in the Sweet Sixteen game. Example of what I meant would be Maryland, as the #2 seed, winning it in ’06. During the same year, every #2 team made it to play the #1 seed, except Ohio St. who lost in the second round to #8 Boston College, not in the Sweet Sixteen game. ’07 Season: the three #2 teams who didn’t make it to the Sweet Sixteen (Vandy, Maryland, and Stanford) they all lost in the second round. Not trying to disagree, maybe my thinking is off and why I posed the question but let's assume the highest seeds win each game, #1 sees #4 while #2 meets up with #3. What I meant was is there really that big a difference in playing the #3 or #4 team in any given bracket? On paper, that is.
Possible #3 seeds this year: Oklahoma, Cal, Duke, West Virginia Possible #4 seeds: Kansas State, Utah, Old Dominion, Notre Dame The 4s listed are 3rd in the Big 12, two Mid-Majors, and 4th in the Big East Think of it this way: The top ten in the women's game are leaps and bounds above the rest, generally. So, yes, I think there is a very big difference between playing that #3 vs the #4, but if this team is going to make it to the Championship, they should be able to beat anyone they encounter.
