- Joined
- May 8, 2002
- Posts
- 403,347
- Reaction score
- 43
Two years ago, as the universe was just falling in love with Caitlin Clark, we trained our statistical model, Slingshot, on the women’s NCAA Tournament for the first time. And an obsession of a different kind set Slingshot’s spreadsheets aflutter. (Or maybe it was our heartstrings — our model doesn’t vibrate.)
We found multiple teams playing the same kinds of high-risk/high-reward styles characteristic of past Cinderellas on the men’s side — and a bunch of them won! In 2023, three squads seeded 11th or lower, including Florida Gulf Coast, Slingshot’s favorite giant-killer, pulled off first-round upsets. Two No. 1 seeds fell in the second round. A No. 3 seed, the lowest ever, won the national title. That team (LSU) was the fifth different champion in the past five tournaments. And like a weatherman taking credit for sunshine, we were happy to explain these upsets as leading the way toward a new era of parity and tournament turbulence in the traditionally top-heavy women’s game.
Sigh.
Last year’s tournament was extremely chalky, and this spring, the big dance might as well be taking place on the White Cliffs of Dover. It’s not just that three No. 1 seeds (plus a team that should have been one) are playing in the Final Four. It’s that over the past three weeks, long shots were barely able to catch their breath before getting blown off the court.
Teams seeded 11th through 16th — meaning those playing in what we call first-round “bracket breaker” matchups against opponents seeded at least five slots higher — went a stunning 0-24. And they were outscored by a ginormous average of 30.9 points per game. That margin is 48 percent bigger than it was two years ago. And it means the bottom third of the entire women’s bracket was as uncompetitive as No. 1 vs. No. 16 seeds in the men’s game this year.
To be fair to ourselves, we looked at the powerhouse numbers posted by the top teams and the unfortunate matchups that many lower seeds were facing and warned you early that the potential for upsets was low this time around.
And though we tried to compile as many reasons as we could to maintain a rooting interest in 2025’s deep underdogs — FGCU’s 3-point shooting, Montana State’s talent for forcing turnovers, Fairfield’s efforts to escape the No. 13 seed line — none of them made any real difference, or even threw a scare into a favorite. The gaps in size, speed and shooting between opponents, over at least the first two rounds of this tournament, were just too great for long shots to overcome with strategy or for giants to forfeit through occasional poor play.
Two teams that pulled off second-round wins against slightly higher seeds show just how stratified the women’s game is at this moment. No. 5 seed Ole Miss beat No. 4 seed Baylor despite shooting just 37.3 percent because Mississippi grabbed 16 offensive rebounds and forced 21 turnovers, which meant it was able to take a dozen more shots from the field.
But these possession-building tactics, which Slingshot sees as crucial for underdogs, could not save Ole Miss against first-seeded UCLA. The Rebels again grabbed more of their own missed shots, snagged more steals and amassed more field goal attempts. But they could not stop Lauren Betts from putting up 31 points on 15-of-16 shooting, and they lost by 14.
Meanwhile, Slingshot saw misjudgment in the matchup between No. 5 seed Kansas State, which our model ranked as the ninth-best team in the nation, and No. 4 seed Kentucky, rated 20th by Slingshot. But after the Wildcats from Manhattan did win that game, they ran into USC, which Slingshot estimated was 6.6 points per 100 possessions better than Kansas State. The Trojans won by 6.
After the second round, there weren’t any more bracket-breaker matchups for us to analyze. But our numbers and these results teach a basic lesson: Right now, the very best women’s teams are truly great, and the two dozen or so that trail them not only line up in fairly clear order but with fairly clear steps between them.
In this year’s tournament, teams seeded higher than their opponents have won a whopping 85 percent of their games (51-9). And if you predicted winners by simply lining teams up according to Slingshot’s basic power rankings and choosing the ones rated higher for each contest, you’d be in the 99th percentile of brackets. This is great news for our model but terrible for upsets.
So where is the parity — and chaos — that pundits, coaches and fans have all been expecting? It’s coming, but right now, it’s the programs that are already the strongest that are gaining most from the rising talent, interest and revenues in women’s college hoops.
We all should probably have seen this coming a little more clearly. After all, the top teams have the best records, strongest recruiting and most access to financial resources. And NIL and the transfer portal often encourage the best players to move to better teams, as we are seeing in the men’s game, where the effects are intensified by the cash available to football-enriched SEC schools.
In this new era, at least initially, national championship contenders are pulling farther ahead of the pack, and most teams outside the top 40 aren’t yet net winners. When Ivy League Player of the Year Kaitlyn Chen wanted to transfer from Princeton, she went to UConn. And as Paige Bueckers prepares to graduate, the best freshman in the country, Sarah Strong, is already playing for … UConn.
Eventually, enough programs will emerge, riding new players and energized fan bases, to challenge the favorites and level the playing field. Last year, TCU was so wracked by injuries that the team famously held walk-on tryouts during the season. The Horned Frogs then rebuilt so speedily, primarily through adroit transfer signings, that they skipped the phase of being a tournament underdog and landed a No. 2 seed this year.
Aaliyah Chavez, a high school point guard from Lubbock, Texas, who is the country’s No. 1 recruit, is going to play for Oklahoma, not Texas, Baylor or UConn. Talent will really disperse as and when new epicenters of women’s basketball culture develop and local spending follows. One thing that hasn’t changed is that even the very best or richest programs can still award only 15 scholarships a year.
None of this is great news if you love upsets, though. And it’s particularly grim for mid-majors hoping to build gradually toward tournament appearances and occasional wins. (Like the Ivy League, which sent a record three teams to the dance this spring, none of which made it past the first round.)
But, outside the range of Slingshot’s hearing, we will admit that it does make for fantastic Elite Eights and Final Fours. And, of course, we will keep our model revved until the women’s bracket is ready to quake again.
This article originally appeared in The Athletic.
UCLA Bruins, South Carolina Gamecocks, Connecticut Huskies, Texas Longhorns, Women's College Basketball, Sports Betting, Women's NCAA Tournament
2025 The Athletic Media Company
Continue reading...
We found multiple teams playing the same kinds of high-risk/high-reward styles characteristic of past Cinderellas on the men’s side — and a bunch of them won! In 2023, three squads seeded 11th or lower, including Florida Gulf Coast, Slingshot’s favorite giant-killer, pulled off first-round upsets. Two No. 1 seeds fell in the second round. A No. 3 seed, the lowest ever, won the national title. That team (LSU) was the fifth different champion in the past five tournaments. And like a weatherman taking credit for sunshine, we were happy to explain these upsets as leading the way toward a new era of parity and tournament turbulence in the traditionally top-heavy women’s game.
Sigh.
Last year’s tournament was extremely chalky, and this spring, the big dance might as well be taking place on the White Cliffs of Dover. It’s not just that three No. 1 seeds (plus a team that should have been one) are playing in the Final Four. It’s that over the past three weeks, long shots were barely able to catch their breath before getting blown off the court.
How this year played out: Chalky
Teams seeded 11th through 16th — meaning those playing in what we call first-round “bracket breaker” matchups against opponents seeded at least five slots higher — went a stunning 0-24. And they were outscored by a ginormous average of 30.9 points per game. That margin is 48 percent bigger than it was two years ago. And it means the bottom third of the entire women’s bracket was as uncompetitive as No. 1 vs. No. 16 seeds in the men’s game this year.
To be fair to ourselves, we looked at the powerhouse numbers posted by the top teams and the unfortunate matchups that many lower seeds were facing and warned you early that the potential for upsets was low this time around.
And though we tried to compile as many reasons as we could to maintain a rooting interest in 2025’s deep underdogs — FGCU’s 3-point shooting, Montana State’s talent for forcing turnovers, Fairfield’s efforts to escape the No. 13 seed line — none of them made any real difference, or even threw a scare into a favorite. The gaps in size, speed and shooting between opponents, over at least the first two rounds of this tournament, were just too great for long shots to overcome with strategy or for giants to forfeit through occasional poor play.
Two teams that pulled off second-round wins against slightly higher seeds show just how stratified the women’s game is at this moment. No. 5 seed Ole Miss beat No. 4 seed Baylor despite shooting just 37.3 percent because Mississippi grabbed 16 offensive rebounds and forced 21 turnovers, which meant it was able to take a dozen more shots from the field.
But these possession-building tactics, which Slingshot sees as crucial for underdogs, could not save Ole Miss against first-seeded UCLA. The Rebels again grabbed more of their own missed shots, snagged more steals and amassed more field goal attempts. But they could not stop Lauren Betts from putting up 31 points on 15-of-16 shooting, and they lost by 14.
Meanwhile, Slingshot saw misjudgment in the matchup between No. 5 seed Kansas State, which our model ranked as the ninth-best team in the nation, and No. 4 seed Kentucky, rated 20th by Slingshot. But after the Wildcats from Manhattan did win that game, they ran into USC, which Slingshot estimated was 6.6 points per 100 possessions better than Kansas State. The Trojans won by 6.
After the second round, there weren’t any more bracket-breaker matchups for us to analyze. But our numbers and these results teach a basic lesson: Right now, the very best women’s teams are truly great, and the two dozen or so that trail them not only line up in fairly clear order but with fairly clear steps between them.
In this year’s tournament, teams seeded higher than their opponents have won a whopping 85 percent of their games (51-9). And if you predicted winners by simply lining teams up according to Slingshot’s basic power rankings and choosing the ones rated higher for each contest, you’d be in the 99th percentile of brackets. This is great news for our model but terrible for upsets.
So, what’s next for the women’s tournament with NIL and more
So where is the parity — and chaos — that pundits, coaches and fans have all been expecting? It’s coming, but right now, it’s the programs that are already the strongest that are gaining most from the rising talent, interest and revenues in women’s college hoops.
We all should probably have seen this coming a little more clearly. After all, the top teams have the best records, strongest recruiting and most access to financial resources. And NIL and the transfer portal often encourage the best players to move to better teams, as we are seeing in the men’s game, where the effects are intensified by the cash available to football-enriched SEC schools.
In this new era, at least initially, national championship contenders are pulling farther ahead of the pack, and most teams outside the top 40 aren’t yet net winners. When Ivy League Player of the Year Kaitlyn Chen wanted to transfer from Princeton, she went to UConn. And as Paige Bueckers prepares to graduate, the best freshman in the country, Sarah Strong, is already playing for … UConn.
Eventually, enough programs will emerge, riding new players and energized fan bases, to challenge the favorites and level the playing field. Last year, TCU was so wracked by injuries that the team famously held walk-on tryouts during the season. The Horned Frogs then rebuilt so speedily, primarily through adroit transfer signings, that they skipped the phase of being a tournament underdog and landed a No. 2 seed this year.
Aaliyah Chavez, a high school point guard from Lubbock, Texas, who is the country’s No. 1 recruit, is going to play for Oklahoma, not Texas, Baylor or UConn. Talent will really disperse as and when new epicenters of women’s basketball culture develop and local spending follows. One thing that hasn’t changed is that even the very best or richest programs can still award only 15 scholarships a year.
None of this is great news if you love upsets, though. And it’s particularly grim for mid-majors hoping to build gradually toward tournament appearances and occasional wins. (Like the Ivy League, which sent a record three teams to the dance this spring, none of which made it past the first round.)
But, outside the range of Slingshot’s hearing, we will admit that it does make for fantastic Elite Eights and Final Fours. And, of course, we will keep our model revved until the women’s bracket is ready to quake again.
This article originally appeared in The Athletic.
UCLA Bruins, South Carolina Gamecocks, Connecticut Huskies, Texas Longhorns, Women's College Basketball, Sports Betting, Women's NCAA Tournament
2025 The Athletic Media Company
Continue reading...
