[chimera]

I've always thought the bad loss matters more than quality wins idea can be a problem when they use that for seeding.  I would seed a team with 3 top 15 wins and one loss to a decent but not really good conference team higher than a team with no top 15 wins and no losses or a team with no top 15 wins and a loss to a 15-25ish ranked team.  I would generally much prefer to face the team with the no top 15 wins than the one with three and a "bad" loss.  Playing one poor game against a team that got hot and losing is less indicative of quality than beating several top teams.  The polls get all messed up when they turn into who losses the least only.  Who has UConn beaten?  Even with the CO loss, we should be ahead of them.  I do agree this year it doesn't matter a whole lot the seeding.  Match-ups matter more, and of course good health, and in Stanford's case, the ability to practice like they want to and improve.

[chimera]

I've always thought the bad loss matters more than quality wins idea can be a problem when they use that for seeding.  I would seed a team with 3 top 15 wins and one loss to a decent but not really good conference team higher than a team with no top 15 wins and no losses or a team with no top 15 wins and a loss to a 15-25ish ranked team.  I would generally much prefer to face the team with the no top 15 wins than the one with three and a "bad" loss.  Playing one poor game against a team that got hot and losing is less indicative of quality than beating several top teams.  The polls get all messed up when they turn into who losses the least only.  Who has UConn beaten?  Even with the CO loss, we should be ahead of them.  I do agree this year it doesn't matter a whole lot the seeding.  Match-ups matter more, and of course good health, and in Stanford's case, the ability to practice like they want to and improve.