for fun, trace back the last 10 years and see how difficult their path was.
Considering that in half of those seasons they were undefeated (2010, 2014,2016, 2017, 2018) and in two more they had only one loss (2011 (the other #1 seeds had 2 losses) and 2015 (OT loss at Stanford, and they crushed everyone else)).
That means that you should only look at 2012 (Baylor, who was undefeated, had the easiest path, and they won), 2013 (Baylor, who had one loss, again had the easiest path, although the refs decided to make it more difficult for them...), and this year (You said of the #2 seeds, not overall, since Baylor once again has the easiest path).
So basically, in the last 10 years UConn has had the easiest path 7 times...when they were the overall #1 seed (in some years clearly so, going undefeated and winning all games by double digits).
Until the committee puts them in a bracket away from home they will keep an advantage. That said they will have to win over Louisville who beat them before, if both stay healthy it should be a close game.
The typical snake curve would end up with #1 versus (Baylor) versus number 4 (UConn or Louisville) and #2 (ND) versus #3. Unless I am reading it wrong, they have #1 versus #3 and #2 versus #4.
I understand moving some teams close to certain sites to sell tickets for the first few rounds -- need to pay the bills. IMO, makes no sense in the finals.
That's why 1. Baylor and #4 MSU are on one side and #2 ND and #3 Louisville are on the other.
The brackets aren't pre-set which regional faces the other, so the geographical component of their placement for 1 seeds doesn't effect the F4 matchup.
Louisville was slated as the second #1 in the last reveal. MSU was 6th on the list. Louisville lost to another #1 seed. I don't know why the ESPN "experts" thought that would drop them so far considering the rest of their resume. It has never cost ND a 1 seed in the past.
Creme is really where that narrative that Louisville took UConn's 1 seed. For all the patting on the back he's getting about the accuracy on his brackets he really failed at what is the most important part of the bracketology...the 1 seeds and their order. 3 out of 4 1 seeds and out of order from 3 to 5 is not impressive for a women's bracket.
not only ranked Louisville over UConn but also ranked Oregon over UConn?
My inference is that if MSU is the number four 1 seed, they must be in the same regional as the number one 2 seed, hence Oregon.
The G-curve takes precedence over the S-Curve when it comes to the 2s. As #2s, Oregon would always go to Portland and UConn would always go to Albany. That's why that talk of "if ND gets a #2, they won't go to Chicago" didn't make sense to me.
debate was Louisville versus UConn, not MSU versus UConn. Everyone was surprised Louisville stayed in the top four because they lost their conference championship.
G curving the 2s makes no sense. So, theoretically, the Number 1 could end up playing the 5 and the 4 could get the 8? Doesn't seem fair.
I know they mix the two, but how and why they did it this time is still unclear. Once ND was named the 2 and UConn was the 5, I assumed we would miss them until the finals. Not this time.
Louisville is the number three 1 seed and would play ND as the number two 1 seed if they both survive. Thus, even though UConn is the number one 2 seed and should be put into the region of the number four 1 seed (MSU) they end up in Albany.
That makes some sense but then why not send Louisville out West and put MSU in Albany and have the Western regional champ play the Chicago region champ (number two 1 seed vs number three 1 seed).
Seems to me they could've satisfied the S curve AND the G curve unless we have the seedings wrong.
Louisville as the 3rd 1 seed gets the benefit of the closer regional site over MSU