Women’s March Madness Bracket Watch: UConn takes No. 2 seed behind South Carolina

Editor’s note: This article is part of the Bracket Central series, an inside look at the run-up to the men’s and women’s NCAA Tournaments, along with analysis and picks during the tournaments.

With 7.9 seconds left in the Big Sky tournament, sixth-seeded Montana, which had won only 14 games but had muscled into the championship game, took a lead against rival Montana State. The Grizzlies stifled a Bobcats inbounds play and looked ready to force a contested shot … but Marah Dykstra shot the gap, broke free for a look at the rim, Euro-stepped a help defender, missed, and then instantly put in her own miss just as the buzzer was sounded.

MARAH DYKSTRA.

FOR THE CHAMPIONSHIP.#All4One | #GoCatsGo pic.twitter.com/gkuo3vhUDz

— Montana State WBB (@MSUBobcatsWBB) March 12, 2025

This is what March is all about. There are two sides to every special moment, part of what makes this month so visceral. Every scream of triumph has opposing tears of frustration. It’s one of the most gripping and beautiful things in sports.

With the bracket auto-bids nearly complete, let’s take one more look at how things are shaping up ahead of Selection Sunday.

Who will be the No. 1 seeds?

The top question heading into this weekend is who will earn the four top seeds. It was a bigger question before the conference tournaments, and we have much more clarity now, but the actual seeding is interesting to examine.

I have UCLA as the top overall seed, and here’s why:

Even after losing for the first time all season, the selection committee still ranked UCLA No. 1 overall in its final Top 16 reveal late last month. Though the Bruins lost to their crosstown rival again in the regular season, UCLA finished by winning the Big Ten tournament and exacting revenge on those losses to USC.

If the selection committee didn’t drop UCLA after that first loss, I strongly doubt it would be removed from that top position now.

Similarly, South Carolina looks like a lock for the second No. 1 seed after putting together a dominant stretch to close the season. While consideration of head-to-head matchups should have an impact, looking back at that Top 16 reveal, the selection committee still had the Gamecocks ahead of Connecticut despite the Huskies’ victory in Columbia a week prior.

Since that reveal when South Carolina was seeded fifth overall, Dawn Staley’s team has beaten:

• Ole Miss (projected No. 3 seed)

• Kentucky (projected No. 4 seed)

• Vanderbilt (projected No. 7 seed)

• Oklahoma (projected No. 3 seed)

• Texas (projected No. 1 seed)

The Gamecocks won those five games by an average of 17.2 points — the closest was a 12-point win over Kentucky. South Carolina finished 16-3 in Quad 1 games and played the most Quad 1 games in the country, as well as finishing with the strongest strength of schedule.

Texas and USC, our third and fourth overall teams rounding out the No. 1 seed line, have fairly straightforward cases. Those cases are made even stronger by some of the struggles other teams in contention for No. 1 seeds faced, most notably Notre Dame.

Given how the selection committee has seemed to put less of an emphasis on head-to-head meetings, I doubt there’s a path for UConn to wind up a No. 1 seed. Also considering the overlapping back and forth of wins and losses between the top six teams, it makes head-to-head somewhat messier to parse through.

Quad 1 games aren’t everything, but they indicate the quality of wins that the selection committee will use this season.

Connecticut finished 6-3 in Quad 1 games, but every team I’ve projected will be on the No. 1 line has won 10 or more Quad 1 games. If the selection committee had put UConn ahead of South Carolina in that final reveal, which felt warranted, I could see the Huskies claiming a top spot. However, because that didn’t happen, it would mark a significant course change if the selection committee goes in a different direction now.

Who’s on the hosting bubble?

While the top seeds became more clear over the past week, the No. 4 seeds … those keep me up at night.

I feel pretty confident about the vast majority of the bracket, but the No. 4 through No. 6 seed lines are so muddied by the context of their individual seasons.

The top 14 teams, including Kentucky and North Carolina along with the top three seed lines, seem mostly set to me. After that is where it gets murky.

I wound up with Baylor and Alabama as the final two No. 4 seeds.

Let’s start with teams I don’t think will make the cut for hosting. Maryland, which I’m projecting as a No. 5 seed, has been undersold in value by the NET most of the season, largely because of its margin of defeat. The Terrapins are tied for the fifth-most Quad 1 wins with NC State and TCU. Closing the regular season with a win over Ohio State was significant and had me considering Maryland for the No. 4 seed line.

However, losing badly in its first game of the Big Ten tournament to Michigan seemed like a nail in the coffin for its hosting chances. Maryland was not placed in either of the selection committee’s Top 16 reveals.

Tennessee probably has the best resume for teams contending to host. However, losing to Georgia (Quad 4) and their unsteady play the last two weeks of the season made the Lady Vols look undeserving.

Kansas State also has been in similar territory the majority of the season and is a clear standout as the ninth overall team in the NET. But the Wildcats lost four games by double digits in their last 10 games. It can’t be overstated that Kansas State has missed star center Ayoka Lee, but the biggest lesson I learned last year is how much value the selection committee puts on a strong close to the season.

Who are the best teams when the bracket is built? Overall resumes matter, of course, but if a team’s resume doesn’t stack up in the final two weeks or so, it should expect to be seeded in line with what it’s recently put on the floor.

That’s why Baylor climbs to the No. 4 line. Since back-to-back losses at the end of January, the Bears are 11-2, with their only losses coming in close games to Big 12 champion TCU. While Baylor lacks signature nonconference wins, it has a valid case to be one of the top 16 teams because of the competitiveness it showed during conference play.

Expect Alabama to be the final host team, but the separation between the Crimson Tide and the No. 5 seed line is marginal. Beating LSU before Flau’jae Johnson’s injury puts them over the top and keeps them in hosting range. Alabama’s second-round loss in the SEC tournament to Florida wasn’t great, but it was tight, and it’s worth noting that was one of the Crimson Tide’s worst 3-point-shooting games on the season.

Last chance for bubble teams

As for who’s in and who’s out, I’ll have my eye on a couple of bubble spots:

• UNLV lost to San Diego State in the MWC tournament semifinals, adding a wrinkle as a team that had been projected to make the field as an auto-bid. The Rebels have a case as a bubble team, but they likely don’t have the juice without a Quad 1 win to make the Big Dance as an at-large team.

• Middle Tennessee is potentially in a similar position to UNLV, splitting the CUSA regular-season title after a blowout loss to Liberty. The Blue Raiders played a decent nonconference schedule but didn’t pick up the wins necessary to get off the bubble. If they don’t win the CUSA tournament, I’d expect Rick Insell’s team to be out.

• Watch Friday’s start to Ivy Madness as Princeton and Harvard face off. This is the biggest game remaining among bubble teams. The winner will earn a significant leg up for making the field. Given Richmond and the A-10’s bid-stealing, it’ll be tougher for the Ivy League to get three bids in the Big Dance.

The Bracket Central series is sponsored by E*Trade from Morgan Stanley.

The Athletic maintains full editorial independence. Sponsors have no control over or input into the reporting or editing process and do not review stories before publication.

(Photo of Te-Hina Paopao: Jacob Kupferman / Getty Images)