UNC women likely need big road wins to be NCAA tournament hosts

By R.L. Bynum

North Carolina heads into the new year in position to host first- and second-round games in the NCAA women’s tournament, but still with a lot of work ahead.

While ESPN’s Charlie Creme’s latest projection has the No. 16 Tar Heels (11–3, 0–1 ACC) as a No. 4 seed, which would mean hosting, their NET ranking of 20 would translate to a low No. 5 seed. Over the years, Creme has consistently projected that UNC would earn a higher seed than the selection committee gives the Tar Heels.

The NCAA tournament committee uses the NET rankings as one of its metrics to determine who makes the field and how to seed teams. NET rankings will fluctuate throughout the season, and the only quad designation that matters is where your opponents stand on Selection Sunday, not where they ranked when the game was played.


(Different criteria for each quadrant than those used for men’s basketball)
Quadrant 1 (UNC is 4–6): Home games against teams with a NET ranking of 25 or better, neutral-site games against teams ranked 35 or better, and road games against teams ranked 45 or better
Quadrant 2 (UNC is 91): Home 26–55, neutral 36–65, road 46–80
Quadrant 3 (UNC is 3–0): Home 56–90, neutral 66–105, road 81–130
Quadrant 4 (UNC is 10–0): Home 91 or lower, neutral 106 or lower, road 131 or lower



Subscribe for a cleaner, smoother reading experience without the flashing banners, slow-loading elements, or those especially annoying pop‑up ads that interrupt the flow of the story. You’ll also get the first version of each story emailed to you. The only ads you’ll see are static, non-intrusive ads for UNC‑related books, and there are none currently on the site.


Two factors working against UNC are its 0–3 record in Quad 1 games and the fact that all remaining four Quad 1 opportunities are on the road.

Carolina starts the new year with a Quad 3 noon home game on New Year’s Day against California (6–5, 0–1; NET ranking of 63).

UNC played No. 4 UCLA (11–1; 4) and No. 2 Texas (14–0; 3) tough for one half before letting those games get away. Despite not playing well, Carolina had a chance at a Quad 1 win in its ACC opener against No. 13 Louisville (12–3, 2–0; 13) before losing in overtime.

Carolina’s wins at the Cancun Challenge over Kansas State (7–7; 69) and Columbia (8–4; 70) were Quad 2 when the games were played, but have fallen to Quad 3. That leaves the Heels with only two Quad 2 wins: Fairfield (8–3; 41) in Las Vegas and South Dakota State (10–4; 47) in Cancun.

The Tar Heels’ only Quad 1 chance next month is Jan. 11 when they visit Notre Dame (9–2, 1–0; NET ranking of 16). The other three Quad 1 games are Feb. 2 at N.C. State (9–4, 2–0; 30), Feb. 15 at Duke (6–6, 1–0; 29) and Feb. 26 at Virginia (9–3, 1–0; 33).

UNC likely needs to split those four games at least to be an NCAA host.


UNC’s NCAA resume

NET ranking: 19
WAB ranking: 15 (6.17)
Average NET win: 103
Average NET loss: 27
NET strength of schedule: 44


UNC quad schedule breakdown

(Through Saturday games)

OpponentNET
ranking
Current quad
designation
Outcome
N.C. Central3164Win
Elon2114Win
(N) UCLA21Loss
(N) Fairfield532Win
At N.C. A&T2584Win
UNCG2764Win
(N) South Dakota State422Win
(N) Kansas State542Win
(N) Columbia582Win
At Texas41Loss
Boston University2874Win
Louisville121Loss
UNCW3294Win
Charleston Southern3314Win
Boston College2454Win
California522Win
Stanford442Loss
At Notre Dame211Loss
Miami573Win
At Florida State1083Win
At Georgia Tech752Win
Syracuse392Win
At N.C. State251Win
Clemson402Win
At Wake Forest1293Win
SMU2214Win
At Duke111Loss
At Virginia Tech412Win
Pittsburgh2344Win
At Virginia361Win
Duke111Win
(N) Virginia Tech412Win
(N) Louisville121Loss
Quad designations are according to the current NET rankings. The only designation that matters is the designation on Selection Sunday.

TeamLeagueOverallNET*WAB*
No. 13 Duke16–221–81013
No. 12 Louisville15–325–61310
No. 16 North Carolina14–425–61914
N.C. State13–520–92327
Syracuse12–622–74031
Virginia Tech12–622–84134
Notre Dame12–620–92423
Clemson11–720–104440
Virginia11–719–103649
California9–918–135360
Stanford8–1019–124256
Miami8–1016–135865
Georgia Tech7–1012–1776109
Florida State5–1310–20107138
Wake Forest4–1414–16121134
SMU2–169–21220209
Pittsburgh1–178–23262238
Boston College1–175–26247283

* — Through Sunday games
Thursday’s results
No. 16 North Carolina 82, Virginia 70
No. 12 Louisville 69, Georgia Tech 50
Notre Dame 72, Syracuse 62
Miami 79, Pittsburgh 58
N.C. State 65, Wake Forest 58
No. 13 Duke 80, Florida State 52
Stanford 87, SMU 57
Clemson 70, California 63
Sunday’s results
No. 16 North Carolina 74, No. 13 Duke 69
Virginia Tech 83, Virginia 82
Georgia Tech 79, Miami 49
N.C. State 93, Pittsburgh 43
Stanford 85, Clemson 50
Syracuse 90, Boston College 65
Notre Dame 65, No. 12 Louisville 62
Florida State 77, Wake Forest 74, OT
California 78, SMU 34
End of regular season
ACC tournament
Gas South Arena
Duluth, Ga.
March 4–8


TeamLeagueOverallNET*WAB*
No. 13 Duke16–221–81013
No. 12 Louisville15–325–61310
No. 16 North Carolina14–425–61914
N.C. State13–520–92327
Syracuse12–622–74031
Virginia Tech12–622–84134
Notre Dame12–620–92423
Clemson11–720–104440
Virginia11–719–103649
California9–918–135360
Stanford8–1019–124256
Miami8–1016–135865
Georgia Tech7–1012–1776109
Florida State5–1310–20107138
Wake Forest4–1414–16121134
SMU2–169–21220209
Pittsburgh1–178–23262238
Boston College1–175–26247283

* — Through Sunday games
Thursday’s results
No. 16 North Carolina 82, Virginia 70
No. 12 Louisville 69, Georgia Tech 50
Notre Dame 72, Syracuse 62
Miami 79, Pittsburgh 58
N.C. State 65, Wake Forest 58
No. 13 Duke 80, Florida State 52
Stanford 87, SMU 57
Clemson 70, California 63
Sunday’s results
No. 16 North Carolina 74, No. 13 Duke 69
Virginia Tech 83, Virginia 82
Georgia Tech 79, Miami 49
N.C. State 93, Pittsburgh 43
Stanford 85, Clemson 50
Syracuse 90, Boston College 65
Notre Dame 65, No. 12 Louisville 62
Florida State 77, Wake Forest 74, OT
California 78, SMU 34
End of regular season
ACC tournament
Gas South Arena
Duluth, Ga.
March 4–8

Photo courtesy of UNC Athletics

Leave a Reply