- #1 seed, Long Beach State (26-1), Big West champion
- #2 seed, BYU (22-6), MPSF champion
- #3 seed, UCLA (24-7), at-large bid
- #4 seed, UCI (21-9), at-large bid
- #5 seed, Ohio State (23-5), MIVA champion
- #6 seed, Harvard (13-13), EIVA champion
- #7 seed, King (23-5), Conference Carolinas champion
- April 26, King (23-5) at Ohio State (23-5)
- May 1, Pauley Pavilion, UCLA:
- King/OSU winner v UCI (21-9)
- Harvard (13-13) @ UCLA (24-7)
- May 3:
- King/OSU/UCI winner v Long Beach State (26-1)
- Harvard/UCLA winner v BYU (22-6)
- May 5:
- semifinal winners
It is clear from the seedings that the NCAA committee was looking at regionalization and costs of travel rather than the best programs seeded the most fair. One could speculate that it is far cheaper for King to take a bus to Columbus, Ohio from Bristol, Tennessee than to fly King to Boston or fly Harvard to Bristol.
The second argument that supports this claim is the inclusion of UC Irvine over Hawai’i. It costs far less to bus Irvine to Los Angeles than to have the Rainbow Wahine fly into LAX.
Unfortunately, that is the NCAA’s only logical argument in this instance. Harvard’s RPI coming into the last week of play was in the 20s, whereas OSU was in the top 10 the entire season, yet Harvard has been seeded higher than Ohio State, forcing the two-time defending champs to play an additional match. Also, Hawai’i owns two wins over UCI, including a semifinal win in the Big West tournament.
I’m also thinking that the last thing the Big West and MPSF conference winners wanted was to play teams from their own conference in the national semifinals. One could have modified the halves to avoid this possibility.