SCHEDULE | INTERACTIVE BRACKET  Quarterfinal: Tuesday, Feb. 24 - 7 p.m. No. 6 Augsburg 56, No. 3 Concordia 50    | Box Score | Recap | No. 4 Saint Mary's 90, No. 5 Gustavus 58    | Box Score | Recap |   Semifinals: Thursday, Feb. 26 - 7 p.m. No. 1 St. Thomas 63, No. 6 Augsburg 39    | Box Score | Recap | No. 2 Bethel 72, No. 4 Saint Mary's 56    | Box Score | Recap | Championship: Saturday, Feb. 28 - 3 p.m.   No. 1 St. Thomas 65, No. 2 Bethel 51      | Box Score | Recap | Photos |

TEAMS AND LINKS                             Seed     Team  Overall    MIAC Links No. 1    St. Thomas  27-0   18-0   Team Page - Roster - Stats - Schedule No. 2   Bethel 21-6   14-4 Team Page - Roster - Stats - Schedule No. 3   Concordia 15-11   11-7   Team Page - Roster - Stats - Schedule No. 4   Saint Mary's 18-9   11-7   Team Page - Roster - Stats - Schedule No. 5   Gustavus 17-9   11-7   Team Page - Roster - Stats - Schedule No. 6   Augsburg 15-12   9-9   Team Page - Roster - Stats - Schedule

---

MIAC Women's Basketball Playoffs News

2.26.15 - Top seeds advance to set up Saturday's fitting MIAC Women's Basketball final
2.24.15 - No. 6 Augsburg's upset, No. 4 Saint Mary's offense highlights MIAC Playoff quarterfinals
2.21.15 - Undefeated St. Thomas headlines 2014-15 MIAC Women's Basketball Playoffs

---

MIAC Women's Basketball Links

| Website | Standings | Schedule | Statistics | News | Athletes-of-the-Week | Season Preivew | Recordbook | Archives |

---

MIAC Women's Basketball Playoff Seeding Tie Breakers (for top six teams and for placing top six)

1. Head to head competition ‐ winning percentage * against all teams tied.
2. Combined winning percentage* against all teams above those tied.
3. Winning percentage* against above teams beginning in rank order^.
4. Winning percentage* against teams below tied teams in descending order^.
5. Best road winning percentage*.
6. Coin flip.

*Winning percentage: When comparing records against a single team or a group of teams, the higher winning percentage shall prevail, even if the number of games played against the team or group are unequal. (Example: 2‐0 is better than 3‐1, but 2‐0 is not better than 1‐0).

^Rank order comparison: When arriving at another pair of tied teams while comparing records, use each team’s record against the collective tied teams as a group (prior to their own tie‐breaking procedure), rather than the performance against the individual tied teams. (Example: Team A and Team B tie for fourth place. Team C and Team D tie for second place. The Team C‐D tiebreaker is settled first using tiebreaker criteria. If the Team A‐B tiebreaker reaches the second‐place team(s) in Criteria No. 3, Team A and Bs record will be compared collectively against Teams C and D, not individually against the winner of the C‐D tiebreaker first.)