Over the past five women’s tournaments, there have been just six upsets with a seed difference of at least eight lines. Last year alone, there were nine such upsets in the men’s tournament. No. 13-16 seeds in the women’s tournament have just 11 tournament wins since 1994, although No. 13 Wright State did advance past No. 4 Arkansas last year. Men’s teams seeded 13 or worse have won 53 games over that same span. They had five such wins last year.

“I’d love to say there’d be an easy solution to pull up some of these mid-majors,” said Debbie Antonelli, who analyzes men’s and women’s games for ESPN. “If they win and upset someone in the tournament, then they’ll get more exposure because they’ll play deeper into the tournament. But the way our game’s still evolving it’s going to be really hard for any of those teams to pull those upsets.”

It isn’t just the early rounds, either. Only two women’s teams seeded lower than No. 4 have made a Final Four appearance over the last decade: No. 5 Louisville in 2013 and No. 7 Washington in 2016. That’s a fraction of the nine lower seeded men’s teams — including three double-digit seeds — that made the Final Four in that span.

So why this discrepancy? The teams at the top of the women’s collegiate game — which often enjoy large institutional advantages over their smaller peers — are overwhelmingly better than an average Division I team, putting them on sturdier ground against weaker opponents. For example, after adjusting scoring and defensive efficiency for strength of schedule, South Carolina — a women’s No. 1 seed this season — is 45 net points per 100 possessions better than an average team, per Her Hoop Stats, a site that analyzes the women’s game.

The top team on the men’s side, Gonzaga, is just 33 net points per 100 possessions better than an average team, according to analyst Ken Pomeroy’s ratings. In fact, you’d have to slide down to fourth-seeded Maryland to find a women’s team that is comparable to Gonzaga. That means the top five teams in the women’s game this season are more dominant than the best team in the men’s game, a trend that often serves to make the women’s tournament more predictable.

At the same time, analysts point out, the women’s game has more contenders than it ever has. Five different schools — representing five different conferences — have won the past five national championships.

“If you go back even before the last decade you said okay it’s going to be Stanford, or it’s going to be Tennessee, or it’s going to be U-Conn.,” said Washington Mystics General Manager and Coach Mike Thibault, an analyst for ESPN’s tournament coverage. “But then Kim Mulkey went to Baylor and won it. The top teams still have the most talent, but that’s changing where they don’t go 10 [players] deep anymore. Maybe it’s seven deep. That’s why you have a Texas A&M winning it or an Oregon State going to the Final Four.”

On the court, where do lower seeds in the women’s tournament come up short? Shooting talent is perhaps the biggest differentiator. Teams on the No. 11 to No. 13 seed line in the men’s tournament are ranked, on average, 56th in the nation in effective field goal rate, a shooting metric that takes into account the added value of three pointers. The women’s teams that occupy those seeds rank around 90th in effective field goal rate, making surprises fueled by hot shooting harder to come by.

Even phenomenal individual players on lower-seeded teams — think Stephen Curry, who carried 10th-seeded Davidson to the Elite Eight in 2008 — haven’t often managed similar feats in the women’s event. Delaware’s Jasmine Dickey is the third-leading scorer in the country; she will face Maryland in College Park on Friday, with a chance to shoot No. 13 Delaware past the Terrapins. But to do it, she will have to overcome both a pro-Maryland crowd and a deep Maryland roster that’s overflowing with talent.

“That’s a perfect example to look at: a player who is one of the top five scorers in the country, right?” Antonelli said. “Incredible skill set, playing for a wonderful coach inside a wonderful program, elected to stay and not take the transfer portal option, and now she’s going to get a chance to go up against Maryland. She’s going to put the theory to the test.”

Lower-seeded men’s teams also benefit from the existence of strong mid-major schools and conferences, exposing a greater number of teams to elite competition. Just this season, Houston (of the American Athletic Conference), Saint Mary’s (West Coast), San Diego State (Mountain West), Gonzaga and San Francisco (West Coast) and Murray State (Ohio Valley) claimed spots among the top 25 most efficient men’s teams. Only South Dakota State (Summit League) and Florida Gulf Coast (Atlantic Sun) could say the same on the women’s side.

“It’s going to take time to catch up, commensurate with the men’s game 25 years ago,” Thibault said. “The problem is if you’re a mid-major now and have one great player, there aren’t enough other good players surrounding her.”

The dominant teams on the women’s side are also don’t have to concern themselves with one-and-done players heading to the pros. Instead, they can stockpile talent over four years and widen their advantage while weathering attrition. For example, Connecticut lost reigning national player of the year Paige Bueckers for nearly three months to a left knee injury yet still steamrolled its competition, going 15-4 without the sophomore all-American and outscoring opponents by 30 net points per 100 possessions.

Meantime, Duke, Arizona, Purdue, Gonzaga and Auburn, teams seeded No. 1, 2 or 3 on the men’s side, each have a player projected to be taken near the top of the NBA draft — and all five of those players are freshmen or sophomores. If they stayed in school the full four years, it’s possible their teams would develop into the kind of powerhouse that dominates the women’s game.

College stars can now brand themselves using their name, image and likeness for profit, which could create its own set of challenges. If there are greater promotional opportunities for players with the most prominent programs and the women’s basketball rich get richer, the gap between the top teams and everyone else could grow even wider.

On the other hand, three double-digit seeds pulled first-round upsets in last year’s women’s tournament. And with television ratings and interest rising, and pressure from Congress and the public to address the inequity in financial support between the men’s and women’s tournaments, analysts say the sport is moving in the right direction.

“Our game is great. The product is the narrative,” Antontelli said. “I’ve been saying that all year. I wish more people would grab onto that, or gravitate to it, because I think that’s the solution. Our product is as good as it’s ever been.”