I agree that those GC teams were better. Greenfield would've struggled with the press. Same with the Bradford and Gleason 90s teams - especially Bradford's 1993, 1997, 1998 and 2000 teams and Gleason's 1996, 1998, 1999 (and 2006 teams). They would've beaten Greenfield by 8 out of 10 games, in my opinion because of the defensive intensity. Gleason had defensive specialists on the 98 and 99 teams (Valorie Todd, Melanie Green, Ashley McElhiney) that would've shut down down Tess and Chloe and no one would've stopped Ashley McElhiney from getting 30. She was just that good. Ashley, Michelle Street, Tonya Tuggles, Kara Sanders, Jessica Henson, and Kayla Hudson all had amazing careers that were as good as or better than Chloe or Tess. The grit and determination of those Bradford and Gleason teams was unparalleled and they made each other better.
I think the Chloe-Tess Greenfield teams were very good and one of the best. But, in my opinion not THE best. Just because they had 3 D1 players (assuming Edie goes D1) doesn't equate to them being better. The role players matter in this instance. And, just because they went D1 doesn't mean they're better than the players that went the NAIA route. Recruiting was different than it is now. The 1999 Gleason team had 2 D1 players and all five starters played collegiate basketball. That's a stacked team and I'd argue more talented than the Greenfield team. Same with those Bradford teams like 2000 - when two played D1at UTM and two went to Union to play for national championships. Jessica Henson, Tashekia Brown, Kara Sanders, and Kayla Hudson were all D1 capable players that decided to play for (and win several) national championships locally rather than play for a D1 school. There's no shame in that.
There's obviously no way to settle this, but that's my two cents.