The Committee's Selections

[schooner2]

Well, I'm a bit surprised. Rather boring setup in that Oklahoma will face Villanova for the second straight year in Norman. And, then OU would have to face Colorado if they both survived to the sweet 16 - which is possible given both CU and OU are playing on their home floors. Hmmmmmmmmm

[schooner2]

And George Washington came to Norman two years ago. Sure, I guess former matchups are not exactly first on the minds of the committee. It just would be nice to see some new teams that have never been to Norman before.

But of course this year is very different with OU being the underdog! Can't wait for the tipoff in 7 days.

[swok34]

ouch.......they are putting LSU, Texas and Stanford all together at Stanford..

[schooner2]

Hmm, some disrespect for the Big 12. KSU falls to a #3 seed. Why? Because they lost to a #2 seed twice late in the season. OOOOOHHHH, okay, that makes sense. NOT.

[schooner2]

And its big that Texas doesn't get a #1 seed because now they have to play on Cincy's home floor. Whereas LSU plays at Eugene and Oregon didn't even make the tourney. So LSU is not at a particular disadvantage except that Washington is relatively close to home.

[schooner2]

And no Baylor. The only ESPN bubble team not to make it. Big 12 just not given a lot of thought here. Maybe Baylor's non-conference schedule really hurting itself.

[Daddo]

And Baylor's left out, that's sad.

[swok34]

I think their pre-conference schedule hurt them....

they were sitting with a #61 RPI and 97 SOS.

But I'm really surprised at Miami, FL out of the Big East...
they are #67 RPI and #79 SOS and if I'm not mistaken, the 7th Big East team in. I'm not familiar with the Big East outside of Conn, Rutgers, Villanova and Boston College.....but 7 bids, that doesn't look right...that's as many as the SEC, the #1 conference.

[Go Buffs]

Bummer for Baylor. I agree that it is their non-conference schedule that really hurt them. They will be in the tournament next year though.

[spooky]

Miami is the one bubble team i might argue that Baylor should have bumped out. Worse record, worse RPI, only slightly better SOS, 3 good wins but 3 bad losses. I guess their win over Rutgers in the Big East tourney was the difference.

[swok34]

We do have a few folks chatting.....
http://hoopscoop.net/big12wbb/chat.html

[RaiderPower1]

KState sooooo much deserved the #2 seed over Purdue! Purdue, this whole season, has been kinda questionable and KState had been totally consistent in beating teams except Tech. KState is ranked higher and has a higher RPI. I don't see how the committee thought Purdue deserved it more...

That's ok though cause we all know that a #2 and #3 seed are practically the same. I seriously think that KState has a great chance to meet up with UConn for a chance to go to the final four and that would be such a great matchup.

As for Texas Tech...I think they have the easiest chance of making it to the Elite Eight. If they have to meet Duke, that'll be another good game in Albuquerque, NM. I might just have to get there if Tech can get out of Lubbock.

In Texas' situation, they have the toughest job to get to the Elite Eight but there's no doubt here that they can't beat Stanford. The Horns will be just too quick for the Cardinal.

[grojc]

Boy the Big 12 got screwed. Did anyone see the lame excuse offered by the Tournament official as to why LSU got the nod over Tennessee? Because they beat Tennessee. Hello? What about the Texas win over UT. Why not say, because LSU beat Texas? Texas probably deserved a 1 over Tennessee considering the last 10 games.

Well, Tech has the path of least resistance, relatively speaking. But good luck to all our teams.

[anntaylor]

I agree, the Big 12 got dissed. No respect. KSU a #3 seed? That's ridiculous.

I'm not all that surprised that Texas didn't get a #1 seed. Disappointed, yes, but not surprised.
Texas has a difficult road...and for Jamie Carey to have to play on her former home court at Stanford, that will be tough.

[YCN]

Baylor really had severe justification problems, in that they only had 3 wins against teams in the RPI top 100 all season long, and a very weak out-of-conference SOS.

[cycofan]

I believe that these "neutral" sites are an embarrasment to women's basketball. At least the old system gave an unfair advantage to ALL of the higher seeds. Can anyone justify to me how TN and Stanfor can play their way into the Final Four at home, while LSU has to play first and second round games in Eugene, OR? My personal favorite is a three seed Mississippi State getting to go play a fiesty NM team in the Pit????

Give me a break....either give all of the high seeds an advantage, or go to truly neutral sites. This is a travesty.

[Bball Girl]

Quite surprised at the #3 for KSU...so they lost to Tech twice, Stanford and ISU...only 1 bad loss out of all of those. Guess Purdue winning the Big 8 tourney and Villanova winning the Big East bumped them down.

I didn't think Baylor would get in until I saw their competition...Miami and Virginia (lost 13) who both got in...but both had a higher RPI and SOS than Baylor. I do think 7 for the Big East is way too much.

Overall the Big 12 finished top heavy and LSU is riding just as high (if not higher) than Texas right now and beating another #1 seed in the tourney earned them a #1 seed. Both coaches (Jody and Marsha) commented in the DMN that they expected #2 seeds for both of them and KSU. Sorry Texas...I think LSU earned that #1 seed fairly.

However, I was shocked at LSU and Texas in the same bracket. Don't they usually try to separate the #1 and the #2 that were closest to each other. I expected Duke in the Midwest, but thought they might put Texas out there too.

Agree that Texas, Stanford (at home) and LSU represent the toughest bracket...with a potential matchup between Arkansas and Texas.

But all the brackets are tough...and pity the teams going into Norman and Albuquerque (UNM finished #2 in the regular MWC and won the MWC tourney) and Stanford.

Tech has no easy road...if we get out of Lubbock we face the potential of a tough Mississippi State and a potential rematch with Rutgers again.

Except for the number of Big East teams and KSU getting a #3 instead of a #2, I think it's a decent bracket. Now..the 3rd season starts.

[grojc]

Bball girl, I wasn't disagreeing with Texas #2 seed, just the justification offered.

Basically, Texas seemed to me the highest regarded on the number 2 seeds. And they paired them up with the lowest regarded #1 seed. (IMO that should have been Tennessee, not LSU.) But main, what a brutal bracket for both. I think the Big 12 champion deserved a little more respect. Guess we know what the committee thought of the conference.

But hey, you can force them to respect you. Go K-State and Go Texas! And the rest!

[elfdenmom]

Texas got screwed! So much for their terrific finish of the season and play in the tournament. They get to play Stanford on their home court, and then LSU (assuming the seeds hold). Looks like they really want to put roadblocks in the path to the final four. So go show them Texas! I am confident you can do it!

Actually, I think Duke may have a tough time. They are not playing at home, and Rutgers will be a hand-full. Hopefully Tech won't be chopped meat either. Mississipi State will be tough, though, and we have knocked them out of the NCAA twice before, so they will certainly come ready to play.

I definitely believe that KSU deserved the two more than Purdue, and I think they will show it on the floor at Dayton! To tell you the truth, I think KSU will match up better against UConn than any other Big XII team.

As far as Baylor is concerned, their preseason had to come back to haunt them if they didn't finish high in the conference.

Tennessee was given a bye to the Final Four.

[Bball Girl]

here's the deal...Tennessee won the regular SEC with zero losses in conference play...they lost in the final tourney to LSU. And come on...the committee isn't going to plunk Tennessee down to a #2 seed with that record...they are Tennessee (and I'm being sarcastic here) after all.

LSU screwed up Texas' party...if they'd lost to Tennessee, Texas would have got that #1 seed.

But personally, I think Texas and LSU are the two hot teams right now and I'm really disappointed they put them together..that kind of matchup deserves to happen in the Final 4 not in a regional.

However, I don't agree that Tennessee got a bye. They have a tough UNC and Penn State standing in their way and a potential matchup with Villanova...the same Villanova team that beat UConn that beat Tennessee with Pat's current mentor as the coach.

With the exception of K-State as a #3, I think UConn has the easiest route..I'm not fond of Purdue anyway but I think UConn would eat them up and spit them out. Agreed that a KSU - UConn game has the potential of a great game.

Well we have to wait until Saturday to see how this whole thing shakes out. Don't know where I'd rather be facing Stanford on their home court or Tennessee.

[swok34]

I think they did a really good job, especially having to live with this "predetermined" sites they set up....

The West just amazes me, extremely tough region. I really don't see 7 Big East Teams in the tourney, but I've heard that the CUSA didn't deserve 5 teams in either.

Next year, it'll be a little different in that a host team THIS year cannot host a subregional AND a host team cannot host both a sub and a regional......OU has a regional next year..so, they will be sent away regardless and be forced to play their way home.

[Cycurl714]

I was lurking around all season, but i'm out of the shadows to give my two cents worth.

one: I seem to remember last year people complaining about that ISU hosted both subregional and regional last and could have been at home up to the final four(if they had won that is) i haven't heard too much about that both Tennessee and New Mexico have the same thing this year.

two: Filling out my brackets this year won't be that much fun this year considering there isn't one single team from the state of Iowa in either the men's or women's tourney.(Though the Creighton's men's could be considered an Iowa team since they are from Omaha and there are 4 players from Iowa on their roster) oh well Kansas State, Texas, Texas Tech, Colorado, Oklahoma represent the big twelve well and I'll be cheeering you all on.

Go Big Twelve

[swok34]

Here's the answer to the Baylor question:

Brian (Waco): What were the main deciding factors on Baylor not getting invited? Non conference schedule? Not enough wins against the top tier opponents in the Big XII?

Cheryl Marra: Yes, the lack of strength in their non-conf. schedule became a factor. They were 8-8 but the lack of strength with the non-conf. schedule hurt.

and the entire conversation with the tourney chair:
http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=3224

[JohnHenry]

KSU got screwed, but it wasn't a very significant screwing, at least. No love for the big 12 this year. And I think Tennessee - the team that least deserved it - gets the easiest road to Atlanta. Now I don't mean they DON'T desrve it all - just that of all the #1 seeds, they should have had to face a Texas or KSU.
PennSt. is good and all, but Villanova's seed is total east coast bias and UConn-worship at it's worst. The Big East is a solid conference and all, but SEVEN teams ?!?! Puh-leeeeze ! I've said this before, but UConn props up the RPI/SOS of that entire league. So Nova beat UConn. Big whoop. Everybody saw HOW they did it, and I dare say it wasn't brain surgery. They caught them with a perfectly-executed gameplan on the right day. So what. I think 2/3 of the big 12 could have a field day with that Nova team. I say OU busts Villanova's bubble in Norman. What a joke.

I mean, someone actually looked at Nova & KSU and said with a straight face that 'Nova was a better or more deserving team than K-State. Unbelievable.

And Texas gets rewarded for BEATING TECH THREE TIMES by gettting the same seed, farther from home, in a tougher bracket. I'd have rather been sent to Ruston. Tech has to travel all of - what, 200 miles?

Other oddities: Ohio St. gets a 4, but might as well be the 5 since they play in Ruston...Chattanooga got lowballed as 12, and I wouldn't be surprised if they pull an upset....if the committee thought so little of Texas's early road losses, they didn't show it - all of those teams made the tourney : BYU is an 11 seed in Boulder, New Mexico a 6 at home, plus the aforementioned OhioSt. & LSU....good ol' TCU could very well get to serve as UConn's 2nd tournament victim if they pull off a very winnable game against Michigan St...if you think the Big 12 got stiffed, get a load of the PAC 10 teams...Minnesota probably deserved OHio ST. seed, but not their draw...I sure would have loved to see us thrash Arkansas here in Austin, for old times' sake. C'est la vie.

I'm done. BTW - who's your daddy, Tech ? http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif

http://www.texassports.com/images/wbbimages/2002_03/014/stephens_stacy_200_20.jpg

[dem]

A few thoughts on the selections:

1) K State got disrespect with the #3 seed. On the other hand, they are potentially matched up with what is arguably the weakest #2 seed (Purdue), and then with UConn, which may be a better matchup for them than any of the other one-seeds. Their other potential match-ups seem to have been Mississippi State, North Carolina, or Villanova, and I don't know that any of those would have been preferable to Purdue.

2) It was pretty much pre-ordained that Texas was going to be matched up with LSU. LSU was considered the weakest #1 and Texas the strongest #2, so there would have to have been a very good reason to split them up. I don't think Texas would complain about being in LSU's bracket rather than any of the other #1 seeds. The likely alternative would have been Tennessee, and playing the Lady Vols in Knoxville doesn't seem to me like much of a gift. On the other hand, having to play (probably) Stanford on its home court is a really raw deal, especially for Jamie Carey. It's not like she left on bad terms and has something to prove, although she is SO competitive I don't suppose it will bother her much.

3) It's pretty clear the Committee decided that, given half a chance, they would punish weak non-conference schedules. Both Baylor and Minnesota suffered because of that. Can't say I really blame them, but it does tend to disproportionately weight the SLIGHTEST mis-step at the end of the season.

4) The new policy of non-neutral pre-determined sites for the first two rounds really robs the whole selection process of much of its drama and importance. The difference between a four-seed and a six-seed now may be practically zero, whereas before it was crucial. That means that finishing top-16 as opposed to top-25 means very little, and that's a big loss in terms of competitiveness and interest in the homestretch of the season.

It's true that there is some improvement in upset possibilities, but this is counterbalanced by the huge advantage handed to the teams that ARE hosting -- not all of whom could claim to have merited such an advantage given their record during the regular season.

[Bball Girl]

Agree that KSU can handle Nova. KSU plays much better defense than Nova...but it could be a very high scoring game with all those 3 point shooters.

Frankly, I don't think any of the brackets are easy. Playing UNM at home in the Pit is enough to scare anyone and look for UNM to pull at least 1 upset. I'm biased here but I think Arkansas, UNM and Arizona are all teams capable of wrecking a higher seeds party...it all depends on which team shows up.

Note to JohnHenry...Stacy gets away with lots of jersey pulling on both ends in the paint and she got that black eye from Ayers after 1 too many jersey pulls...interesting how she stopped pulling Ayers jersey after that. Agree that without Stacy, Texas would not have won that game. But she ain't our Daddy...any way shape or form.

[BeBe]

I don't agree with bballgirl's comment that KSU vs Villanova could be a high scoring game. It could be an interesting game but I would be surprised to see high scores.

'Nova has held opponents to an average of about 52.5 points per game this season and have averaged about 10 points higher themselves. Even with their 3 point shooting, they don't often score high. Their style of play is to control the tempo and play a slow-down game.

Having watched them in person play CU in November and on TV playing UCONN in March, they played the same deliberate pace of game. Especially once they had a lead in the second half of the game, they often dribbled the ball just past mid court until they burned about half the shot clock. That style of play leads to low scores and frustrates their opponents.

[textom]

"The new policy of non-neutral pre-determined sites..."

The savviest comment I have read about the new pre-determined sites was something about like this: The old method put all of the top 16 seeds on equal footing -- they all hosted the first two games. The new method provides an advantage to some of the top 16, while penalizing others. There was nothing wrong with the old method. It rewarded teams for playing well and having tough schedules. Why is it "more fair" to reward teams that did not perform as well by allowing them to host the first two rounds? How is it fair for #2 seed Villanova to be forced to play its first game against #10 seed Oklahoma IN NORMAN? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


[This message has been edited by textom (edited 03-17-2003).]

[Jennifer]

Originally posted by textom:
How is it fair for #2 seed Villanova to be forced to play its first game against #10 seed Oklahoma IN NORMAN? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
[This message has been edited by textom (edited 03-17-2003).]

That's not the case. If Villanova beats St. Francis in it's first game, it will get to play the winner of #10 OU/#7 George Washington in NOrman.

I don't like pre-determined sites either, even though OU gets a benefit from it this year. If by chance they make it out of their sub-regional, it will be clouded by critics saying "But they had an unfair advantage, they wouldn't have won those games elsewhere, etc."

[TRH]

Bball Girl - having watched almost all of Stacy Stevens games for three years I can tell you that she doesn't get away with anything more than any other post player. To say that she never gets away with anything would be silly - every post player gets away without being called for something at some point in every game. But, I am really tired of listening to people explain away her success by claiming that she cheats or is a dirty player.

What I found interesting was the way that she took over the game after getting that black eye.

[swok34]

I don't like pre-determined sites either, even though OU gets a benefit from it this year. If by chance they make it out of their sub-regional, it will be clouded by critics saying "But they had an unfair advantage, they wouldn't have won those games elsewhere, etc."

I agree and many coaches of the major conferences (who typically "earn" the right to host in years past, do not like this new system at all. I would suspect it is the mid-majors and small conferences are the ones who do like it.

But, the rules were in place long before the committee seeded the teams, everyone may not like them.....well, except for the money people and ESPN.

Next year, those of us who hosted sub-regionals can't host sub's; I believe you can host every other year. Next year, OU has a regional, though they cannot host a subregional. They will be placed in their regional and will have to win their way home.

I believe if they want true parity, then move regionals off home floors for one thing. Someone on the ESPN board brought up a very good system.....have 8 sites like the men do....and make them all neutral courts. Surely having the fans of 8 teams in one location could satisfy the attendance requirements. This setup being for the subregionals...then move to the 4 "neutral" regional sites.

I really like the men's setup in that they bring 2 seperate brackets to one location that is as close to home as possible for all the teams.



[This message has been edited by swok34 (edited 03-17-2003).]

[Bball Girl]

I agree with SWOK34...either go full tilt like the men or go back to the way it was. This corrupted version is silly..having a 1 or 2 seed playing on another team's homecourt is dumb. And I think it's caused them to mess with the bracket seeds. Next year if say Manhattan had a regional but didn't have a sub and KSU was a #1 seed...what machinations are they going to go through to try to arrange such a party.

I wonder if they tried it like the men's tournments and had more games during the day on the weekends, would they see higher attendance? The reality is that even the regionals don't draw the kind of attendance they should draw even when a home team is playing. It's depressing.