The Pairings For the 2002 NCAA Womens Basketball Championship (A Chipper Production)

[ChipperF1]

Since we are getting near that time of year I'm putting together my annual Valentines week first look at the brackets. Its something I do every year.

This year I did something different. I decided to build my own NCAA committee and mimic the selection process.
The following bracket projection isn't based entirely on the current unofficial RPI numbers that are out there. It is based partly on current numbers, and partly on projections based on the relative current strength of every Division I team.
In short, it is a highly educated opinion.

In building this projection, I put together the following "NCAA Womens Basketball Selection Committee".

- Jerry Palm RPI (http:/www.collegerpi.com): Jerry Palm's unofficial RPU is used by nearly every major sports news organization. It is a pretty accurate attempt to gauge the RPI.
- Louisiana Tech "z-power" rating (http://www2.latech.edu/~dan/wbball/fullrpi.cgi): This is a rating I like to use because it factors in a number of varibles from home court, to victory margin, that a human committee member would likely use. It can form sharp differences of opinion and results. Just like a human committee would have.
- Massey - CBW Ratings (HTTP://WWW.mratings.com/rate/cbw-m.htm): This was brought in because certain team statistical trends factor into the rating. This is used to mimic in some way random factors like team form and injuries that could play in a human decision.

- N-Rating (http://members.tripod.com/veneziano/rpi/totalrpi.html): This is a poly glot of every conceivable RPI deciding factor, but it can be expanded to include factors such as location and margin of victory.

- Dunkel Index (http://www.dunkelindex.com/wbbrank.htm): The Dunkel Index is printed in hundreds of newspapers for just about every major collegiate sport. I used this index because it often a wildcard factor. It represents the committee member who may have a different take (call this the "Maryalice Jeremiah Factor" -- after all the current Committee Chair proved last year, that all the ducks weren't quite in a row)

- Chipper (that's me): I am the committee chairman, and I'm taking in all the info of the other members and adding my inferences on what has happened, and what will happen, in addition to information and opinion based on game I've seen.

The following bracket projection could be wildly different from other that are out there for simple reason that it is a bit more inexact in that it is making a guess based on a lot of projections over the course of the next three weeks of regular season and tournament play. Those projections I've made are based on relative strengths of actual games played with greater weight on a teams last 5 to 10 contests. I am also factoring in injuries, home court and very important home court factors in the conference tournament That is variable that is not looked at in current bracket projection based on number at this points. In my mind, such factors will play a major role in the set up of this tournament.

Five things to keep in mind.

1. The Womens Tournament is seeded differently from the mens. For started the mens methodology has been disclosed to the public. The womens have not, and there is an idea that the methodology is based as much on marketing as competitive factors

2. Home sites are involved in the womens tournament. There are none of the regulations regarding home court advantage that are a part of the Mens NCAA Tournament process.

3. All RPI data is UNOFFICIAL. The actual formula the NCAA used is not disclosed in full. Jerry Palm for example has the basic formula and the basic formula is highly accurate. But the NCAA changes the RPI formula slightly every year as situations dictate. A factor that gained more weight in one year, may be weighted less in another year.

4. The RPI is one tool the NCAA Selection Committee. It is not the only tool. Nothing in the process is 100% empirical. Those are the factors I am trying to simulate here.

5. The committee process is like Wang Chung. It can be whatever they want it to be, thus there is a definite random factor involved.

NOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN (How Chipper got to a Field of 64)
The first thing I did was go through All 31 conferences and played out the rest of the season. Simply picking who won and lost. Seeding each confernece tournament and working those brackets through. At the end of the process each team that was in likely tournament contention had a final record.
These opinions are based on relative strengths based on season long performance. More recent wins count a little more than those earlier in the year, both count. Injuries, slumps and streaks are also taken into account.

From there we built the first list of 31 Conference Champions. Each receiving an automatic bid (conference tourney runner-up in parenthesis)

ACC: Duke (North Carolina)
America East: Vermont (Binghamton)
Atlantic 10: George Washington (Temple)
Atlantic Sun: Central Florida (Belmont)
Big East: Connecticut (Notre Dame)
Big Sky: Montana (Weber State)
Big South: Liberty (Elon)
Big 10: Purdue (Iowa)
Big 12: Now this will require a little explanation.
Thanks to YCN's nice analysis of the rest of the way, I used that data to build a scenario for the rest of the season, including likely seeding for the Big 12 Tournament. I did tweak YCN's impressions a little.
But the make a long story short. Oklahoma will get the top seed in the tournament...But for second straight year, Iowa State will win the conference tournament, and the Clones will roll in as one of the hottest teams in the NCAA tournament.
Iowa State (Oklahoma)

Big West: UC-Santa Barbara (UC-Riverside)
Colonial: Old Dominion (Delaware)
Conference USA: DePaul (Cincinnati)
Horizon: UW-Milwaukee (UW-Green Bay)
Ivy: Havard (Cornell -- The Ivy does not have a conference tourney)
MAAC: Siena (St. Peters)
MAC: Ball State (Kent State)
MCC: Valparaiso (Oral Roberts)
MEAC: Howard (Hampton)
MVC: Creighton (Drake)
MWC: Colorado State (New Mexico)
Northeast: St. Francis, PA (Sacred Heart)
OVC: Eastern Kentucky (Tennessee Tech)
Pac 10: Oregon (Stanford)
NOTE: The Pac 10 Tourney is in Eugene, Oregon.
Patriot: Holy Cross (Bucknell)
SEC: Vanderbilt (Florida -- who elimanated Tennessee in the semifinal)
SWAC: Southern (Grambling)
Southern: UNC-Greensboro (Chattanooga)
Southland: Stephen F. Austin
Sun Belt: Florida International (North Texas)
WAC: Louisiana Tech (Rice)
WCC: Pepperdine (Santa Clara)

[mred]

Originally posted by ChipperF1:
But for second straight year, Iowa State will win the conference tournament

Ahem. Third straight year. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

[ChipperF1]

And now...the tournament pairings for the 2002 NCAA Womens Basketball Tournament..
The orientation of the Final Four is East vs. West/Midwest vs. Mideast

EAST REGIONAL/STORRS, CONNECTICUT SUBREGIONAL
(1) Connecticut
(16)St. Francis, Pennsylvania

(8) Wisconsin
(9) Oregon

BOULDER, COLORADO SUBREGIONAL
(4) Colorado
(13) UC-Santa Barbara

(5) South Carolina
(12) Vermont

RUSTIN, LOUISIANA SUBREGIONAL
(6) Penn State
(11) Drake

(3) Louisiana Tech
(14) UW-Green Bay

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE SUBREGIONAL
(7) Texas Tech
(10) Nevada-Las Vegas

(2) Vanderbilt
(15) Holy Cross

WEST REGIONAL/PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA SUBREGIONAL
(1) Stanford
(16) Liberty

(8) Cincinnati
(9) Texas

FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SUBREGIONAL
(4) Colorado State
(13) Valparaiso

(5) Minnesota
(12) Rice

GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA SUBREGIONAL
(6) Mississippi State
(11) George Washington

(3) Florida
(14) Harvard

NORMAN, OKLAHOMA SUBREGIONAL
(7) Pepperdine
(10) Arkansas

(2) Oklahoma
(15) Southern

MIDEAST REGIONAL/KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE SUBREGIONAL
(1) Tennessee
(16) Howard

(8) Clemson
(9) Boston College

CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA SUBREGIONAL
(4) North Carolina
(13) Eastern Kentucky

(5) Iowa
(12) St. Peter's

MANHATTAN, KANSAS SUBREGIONAL
(6) Arizona State
(11) DePaul

(3) Kansas State
(14) Stephen F. Austin

DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA SUBREGIONAL
(7) New Mexico
(10) Georgia

(2) Duke
(15) Montana

MIDWEST REGIONAL/WEST LAFAYETTE, INDIANA SUBREGIONAL
(1) Purdue
(16) Central Florida

(8) Baylor
(9) Santa Clara

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA SUBREGIONAL
(4) Old Dominion
(13) UNC-Greensboro

(5) Florida International
(12) Siena

SOUTH BEND, INDIANA SUBREGIONAL
(6) TCU
(11) Michigan State

(3) Notre Dame
(14) UW-Milwaukee

AMES, IOWA SUBREGIONAL
(7) Virginia Tech
(10) Creighton

(2) Iowa State
(15) Ball State

[ChipperF1]

"And those are the pairings, now joining us from NCAA Headquarters in Indianapolis is Chipper, the Chairman of the NCAA Selection Committee. Welcome to the show, Chipper."

Thanks, Robin. It's great to be on the show

"Chipper, how difficult was this process."

Robin, it was very difficult because we had a fine group of teams. Excellent play all year. There were at least 90 teams fighting for those 33 at-large bids. We had to make a lot of tough calls. I think we really put together 64 excellent basketball teams and we will have a fine run all the way to San Antonio

"Chipper, we're doing something different this year we are letting individual fans ring in on the selection."

Bring 'em on http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

[Big12Bear]

For putting us at a ridiculous 8 seed, I am forced to cancel your upstart production.

[ChipperF1]

"Mister Chairman, There's not much joy in Waco.."

Well Robin, the situation with Baylor mimicked that of many teams in the draw. Baylor was downgraded a little for their end of season performance. Baylor went 5-5 in the final ten games, going 2-4 against the RPI top 100 in that stretch. Baylor was a victim of a number of team around their area in the RPI that made a late charge. Robin, it must be pointed out that a good number of teams played their way into contention this year and Baylor just got caught in the undertow. I also must point out that Baylor's strength of schedule did factor into our decision. Their relatively weak non-conference schedule weighed heavily into the seeding decision.

[This message has been edited by ChipperF1 (edited 02-12-2002).]

[This message has been edited by ChipperF1 (edited 02-12-2002).]

[This message has been edited by ChipperF1 (edited 02-12-2002).]

[Big12Bear]

Robin's nephew is Superfrosh, Lawrence Roberts of the BU Mens Basketball team. She'd never agree with you! http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

By the way, after starting 1-3 in conference, I have us going 10-2 in our last 12, not including KC. What is this 5-5 nonsense? Don't tell me you have UT and CU coming into the dome and beating us. Robin would be very disappointed! http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif

[mred]

No! No more Creighton! We had our fill of them already. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

ISU could feasibly have a strange series of matchups. ISU first faces Ball State, who was coached by former ISU assistant Brend Oldfield until this season. Then, ISU could face Creighton, whom they beat in overtime. With some upsets, ISU could face Michigan State in the next round (granted, it's a stretch) with former ISU assistant Katie Abrahamson as associate head coach and former ISU star Janel Grimm as assistant head coach. Then, ISU could face conference opponent Baylor (also unlikey but possible).

[Zo31]

"Hello Robin?" "If the call-in line is still open, please ask Mr. Chipper if his senario has Baylor only hosting one game. And also ask him how he arrived at having Baylor placed in that particular region. I have to agree with BigBear that the Lady Bears should do better down the stretch. I'll hold please."

[ChipperF1]

"Another Baylor Bear that felt you stole their honey."

Are they the Bears or the Honeybees, Robin. I'm getting stung here. To answer the question. Baylor was in a mix of teams were the RPI swung wildly in the final two weeks of the season. Look at teams like North Carolina, DePaul, and New Mexico who kicked it in over this period. And that is something that the committee looked at even more, because we had such a grouping of teams. Baylor's last 10, their strength or schedule and their performance in the conference tournament led us to decide as we decided. As for the regions, whenever a league has more than 5 teams, we try to balance the teams out. We don't want teams engaged in rematches from the season if at all possible. We strongly try to avoid two teams from the same conference meeting in the subregional rounds. For the opening rounds, we try as much as possible to match teams that haven't met. We're looking to give teams different matchups as much as possible

[RaiderPower1]

Hi Robin, Hi Chipper. I really didn't imagine that Tech would play Vanderbilt again as early as the second round as you have them. What's the deal with that?

[KSUron]

Mr. Chipper, thanks for giving the KSU Wildcats the posible chance for another shot at Arizona State. I would also like to thank Chairman Chipper and the committee for the efforts put in to the selection process. Go Big XII!

[BEAR SKIN]

Zo & Bear,
Relax, Chipper was emphasizing the last 5 to 10 contests (6 to 9 of which haven't been played yet).

Remember he said:
"Big 12: Now this will require a little explanation.
"Thanks to YCN's nice analysis of the rest of the way, I used that data to build a scenario for the rest of the season, including likely seeding for the Big 12 Tournament. I did tweak YCN's impressions a little."

Check out YCN's projections -- Chipper is like a computer; garbage in, garbage out.

[ChipperF1]

"That is a little surprising given that Texas Tech and Vanderbilt could be meeting in the second round."

Again this was the function of the crazy last couple of week we've had and the crazy year we've had. Vanderbilt was a tough team to seed. They were hovering between a 1,2, and 3 seed throughout the process. Winning the SEC tournament secured a 2 for them had say a Purdue fallen or a Stanford fallen prior to their conference final, they might have snagged a one seed. Texas Tech ended up similar to Baylor in that they just needed another win or two to offset the number of very hot teams that came on and really threw the RPI number askew.

One thing I do want to say concerning the Big XII was that it was a hard group of teams to seed. Usually when we have a large group of teams from one conference, its usually 1 or 2 highly ranked teams another 3 or so were solid, and the rest were solid to bubble teams. This year, the Big XII team were all solid. The lowest seed is a 9, and that isn't bad at all. When you have closely grouped teams like this, the process is just rough because you try to be as fair you can. One impression I have right off from the process is that nobody has a breather. This game is getting more competitive every year.

[Big12Bear]

BEAR SKIN----I think we are all "relaxed" here. Just playing along. Whenever there is a smiley face or a wink, that means someone is kidding.

[mred]

Am I on the air? Wow! Long time listener, first time caller. What do they give you to eat when you're locked in that room deciding the seedings?

[ChipperF1]

"Well how about it how do you get fed?"

Lets put it this way, Robin. The BCS Money buys a lot of Omaha Steaks http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

[Michael]

Chip, there is no way short of ND winning out including the Big East tournament that they get a host seed, much less a 3. That is a top twelve rating, no way their results, RPI, or anything else about them warrants that kind of consideration. Yes, they are the defending champs, but they still have a ways to go to earn a host seed IMHO. They are probably a 6 seed, maybe a 5.

Michael

[mred]

Originally posted by ChipperF1:
The orientation of the Final Four is East vs. West/Midwest vs. Mideast

Is this something that's already been determined, or is this something they decide when they determine seedings?

[mred]

Yes, I had way too much time on my hands. Armed with that and a really bad image editor, I threw this together:

(Courtesy of mred press)

http://mred.sytes.net/wbb/images/chipper_bracket.jpgChipper's Bracket</a>

[YCN]

Chairman Chipper, thank you very much for you kind mention of my efforts to prognosticate the Big 12 regular season results.

I did make some postseason statements in that effort, and seem to remember that I stated that Baylor would host in the first round. It appears that in this area you disagree strongly with this prognosticator.

While no effort was made by me to ascertain the results of the Big 12 tournament, I have Baylor finishing 10-6, 22-6 in the ultra-tough Big 12. While one or two otherwise results could leave Baylor at 9-7/8-8 and 21-7/20-8, these are not the hard figures that would lead one to suggest that a #8 seed was in the offing.

Perhaps there was some strong dissention some member of your committee to the inclusion of Baylor in more select company?

In the mind of this selection neophyte, to downgrade Baylor for their relatively soft non-conference schedule is to ignore their results against college basketball's best conference.

This seems inconsistent considering that Stanford, a team that has played only one team since December 2nd that is within the top 60 of the RPI, has been given a #1 seed, in spite of the fact that their December loss to the Lady Vols was in Eugene.

Thank you, Chairman, for considering my comments.

[ChipperF1]

"Well Chipper, about Notre Dame. This is surprising that the Irish earned a home bid."

Robin, Notre Dame really surprised the committee with their play in the last two weeks as well. Yet another example of how this last two week really shaped the grid. Notre Dame played a competitive schedule in conference they beat 7 teams in the top 50 in the final ten games, and has some teams fell away and other surged in, ND surged in and that how they got to host. The final group of hosting seeds was closer than its ever been, we had to make a lot of tough decisions, but a number of team made the decision by playing well and Notre Dame was one of those teams.

"Again, another Baylor question. YCN says how can Baylor be downgraded for a weak schedule (your words) and not Stanford?"

Ah yes, the Stanford situation. Well lets take a look at Stanford. A lot of people believe Stanford played a weak schedule, but in looking at their schedule we found that Stanford non-conference schedule featured 7 teams that qualified for this draw and were in the top 50. The Cardinal won six of those contests. The Cardinal also won the Pac 10 regular season and went undefeated in doing so. That's 16-0. Their only loss in conference was in overtime to Oregon at the Pac 10 Tournament Final in Eugene. Now perhaps Oklahoma fans could have gripe, but Baylor fans have less of one. We didn't ignore the Bears efforts in conference. The Big 12 was among the top 2 leagues this year, and Baylor played well within it. But again, we had a lot of teams in similar straits and it goes back to 5-5 in the last 10 2-4 vs. the top 100 in those last ten, with so many factors equal it came down to that.

[Zo31]

"Hellooooooo!?" "Robin, these Honeybees in Waco are going to boycott your shows sponsor for supporting such filth and trash. Let me see if I am hearing correctly (maybe we have a bad connection), Baylor has been ranked in the polls all season and is seeded 8th; Iowa, Arizona State, Florida International, TCU, Notre Dame, Penn State, and Mississippi State are not even ranked in the top 25 this week and they get 3,4,5, and 6 seeds? How does a team that is not in the top 25 get a #3 seed? Granted, Baylor's SOS in the non-conference was extremely soft, but their perfomance in the Big XII (strongest conference in the land) thus far says a great deal and there is still a lot of ball to be played. You know what they say about "if"; {If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle} Robin, ask Chipper what would happen if Baylor won the Big XII tournament. Thanks for putting me on the air."

These are Grizzly http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/bu.gif not Winnie the Pooh Bears!!!

[Big12Bear]

Zo, not to mention we have 2 wins over top 50 RPI teams on the road in non conference vs UNT and Hawaii, which count favorably towards RPI ratings. How were we to know UCLA would lose their best player due to injury? In addition, during conference our WORST loss of the year was to #12 RPI TX Tech on the road. THere are ZERO bad losses and plenty of good wins....BY next Wednesday there should be two more good wins to add to that total.

[ChipperF1]

How does a team that is not in the top 25 get a #3 seed?

The same way that a ranked team can fail to make the NCAA tournament. In the mens draw, that has happened 3 times in the 64-team era.

As Chairman Chipper.

Unlike the BCS with which I am sure you are familiar, The AP and ESPN/USA Today Polls are not used in the Ratings Percentage Index whatsoever. Now poll position is in the minds of the committee members, but such polls are not considered ahead of the empirical data and actually results of games.

Now as fan Chipper.

One more thing to keep in mind.
When considering your teams chances, it is always a good exercise to think like the committee. And usually committee doesn't think.

Now if Baylor wins the Big 12 Conference tournament, they will definitely host. But if they don't you are looking at a 5-8 seed because while Baylor does have some quality wins in conference all those 3-digit teams played in the nonconference schedule are going to be looked at hard by the committee. Plus the committee will consider the perception of Baylor that they've moved to a high poll position via attrition, thus "we need to test Baylor." So you may get a 6-11, 7-10 game that will be a challenge.
Baylor has an advantage in that they have 3 good opportunities to pick up RPI leverage in their last four games. Three of those teams will not drop out if the top 50, Oklahoma State may drop some more but I doubt they'll drop out of the Top 100. If Baylor wins all 4 plus gets a pair of tournament wins, they will have great last 10, they keep their RPI strength, and they'll get a 4 or maybe move up to a 3.

The Committee has an advantage in that they have the actual and although the unofficial RPIs are close, they aren't the real thing, so the committee's number will be different from the ones way have and I feel this year if think shake out the way I think they will, those numbers will be more different still.

How the major conference shakes out this year in their conference tournaments will decided much of what the landscape will be between seeds 4-and-12, and that's really the heart of the draw.
A wildcard factor that could help is Hawaii and North Texas making the draw (In my simulation I will say that those two were among the final teams up for consideration in my Field of 64.). If Hawaii won the WAC tournament and if say North Texas won the Sun Belt, the committee would think..."hmmm..Baylor beat two teams that won automatic bids and have very solid RPIs, PLUS Baylor went 10-6 in the Big 12 regular season and got another quality win in the tournament....They should land a 4 perhaps a 3."

The "surge" effect Chairman Chipper mentions will play into these final two weeks. I think "last 10" will get a little more weight in the calculations this year than it normally does (and in most years the "last 10" does carry a good deal of clout in the selection process.)

One thing that really changed the landscape was Texas beating Tennessee, now we have a serious matter of the orientation of the tournament and the host seeds. Could Tennessee drop down to the 2 with another regular season loss? Does this help Oklahoma, IF they win the conference tournament? Could this solidify Stanford's position.
I will say this. I would be more than happy to give the Selection Committee lessons on the fine art of "spin control" they may need it come Selection Day, because of the hard choices they may have to make.

[Zo31]

Points very well taken. Thanks

[metromaniac]

Don't we only wish the Committee Chair---Chipper---was really the committee chair. Great analysis and reading. Oh, let's not forget the wit also!!! Thanks

[mred]

Originally posted by mred:
Is this something that's already been determined, or is this something they decide when they determine seedings?

Hey, Robin! Could you ask this question to Chipper for me? He hasn't answered it yet. Thanks! http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

[ChipperF1]

mred. The orientation is decided when the seedings are finalized. Once they have the 4 number 1 seeds, then the strongest #1's region will be paired up with the weakest #1 region etc.