An Analysis of the Possible Hosting Seeds

[YCN]

(A little delayed, but not too much.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, here it is, the host seed analysis that I have alluded to in a couple of previous posts.

In this analysis, I have tried to think like I was the selection committee, and it is interesting what has been discovered as a result of this mental exercise.

This is an ungodly long post, so if you have a short interest span, I would urge you to tune into MTV or something, because this is going to be a torturous experience.

First, let's set the groundwork for what is going on when the committee meets to decide who are the 1-4 seeds. In order to do that, you need to know who the players are. Here they are:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NCAA Selection Committee (year term expires):

Chair Cheryl Marra (03) - Wisconsin
Maryalice Jeremiah (02) - Fullerton St
Jean Berger (04) - Drake
Karen Morrison (04) - Colorado
Jackie Campbell (05) - A-10
Lynn Parks (04) - Memphis
Joni Comstock (05) - UNC Asheville
Carol Sprague (03) - Pittsburgh
Deborah Patton Corum (02) - SEC
Marie Tuite (05) - Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The more observant might notice that of the committee members, none are men. Even more observant folks would want to note that the representative titles for Jackie Campbell and Deborah Patton Corum are their conferences - that is because those two members are representing their conferences rather than particular schools. It is my understanding that the committee representative of a school under consideration for a tournament seed must be recused during the discussion regarding that school, but the very fact that rep is noticeable absent during that discussion has to have at least some impact. I'm not entirely sure about whether or not the conference reps have to be recused regarding discussion about any team in their conference; but if that is the case, you would expect Corum to be absent for a considerable amount of decision-making.

These are the folks who are going to decide who gets seeds where, and most importantly, who will be hosting the first two rounds of the tournament. Don't even forget that the selection committee consists entirely of college or conference employees. While they all want to make the right decisions, they also represent vested interests, and will undoubtedly act within reason to protect those interests.

Most of the selection committee have worked together already, so they are at least on conversant terms. In this particular year I don't think things will get particularly ugly, but we will get to that soon enough.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ostensible purpose of any post regarding sports is to provide insight into the body of interest contained in that post, so let's get right to the nitty-gritty. This post is an analysis of who deserves to receive hosting seeds for the upcoming tournament, and why.

If anyone is going to get anything meaningful out of this post, background information - other than the names of the selection committee members - needs to be provided. So let's start with the very basics.

First, don't think that RPI or the opinion of the AP poll voters is the deciding factor on who hosts and who doesn't, it just isn't the case. Very first and foremost, the committee is going to look at how impressive the cover sheet of the resume looks, and I'm not talking about professional graphics.

Who has a great record? This is element number one. It is the basis upon which all other decisions are made. While a great won-loss record doesn't ensure that you will host, or even be in the Dance, it sure doesn't hurt.

So let's look at the "great records" of the teams that have a chance to host.

Let me first say right here that as an exercise in judgement it didn't make a lot of sense to me to even include any team that did not finish the regular season either ranked in the top 20 of the RPI, or the top 16 of either the coaches' or media polls. After that process, we are down to exactly 19 potential teams.

OK, we can chop them to 16 with no trouble - right? Wrong, that isn't how the selection process works. The committee will work first on who is the number 1 number-one seed, and then number 2 and so on. So let's start there first, and here is where the fun begins.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

And while we are at it, if there is a discrepancy between the coaches' and press polls, guess who wins? The coaches' poll has more clout with the committee, because they represent the same interests as the committee members.

If the press abdicates their responsibility to balance objective reporting by picking the exact same top 10 teams, do you really think that the representatives of the universities and their oversight organizations will feel intimidated in making their own free choices? And that is exactly what has happened this year, for the top 10 rankings in both polls are identical. Sheesh, you'd think the press would be somewhat opinionated, wouldn't you? So much for freedom of the press.

What I am saying is that the press has basically said we either don't care or don't know (I like the latter scenario) and we will let you experts make up your minds as to what is right.

So here is the rest of the "nifty grifty".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
At some point it becomes vitally important to determine which are the best teams - the ones who host - for several different reasons:

1. Women's basketball is in need of recognition, and since the committee refuses to have neutral sites for the playoffs, the next best thing is to have a cast of thousands show up for the games, or at least as many games as possible. This factor will only be important when you start deciding who the #4 seeds are, and the attendance factor will necessarily loom large here. The last thing the committee wants are hosting schools that can't draw 2,000 people for the games at their site.

2. If there is accumulated goodwill toward any particular conference or university, it is likely to be rewarded, and sooner rather than later.

3. What got you there is what gets you there, so if you are a Jonnie-Come-Lately, you may have to wait your turn. (read Louisiana Tech, Old Dominion)

4. If in the interest of fair competition and the growth of the sport, the right decisions aren't made, not only will be balance sheet be lighter, a bunch of good people who are only trying to be the best that they can be will be hurt immeasurably by the actions of those who only think in terms of dollars and cents.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've already gone several points beyond where I wanted to go, so let's get serious now. The point of this post is to determine which teams deserve to host in the first two rounds of the tournament.

Here is the "stat sheet":

<PRE style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RPI Polls Overall Non-Conf Conf Home Road Neu Last 1-25 26-50 51-100 101+
Rank * School CP AP W-L RPI W-L Rank W-L Rank W-L W-L W-L 10 W-L W-L W-L W-L
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Tennessee 3 3 25-4 .7067 11-2 1 14-2 1 10-2 12-1 3-1 7-3 7-4 6-0 9-0 3-0
2 * Connecticut 1 1 30-0 .6827 14-0 2 16-0 7 18-0 12-0 0-0 10-0 8-0 5-0 3-0 14-0
3 * Oklahoma 5 5 24-3 .6785 10-1 8 14-2 2 12-0 7-3 5-0 9-1 9-3 1-0 5-0 9-0
4 * Purdue 7 7 23-4 .6681 9-1 4 14-3 5 12-0 8-3 3-1 9-1 4-2 8-2 8-0 2-0
5 * Duke 4 4 25-3 .6670 8-3 15 17-0 3 13-1 10-1 2-1 10-0 4-2 2-0 10-1 9-0
6 * Vanderbilt 6 6 26-6 .6619 14-2 6 12-4 6 16-1 8-5 2-0 8-2 5-4 3-2 11-0 7-0
7 * Stanford 2 2 29-1 .6534 10-1 3 19-0 12 12-1 13-0 4-0 10-0 2-1 4-0 10-0 13-0
8 Kansas St 14 14 23-6 .6362 12-1 9 11-5 17 11-2 9-3 3-1 6-4 5-3 0-0 7-3 11-0
9 Texas 13 13 19-8 .6355 9-2 12 10-6 11 12-3 5-5 2-0 5-5 6-6 3-0 4-1 6-1
10 Baylor 8 8 24-4 .6343 12-0 28 12-4 4 14-1 8-3 2-0 9-1 5-4 2-0 5-0 12-0
11 Texas Tech 15 15 17-10 .6324 9-2 5 8-8 31 11-2 6-8 0-0 5-5 4-7 4-1 3-2 6-0
12 S. Carolina 11 12 22-6 .6319 12-1 14 10-5 15 14-1 5-4 3-1 6-4 3-2 5-2 6-2 8-0
13 * Fla. Int'l NR NR 24-5 .6234 10-4 16 14-1 22 14-1 9-3 1-1 9-1 1-1 1-3 7-0 15-1
14 Iowa State 10 10 21-7 .6224 12-0 8 9-7 35 11-3 8-4 2-0 7-3 3-5 2-0 10-1 6-1
15 Colorado 12 11 21-8 .6183 10-3 27 11-5 13 14-1 6-7 1-0 8-2 4-7 3-1 5-0 9-0
17 N. Carolina 21 19 23-7 .6172 11-2 19 12-5 27 12-3 8-3 3-1 9-1 1-4 3-0 6-2 13-1
18 * Old Dominion 19 16 22-5 .6134 4-5 46 18-0 10 11-2 11-2 0-1 10-0 1-3 0-1 2-1 19-0
19 * Colo. State 16 20 23-5 .6073 11-3 50 12-2 8 15-1 6-4 2-0 8-2 2-1 4-2 4-1 13-1
20 * La Tech 9 9 22-4 .6065 5-3 38 17-1 19 13-0 8-3 1-1 9-1 0-3 4-1 1-0 17-0

* = conference champion or current leader CP = Coaches' Poll Neu = neutral court

Statistics through games played March 2, 2002.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</PRE>

So once upon a time I said that we would get to the nitty-gritty, so here it is.

The first task of the selection committee is to determine who is the number one seed. That is easy this time, isn't it?

While Tennesee would seem to be the top team on the basis of the RPI, it doesn't matter. The RPI cannot factor that UConn is the best team, because it looks at the magic .25/.50/.25 formula, which is really only a crude approximation of the relative strength of teams.

This much we know - Connecticut defeated Oklahoma at home, and beat Tennessee at their house, in front of the largest regular-season crowd in women's NCAA history. They also made Florida International, North Carolina, Vanderbilt, Louisiana Tech and Notre Dame look like bad basketball teams, and all of those teams except Notre Dame are on my hosting seed stat list.

They haven't lost a game. Their margin of victory tops the country. They have only been challenged by about three teams all year. And by the way, they happen to play in a very mediocre conference.

Oh well, they deserve their ranking and their seeding. Both are number 1. So there you have it, Connecticut will not only be the number 1 seed of the tournament, but there is no way that the committee is going to move them out of their region.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next question?

So we've decided who the top seed is, but there are still 3 remaining. Who are the candidates? Sorting by record, they are:

<PRE style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal">28-1 Stanford
25-3 Duke
24-3 Oklahoma
25-4 Tennessee
24-4 Baylor
23-4 Purdue
26-6 Vanderbilt</PRE>

It is here that some undisputable facts must be either made or reiterated.

Fact #1 - Stanford is ranked #2 in the country in both polls. They are #7 in the RPI. While the committee doesn't have to follow the polls (and in fact they won't, at least within reason) they are going to be extremely reluctant to take the #2 ranked team, one with 2 fewer losses than anyone else, down 3 notches to a #2 seed.

Fact #2 - Stanford is a "legacy". They are one of the schools that has been most instrumental in the acceptance of women's college hoops. Their coach is a legend. They are a past national champion, and they were undefeated in their conference this year. And by the way, their conference was really, really lousy this year. But that isn't Stanford's fault.

Fact #3 - Stanford this year is the flagship of the hopes of the entire country west of the Rockies to have a team in the Final Four, and the Pac-10 is a powerful entity within the NCAA. The pressure will be LARGE for Stanford to be a #1 seed, and I believe they will be. That just doesn't mean they will be the #2 team in the entire tournament, because they won't be - and here are the reasons why:

Stanford had the #3 ranked non-conference schedule, but when you are talking about top-seeded team, they need quality results against the other top teams. The only top-25 teams that they have beaten this year were Minnesota and Penn State, both on neutral courts in a two-day span in November. Stanford lost at home to Tennessee, and those 3 games, none on a hostile court, pale in comparison to any other contender for a top seed. In fact, Stanford has only played 7 games against teams in the top-50 this year, although they are 6-1 in those games. Remember, for a top seed it is critical to show you can beat the best, and Minnesota (who lost in the quarterfinals of the Big 10 Tournament to Wisconsin) and Penn State are not among those teams. So against the very best, Stanford was 0-1, and lost on their home court.

Compare their record against these teams:

<PRE style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal">------------------------------------
RPI Overall 1-25 26-50
Rank School W-L W-L W-L
------------------------------------
7 Stanford 29-1 2-1 4-0
5 Duke 25-3 4-2 2-0
3 Oklahoma 24-3 9-3 1-0
1 Tennessee 25-4 7-4 6-0
4 Purdue 23-4 4-2 8-2
10 Baylor 24-4 5-4 2-0 </PRE>

Stanford doesn't look so good in the comparison, but they are unbeaten in their last 21 games, albeit against middling to very weak competition. In short, I don't believe Stanford will be considered for the #2 overall slot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So just who is the number 2 team?

Remember, look first at record, and then how that record was obtained. Then and only then, look at the polls for general opinion, see how hot a team has been down the stretch (and against whom) and look at other such factors such as head-to-head and where losses occurred and against whom.

So our next 2 contenders for the 2-slot are Oklahoma and Duke, with 3 losses apiece. These facts are known:

Fact #1 - Oklahoma played the tougher schedule at #7 non-conference and #2 conference strength of schedule (SOS). Duke wasn't that far behind, at #15 and #3.

Fact #2 - Duke has one significant factor in their favor - they were unbeaten in conference play, while Oklahoma lost at Iowa State and at Texas.

Fact #3 - Oklahoma played many more top teams than Duke, going 9-3 against the RPI top 25 (losing at Connecticut as well as Iowa State and Texas, while defeating Purdue (a big win on a neutral court), TCU, Colorado at Boulder, Texas Tech (twice), Baylor (twice), Texas in Norman, and Kansas State at Manhattan. Duke was but 4-2 against the top-25, defeating Texas Tech and Louisiana Tech on their home court, and winning home and away against North Carolina. Duke lost a critical home game against a quality South Carolina team, but a team that lost in the quarterfinals of the SEC Tournament. Even more damaging was a loss at RPI #94 Toledo, a team with only a 16-10 record against very mediocre competition. Oklahoma has no damaging losses on the resume sheet. Additionally, Duke lost by 21 at home to Tennessee, not a particularly damaging loss, but certainly not a "good" one.

So do we agree, that Oklahoma deserves the #2 slot more than Duke?

Well, there are some other factors to consider in this equation, and I'll bring them out here as my opinion, not necessarily as fact. Some people may not like what I am about to say, but that's not going to stop me from saying it anyway.

Coach Gail Goestenkors has been in collegiate coaching since the 1985-1986 year, and is more of an "institution" than "upstart" Coach Sherri Coale.

There may be some within the women's basketball community that are somewhat put off by the fact that Coach Coale didn't "earn her spurs" by climbing the assistant coaching ranks before "earning" a head coaching job. I'm quite certain in my mind that there is some jealousy and resentment among her peers about her early tremendous success, and how the bright shining star that is her program has dulled a bit of the luster of some other established schools within the NCAA.

In addition, I believe that there is very definitely an unspoken bias against OU's bright, articulate and outspoken coach, rightly or wrongly, specifically because of her looks, her dress and her on-court presence.

OK, I'll just be out with it - there are people who don't like her because she has been spectacularly successful in a relatively short period of time, and because she seems to have all those things that other a lot of other head coaches wish they had - youth, looks, charisma, an incredible presence, and a seemingly limitless upside to her career.

There, I've said it, and I won't say it again. Because of what I've stated, my opinion is that if Duke wins their conference tournament, it is entirely possible that Oklahoma won't get the #2 overall seed, and that Duke will, even though Oklahoma deserves it more.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So are there any other teams that deserve the #2 overall seed MORE than Duke or Oklahoma?

Stanford? See my arguments above.

Tennessee? Tennessee has played a tremendous schedule, the toughest RPI in both conference and non-conference play. They did beat Duke handily on Duke's home court. But they have more losses than Duke, they were eliminated in the semifinals of the SEC tournament, they are 7-3 in their last ten games, including a home loss (their second, the first was a rout by Connecticut) to Texas and a loss to unranked LSU. No momentum, and internal turmoil spell bad things for a club, and Tennessee has both those in spades.

Purdue? I some ways Purdue has a very legitimate argument for a #1 seed, but they are hindered in part for second overall by their head-to-head neutral court loss to Oklahoma, and also by having more losses than Oklahoma has, in a conference not considered as tough the the Big 12. Generally if a team is ranked below another in both polls and in the RPI, and has lost head-to-head at home or a neutral court to another team, then unless they have spectacular results otherwise, they can't get past that other team. Purdue has played a spectacular 24 games against top-100 competition, but they have two losses outside the top 25, and Oklahoma has none.

Baylor? Two losses to Oklahoma and a #28 non-conference schedule doom Baylor in this comparison.

And the other 4- and 5-loss teams - Florida International, Old Dominion, Colorado State and Louisiana Tech, either don't have the respect of the voters or the strength of schedule or other requirements to make the large leap to #2 overall.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So haven't I beat this question to death?

Just look at it this way, the committee will spend a lot more time on it that I have.

So here's where we are at. Connecticut is hands-down the top seed, Duke is the likely second #1 if they win their tournament (whether I agree with it or not), Stanford doesn't have the resume to knock Oklahoma from the third #1 seed, and Stanford won't be knocked out of a top seed with only one loss.

(And for those who think that Stanford deserves a seed above Oklahoma and/or Duke, would you argue that either of these teams wouldn't likely have a better record than Stanford if they swapped conferences? I didn't think so.)

So, tada! The top four seeds:

Connecticut
Duke
Oklahoma
Stanford

One more thing - IF Duke loses in the ACC Tournament, they will be at risk of dropping to a #2. Oklahoma should remain a #1 no matter what, because of being conference champion of the toughest conference this year.

And so now to the next four, and I'll be a bit briefer, because the relative seedings of the above teams make it somewhat easier to rank teams from here on out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who's in the mix for a #2?

Purdue, Vanderbilt, Baylor, Tennessee. That's it. There literally isn't another team in the mix for these seeds. The number of losses or the SOS of the other teams just don't cut it. All we have to do is sort out which is which.

I'll streamline the process this time.

Purdue and Baylor and Tennessee all have 4 losses, and all played in tough conferences. Tennesse and Purdue are champions of their conferences, and Baylor and Vanderbilt were runners-up.

Who's hot? Purdue and Baylor are 9-1 in the last 10, Vanderbilt 8-2, Tennessee 7-3.

Head-to-head wins? Vanderbilt split home-and-home against Tennessee.

Vanderbilt may win the SEC tournament, but Tennessee is conference champion.

Purdue is a conference champion and may win their tournament, but Tennessee played the toughest shedule in the country. Purdue went 20-4 against top-100 teams, though. Baylor showed their mettle by their 12-4 record in the tough Big 12, but didn't really play anybody to speak of in non-conference play.

I'll go with recent trend over SOS in picking Purdue over Tennessee for the 5-slot, and Tennesse gets the 6. Vanderbilt gets the 7 by getting to the SEC final and having a higher SOS and the win over Tennessee, and a season sweep over the team that knocked Tennessee out of the SEC Tournament, LSU. Vandy also had a top-25 out of conference win by 21 at home over Colorado. Baylor gets the 8.

So the #2 seeds are, in order:

Purdue
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Baylor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, down the stretch we go! Who are the #3 seeds?

Our pool of 19 teams is now down to eleven teams for eight hosting seeds.

These schools are: Kansas State, Texas, Texas Tech (hey, I like this!), South Carolina, Florida International, Iowa State, Colorado, North Carolina, Old Dominion, Colorado State and Louisiana Tech.

At this point I am going to eliminate Florida International from any consideration. Remember, while record counts, so does attendance and rankings. Florida International will be in the tournament but not as a host seed. They may possibly get as high as a 6-seed, but they are unranked in both polls, despite their #13 RPI.

And by the way, they drew 609 people for their last home game. End of story.

For the remaining ten teams their stats, once again, look like this:

<PRE style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RPI Polls Overall Non-Conf Conf Home Road Neu Last 1-25 26-50 51-100 101+
Rank * School CP AP W-L RPI W-L Rank W-L Rank W-L W-L W-L 10 W-L W-L W-L W-L
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Kansas St 14 14 23-6 .6362 12-1 9 11-5 17 11-2 9-3 3-1 6-4 5-3 0-0 7-3 11-0
9 Texas 13 13 19-8 .6355 9-2 12 10-6 11 12-3 5-5 2-0 5-5 6-6 3-0 4-1 6-1
11 Texas Tech 15 15 17-10 .6324 9-2 5 8-8 31 11-2 6-8 0-0 5-5 4-7 4-1 3-2 6-0
12 S. Carolina 11 12 22-6 .6319 12-1 14 10-5 15 14-1 5-4 3-1 6-4 3-2 5-2 6-2 8-0
14 Iowa State 10 10 21-7 .6224 12-0 8 9-7 35 11-3 8-4 2-0 7-3 3-5 2-0 10-1 6-1
15 Colorado 12 11 21-8 .6183 10-3 27 11-5 13 14-1 6-7 1-0 8-2 4-7 3-1 5-0 9-0
17 N. Carolina 21 19 23-7 .6172 11-2 19 12-5 27 12-3 8-3 3-1 9-1 1-4 3-0 6-2 13-1
18 * Old Dominion 19 16 22-5 .6134 4-5 46 18-0 10 11-2 11-2 0-1 10-0 1-3 0-1 2-1 19-0
19 * Colo. State 16 20 23-5 .6073 11-3 50 12-2 8 15-1 6-4 2-0 8-2 2-1 4-2 4-1 13-1
20 * La Tech 9 9 22-4 .6065 5-3 38 17-1 19 13-0 8-3 1-1 9-1 0-3 4-1 1-0 17-0</PRE>

I don't see how Texas Tech can be in contention for a #3 seed, considering that Kansas State, Colorado, Texas and Iowa State all finished ahead of them in conference play, North Carolina lost 7 games to Texas Tech's 10, and they were 5-5 in their last ten games. Also, Colorado State and Old Dominion really don't have the credentials either, since neither team is above 16 in either poll or the RPI.

Louisiana Tech, while only 20 in the RPI, is ranked #9 in both polls. They are also a legacy school, and went 10-4 against top-100 teams. They will get a 3-seed for those reasons. (their fan base doesn't hurt them, either)

Iowa State, ranked #10 in both polls and 14 in RPI, looks like a pretty good bet, despite their 9-7 record. They went 7-3 in their last 10 games, and have wins over Oklahoma, Colorado, and at Kansas State on their side.

Colorado, #12 and #11 in the polls, also looks good for a 3-seed, with a third-place finish in the conference and 8-2 record down the stretch. They have top-25 wins over LSU, Iowa State, at Texas Tech and Kansas State.

South Carolina looks pretty solid for a 3, in spite of going 6-4 down the stretch. A 22-6 record, wins at Duke, on a neutral court against North Carolina, and at home against Vanderbilt will do that for you.

You would think a third place finish in the Big 12 conference would net you a 3-seed this year, but Kansas State has looked shaky down the stretch, in spite of a #8 RPI, and are only #14 in both polls. Kansas State has 5 wins against top-25 teams (all in January) but is only 12-6 against top-100 teams. Their momentum and poll placing dooms them to a 4-seed.

You would think that wins at Tennessee and against Oklahoma in the last five games, along with 4 other top-25 wins, might get you at least a 3-seed for Texas. But prior to that Texas lost 5 of 6 in a 3-1/2 week span, including a bad loss at Texas A&M. Those losses, being ranked #13 in both polls (despite #9 in the RPI), and an 8-8 conference record and 5-5 in their last 10 games mean a 4-seed for them.

While Old Dominion (and old legacy) has a nice 22-5 record, everyone in the world knows that they are a near-automatic to win every single game once they get into conference play, and their 3-5 record against top-100 teams (only 8 games against the top 100?) doesn't bode well for them getting any seed at all, because they just cant win any tiebreakers against the other 9 teams. Their only top-100 wins are at home against Penn State, and a season sweep of Delaware. While their losses to Connecticut and Tennessee were reasonably close (both at home), they lost another home game to North Carolina, on a neutral court against North Carolina State, and at Virginia Tech. That just isn't good enough, not even for a 4-seed. Besides that, they are #18 RPI, and #19 in the coaches' poll. This time, the legacy doesn't quite get them through, and in fact, they may not even be a 5-seed.

OK, where am I here? Oh yeah, haven't mentioned either North Carolina or Colorado State yet. Let's examine these two:

Colorado State IS #16 in the coaches' poll (important), but they are #20 in the AP, and their RPI is 19. They have November wins over top-25 teams Notre Dame and Colorado, both at home. (Some might be aware of the snakepit that their bandbox facility is, and the difficulty of opposing teams winning there.) After that, there isn't much to recommend them. A season sweep over BYU, and home wins over UNLV and New Mexico State leave you only 95 cents short of having change for a dollar. Oh, and losing at #161 Oakland sure doesn't help.

Sorry CSU, just telling it like it is.

Now about North Carolina. Some might be tempted to suggest a 3-seed for the runner-up to Duke in the ACC. They have exactly one top-25 win, over Old Dominion (and we've already discussed them!). Their only other top-50 wins are over Villanova at home, and a season sweep of Virginia. Not a very long resume. And their losses? By 20 at Connecticut (maybe the high point of the season), by 32 against South Carolina on a neutral court, at home by 3 against North Carolina State, by 19 at home against #95 Georgia Tech (ouch!), by 1 at #121 Wake Forest (ouch, ouch!), and by 20 and 15 against Duke.

In fact, I'm not sure they deserve a 4-seed. (But get it they probably will, in spite of a #17 RPI and #19 and #21 in the polls.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So let's wrap this present and send it!

The #3 seeds, in order:

Louisiana Tech
South Carolina
Colorado
Iowa State

And the #4 seeds:

Kansas State
Texas
Texas Tech
North Carolina

(Even though North Carolina doesn't deserve it. In fact, this seed ought to be vacated for lack of applicants. Better yet, give it to Oklahoma State, for their effort down the stretch. Hey, I like that!)

(Whew, I am tired!)

[This message has been edited by YCN (edited 03-03-2002).]

[Roger B. Rowland]

Having listened to Karen Morrison describe the process used by the selection committee, I find some of your anaylsis flawed. In particular there is more emphasis on RPI than you characterize.

There are also other variances in the committee methodology compared to your analysis. Based on Karen's description, the committee is not as sophisticated as your anaylsis.

However, your guesses are as good as any that others might have.



------------------
Roger R.

[ISUbballfan]

When you have the 4 teams listed are they any a certain backet order like:
EAST
MIDEAST
MIDWEST
WEST

Because I've heard that whatever seed ISU gets it will be in the Midwest since it is a hosting school like Colorado was last year and Kansas would have been the previous year.

[YCN]

As an adjuct to my post, I'll mention that the selection committee tries to use an s-curve distribution when assigning teams to regions, like this:

<PRE style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal"> 1 2 3 4
8 7 6 5
9 10 11 12
16 15 14 13</PRE>

According to that premise, then I would expect the following seeding assignments:

<PRE style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal">Seed East Midwest Mideast West
#1 Connecticut Duke Oklahoma Stanford
#2 Baylor Vanderbilt Tennessee Purdue
#3 Louisiana Tech South Carolina Colorado Iowa State
#4 North Carolina Texas Tech Texas Kansas State</PRE>

This scenario makes the most sense, except there are some problems with it. Problem #1 is that Iowa State has been promised (as weird as this sounds) that as regional host, they won't play out of region. So let's readjust the bracket slightly to accomodate that:

<PRE style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal">Seed East Midwest Mideast West
#1 Connecticut Duke Oklahoma Stanford
#2 Baylor Vanderbilt Tennessee Purdue
#3 Louisiana Tech South Carolina Iowa State Colorado
#4 North Carolina Texas Tech Texas Kansas State</PRE>

Well, it turns our there is still a problem, as there are 3 Big 12 teams in the Mideast bracket. You can't swap Texas Tech or Kansas State with Texas, that doesn't help. You can't swap Iowa State with anybody because of the guarantee. Swapping Vanderbilt or Purdue with Tennessee doesn't do anything. Only one thing left to do - swap Duke with Oklahoma, so that puts Oklahoma in the Mideast, and Duke in the Midwest.

That works just fine:

<PRE style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal">Seed East Mideast Midwest West
#1 Connecticut Oklahoma Duke Stanford
#2 Baylor Vanderbilt Tennessee Purdue
#3 Louisiana Tech South Carolina Iowa State Colorado
#4 North Carolina Texas Tech Texas Kansas State</PRE>

And that's be placement I'll go with. Geographically it looks better, and better matchup-wise as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------
One more thing I hadn't foreseen, is that the committee tries to ensure that no two teams from the same conference will play before the regional final, if at all possible. Because of this, I have another amendment to make to my brackets, moving Texas Tech from the Mideast Regional to the East Regional, and moving North Carolina from the East Regional to the Mideast.

This avoids the sticky situation of Texas Tech playing Oklahoma in the regional semifinal. I'm pretty sure that this will be the last adjustment to my brackets.

So this should be the final version:

<PRE style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal">Seed East Mideast Midwest West
#1 Connecticut Oklahoma Duke Stanford
#2 Baylor Vanderbilt Tennessee Purdue
#3 Louisiana Tech South Carolina Iowa State Colorado
#4 Texas Tech North Carolina Texas Kansas State</PRE>

(edited 3.4.2002)
One more thing that was missed was another conference matchup in the regional semifinals that the committee likes to avoid - Vanderbilt and South Carolina. I think the tendency would be to shift the lower-seeded team if possible over the higher seed, so here is (hopefully) the last revision. South Carolina and Louisiana Tech have swapped places. It is still based on the results through Saturday, so it might be only slightly stale - such as Purdue's loss in the Big 10 semis.

<PRE style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal">Seed East Mideast Midwest West
#1 Connecticut Oklahoma Duke Stanford
#2 Baylor Vanderbilt Tennessee Purdue
#3 South Carolina Louisiana Tech Iowa State Colorado
#4 Texas Tech North Carolina Texas Kansas State</PRE>


[This message has been edited by YCN (edited 03-04-2002).]

[RaiderPower1]

Does Purdue losing to Indiana 55-41 affect the boilermaker's seeding any?

[YCN]

ISUbballfan, see my placements post.

[YCN]

RaiderPower1, not at all.

After the top seeds were selected, it was clear that there is a clean break between the two's and three's, and that basically - while a one or two might change around - the two's can't fall to three's, and the three's can't move to two's.

Besides, I don't think the committee puts as much emphasis on the conference championship results as they do the regular season. It is only when a team falls two games short or goes two games farther than expected that it has a significant impact.

That's my take, anyway. Thank goodness there was a definable break between the 8 and 9 teams, or my post might have been twice as long!

[YCN]

Roger, my primary intent was to state that RPI doesn't take precedence over the polls, especially when they are in agreement, as the #1 through #10 positions are for this week.

That doesn't mean that RPI isn't a factor, but I believe won-loss percentage, and against whom, as well as the polls are slightly bigger factors, whether or not Karen Morrison publicly states same. And Karen is but one committee member.

The committee wouldn't ever tell us the complete story of how the process works, because to do so would be the equivalent of someone like Jeff Sagarin giving us his exact rankings formula.

If they did that, we wouldn't need the committee, and they would lose out on a nice free trip with great food and accommodations, not to mention the renumerations they must receive for their time and effort. (Somebody pays for that, even if it is a non-paid position, trust me on this one.)

[swok34]

I thought the committee could care less about the polls and rely more heavily on "their RPI verson"......

[YCN]

Here's the problem, swok34.

The problem is that the RPI is a gross interpretation of the relative strength of teams.

It is 1/4 your winning percentage, 1/2 the winning percentage of your opponents against every other team but you (meaning that the result against you doesn't count) and 1/4 the record of your opponents' opponents against everyone except them (meaning that your opponents' win against them doesn't count.

It is a gross simplification. The committee will always look first at the record, and who that record was compiled against. They will of course look at the polls, especially the coaches' poll. And they will look at who beat who, when it happened, and how "hot" you are at the end of the season.

So how was that record compiled? And against whom? And are you hot down the stretch? What is the opinion of the coaches and the press of your accommplishments?

Yes, the committee considers RPI, but I wouldn't consider it either the first, second, or third factor.

[Roger B. Rowland]

I have pulled off Appendix M of the 2002 Division 1 Women's Basketball Championship Handbook from the Library of the NCAA web site. The appendix provides the methodology used by the Division 1 Women's Basketball Committee for selection and seeding in the NCAA tournament.

I have put the information on my alternate website in both an html and pdf format. The links are as follows:
http://home.att.net/~rbrowland2/appendixm.htm

or
http://home.att.net/~rbrowland2/appendixm.pdf

The full 121 page handbook in the pdf format is available at the following link:
http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2002/2002_d1_w_basketball.pdf


------------------
Roger R.

[YCN]

Roger, if you can specifically state any area where I have violated the selection or seeding criteria, I would love to hear about it, and will make amendments as necessary.

I've also read the selection committee rules, and believe that there isn't one decision that I've made that isn't in accordance with those rules.

If I have, please inform me of my error or errors, and I will correct them.

[changed "erros" to "errors"]

[This message has been edited by YCN (edited 03-03-2002).]

[Roger B. Rowland]

I question your assertion that the committee uses the "Coaches" and "Press" polls as a part of their evaluation. The "Rankings" as refered to are prepared by the NCAA "Regional Advisory Committees."

What is the basis for stating that the "Coaches" and "Press" polls are used by the committee?



------------------
Roger R.

[swok34]

I'm pretty sure I've heard that they could care less about the polls, though I'm sure the committee voters are aware of the rankings........and they use their own super secret RPI and won't give away their secrets......

I know the last 10 games are one of the keys, their special version of the RPI, and losing on the road, I think...is worse than losing at home......I know they like teams that go on the road and win.

[YCN]

Common sense, Roger.

Especially in a season when the polls exactly match on teams 1-10.

And why would the committee ignore the recommendation of the coaches, who are employees of the same institutions as those who are on the selection committee?

If you can find me one reference that the polls are ignored, I'll eat my hat. Come to think of it, I won't have to, one way or the other. If the reference says they ignore they polls, then that is a lie.

[This message has been edited by YCN (edited 03-03-2002).]

[YCN]

If someone is willing to put in the work to make up their own "hosting seeds", I will read it.

I will be very surprised if it varies much from my own.

[Roger B. Rowland]

So your basis is personal speculation. So be it.

------------------
Roger R.

[YCN]

Oh, come on Roger, surely you can't be serious.

If you want to huff and puff about my assertion, at least vigorously defend your position - that the polls don't matter.

Whatever you say, at least I will listen, although I probably won't agree with you.

[Roger B. Rowland]

"Common sense" tells me that both of my home state teams are over rated. Does that make the "Coaches" and "Press" polls valid or invalid? It is all in the eyes of the beholder.

One of the first things I look at each season are the people that help generate the polls. With over a half dozen polls out there, who is to say which are valid are which are not?

I can look back to last season at the AP poll and the person from the "Coloradoan" that voted in that poll. "My" perception, based on their writing, was the logic was not all there for that voter. Well lo' and behold that person was replaced.

I think you have a strong analysis in your presentation. Do the members of the committee think like you. Probably not. Does it give me pause to think, it does. Will it help me derive enjoyment from watching the game. Probably not, as on any given day any team can win or lose. Just ask the coaches and players from Texas and Louisiana State what they think of Tennessee.

Will Colorado get to host? Well that may depend on far they get in the Big 12 tournament. That, for now is a matter of opinion. If I believed everything I read on this board, Iowa State will win. But I will still watch the game, because I remember what Colorado did in the first year of the Big 12.

I have noticed that not too many different people have responded to your post. It may be too cerebral. I do admire your ability to articulate your toughts with a keyboard, altough I may not agree.

For now I am done, when is the next game on tv?

http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif




------------------
Roger R.

[Bevo]

I sure hope the committee notes that Texas was 10-6 in conference play, not 8-8 as you stated above. That, coupled with the fact that we won head to head matchups with your #3's CU (in Boulder) and ISU should be giving us stronger #3 consideration at this point than you suggest.

After we take the Big XII tourney this week, we'll be a lock for a #3 seed and seriously contending for a #2. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif

[two cents]

Thank you for offering this detailed analysis, YCN. It was interesting and well articulated. I might quibble with you on a few minor points. One such point is really just semantics. Rather than assert that RPI is not looked to first in the committee's evaluation, I would say that it is looked at first, but it is often not the determining factor. Sometimes, other considerations supersede RPI. I know this is almost a trivial point, but I think it helps to recognize that they begin with RPI, yet they do not feel limited by it. Committee members are quite willing to consider other factors such as some of those you identified and used in your analysis.

I tend to think that Oklahoma will be the second #1 seed, even if they lose in the conference tournament. I also believe Tennessee will receive the third #1, in spite of their loss to LSU. My thinking is that winning regular season championships in the two strongest conferences will carry considerable weight with the committee. However, your analysis may prove to be correct. That's about all I can meaningfully disagree with in substance.

After the #1 seeds, things typically start to get messy. Your evaluation strikes me as reasonable at this point in time. I'd probably place Texas a little higher. So many Big12 teams are in the mix that this week's games may keep committee members fidgeting in their seats more than usual. I am somewhat skeptical that the committee will have the wherewithal to leave 7 Big12 teams in the top 16 seeds. Tech and Colorado are the most vulnerable to being left out. It is difficult to figure out how to justifiably replace those teams. There really aren't a lot of good candidates out there. I think you left Minnesota out of consideration, but they may not have been in the RPI top 20 when you began your analysis.

You make a good point about Florida International's attendance. I had considered the possibility of a top 16 team not being able to host because of a scheduling conflict as happened with Iowa last year and Miss St a couple years ago. That would allow the committee to drop Tech's seed # a little bit and still rake in the big bucks. Now you've got me hoping that Fla Intl either can't meet the facility requirement or won't even bid to host. The burden of the administrative costs may exceed any potential revenue. If they're on a tight budget....you never know. That happened in the NCAA baseball tournament last year with Central Florida. They declined to bid even though they would have been granted a subregional had they made one.

Colorado and Colorado State share an advantage in consideration for one of the top 16 national seeds. ESPN really likes to have two subregionals in Mountain Time and/or Pacific Time Zones for late night programming. The committee can't promise ESPN such a goody, but they'll provide it if feasible. Stanford will get a subregional obviously, and then the two Colorado schools are the only remaining viable candidates. At least one is likely to be chosen.

As for polls, well that is a touchy issue isn't it, especially for Louisiana Tech fans. Formally, the committee will not refer to polls, but it is reasonable to believe that its members are acquainted with the "unofficial rankings." They know that the harshest criticism they receive will center around the discrepancies between their seeding decisions and the polls. They are under some pressure to make decisions "in line" with the polls. They don't necessarily give in to that pressure, but sometimes they do. Of course in many cases, the discrepancy between the RPI and the polls can be accounted for by just the type of facts the committee is entitled to consider. In such cases, the committee may make collective decisions (they even vote similarly) resembling those made by poll voters without ever immersing themselves in the actual poll rankings. Again, I enjoyed reading this thread. Thank you for the effort that went into it.

[carolann]

Thanks, YCN, Roger, et al. I enjoy reading other people's attempts at predicting the committee, something I would never dare to do. It is probably just my personal pessimism but I am highly doubtful that the Big 12 will get 7 host sites. Roger, I don't remember your home state but you refer to the Coloradoan. Surely the Buffs strong Big 12 finish has earned them a host site.

[YCN]

Bevo (and others),

I did err when stating that Texas had an 8-8 conference record, my mistake. Texas has some very impressive wins this year, including the aforementioned win at Colorado, against Oklahoma, and especially the road win against Texas. They also have 3 home losses against top 25 teams Penn State, Baylor and Kansas State, and a hurtful loss at A&M. All-in-all a pretty impressive resume, but I faced a dilemna with Texas in that I couldn't decide who they would overtake for a higher seed than fourth, considering their 5-5 record down the stretch and the fact that 4 teams finished ahead of them in the standings.

I do think, however, that if Texas makes to the Big 12 championship game they may have earned a 3-seed, but I really think a 2-seed is out of reach. Even if they were to win the tournament, I still believe that Purdue, Vanderbilt, Tennessee and Baylor will all have better credentials.

Thanks to anyone who takes the time to read my post; I reasoned from the perspective that the committee members would be well acquainted with both the RPI's and poll rankings of any teams that were in consideration for hosting seeds, rather than from the strict point of view of starting with 64 or more candidates for the field and picking 1,2,3 etc. It is my opinion, and opinion only that while the committee members are not bound by polls, they are influenced by them, because they represent the opinion of the public at large. If they deviate too far from rankings in selecting host seeds, they run the risk of harsh criticism if their decision to include or exclude a team looks bad in hindsight.

[DingoBoy24]

Original post by YCN
"......There may be some within the women's basketball community that are somewhat put off by the fact that Coach Coale didn't "earn her spurs" by climbing the assistant coaching ranks before "earning" a head coaching job. I'm quite certain in my mind that there is some jealousy and resentment among her peers about her early tremendous success, and how the bright shining star that is her program has dulled a bit of the luster of some other established schools within the NCAA.

In addition, I believe that there is very definitely an unspoken bias against OU's bright, articulate and outspoken coach, rightly or wrongly, specifically because of her looks, her dress and her on-court presence.

OK, I'll just be out with it - there are people who don't like her because she has been spectacularly successful in a relatively short period of time, and because she seems to have all those things that other a lot of other head coaches wish they had - youth, looks, charisma, an incredible presence, and a seemingly limitless upside to her career.

There, I've said it, and I won't say it again. Because of what I've stated, my opinion is that if Duke wins their conference tournament, it is entirely possible that Oklahoma won't get the #2 overall seed, and that Duke will, even though Oklahoma deserves it more. ........"

----------------------------------------------------------------

I doubt there's anyone in position to make such big decisions who "has the luxury" to feel that way about Coale and Co. These aren't a bunch of 18yr olds we are talking about here. Coale has accomplished alot in her short career, so are some other young Coaches out there. Coale is cute, but not the only one out there. Smart yes, so are other Coaches (you can't win many games without being smart). I think some of us fans are just being way too paranoid. If you listen to Uconn fans, they also feel the same way about Geno and their program, so are Tennessee, Purdue (another young overachieving Coach) and Duke fans (Even tho Duke has never won a title).... they all think they have legitimate reasons to be concerned.
I visited Notre Dame board a couple of days ago and some of them were complaining about how they have been mistreated by the Selection committee because they are a Catholic School, apparently the Selection Committee and most WBB Coaches are Lesbians and they will do anything to make sure ND fails. If that's the case, How did they win the title last year? They have pretty much forgotten those questionablle calls in the title game that made sure they won the game (at least according to us Purdue fans...... I know Texas Tech fans might have something to say about that too... http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif. the bottom line---> let's stop this nonsense!

[Jennifer]

I even read on the boneyard that the committee dislikes Sherri Coale and that could partially be because of the positive relationship she has w/ Geno.
Puleeeze.
I guess there are people with alot of time to speculate the why's and what for's of anything that happens that doesn't go their way.

[YCN]

The anticipated Boise shootdown on March 23 at 11:37pm CST between the Sooners and Lady Techsters should be a barnburner for all who can stay awake that late.

[vickie1ok]

Terrific analysis YCN; now that the Cardinal has gone down in flames along with Tennessee, that should solidify OU if we don't self destruct in KC. (believe me, I think OSU is a minefield of a first game). But WHERE we go may be more key than being a number one seed.

Regarding the Sherri/Geno/other coaches behind the fence gossip and innuendo. I'm sick of all of it. All of these coaches should be commended for elevating the sport of women's basketball. The newcomers wouldn't be anywhere without the pioneering efforts of people like Pat Summit, Jody Condradt, Tara Vandiveer and others. In fact, Jody was so successful in elevating women's basketball and women's college sports, she either had to go back full time as a head coach or relinquish it to a new head coach in order to keep the Horns as competitive as they should be in the big 12.

On the other hand, the new blood is growing the sport by giant steps. Geno, Sherri, Deb Patterson, Kim MR and many others deserve their credit as well. My suggestion to us fans is that we stay above the fray of petty jealousies that may exist in the infrastructure, because all of these outstanding coaches have one thing in common: their love for the sport and their desire to grow it. And don't we all share that?

[Jennifer]

Well said Vickie, and welcome!