|
|||
|
|||
|
 |
|
|
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION MEDIA CONFERENCEMarch 13, 2016Joe CastiglioneDAVE WORLOCK: Good evening, everyone. We want to remind everyone that a transcript from tonight's teleconference will be available online at www.ncaa.com/transcripts. That website will also serve to host all transcripts from off-day and postgame press conferences from the First Four through the Final Four. We know there's a lot of people on the call waiting to ask Joe Castiglione questions, so we'll go right to questions. Q. Joe, from a deciding standpoint for you and any other committee members, seeing that UT and A&M could play in the second round, what were your thoughts? Were there any comments made in any way? JOE CASTIGLIONE: As you know, the committee doesn't create matchups arbitrarily. We work through specific seeding and then bracketing principles and go through the natural seed lists and give preference to geography, conference affiliation when we make those decisions. In this particular case, we are certainly aware it occurred, but it wasn't specifically arranged. I will tell you this. It's going to happen potentially. But they already played once this season. It was back in November. Q. Joe, the American Athletic Conference, it looked like you gave them a lot of respect this year with four teams getting in. Talk about that. A lot of people thought that Temple might have to play a play-in game. Talk about the rationale behind those teams. JOE CASTIGLIONE: You want me to talk about Tulsa first? Q. All of them. JOE CASTIGLIONE: In the case of Tulsa, I'll start there, because they were actually the last team placed into the field. It was a very, very difficult decision. All of these teams that we discussed toward the end have cases. We looked for distinguishing factors. In the case of Tulsa, it was their four top-50 wins, including a road win over SMU. They had eight top-100 wins. You add some context to that, six of those eight top-100 wins were over teams that are in the tournament. Those kinds of things begin to distinguish them versus the other teams they're being compared against. In the case of Temple, they had five top-50 wins, seven top-100. They had really good road wins over UConn and Cincinnati and one over SMU. I may add, they would have clearly been in the field as an at-large participant had they not suffered some misfortune. The same goes with Louisville, while I'm mentioning it. The struggle with Temple was really the lack of quality with their non-conference wins. But in the end they were deemed to be one of the best 36 at-large teams. Q. On the Mountain West, San Diego State, can you talk about what the discussion was on them and how much did the USD loss outdoors at Petco hurt them? JOE CASTIGLIONE: Well, it hurt. San Diego State, again, won the Mountain West Conference, they win versus a team that was considered for the at-large part of our field. It was a neutral-site win versus Cal back in November. We recognized that they challenged themselves with a tough non-conference schedule. But in the end they didn't get enough wins against that type of schedule, at least in the committee's eyes. What also might have hurt them within their conference, even though they did win the title, as I mentioned, they only went 2-3 against the better competition within the league, mainly Fresno State and Boise State. The loss to San Diego and the fact they played multiple games against non-Division I teams factored into the entire conversation. Q. Joe, I was wondering if over the course of the last few days, how much of the topic of conversation was Jim Boeheim's nine-game suspension and how much it played in Syracuse getting into the field and also getting a 10 seed? JOE CASTIGLIONE: We get asked that question a lot. Because we talk about it a lot, I think people take certain perspectives. Obviously we are aware. I've said from day one that we treat player availability, coach availability the same. We do not discount any aspect of the schedule. All the games matter, the results matter. But in the case of Syracuse, you look at what they did. They had five top-50 wins. Three of those came away from home. Eight top-100 wins overall. We noticed the neutral-site win over UConn, which won their tournament championship today. The neutral-site win against Texas A&M. They were the co-champion of SEC, and obviously the win at Duke. I may also add this is a really good example of how we look at the utilization of a variety of metrics, noting that our discussions aren't just about the RPI. In Syracuse's case, it's also important to use them as an example of how an imbalanced conference schedule can play into the conversation. They played North Carolina twice. They played Pitt home and away. They didn't get the chance to play Virginia, Louisville or Miami at home. But we can take that same kind of conversation and apply it to any of the teams that are under consideration and make sure we recognize the two plays and the one plays. Q. Joe, the bracket was leaked online before CBS was halfway through announcing it on TV. Were you surprised by that and were you disappointed to see that happen? JOE CASTIGLIONE: It was surprising and very regrettable. I wasn't made aware of it till just before I was walking onto the set live, for a live shot with CBS. After I left the studio, I was made aware of the entire situation. I can just tell you that the NCAA goes to great lengths to prevent the tournament field from being revealed early. In this particular case, the NCAA took their usual measures to protect something like this from happening. It's really unfortunate. It's regrettable that the bracket was revealed prior to our broadcast partners having the opportunity to complete the unveiling of the entire bracket. We are still looking into the matter. I should say the NCAA and others are still looking into the matter. We take it seriously. We hope to zero in on how it occurred. Q. Joe, I know that Monmouth was one of the last few teams out. Can you take me through the process of the last day or two, how close they were to really getting in. JOE CASTIGLIONE: Very close. I could tell you, this was one of the more debated conversations that I can remember. Not just about them, but the other teams that didn't make it into the field, and of course the ones that did. It came down to the very last vote. It was really tight between Tulsa, Monmouth, St. Bonaventure, South Carolina and Valpo. We recognize in the case of Monmouth, or teams like Monmouth, we want to say right up front, they had an outstanding season. They did some things that the committee values: trying to strengthen their non-conference schedule. Teams like Monmouth only have a few opportunities to get top-100 wins. So their 3-4 record versus those teams wasn't as much of a factor, although they weren't in the top 25. It was really the case with their three losses outside of the top 200. Of course, we combine that with the use of all the different analytics that we have available to us. No other team in the field had multiple losses against teams below 200. In the end, in a very, very close vote, they just didn't have enough. I could just tell you, we all recognize what they did. We would encourage them and other teams like them to utilize a similar strategy because short of those multiple losses against teams below 200, it might have been a different outcome. Q. They tried to ramp up the schedule. They played who they played. They won some of those games. In the end they're still not in. Do you think it sends a bad message to other mid-majors who look at Monmouth who ramped up their schedule and didn't get in? JOE CASTIGLIONE: Well, I could just tell you that we don't have any intent to ever send any sort of message to any program. It's not our place to do that. Certainly that's not part of any aspect of our process. Each year is different. Each case it different. Each conversation is different, particularly when one considers how teams are compared against each other, where they come up for discussion in meeting those teams on the under consideration board. In various years, the opportunity for Monmouth might have been there to get into the field. We had a lot of upsets this year with No. 1 seeds losing in their tournament. So some spots got taken. We certainly recognize while many people are going to argue which team should be in or out of the tournament, I don't think that anyone could argue that this wasn't a difficult year. Q. Joe, tell me what the discussion was on VCU, how close they were, what they did in the tournament that got them in? JOE CASTIGLIONE: We certainly recognize that VCU was a regular-season co-champion. They were in the discussion with a number of teams. In the case of VCU, the Atlantic-10 tournament, like all other tournaments, is a chance to enhance a team's résumé. They did that over the course of the weekend. We were comparing them to some other teams, say a head-to-head win over a team like St. Bonaventure, which was the first four teams, if you will, out of the tournament, it mattered, played a factor in those last votes. I will also add that their analytics, the balance of those metrics, were consistent. Whether you prefer result-based ones or predictive ones, they were very, very balanced. In the end, all part of the conversation that led committee members to put them in the field. Q. Obviously Texas is in the same bracket. Shaka Smart is former VCU's coach. The committee doesn't consider those kind of things when they're doing the pairings, is that accurate? JOE CASTIGLIONE: Yes, that is accurate. We've tried to make that point all through the year when we get asked certain questions. Each year there are some that look at the bracket, how it's presented, and think there are matchups that we arbitrarily create. We recognize there are going to be situations where coaches may go against their former team. They may go against their former assistant coaches. They may face players that were on their team at one point and transferred to another school. It's just a matter of the way things work out when we apply, strictly apply, our procedures for seeding and then of course, like today, when we get into bracketing. So if you know the process, we don't cook up these matchups. Geography and conference affiliation drive nearly every decision when it comes to the bracketing. We recognize it when it happens, but it is not something that's contrived. Q. I was curious about Michigan State, what the discussions were, how they ended up as a No. 2. JOE CASTIGLIONE: This, again, was a very difficult conversation. I'll tell you candidly, I was out of the room part of the time because part of the conversation, as teams were being compared on the seed list, also included Oklahoma. I found myself out of the room along with my colleague Mark Hollis. But when it was all said and done, in talking with members of our committee, there are additional elements that drove some of those decisions. In the case of Michigan State, fifth overall seed, strong, strong team. They've been playing well as they got their full complement of players back. Obviously won the Big Ten championship today. But when compared to, say, Oregon, the fourth overall seed, Oregon was the regular-season and their tournament champion. They had the number one strength of schedule, number two RPI, 10 wins against the top 50. Michigan State's eight top-50 wins and 13 top-100 wins, while very, very good, in the committee's mind wasn't enough to move ahead of Oregon. Oregon also had some injury issues. Again, we take those into consideration, don't discount any of their losses, but were certainly factors in their losses to Boise and UNLV. Q. Oregon State was a seven seed. That was better than what a lot of analysts predicted, particularly since Tres Tinkle is in question going forward. What did they do to get that spot? JOE CASTIGLIONE: In the case of Oregon State, we are very well aware of the injury to an excellent player Tres Tinkle. We're aware of other injuries or suspensions that occurred, when they occurred, what games were affected by player availability. Oregon State had four top-50 wins. Didn't have any losses to teams that we would consider overall problematic for a team résumé. The 11 top-100 wins were another compelling point. A team that has really developed. So in the eyes of the committee, again, using the metrics that we do, all part of the factors that were considered. They're the last team on the seven line, so it was very, very close in the discussion where they could have been on the eight seed line. Q. Did their play over the past couple days, without Tres Tinkle, do anything to potentially benefit them and their seeding? JOE CASTIGLIONE: No, not really. Q. You mentioned on a couple of occasions with a couple of teams that the metrics out-fire the RPI, worked in their favor. Wichita State, Syracuse you mentioned. I'm curious if that was true on the other side of it, whether that hurt a team like St. Bonaventure, which was rather low in those rankings? JOE CASTIGLIONE: Yes, that's an excellent question. In the case of St. Bonaventure, their non-conference strength of schedule was outside the top 150. They didn't have a non-conference win against a team in the top 80. So that was a concern. They also had five losses to teams that aren't in the tournament. So that last group of teams, which St. Bonaventure was considered, they were being compared to teams like Syracuse and VCU. In those particular cases, they had head-to-head losses to each of those teams. I guess you could say it hurt their chances. Q. One another team along the same lines, Temple, how were they able to overcome being in the 80s in the efficiency rankings? JOE CASTIGLIONE: Five top-50 wins, seven in the top 100. Their metrics weren't as good. We certainly recognized that. Regular-season champions. We struggled with their lack of quality non-conference wins. But one of the best 36 in the eyes of the committee. Again, very, very challenging part of our job. We certainly know these are teams that have a number of things in their favor and a few shortcomings. We work hard to try to consistently vet those out. Q. I was wondering why A&M was seeded above Kentucky, given today's result. Also, what ultimately kept South Carolina out of the field? JOE CASTIGLIONE: Well, we know A&M split with Kentucky. They were co-champions of the SEC. In the case of Kentucky, by winning the SEC Championship today, they picked up only their third top-50 win. They had five losses to non-tournament teams, four of which were ranked below 90. That was part of the consideration when talking about Kentucky, where they were placed on the seed line. Q. South Carolina, what ultimately kept them out? JOE CASTIGLIONE: In the case of South Carolina, it's only one top-50 win. Moreover, it's the poor overall strength of schedule. When we were looking at it, it was near 170. Their non-conference strength of schedule was near 300. They also had seven losses to teams that are not in the tournament. While they had a really good season and the program was recognized as such, we consistently indicated that teams should try and test themselves against good teams outside their conference. Testing yourself against the iron, if you will. When we get into these very challenging conversations where these teams are very close together, the type of teams you play outside your conference, not only the teams, but where the game is played and the outcome of those games, matter in those discussions to differentiate. In the case of Texas A&M, they had five top-50 wins to Kentucky's three. Again, close calls, but something that distinguishes one team from the other. Q. I was wondering about Arizona, how you evaluated them. They tied with Cal in the PAC-12. Seem similar in some ways. Cal got a four, Arizona a six. Arizona had a very weak non-conference schedule. How did you break that down? JOE CASTIGLIONE: That was definitely noted by the committee. They had a non-conference strength of schedule which was 260. That's on the high side. When you're a team that's getting near 300, that catches people's attention. We certainly recognize they also had some challenges this year with injuries. We noted that. They had six games out of their conference against teams that were ranked 220 and below, including three lower than 300. That helps pull the metrics, if you will, in one direction or the other. But you value the four top-50 wins that they had. They were 500 on the road. They were 6-7 against the tournament field. We're trying to look at everything in assessing a team. Q. Were they even close to a five line? Purdue has a five. There's a five spot in Denver open. Purdue got it. Were they even considered for that or were they closer to being a seven? JOE CASTIGLIONE: Well, they were 23 on the seed list. They were third of four teams on that line. So compared next to Notre Dame, who they were right behind, and just ahead of Seton Hall, that obviously is a result of the discussion and the vote and how we do the comparison. Q. You mentioned earlier that spots got taken by so many No. 1 seeds losing in their tournament. I'm wondering what spots were taken when there are no multiple big leagues outside of the power conferences and the basketball-only conferences. What spots are you talking about? JOE CASTIGLIONE: Well, what I was talking about is the challenges that grew as we saw what appeared to be a higher number of No. 1 seeds losing early in the tournament or even in their tournament final. Iona beating Monmouth. Northern Iowa beating Wichita State. Q. If I can interrupt you, that takes out Monmouth, but you still get the AQ. Monmouth gets (expletive). That's what I'm saying. Whose spot did they take, be it Monmouth, go right down the list, any of the other No. 1 seeds that lost, none of them got in as an at-large outside, again, of power conference teams or basketball-only leagues. Wichita State, for example. You make it sound like some of these teams are in there when they're not. JOE CASTIGLIONE: Well, first of all, I just want you to know that we don't define conferences as 'power leagues' or 'basketball leagues'. In the cases of teams winning their conference championship that weren't going to be in the field otherwise, a Northern Iowa beating Wichita State, or teams in any conference that are moving further into the tournament play than perhaps they might have been predicted based on their seeding, sometimes that changes because of the head-to-head competition. Sometimes that changes the profile of the team that's under consideration. If you want an example. Had Wichita won their tournament, they would have been an AQ. It would have opened up a spot for another at-large team. We monitor those closely throughout the entire week. Q. So another at-large team, not Northern Iowa, is what you're saying? JOE CASTIGLIONE: That's right. Q. Again, I know you don't differentiate, but year after year it comes down to the same thing: a power conference team or a basketball conference, those are the ones that are getting rewarded time and time again. I'm asking this question more in regards to regular-season championships. It seems like they're not being rewarded at all, or even carry much weight in your metrics, in your variety of metrics that you talk about. I haven't heard that conversation at all saying a conference championship is carrying any amount of weight into the committee room. JOE CASTIGLIONE: Well, just on that last question, I want to clarify something. Each conference determines how they wish to designate their automatic qualifier. In the case where we are today, every Division I conference has decided to stage a conference tournament and let the tournament champion be their automatic qualifier. The only conference that uses regular-season conference champions is the Ivy League. We've learned recently they're going to move on to having a post-season tournament as well. I want to also clarify one thing. We are charged with selecting the best 36 at-large teams regardless of conference affiliation. It's not a most-deserving or rewarding, or worthy. We understand what people are trying to say. We certainly recognize there are such difficult decisions to make because of how hard these teams work, the importance of being in the NCAA tournament, the special, unique opportunity that it is. But when it all comes down to our charge, we are supposed to select the 36 best at-large teams. The rest of the field includes the 32 automatic qualifiers. Q. If I can ask it another way. Is there any metric out there that can help those teams outside of the power conferences and the basketball-only leagues that can go on their profile or résumé that they can do at some point that can raise them a little bit? At the end of the day the numbers year after year after year are getting thinner and thinner for those teams outside of those leagues. JOE CASTIGLIONE: Simply stated, you have to win games and avoid bad luck. As I mentioned earlier, we value teams that try to challenge themselves outside of their conference. Making a general statement, some leagues are going to have difficult times getting games against those top-50 or top-100 teams. We know those opportunities are fewer for some than they are for others. But we've said all along we pay attention to that during the evaluation process. The committee members notice where teams have tried to test themselves against the iron. The chances to go play teams gives you a chance to improve the case when it comes time to selection, and not leave it all to the automatic qualifier. DAVE WORLOCK: Thank you so much. We appreciate everyone being on the call tonight. Enjoy the tournament, everyone. We'll talk to you soon. FastScripts Transcript by ASAP Sports   |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
About ASAP Sports •
FastScripts Archive •
Recent Interviews •
Captioning •
Upcoming Events •
Contact Us
FastScripts | Events Covered | Our Clients | Other Services | ASAP in the News | Site Map | Job Opportunities | Links |
|
ASAP Sports, Inc. | T: 1.212 385 0297
|