NATIONAL COLLEGE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION MEDIA CONFERENCE

February 26, 2003

Bill Hancock

Jim Livengood

Greg Shaheen

JIM LIVENGOOD: Bill, thank you. Again, welcome to Ladies and Gentlemen on the call. That question has been asked a lot. The committee does not. There is no mathematical line. There's no rule or principle that we have that talks about not being able to have a team in the tournament with less than a 500 record. I think that is very much a misnomer. There are other factors, and certainly those again, our charge, I'll probably say this way too many times, but our charge is to select as a committee the best 34 teams, the best 34 at-large teams. As most of you on the call know, those factors include many of the following: rankings by a regional advisory committee of coaches, Division I record of the team, overall RPI, non-conference record, non-conference RPI, conference record, road record, record in last 10 games, injuries to key players, and certainly other special circumstances that may or may not have affected a team's performance in certain games, records against other teams that are under consideration. Basically those factors all have the same weight. But those are the main factors.

BILL HANCOCK: Thank you, Jim. We are ready for questions from the callers.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Good question. I certainly spent a lot of time with Lee, as I have with Mike Tranghese before Lee in that. The only pressure I feel, my colleagues on the committee as well, is to do the very best job possible. Therein lies pressure, not no terms of who doesn't or who does, just that we want to do the very best job we can for the Division I basketball teams in this country. That's our charge. That is pressure just because we don't want to make a mistake. We want to make sure it's done right and done very thorough.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Yeah, he did. He said, "Have extremely thick skin." I'm not sure what he meant by that, but extremely thick skin. In a serious sense, yeah, he did. I think the thing there is our charge, my charge certainly as the chair, we really do our homework, we need to do it well. At the end, when the selection is made, when the teams are announced, we, and I, particularly myself, I need to be very smart with regards to talking about teams that certainly we have questions about who got in, who were close calls, and team whose didn't get in that were close calls. That's his advice, just make sure you know everything you can about the teams.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Again, it's a good question. I think there's a misnomer out there. These factors do not have different weights. That part of it right there I think is sometimes misunderstood. All of them are factors; all of them are important. So for a team to be much stronger in some areas, weaker in others, with regards to the factors we're considering, doesn't factor in. The idea again is looking at all those kinds of things and evaluating by the committee each team the best possible way we can. There's not one factor that sticks out and we say, "Gosh, if they're really strong in this area, that's really a plus and we need to really be more diligent."

JIM LIVENGOOD: No, it's not. I think that is a perception. Obviously, a winning record in a larger conference, certainly there's a very good chance that the RPI is going to be higher simply because of you who played, your opponent's opponents, all those things. That part of it I think is very true. That is just a perception. Every team is given careful, careful consideration with regards to making sure that we're looking at all kinds of things.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Well, again, the record in the last 10 games becomes just like everything else, just another factor. I think that part of it for the committee, and certainly committees before us, that factor tends to indicate a little bit how a team is playing at the end of the year. That's going to be harder some years than others. Some teams are going to maybe have a poorer record in those last 10 game and possibly still get in the tournament based on other kinds of things. It's just another way of trying to make sure that at all times we are picking, excuse me, selecting, the best 34 at-large teams.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Well, one, we'll do it very carefully. The road record, as important as that is, because it's again one of the factors, it's no more important than anything else. That question has been asked several times in different ways over the last week. As we all know, that is harder. We're having a lot more teams in conference play right now lose on the road. But, again, it's just one of many factors. So that part right there, to single it out, I know that people want to do that, to single that out, probably isn't fair to a number of teams, and certainly isn't fair to the process.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Have you sat on a couple committee meetings?

JIM LIVENGOOD: By golly (laughter). It's a good question, a great comment. That part of it we do use. We try to use the expertise, if you will, and certainly the experience of all 10 members of the committee. Those who have coached, have coaching experience, particularly at the college level, it really is an important question of if you get a couple of teams, who would you like to meet in a particular round, who would you not like to meet? Does that make a difference? No, again, certainly it's just another factor in terms of trying to make sure we do the best job we can in the selection of the 34. Again, it adds one more component. If we do our job, at the end of the day on this thing, we will have looked at everything we possibly can and really know these teams very, very well.

JIM LIVENGOOD: First, I'm not aware of the fact that the committee has ever come under criticism? You're kidding, right?

JIM LIVENGOOD: No, it's a good question. We have tried to get out as much as we possibly can. As you know, committee members are assigned conferences, anywhere between three and four conferences, each committee member. That responsibility for that member is to try to do the best job they can of knowing the teams in those conferences and being kind of a link, if you will, between the commissioners of those conferences and talking with a number of people. It's virtually impossible to see every team that you possibly can in person. We know that. With television now, I realize in some ways that doesn't help everybody, but with television right now, you get a chance to see a great number of teams. When we talk about teams in our meeting, we go through things, we try to make sure that nobody is ever put at a disadvantage - by "nobody," I mean teams - that nobody is put at a disadvantage because maybe nobody has seen them. The direct answer to that, we don't have that ability for everybody to see every team.

JIM LIVENGOOD: You know what, some would come at it from a standpoint that it might be harder, others might come at it from a standpoint it might be easier. Those teams that have been able to win on the road, they might more clearly identify themselves. I think it kind of plays both ways, cuts both ways. Again, it's just one factor. We're trying to look at a whole number of factors, as I mentioned earlier in the call. We just really need to make sure that we're evaluating everybody the same way, and that we're not taking some teams, evaluating them one way, others another. We try to look at those kinds of things. The road record, certainly because it has been difficult, will be, just like it has been, a very good and very serious factor.

JIM LIVENGOOD: The hard thing on that, I might not answer it the way you want it to be answered, but we obviously pay attention to injuries to key players. That's a given. We also look at special circumstances, as I mentioned, that may or may not have affected a team's performance. When we come to proposed or purported, I guess, clock malfunction or other something like that, it really is hard to do that because if we did that, it would only -- those teams would have a real advantage, if you will, that had something that came out from a public standpoint, everybody knew about it. There might be a whole number of other situations where there was a clock malfunction, something else that went during the course of a game that didn't fall into an injury category or special circumstances that really would be unfair. We have not in the past tended to. Now, the committee does understand in most cases, those are very close games, understanding close games could go both ways. Maybe if a little bit there's an understanding in a close game two teams played very well or two teams were very evenly matched.

JIM LIVENGOOD: That's not the case. That's strictly the rumor. Again, it's one of the things, the last 10 games is one of the many factors that we use, no more or no less important than any of the other factors. I think sometimes people will say things if maybe they best serve their circumstances. But that has not been part of our committee discussion at all.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Well, it's a hypothetical question, probably one I shouldn't give. What I'd be doing is telling you a personal opinion. That probably isn't fair to our committee. Those kinds of things obviously I've had a lot of questions on. I think there's been a lot of talk, if you will, out there, in terms of exactly that. We've not dealt with that. We have not used that as one of our factors. It's certainly one of those things that when a team wins the conference, then plays, might get upset in the conference tournament, whether it's first, second, third round, whatever else, certainly it's a factor that they've had a very good season because they won their conference. To take it any more than that I think would be unfair really to the factor process.

JIM LIVENGOOD: The good thing about that is because we have so many different factors that we're trying to look at, some of that takes care of itself. For example, that team that has really struggled in non-conference, plays well in the conference, obviously you could look at it two ways. One, they have a very weak non-conference schedule and some of these things would come out in the RPI. Another part of that would be, maybe they're coming on and just playing better. Hopefully, we will have done our homework, I know we will have, we will have all that information. We'll have everything about that so we can make that determination. The rankings by our regional advisory committee of coaches helps along those lines there, as well, in terms of, because we have several of those as we go in terms of teams that are getting better. When it works the other way, a team that has had an outstanding non-conference record, gets into conference struggle, it could work the same way in terms of maybe how tough the conference is, how many good teams are in there. The idea is to not overdo any of those, not to sound trite, but not to underdo them, as well, making sure everybody is being considered, and at the same time only 34 at-large can come in. We need to make sure we are selecting the best 34 at-large.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Pardon?

JIM LIVENGOOD: In terms of games?

JIM LIVENGOOD: There's nothing magical about that number. That's a number that's been used for a number of years. It seemed to have worked rather well. It's a number that if you use five, you could argue any number, but that might not be enough games because it's just right at the end. 10 probably gives you basically -- in all practical purposes you're talking about a third of the season. It's a pretty good part of the season, yet it's not the entire season. I'd like to tell you there is something magical, it was a hidden formula that somebody figured out. That's not what happened. It's just been used down the years in the committee.

JIM LIVENGOOD: As you well know, we went to the pod system last year, the pod system worked very well. It certainly cut down, reduced team's travel by about half. That's a possibility. Remember, I didn't say it's a probability. As we work through, when we get into bracketing, which bracketing follows the seeding process, as you well know, when we get into bracketing, those kinds of things are certainly looked at. There would be nothing, because what you're talking about right there, you're talking two of the three teams being in the same conference, or could be all three different conferences in that state.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Hypothetical. I can't get into -- I'm not going to talk about individual teams. But that's possible.

JIM LIVENGOOD: I guess that would fall under the categories that I don't want to talk about individual teams. I'm sorry about that.

JIM LIVENGOOD: All I can speak to is being on the committee the last three years, this being my fourth year, I don't think that's a factor at all. Having worked with this committee, these are people who take this job very seriously. They are very diligent about what they go about doing. Everybody kind of leaves their school hat at home, if you get my drift. I really honestly don't think that has been or ever will be a factor. That part of it, if it were, what we would have, because of our voting procedures, our voting policies and principles, it would be a whole type of makeup. I haven't seen that at all. Yet a number of conferences certainly always think they should get more teams in.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Everything can be a problem from a perception standpoint. I deal more with reality. In this case, I honestly don't believe it is a problem or has been a problem. Perception is kind of what you see or believe things to be. In the reality, that is not at all what's happening.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Well, our goal in this, and that's a good question, is to try to, to the best of our ability, have every team play as close to a site as they possibly can. Now, we know that when you have this many teams in a tournament, that's just not going to happen. As you move down through our seeds, it's just not going to happen. That part of it cannot happen. It just doesn't work that way. The bigger thing, and there are several instances, Mississippi State, Dallas, in Texas, was one. Whether that would have happened again had we gone back through, it's hard to say. I do know that we will try to be very careful and look ahead. We've already done that at our summer meeting, fall meeting, of looking ahead and being aware of it. We didn't look at teams because it's much too early for that. We really are trying to make sure that everybody is treated equally, but at the same time the pod system is designed to try to keep people closer to home. When you say that, and when I say that, immediately it's just thought that everybody gets to play close at home. That just isn't possible.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Again, I want to be careful because I don't want to get into teams. The committee spends a lot of time on that. I think all of you know there's three main things we do. Obviously, the selection is critical. It's the most important. As Tom Butters, a committee member and chair several years back said, that is the most important thing we do. If you're not in the tournament, you can't play your way out of a bad seed or bad bracket. The second part is the seeding. The third part is the bracketing. In terms of when we get to the bracketing part, we spend time on what does make the most sense. Obviously, if we've done or homework, done a good job of seeding, it becomes a little bit easier. Still we have a lot of questions. We spend a lot of time. I think there's a little bit of perception that all of a sudden when we get everybody seeded, we pop things up on a board, in five to seven minutes it's all done. That's not the case. We spend a lot of time after that trying to make sure that the tournament is balanced, that we have great regional balance, because it is a national tournament, and all the other kind of factors.

JIM LIVENGOOD: I'm not trying to make light of that, but to my knowledge I think there are less than 316 brackets, mock brackets, out there right now. That part of it. Without getting into specifics of individual teams, the principle we follow under the pod system, which we're under our second year now, is trying to the best of our ability to have everybody we possibly can keep teams as close to home as we can in the first and second rounds.

JIM LIVENGOOD: I'm not sure about lessons, but I do know that the committee, from a diligent standpoint, due diligence, we are constantly trying to make sure that to the best of our ability, number one, we're following the principles and procedures that have been set up. That part right there, if we change anything like that, it's always done in the summer, it's never done just prior to, and certainly never during. There's going to be things like that that are going to happen. We hope that they don't just because sometimes we have geographical issues with regards to -- remember these sites are set several years in advance, and sometimes teams change about who might be in there, who might not be in there. Again, our charge is just to make sure that to the best of our ability, after we seeded teams, of trying to keep teams as close to home as we can. I'd love to be able to tell you there won't be anything like that that's controversial, and I hope there isn't, because it will make my responsibilities much easier on selection night. I just don't know that any of that can be guaranteed. We're going to do the very best job we can to make sure we cover those bases. Maybe that's the lesson we need to learn, that we continue to try to refine the process.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Well, I don't know that it complicates. I think what happens is after we finish the bracketing process, in some ways, somebody earlier said perception, it makes it a little bit more difficult. But remember now, one of the charges that we're trying to do is, because it's a national tournament, and playing this great tournament in many parts of the country, we really try to spread things out. That part of it is also important. From a geography standpoint, some places bid on sites when others didn't with regards that might make it more geographically spread out. I don't think that it makes it harder. It makes it one of those things we know what the sites are. We know the eight first and second round sites, we know where they are. We certainly never, never, never select teams based on what might work better into the bracket.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Yes.

JIM LIVENGOOD: That part right there is not information that we send out to the media. I'm probably not at liberty to mention that. One of our committee members watched that very carefully.

JIM LIVENGOOD: We try to be very careful and not project ahead and not look at things like that because, first and foremost, the charge is to make sure it's -- it's a national tournament, to make sure we do the best job with regards to where teams are seeded with things like that. I know there's been comments in the past with regards to very unique match-ups that may or may not match coaches or schools, things like that. We try not to. If it's a situation where a team could go one of two places and has an option like that, that certainly could be a factor with regards to size, but it normally isn't. The idea, again, is to do the very best job again we can of following our principle of seeding as we get into the bracket process.

JIM LIVENGOOD: I don't know that I would say that. Bill or Greg, any comments on that?

BILL HANCOCK: I think that could be a tiebreaker in a bracketing situation. Through the years, I don't remember it happening many times.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Thank you.

JIM LIVENGOOD: You know, great question. I don't think that the term "rewarding" probably fits. Going back to the factors, it fits into a number of our factors with regards to overall record, so on and so forth. The fact that the committee doesn't just look at a record, but looks at how close games were, certainly we know where they were played, all those kind of things. So the reward factor I don't think plays in. That has been asked a lot I think in recent years, and that is talk about a quality loss. You know, the idea obviously, it's best to win every game you can. At some places a loss on the road, a tough place, a tough team, we don't have a system that allows for points or any type of advantage right there. But that's taken into consideration again by the committee of where the game was played, how close it was. Might have been a buzzer beater, didn't win, could have won type of thing. Hopefully that's clearer for you. There's no formula that we have set up that absolutely rewards that.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Absolutely. Absolutely. The amount of dissecting, if you will, that our committee does with each team is incredible. There's very little that we don't know about each team that's in the process, about where they played, how they played, everything like that. A tremendous amount of information that we have at our disposal.

JIM LIVENGOOD: The pod system is fairly simple. Again, we started it last year. This is our second year. The bracketing principles, procedures, are exactly the same. There's no change right there. What we try to do is try to keep the teams as close as possible the first and second rounds. As you probably know or have read or seen, there's no longer assigned -- we don't have first or second rounds assigned to any region. Sometimes we can have in a particular first round site, some teams will be going on to one region, some on to another region. It worked out very well for us. The whole reason for it was to try to keep teams closer at home, trying to reduce the travel for teams, trying to reduce the travel for parents, trying to reduce the travel for fans. It really did help. It helped in attendance. That was not the key part. The key part was reducing travel. In this day and age, the more things we can do in this process to reduce travel for our student athletes, certainly our fans, I think we need to do.

JIM LIVENGOOD: You know what, that's been suggested I think several times. In my experience in the last three years, that has not been the case. Obviously we have changes in the committee each year. We have anywhere from one to two members that go off, one to two members that come on. Those are normally very positive. Each year the committee, because of the NCAA staff doing such a tremendous job of preparing everybody as we go through this, everybody's pretty well prepared. We try to look at it completely anew. Every year is a brand-new year.

JIM LIVENGOOD: If that were the case, that would certainly come from the committee as a recommendation. There's no question about that. We do talk from time to time certainly about the RPI. Whether it needs to be retooled or whether it's effective, obviously that's conjecture. There's lots of different opinions. Remember, this is a really important point, that the RPI in my opinion, and I think the committee would go along with this, is really overrated. It's overrated by coaches, it's overrated by fans, it's overrated by media. I know I'm overstating the obvious, but the RPI is just one of many factors. When we get down to and get into Selection Sunday, we get into those teams that have been selected, obviously it's one of the things, because it's one of the few things that is very numerical, very easy to understand a number, 2 is better than 10, 12 is better than 16, those kinds of things. It's much more objective. It's much easier to understand, be able to see. It really is overrated in many, many ways. Going on the committee four years ago now, I probably felt the same way. "Gosh, that RPI is just everything." I found that not to be true at all.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Great question. There's two parts. The first part, again I'm in my fourth year, I don't think we've ever had this many teams that have a chance to walk home and come home with the national championship. Every team going into it has that. There's always going to be the Cinderella stories, everybody has a chance. There's just more teams. Parity has set in. Number two, does it make the job tougher? Sure, it does. It's going to be harder as we get down to the final teams that are selected, there's going to be many more similarities, there's going to be many more things to not differentiate one team from another. Again, that's where due diligence, making sure we know everything about each one of those teams, we have 10 sets of eyes looking at those teams, making sure to the best of our ability we don't make a mistake and hurry through something. And we don't. I'm not saying we don't make mistakes, but we don't hurry through it. We spend a lot of time. I think that's the great thing about the tournament, though, is that there are going to be a lot of teams. We don't want there to be controversy, but anywhere you draw the line, somebody's going to be on one side of it and somebody's going to be on the other.

JIM LIVENGOOD: The committee chair normally presents the trophy.

JIM LIVENGOOD: I believe CM Newton several years back presented it to Kentucky. I'm not sure where you're going with that.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Good question. I'm kidding you, I hope you know.

JIM LIVENGOOD: By rule, by principle, by guideline, we have to do that in terms of teams. We have X amount of teams. I believe you have a copy of that. We can't put -- the earliest teams can meet in terms of conferences is in the regional finals. We don't purposely do that. By our own guidelines as we go through it, we have many checks and balances to make sure that's done exactly that way.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Right.

JIM LIVENGOOD: In that case right there, certainly because one of our principles has in terms of members of the same conference, that's one factor, and the other factor would be that is done based on seeding. They're not going to meet in that case right there -- it would depend how many teams in that particular conference.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Great question. We don't talk about perception. We don't talk about a whole number of things. I've had so many questions from my time on the committee of people talking about, asking questions, "When you get to so many teams in the conference, do you worry about one more team because it will look bad or too few teams?" We never talk about how many teams in a conference. I know it's overkill on this. But we're going to select the 34 best teams. Where they come from, it's really immaterial because they're going to be, in our opinion, the 34 best teams. All of that is perception. I think probably -- well, I know it doesn't have any merit at all. It will be based on the 34 best teams and who those teams are, not a conference or any of those kinds of things. That's not a factor.

JIM LIVENGOOD: I tell you, the effect it might have is I think - and last year was a fabulous year for great games - I think we're going to have the same thing this year. We're going to have a lot of teams that are very good teams, but anybody can win. I know that's an anomaly a little bit because in a game anybody can win anyway. I think the tournament this year, we're going to see a lot of close games, I think we're going to see a lot of great games. It's going to be anybody's call. What that makes for is a great NCAA tournament.

JIM LIVENGOOD: I don't know whether more because we tend to give just exactly the same consideration, as well. Again, looking at those factors of who people played, records, all those kinds of things. I think in a situation where we have as much parity as we do now, I think it behooves everybody. I think everybody wins in this kind of situation. Most importantly, I think college basketball wins.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Great question. I don't think they're irrelevant. Again, most conferences have tried to finish their games on Saturday, Saturday night. Some can't because of different kind -- because of how many teams you have in your conference. What we try to do is to make sure, particularly in a situation where we know certainly who is going to play in those Sunday finals, if both teams look like they're going to be in the tournament, at that time we have a pretty good idea, then we have to be very careful of where they could end up from a bracketing standpoint, and that's going to be affected by where they're seeded. To my knowledge, in my three years, nobody -- again, this is a perception, it might appear, but to my knowledge, nobody has been put at a disadvantage because of playing in a Sunday game, in a Sunday championship game. Would it be better, would it be easier for the committee if everybody finished on Saturday night? Probably, because it would certainly allow for going through and you'd know a little bit more in terms of putting teams in. We've been able to deal with that over the years. I think for the most part we've done a pretty good job.

JIM LIVENGOOD: No, they really do matter. They really do. Oftentimes we will be looking at a spot in the bracket, the winner of the game would go in X, the loser of the game would go in Y. A lot of factors would go into what X represented, what Y represented.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Good question. The idea again in the pod system is to -- the perfect, absolute ideal, would have every team play close to home, then we would have accomplished the ultimate. Can that happen? Probably not. Certainly from a seeding standpoint, the higher seeds, we try to make sure at least -- that's one of the things about being a higher seed. In our opinion, in our mind, they've earned or deserved that because of the way they played and all the factors we talked about earlier. We try to make sure they're accommodated first, then we move through the rest of the bracket.

JIM LIVENGOOD: We do. By our own principles and rules, we have some flexibility in terms of being able to move a team up or down the line. It's not a big factor, it's not a big change. You know, the idea, I don't want to say that we would do something to affect a lot of teams, but we try to make sure we're not just looking at it, zeroing in as well. We're trying to look at the bigger picture. We try to keep all those things in factor. At the end when we're done, we want to make sure we maintained, it's a national tournament, that we've done the very best to follow the principles that the pod we set forward a year ago. That part of it, that's where sometimes we're limited by our own rules. Those rules are put in to make sure that everything is done in a very fair way and a very consistent way. But sometimes our own rules don't allow is to do some things that might be very -- to the naked eye very obvious. In other words, why wasn't this done? It could be because of an extra team in the conference, it could be because of location, a team couldn't play there because a team played there three times during the year, many things like that normally nobody would know or pay any attention to, yet it would hinder the committee from doing exactly what might be the perception.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Sure, it could. Obviously, they're not going to be in the same region, but certainly it could, absolutely.

JIM LIVENGOOD: I think it is. Not on anybody's fault, not on anybody's -- not putting it down right other than me. I probably said I knew exactly what we talked about in the committee, and I probably got into more depth than I really needed to. That is not. That's been a rule steadfast, in other words, a rule that's not a rule. It's a perception by some that teams that have less than a 500 record shouldn't be in the tournament, blah, blah, blah, those kinds of things. There's nothing that prohibits a team with less than a 500 record from being in the tournament. If there's a misinterpretation of that, that needs to be blamed on me.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Good question. I don't know that I would take it probably that far. There's going to be situations like that. As you well know, sometimes we have conferences as the host, sometimes we have member institutions as a host. A question like that with regards to the Oklahoma situation, it probably does allow for more flexibility. In that sense right there, flexibility could be viewed as easier for a school to play closer to home. But, again, the committee tries to make sure that we're looking at all of those kinds of factors and that we're not -- our priority from seeding to bracketing is to make sure that teams that have earned those top seeds certainly should have some advantage with regards to where they're being sent, yet at the same time trying to make sure we have the brackets balanced, as I said many times, it's a national tournament, and go from there. It's not perfect, but it's very, very workable.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Again, those kind of things, it's not up to the committee to dictate who is put in the bid, who wants to host. The committee looks at the bids, the committee makes the awards with regard to the first and second rounds, regionals, Final Four. The committee does not say, "You'd be much smarter to do this, you'd be much smarter to do that." That's not in our purview at all. That's up to individual member institutions and conferences.

JIM LIVENGOOD: The hard thing there, and it's a good question, hopefully my answer would be as good, as we go through this year each, obviously the committee tries to select a north and a south site. We try to make sure obviously that we have representation in all four regions. This year, in the east, obviously Boston and Tampa are the two east sites. You're right with regards to a potential Atlantic coast conference. We try to make sure. It's impossible, in a lot of ways probably not even desirable or practical, for the committee to make sure each conference has a traditional home site. That just doesn't work. Some years are going to be better than others with regards to where sites are located. That's just going to be the way again. We're trying to rotate things around. If it was assumed that all of these sites were to put in bids every year, then there might be some way that we could go through it in a systemic way. Remember now, many of these bids that are put in sites, might be two years in a row, might be two years, skip a year, so they're not every year that we have all these sites available. That makes it very difficult. The committee tries to be very careful that we're not -- there's going to be times when there isn't a home site for a particular conference.

JIM LIVENGOOD: I wouldn't say it will be a higher priority at all because of the pod system. The pod system really doesn't enter into it from that standpoint at all. I think it's a situation where we really are trying to make sure we're spreading these sites around and, realizing every few years, new sites come on line, other sites out there where people want to get involved. Is it a perfect world? Probably not. Are we accomplishing with regards to making sure we're trying to stay national, we're trying to make sure that sites are rotated around? Yes, we are. Now, whether the committee will talk about it, certainly we talk about everything, but not in relationship -- the answer to that is not in relationship to the pod system as it might relate to sites.

JIM LIVENGOOD: It was brought up. But let me answer it quick again. The committee does not look at those kinds of things. We look at injuries. We look at special circumstances. Some could suggest that possibly that fell in that category. To do that, there are going to be a lot of potential other games that didn't receive a lot of publicity we didn't know about, and that would disadvantage a number of schools and teams. Having said that, we understand when games are close like that, go down to the wire, buzzer beaters, overtime, whatever, both teams obviously were in the game, both teams had a chance to win. A team really isn't disadvantaged in a sense unless you consider the record the only factor. If record was the only factor we consider, then there would be a disadvantage. We understand there's close games. We understand in many situations the other team could have won just as easily. We make sure we know as much about the team in a year, but what kind of games, where they were played, so on. I think that probably fills that void, if you will, in a mechanical kind of error situation as best we can.

JIM LIVENGOOD: I don't know if it's a disservice. I don't know that I would go that far. I do think I'll go back to what I said earlier. It truly is, it's overrated by everyone. I think sometimes, maybe it's because, as I said, the objectivity part of it, that when you give a systemic number to something, it's much easier to put them in sequential order. It just is not something that we spend a lot of time on in terms of the RPI. How do we change that? I'm not sure that we can. That's one of the things that's embedded in our culture right now in a number of sports, not just college basketball, that people seem to like, and each year, maybe even each month, we have new versions of the RPI coming out.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Yes. It's a good question. No, I think we spend just as much time on any team, as you're giving a team in the generic sense, as any other. Again, schedule is just one of the factors. Certainly how they played, how they played late, all those kinds of things. There hasn't been on my time on the committee a gut level, this team, because of X, just plain belong. Maybe a little bit of the perception that still hangs on out there is that the committee uses in some sense how teams have done in past tournaments, how teams have been successful in terms of longevity, number of years in the tournament. All of that is of no factor. It's not in any way a factor to the selection process. Each year is brand-new. Mostly we have no idea of how many teams from a particular conference. From a mid major standpoint, no, I don't think that's a factor at all.

JIM LIVENGOOD: The cutoff, certainly the Top 4 seeds, there's nothing magical, but those are going to be the teams we start with. In the better part of the world, we really would like to go down as far as we can. In other words, the idea being the pod system really in general terms was trying to make sure, to the best of our ability again, those words, the best of our ability, that every team play as close to home as we possibly can. We know that's impractical, and you do, too. But, yes, certainly as we get down into seeds 4 and 5, we're trying to make sure that -- at least, trying to make sure to the best of our ability that they're closer to home.

JIM LIVENGOOD: The Texas-Mississippi State was one of the games, Dallas, Pittsburgh playing in Pittsburgh, those kinds of things. That's a little bit in a sense like was brought up in terms of when conferences host a first and second round site or something like that. Some of those kinds of things, obviously we're going to take a close look at them, try to stay away from doing those kinds of things that really have some controversy built into it. But sometimes we can't. Sometimes by our own principles, trying to make sure we stay true to the principles, which are there for a reason, and they help us, don't hurt us, those principles are there for a reason. If we stay there, we have a much, much better chance of certainly equity in the tournament, making sure that things are done in a fair and, more importantly, consistent way.

BILL HANCOCK: This might be a good time to review about the principles and procedures. Those are available on NCAA on-line, www.nCAA.org, or e-mail me at DHancock@NCAA.org, I'll send you a copy. There's five or six that bear repeating here. These are the principles that govern bracketing. One is to separate the first three teams from a conference, put them in different regions. Another one is, conference teams cannot meet until a regional final. Another one is that a team cannot play on a court where it played more than three regular season games. Another one is that the committee will not play a team seeded in the Top 5 lines at a home crowd disadvantage in the first round. Another one is that the committee would not -- cannot put more than two teams from a conference in a particular region.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Bill, thank you. That helps.

JIM LIVENGOOD: I think right now the thing I would say that would probably be the best for everyone to hear, that is obviously there's going to be special security. We're always concerned about security. If we were to have a situation where we were to have war break out, whatever, we're going to work certainly very closely with the proper authorities, making sure we're trying to prepare the best we can for all possible eventualities. To speculate for any of us, particularly me any further than that, probably wouldn't be prudent at this time. We're working through all of those issues. Again, the NCAA staff has done a tremendous job of making sure to the very best of everyone's ability we're on top of it, and we are. There's no question we're going to do everything we can to obviously ensure the safety of our competitors and our fans.

JIM LIVENGOOD: At this point, yes. Again, it's the 26th day of February, and none of us have a crystal ball in front of us. It's very hard to speculate. I think most often, not you, but I get myself in more trouble most of the time by trying to speculate too far ahead. In that particular instance, I think we're best served that there is a contingency plan with regards to working with the proper authorities. As something might materialize, we would go forward with those plans.

JIM LIVENGOOD: I think right now the answer to that question is we're still in to process working with CBS. I don't think all of those answers -- we don't have all of those answers right now. Greg and/or Bill, who is working with the staff on this, I don't know whether you might want to comment on that.

BILL HANCOCK: Greg Shaheen is managing director of the tournament.

GREG SHAHEEN: Bill and Jim, we are essentially in daily communication with CBS. The networks that were mentioned in the story over the last 48 hours were other Viacom properties, CBS is part of that family. It really reflects that I think CBS is looking at various cable penetration issues, as well as the best possible way to bring the best possible coverage to the maximum number of households around the country. They are continuing to work through their planning, and we're continuing to work with them in that regard.

JIM LIVENGOOD: Good question. I watched four, a good part of four games. I know that my colleagues on the committee did likewise. I'm sure some of us saw all of parts of all the games. To what effect it will have, we won't know until we get into the process on that. It would very much be premature at this time to say it had a good effect, bad effect. I think it's a very interesting concept. Good games.

JIM LIVENGOOD: I want to be very careful about not speaking for the committee in this sense right there. That's something that certainly we're going to talk about. I don't want to overstate this, but I don't want to understate it either. It, again, would be very inappropriate for me to talk about the committee's stance at this point, but we will talk about it. Bill, before I turn it over to you, for sake of people on the call, thanks, everybody, for being on the call today. Great questions. I hope the answers were enlightening or in some way helpful. I would like to thank you for that and secondly remind you that this committee is very, very serious about this tournament. This committee loves the game of college basketball. I want to mention quickly the people who serve on this committee. They do a great job. Being part of this group has really been an honor for me. We're looking forward to great basketball in this next two and a half, three weeks, then we'll go from there.

BILL HANCOCK: Everyone, thanks for being on the call. The second call will be at 3 p.m. eastern time two weeks from today, Wednesday, March 12th. The number to call for that one would be 913-981-5507. We look forward to being with you then.