NATIONAL COLLEGE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION MEDIA CONFERENCE

March 10, 2004

Bob Bowlsby

BOB BOWLSBY: Well, I think that's a question that's been asked frequently, Bill. The only answer I could give is that we are always, as a committee, keeping our eye on critical matchups, that is to say those games where two teams meet with a lot on the line. We look for those to make differentiations between teams that might otherwise have similar credentials. And so while we don't want to weight conference tournament games any more heavily than we would any other game during the season, they do represent opportunities for two teams to play with a lot on the line. So it's a good opportunity to assess how good a team is or what the difference is between two teams. Even in the case of two teams that aren't particularly equal, there's always a lot to play for because it's one and done. So I do think the last 10 games of the season are important, and clearly those games in the conference tournament are part of that last 10-game portfolio. We don't want to have those games count disproportionately, but it's a good opportunity to see how a team plays when there's a lot riding on the game. And that is telling as to who is deserving of being in the NCAA tournament.

BOB BOWLSBY: Well, I couldn't quantify how much they could go up or go down. You know, that's going to be circumstantial, and it's going to depend on what's happening to other teams around them that have a similar portfolio of achievement. But every game that's played, even those where the finals are played on Sunday, we do everything we can to take the outcome of those games into consideration. They're certainly part of the body of work of each team. In case of the ACC, Big-12, Big-10 finals, we sometimes have to go into the seeding and bracketing process with a contingency plan. But we certainly make every effort to take every aspect of a team's achievement into consideration, and that includes the last game they play during the season, whenever that may be. It makes our job more difficult. There isn't any getting around that. But I think through the years, we've been able to come up with a plan to have some "either/or" type of situations where we can use the information to the best effort to get the tournament drawn and seeded and bracketed in a timely way.

BOB BOWLSBY: If a team is hosting a Thursday-Saturday regional, can they play in a different regional? Is that the question?

BOB BOWLSBY: I'm sorry, I just didn't get the whole question. The answer would be yes, that is possible.

BOB BOWLSBY: Well, it is a difficult process. I know about it firsthand because we had a situation with Lou Grecker (ph) who played for Iowa a few years ago. He was day to day whether he was going to play, what his contribution would be if he played. The committee was called upon to assess that. I was out of the room, obviously, while that was taking place. There are some real good examples right now of high-profile players that have varying degrees of debilitation as a result of injuries. We try and draw upon the best medical information we can get. That comes from conference offices, it comes from institutions. We recognize that institutions and conferences both have a vested interest it. We take that into consideration. But basically if a team has an injury to a player that causes him to miss the rest of the season, we are going to assess that team without that player in the lineup. Likewise, if we're not able to determine that that player is going to be, one, available; or, two, at full strength, it could very well cause consideration of whether they should be in the tournament, in the case of somebody that's on the bubble, or how high they're seeded. We have to try and take that into consideration. But I don't think you would like for us to unduly penalize a team if we couldn't get definitive information. But on the other hand, you're not going to be rewarded when there's a significant cloud as to whether or not that person's going to play. We really have to deal with each instance on its own merits based upon the best information we can get and the most current information we can get and make an assessment of that team. But at that point, you have to take that information into consideration because clearly with a key injured player, they aren't the same team as they were when that player was at full strength.

BOB BOWLSBY: We would call anybody we could call to try and get objective information on the extent and duration of the injury.

BOB BOWLSBY: It's based largely on what we call the S-curve. We seed the teams 1 through 65. Typically it's the 64, 65 teams that are in there. There is some variance. We look at all the people on the 16 line. But basically it's the 64, 65 ranking.

BOB BOWLSBY: Not necessarily. But we would try and avoid rematches of previous conference matchups if we could. That would necessitate there wasn't much difference among all the people on the 16 line. If we ended up with the same conferences represented every year in that 64, 65 game, that would be something we'd probably look at to perhaps adjust. But that hasn't been the case so far. So, you know, basically it would be that 64, 65 match-up, unless there were something very unique about it.

BOB BOWLSBY: Certainly we would. You know, I don't want to make too much of the last 10 games, but it is one thing that we look at, like the RPI, like how a team has done on the road, how they have done against people above them in their conference, below them in their conference, what was the strength of schedule of their non-conference. Last 10 games is one of those things that we look at. If somebody had lost five in a row going into the conference tournament, then got beat in the first round of the conference tournament, that's certainly going to bear on the committee's decision. If, on the other hand, they finished out with five in a row, five wins in a row, and do something good in the conference tournament, that's going to bear. We're looking for trends, but it also depends on who they played. You may have played the top of the league in the five losses, and played the bottom of the league in the five wins. Whichever order they came in, you know, you still haven't beat the better teams in your league. You know, all of those things are circumstantial. But one of the things that the committee does in a very meticulous way is look at the portfolio of each individual team. And it isn't about, "Here is the seventh team in the SEC," it's about, "Here is Team A, and this is what they've done relative to the other candidates for the last few spots in the tournament." Yes, we're looking at the last 10 games because that tells us how a team is playing going into the tournament. As a criteria, it's probably not a lot more heavily weighted than any other of the criteria we use.

BOB BOWLSBY: That's a difficult question, and I really don't want to get into specifics on any particular team. I'd prefer that you don't draw any conclusions from anything I say on that. I mean, I think teams that are struggling, if they're struggling in that last third of the season, they probably need to demonstrate that they're getting over it. If you've got players that are out for the season, and that's part of the reason why they're struggling, we have to take that into consideration when we look at who makes the tournament field. That call is a little easier simply because we know that it's a season-ending injury. A team that's struggling is looking for an opportunity to get its legs under itself and to, you know, regain the success they may have had earlier in the season. You know, it seems to me when you have these conference tournaments, those teams are already in the NCAA tournament. Once you lose, you're out. It isn't quite the same with some of the major conferences, the more high-profile conferences, because they're going to get more than one institution in there. At some point in time, regardless of who you play or when you play them, you're going to have to demonstrate that you're among the 34 best in the country because that's what we have as our charge, is to put the 34 most-deserving teams into the tournament.

BOB BOWLSBY: Well, when I heard your location, I knew what your question was going to be. It's a legitimate one. I'm in Des Moines, Iowa, today, but I will be in Indianapolis later today with my colleagues on the committee. It's one that we're going to have to spend some time on. If you just look at historical factors, there are certainly some issues there, yet you look at the body of work that constitutes Washington's season, and clearly they have played some terrific basketball. I don't want to get into an evaluation of them as a candidate, but it will be a situation that will challenge us a little bit. We're going to have to look at them versus the other potential candidates. The one thing I would remind us all of, and I've said it on last week's call, we don't spend very much time talking about what league gets how many teams into the tournament. Each institution that ends up with a slot in the NCAA tournament is there because the evaluation of that team versus the other potential candidates yielded them as being in and somebody else as being out. It is a zero sum game. We only have the opportunity to put 65 teams in there. It isn't a matter of whether the PAC-10 gets seven teams or two; it's a matter of whether the two that go in or the seven that go in are legitimate based upon comparisons with everybody else who might be a candidate. You know, I don't think any of us -- we've always said the RPI is one tool that we use. A lot of things influence it. But there are also a lot of other factors that we take into consideration. There are a number of situations in the tournament this year that will cause us to have individual discussions about certain circumstances, and clearly the one you raise is one of them. There are going to be several others that we're all going to have to deal with. Without having taken the temperature of any of the other committee members, I couldn't comment beyond that. In all frankness, I don't know that it's appropriate for me to relative to what institution.

BOB BOWLSBY: I might have to call upon the staff to help me a little bit on this. It seems to me recall my first year on the committee, we had that situation in the Big-10. I believe it was Illinois and Michigan State that were going to meet in the finals. There was a potential to have both of them on the top line. You know, you get into that game, and obviously somebody's going to lose. There isn't any two ways you can slice that. But I think that, especially relative to the top four lines of the tournament, that honor, that designation as one of the top-seeded teams in the tournament comes from a season-long effort. We take into account the last 10 games, and certainly we take into account the last game. The loser of that game is not going to be seeded ahead of the winner of that game. There's no doubt about that. But it is conceivable that one could be on the right side of the top line, and one could be on the left side of the top line. That's not implausible at all, especially with two institutions that have had the kinds of year that they have. Having said that, however, I think there are probably seven, eight, nine institutions that could make a case at one level or another for being a No. 1 seed. There's a lot of basketball left to be played. You know, somebody's going to play themselves in, and somebody's going to play themselves out. But I don't think two teams playing in the final of a conference tournament necessarily eliminates one of them from a possibly on line one.

BOB BOWLSBY: No, I'm out of the room. I am not permitted to -- we submit two preliminary ballots, one is the 34 teams we think should be in the at-large members of the tournament, and one that has anybody else we think ought to be considered. I can't vote for Iowa on either of those ballots. Anytime we discuss my institution, I leave the room. I'm not permitted to cast a ballot in any of the votes that might include Iowa as one of the candidates. One of the ways in which we rank order teams is what is called cross-country balloting, one being first, and eight being last, just like a cross-country meet. Even if my institution is one of the eight that are involved in that vote, I have to recuse myself. I am not in the room on any occasion when my institution is discussed or voted on.

BOB BOWLSBY: Well, we're going to look at how they got to their league record. Some of those records, they beat all the people below them, and they lost all the people above them. Some of them are a mixed bag. There are some conferences that have some one-plays. There are some conferences that have some no-plays. There are some conferences that play a full double round-robin. Conference records are certainly more viable when it comes out of a double round-robin conference, where everybody's played everybody twice. It's going to depend on the uniqueness of the schedule, who they played, when they played them, how close they played them. While the records may be the same, the manner in which they achieved those records could be quite different. There's a measure of precision that's required in terms of our evaluation. I think, you know, we'll also look at maybe not the top half and the bottom half, but how did teams do against the two teams that were at the top of the conference, the top of each division. We're going to call upon the person who has the surveillance responsibilities for that conference, the committee member, to describe for us which ones are the best in the league and which ones are the poorer ones in the league. We're going to apply a number of different methodologies to try and differentiate among those. But they just by virtue of conference record don't all end up in one hopper, per se.

BOB BOWLSBY: Oh, I think if you ask committee members, if you were able to poll all of them, you'd probably get a sum differential in what they say. We know that seven out of ten games in college basketball are resolved in favor of the home team. So for me, if I get to the point where I can't slide a piece of paper in between two teams in terms of their resume, I look at how they play on the road because I think that's a demonstration of how tough they are and how they do in hostile environments, those kinds of things. Other committee members might tell you that they use other tools. I just think we're all looking for ways to differentiate among those that are in a group where you really got tough calls. What we usually end up with is a situation where we got five, six, seven teams vying for the last three spots in the tournament. You know, you're looking for ways to differentiate. We try not to say, "This is our No. 1 measuring tool." A lot of people ascribe that honor to the RPI. But I have never thought it was that way, and I don't think the committee feels it's that way. The RPI is just one tool, but we have many, many tools at our disposal. The NCAA staff does a terrific job of arming us with what we need. Sometimes it's almost too much information. But I couldn't characterize for you what the most important tool is. I think there are many we use, and probably each of us has a couple that we rely on.

BOB BOWLSBY: Those are very difficult determinations to make. I'm not surprised at the question because we have some pretty good examples. You know, we very typically have a so-called mid-major that perhaps there's an upset, and you're either talking about getting into the tournament or you're talking about how the tournament gets seeded. Obviously, we've got a couple of real good examples this year of just exactly the comparison that you asked me to make. Each one is unique in its own situation. Some of the pre-season games are certainly important in that assessment. What you end up with is an institution that hasn't played a conference schedule that, from an RPI standpoint, is similar to the larger conference. But on the other hand they've exemplified a team that is worthy of being in the NCAA tournament. You know, just as I answered with the earlier question, you know, some of the evaluation of the 6-10 record that you used depends on who they played and who they beat, who they played and who they lost to. Likewise, for the mid-major. And I think we've got some interesting seeding issues that year with some of the institutions with very good records but have played in relatively weaker conferences. It is more art than science. There isn't any doubt about that. The committee will spend more time on those decisions than anything else we do, how do you seed those people and how do you decide who gets in and who stays out, because those things are the real gut-wrenchers that the committee collectively goes through during selection weekend. They are very, very difficult decisions.

BOB BOWLSBY: Well, it's a fair question. And is it better to have done well against a schedule that doesn't have the marquee match-up on it or is it better to have played them and lost or played them and not won as frequently as maybe you should? I do think that could work against an institution, if the latter happened. But that differentiation, as I said earlier, it's very difficult. I wish there were an empirical way where you could crunch the numbers and say, "Yes, I'm just absolutely certain this team is better than the other one." The conference surveillance program that we operate, each of the committee members has three or four conferences, and they're expected to know more about those conferences than any of the other committee members. They're expected to have used the satellite dishes we have to watch those games and to follow what's going on and to know a fair amount more about that league than what other committee members do. We may rely upon that person. We may go back to a person like Judy Rose or like Les Robinson or like Craig Littlepage that have coached a lot of games and say, "Which one of these would you least like to play in the tournament and why? What is it about the way they played, how they've played, what they've done that makes them a better team than this other one over here?" We've got good basketball observers on the tournament committee. And sometimes it comes down to we can't determine a difference between these two on an empirical basis, but intuitively and from an experiential standpoint, who is the better team here and why? How did they demonstrate it versus how this other team may have demonstrated it? It's tough when you're talking about teams that have had chances and didn't succeed versus those that may have a glistening record but haven't played the kind of marquee institutions.

BOB BOWLSBY: Well, the more -- yes, there have been some. And the more that happens, the more people have the potential to get bounced out. I think anybody that's on the bubble has to wish for conference tournaments to run according to, you know, the predictions. That is even more true as you get into the Big-10, ACC, Big-12, those tournaments, Big East, because those -- you know, there are a lot of people, you tend to see some upsets in those. If those leagues are won by institutions that, you know, get hot and move through it, it can keep some people on the bubble out of the tournament. That usually is what we see. I think the Missouri Valley is a good example this year. Southern Illinois was a dominant team throughout the year. They lost a conference game late, and they ended up losing in their conference tournament. But there's a team that's got an RPI in the 20s and has a good resume, has played good basketball virtually the entire year. I wouldn't want to make any presumptions, but if I were going to guess, I'd guess they're going to be in the tournament. Had they won the conference tournament, the Missouri Valley might not have gotten another team in. On the other hand, with them finishing out of the championship, chances are good they're going to also be in, in addition to Northern Iowa. The answer for anybody that's on the bubble is you want things to run true to form.

BOB BOWLSBY: I don't think so. I think it's a matter of when they beat them and how they beat them. And I think that it's -- the status of the team that lost isn't diminished disproportionately, and I don't think the status of the team that won is going to be diminished disproportionately. I think that it's one game. It was a big match-up. There was a lot to play for. It's certainly the kind of thing that's going to get the attention of the committee. But one game doesn't make a season, and one game doesn't lose a season in either direction.

BOB BOWLSBY: It's a very good question and I'm glad you asked it. History does not play any role in our consideration. It wouldn't in this situation any more than some other league that has a history of many teams, any more than that would influence us. I think that the example you describe is right on target. They have distinguished themselves. They've played good basketball. You know, they're in a situation where, pursuant to the last question, they would be well-advised to cheer for all the favorites because therein lies the opportunity for more slots in the tournament. And the resume of those teams is going to be compared to, you know, they're going to be in that batch of eight schools. The ones that distinguish themselves the most out of that group are the ones that are going to get in. There are going to be some that just got in, and there are going to be some that are just out. But history doesn't have anything to do with it for us. We're going to take each year on its own merits. You play yourself in or play yourself out based upon this year and this year only.

BOB BOWLSBY: It is based upon seeding, to answer the second question first. We try and protect the first five lines. What we would not do is we would not want to have a higher-seeded team disadvantaged by playing a lower-seeded team in that lower-seeded team's region, you know, where they would have a home-crowd, if not a home-court advantage. We're going to try and protect that. But we're going to put anybody close to home that we can proximately put close to home without disadvantaging the higher-seeded team, and particularly those teams on the first five lines. Relative to your question about Northern Iowa, I've actually thought about that a little bit. I'm presently at our Board of Regents meeting. As you know, the Northern Iowa, Iowa and Iowa State all share the same Board of Regents. Having served at Northern Iowa as the director of athletics, I would expect to recuse myself from consideration of their seeding. Obviously, they're an automatic qualifier, but I will ask to be excused during that process because I think while I don't think I would give them any preferential treatment, we would like to avoid both the reality and the perception that there might have been any preferential treatment. I will recuse myself from that discussion, just as I would from a discussion of Iowa.

BOB BOWLSBY: Well, it's not for me to comment on the what the BCS does well or doesn't do well. I think the consideration that goes into the selection and seeding and bracketing of the NCAA basketball tournament uses the best of technology with the best of personal observation. It is not possible with this system to take the subjectivity out of it in its entirety. But I will tell you it's a largely objective process, with an appropriate measure of subjectivity. And that may sound kind of wishy-washy, but I think if you have the opportunity to go through the process, you would understand what I'm talking about. The 10 members of the basketball committee care deeply about the fairness of the process and they care fundamentally about identifying the 34 most-deserving teams to be represented in the tournament. We go to great length to make that happen, even to the point of hours of discussion and differentiation on teams that look a lot alike. As I mentioned earlier, it can be a real gut-wrencher because you just can't slide a piece of paper between the two of them. So I would hate to see a day when we just ran some sort of numerical computation and mailed in the bracket, because I think the tournament loses a tremendous amount when that happens. The other thing that I would tell you is that, in addition to being the selection committee, our committee has responsibility for helping to manage the first and second rounds and the regionals. We have liaison responsibilities with the National Association of Basketball Coaches, with CBS and with the local organizing committees. So there's a lot more to it than just selecting this. The committee members are deeply immersed and engaged in all the aspects of the basketball tournament. You know, we have a great staff. And the staff largely runs the thing. But on policy decisions and the selection process, we have a lot to say about it. I think it's a very important role, and I think it's a role that the committee has for a very long time taken very seriously.

BOB BOWLSBY: We haven't met as a committee, but we've exchanged some correspondence on it. I expect that that will not have an effect on the assignment of playing sites on any of the teams that are in that area.

BOB BOWLSBY: That's correct.

BOB BOWLSBY: It varies a lot from year to year. I think the number will be lower this year than it's been in the past. Anybody that gets the appropriate number of votes goes up on the first ballot. Maybe Bill Hancock can help me, I think it's been in the low 20s occasionally. It's also been down in the teens. Because of the number of teams under surveillance this year, I'm going to guess that it's going to bbe a little lower than usual. Bill, could you help with that?

BOB BOWLSBY: I'm going to guess that it's going to be on the lower side of it this year just because there's going to be a lot of variance as to who thinks teams should go in. So intuitively, I think it probably won't be quite as high a number. But my intuition has been wrong before.

BOB BOWLSBY: We do try and guard against it. And I know that has been the perception at some times. I think human nature is you don't know what's going on behind closed doors, and there's always some assumption that the fellowship is going to take care of one another. I would suggest to you that the opposite is true. Maybe you could ask other committee members if they felt differently, but I really think that if Iowa plays itself into a position of being on the bubble, I think that the committee will have to be darn sure that we look better than the people we're being compared to before we're going to get in because they know very well that there's going to be scrutiny of it for exactly the reason that you've alluded to. Likewise, you know, Virginia is going to be in the mix, and Craig Littlepage is on the committee. Arizona is in the mix, and Jim Livengood on the committee. We've had lots of examples through the years. It comes up with commissions, as well. But I really feel like the committee is very much aware that that scrutiny takes place, and would come short of doing anything that would appear to be improper or give preferential treatment. I just am comfortable saying that would be the situation.