|
|||
|
|||
|
 |
|
|
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION MEDIA CONFERENCEMarch 12, 2012Greg ChristopherTHE MODERATOR: I would like to thank our committee members for the many hours we put into this season for this weekend and combined, we watched about 1,500 games this season in preparation for selection. The committee brought into the process knowledge gained through watching the games, seeking input from various groups, including the coaches rankings and reviewing extensive team data. There were fewer teams on the board as we came to a final decision on the at‑large selections, but more time than usual was spent discussing those teams. A great deal of discussion and many votes were held to determine the best 33 at large selections. We believe we have put together a bracket that will result in a very exciting 2012 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship that begins this weekend, continuing until we crown a National Championship on April 3 in Denver at the 2012 Women's Final Four. Q. What was the thought process in having Ohio State as a No.8? I think you talked on the coaches' call, they were either 16 or 17, and theoretically Baylor could play them in the second round. GREG CHRISTOPHER: In what sense? Q. Ohio State may be lower than an 8; maybe a 6 or a 5. GREG CHRISTOPHER: Again, Ohio State and really the entire Big Ten had a great season. Ultimately six teams from the Big Ten got into the tournament. So that shows the depth that that conference had this year. From that standpoint, if you look at Ohio State specifically, we actually had Penn State, Nebraska above them, so you have to keep in mind, it's not just comparing Ohio State to other Big Ten schools. When we were making the selection for Ohio State, you have to understand that there were probably somewhere between 10 and 20 different schools that were on the board from all over the country. And then the final point I would make is, the obvious one of movement. We do move teams up, down, and across seed lines to help with geography and to build a bracket. Q. No.2 teams could play in opponent's home cities in the second round. Is there anyway you could have avoided that? GREG CHRISTOPHER: I missed the first part of your question, but I think I got the gist of it. Let me take a stab at it and if you want to correct me or move me in another direction, you can. But the priority is we built the bracket, was the sense that we wanted to protect the No.1 seeds. Given the host sites that we had this year, we knew that we were going to have issues with higher seed teams playing on lower seed courts. We took a first stab at a bracket and we wound up with some No.1 seeds playing on host sites, and we really felt after we talked for a while that we wanted to do everything we to protect the No.1 seeds. Now, the ramification of that is you are going to have 2 and 3 seeded teams playing on lower seeded courts, but we tried to treat those 2 and 3 lines equally, and from that standpoint, I think we did that. Unless the two or three teams are hosting, the rest of them are playing on lower‑seeded courts. And ultimately, those No.1 teams, they earned it, they deserve those neutral courts. Q. You would be in a situation where a lot of No.2 teams get knocked off in the second round because of the home‑court advantage? GREG CHRISTOPHER: Fair point. But I would also argue those teams are great teams in their own right, and they have played a lot of challenging games on the road so far this year, and this will be another step. The road to the Final Four shouldn't be easy. Q. I cover the James Madison women. Wonder what kind of case they made. GREG CHRISTOPHER: James Madison had a terrific season this year, there's no doubt about that. Obviously with 24 wins, the thing about James Madison ultimately that probably kept them out of the field was the sense that they had a couple of losses against teams that had more than 100 RPI Northeastern. And when I talked earlier about the final four teams that got in, they had some real signature wins, and wins that helped prove that they could elevate and get above where they stood. And so from that standpoint, we didn't see that necessarily with James Madison having only one win against a team that was in the Top‑50 RPI. Q. How close were they? GREG CHRISTOPHER: Well, I certainly will say this. They were on the board as we were making those final conversations. They worked the first four out since we revealed that but I do know that they were on the board. So it's hard to say where they were if they were not the first four out, but they were certainly under serious conversation. I made this reference earlier in the TV show but I bet we spent almost four hours talking about those final eight teams. So that gives you a sense of just how much we talked about James Madison and some of the others. Q. The James Mad coach mentioned‑‑ the men's went to a bigger field. Any chance the women's tournament will expand in the near future? GREG CHRISTOPHER: We talked about that over the last couple of years, and you know, right now, we think we have got a great tournament, and from that standpoint, I don't see it changing, at least the next couple of year, but I think that conversation is going to be ongoing. The hardest part of job was picking those 33 at‑large teams. Believe me, there were a lot more teams than we had spots, and James Madison is proof of that. Q. I'd like to go back to the point that you were making about the No.1 seeds. My question is whether this is now established as a seeding and location principle that I guess would possibly take priority over the geographical principals and so forth. There was a lot of flak in years past about geography and in other years what they were trying to do is make sure that the teams from the same conference would meet before the Elite 8 and so forth. Is that now an actual formal rule or principle that's going to be applied all the time and take‑‑ prioritize against these other principles? GREG CHRISTOPHER: We do have a set of principles and procedures, and you're right, we do follow them to a T. Probably the best analogy is it's the rule book that we follow. So from that standpoint, we are very consistent with previous committees and previous tournaments, and we did not deviate from that at all. But the concept of the idea that we wanted to protect those No.1 seeds from playing on lower‑seeded home courts is not something that is a principle or procedure. Maybe it's something that ought to be discussed at the summer meetings. But really it came about as we built the first bracket and we saw what the result was, and that led to conversation that, you know why should we disadvantage this No.1 seed and this No.1 seed isn't disadvantaged. So that led to further conversation, and as we really started to monkey around with the bracket and take a look at, are there other options; are there other alternatives. Some of it is just a mathematical possibility of when you have eight teams from some conferences in there and trying to piece it together; so that's where I use the jigsaw puzzle analogy earlier. So we tried to build a couple of different jigsaw puzzles and so that's where we wound up with the No.1 seeds trying to be protected. So from that standpoint, the short answer to your question is, no, it's not a form policy or procedure, but it was a priority for this committee this year, given the situation that we faced with lower‑seeded home courts. Q. As I understand it, it's a function and part of the desire to actually have at least some of these pods well attended? GREG CHRISTOPHER: Absolutely. We talked about that a lot. Geography, and trying to put teams close to their campus sites as much as we can is a real priority in the women's tournament, because it adds to the atmosphere. It puts fans in the stands, and that's a priority. That's where the women's game is at. As we move forward, we have tried to over the last couple of years really shorten our site selection process to the point where we are now selecting sites less than 12 months out. And I think going forward, you'll see the best of both worlds. We are going to be able to select great sites that are teams that are probably typically in the top half of the bracket. So you may not have some of these challenges in the future. Q. And my final question on that is, are you still applying a principle that allows to you move a team up a line or down a line in seeding in order to accommodate geography? GREG CHRISTOPHER: Yes, and actually, you are accurate, we can go up, down or across. So up or down a line or across, and geography is usually the reason that we make those moves, but there may be some others, too, related to multiple teams from the same conference and so forth. THE MODERATOR: The last four in and the last four out; I know we talked about that on ESPN a few minutes ago, if you would give the details of that and the thought process behind that. GREG CHRISTOPHER: Sure. The last four teams, once again, that were selected into the tournament, that was Florida, Kansas, Michigan and Texas, and that's in alphabetical order. The last four out, also, in Alpha order, Oklahoma State, Southern California, Temple and Virginia. Every team that was under consideration was thoroughly vetted throughout that process, and we spent probably close to four hours determining those final slots. At the end of the day, the question we had to answer was: How did the teams that were selected differentiate themselves from the other teams under consideration. And the common theme with the four that made it into the tournament was the fact that they had demonstrated they could rise up and beat teams above them. The four teams that were really the first four out had no common theme, no single common theme, but it was really a combination that they did not have those signature wins; or, they had some bad losses or significant losses or perhaps a combination of both. Q. The Big Ten has a record seven teams in. Just in the past few years, people have been saying they have been a down conference, and you've been on the committee for a while now. Just what they brought this year to get seven teams in and how talented that conference is. And the mid‑majors, there are not that many non‑conferences having more than one bid in them, which seems down from the last couple of years. GREG CHRISTOPHER: You're right. I earlier misspoke. It's seven teams from the Big Ten this year. And you're dead on in the sense that it was a great year of Big Ten basketball. I think the phrase that was used, it's not mine, but I think it the perfect phrase; it was a compelling race, probably the most compelling conference race in college basketball. But I think you also know once we get into the room and start talking about teams, the conference wrapping paper really comes off as we talk about teams. So those schools, as we take a look at them, they were in the sense that they were being considered, not against other Big Ten schools, but they were being considered against other teams that were on the board. So you had a regular season champion, and then you had Purdue making its run through the tournament. You had schools like Nebraska step up, as well. So a great year for the Big Ten, but keep it in the context of more of a national approach as opposed to specifically the Big Ten itself. Your mid‑major question, I think from that standpoint this year, I don't know that‑‑ again, we look at conferences necessarily, BCS/non‑BCS. And that was a surprise my first year on the committee as you start taking a look at the teams. But I'll tell you one thing that's very different now, even than four years ago, we are able to watch these schools much more than ever before. The non‑BCS schools, because of technology and streaming, we are able to watch Green Bay, watch Delaware a lot more, watch the non‑BCS conferences. So, you know, I don't consider the exposure they get or don't get to be anything different. One thing that is probably worth noting, the non‑BCS schools, they have a smaller number of games to differentiate themselves from the power conference teams that are under consideration. So they really have to make their mark in the non‑conference schedule. THE MODERATOR: With that, we thank everybody for joining us this evening. 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
|