|
|||
|
|||
|
 |
|
|
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION MEDIA CONFERENCEMarch 18, 2013Carolayne HenryTHE MODERATOR: I'm Rick Nixon with the NCAA, welcoming you to tonight's post-bracket media telephone conference with the Chair of the Women's Basketball Committee, Carolayne Henry. CAROLAYNE HENRY: First of all, I'd like to thank our committee members for the countless hours spent on the selection process. In total, we watched approximately 1500 games this season in preparation for the selections. The committee brought into the process knowledge gained through watching the games, seeking input from various groups including the coaches, coaches rankings and reviewing extensive team data. There were approximately ten teams on the board as we came to a final decision on the at‑large selections with a great deal of time spent discussing those teams. A great deal of additional 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 2013 NCAA DivisionI Women's Basketball Championship that begins this weekend continuing until we crown a national champion on April9 in New Orleans at the 2013 Women's Final Four. THE MODERATOR: Questions? Q. My question is, if Cal and Stanford had met for the Pac‑12 conference tournament final, would that have eliminated them in your mind from being in the same region, namely the Spokane region? CAROLAYNE HENRY: One of the things that we look at is whether or not they had a matchup during the regular season or the conference championship. So that would have been considered, yes. Q. I heard you on the TV show saying that the geography didn't work for Notre Dame to be placed in Columbus. And also that it didn't work for Cal and Stanford to wind up in the same region. Could you explain that in a little bit more detail? CAROLAYNE HENRY: When we're in the bracketing process, in addition to looking at geography, we also look at who our hosts are, and so we have our host sites, geography. We have conference matchups that we have to be careful of so that conferences don't match up prior to the regional final. So all those things came into play when we were looking at Notre Dame and Columbus. It wasn't just the geography factor but a number of different variables that came into play. Q. Are you worried then about attendance in Columbus, where your nearest team is Central Michigan? CAROLAYNE HENRY: You know, we're not worried. Our basketball teams travel their fans really well. And I think we have enough excited fans in Columbus about the first and second round games being there that we'll have good attendance at that site. Q. Could you rank in terms of priorities how protecting a No. 1 seed would fit in as far as not giving Notre Dame the neutral site? Does geography mean more over that issue? CAROLAYNE HENRY: I mean, first of all, when we're looking at our seeds and just so that you know that we're committed to the integrity of the bracket. So when we have our natural S curve, then teams are placed into the bracket based on their seeding. We also consider geography when we're placing teams into the bracket. Understand that our first four lines in the bracket do not move up or down, only across the seed line. When we look farther down in the bracket, we have to look for potential conflicts, and that's where if we look farther down the bracket, understanding that Notre Dame would probably would have wanted to go to Columbus, when we look farther down in the bracket we couldn't make it work with other conflicts, including possible matchups before the regional final. Q. Nice job as always on the bracket. Was it easier or harder this year having 15 of the 16 sites with hosts as far as trying to figure out who could go where than in the past with seven or eight that were posted in the first two rounds? CAROLAYNE HENRY: That's a great question. And it's good because we have 15 of the 16 host sites. But it did make bracketing challenging. Q. Is there any thought by you guys to change that in the future? CAROLAYNE HENRY: Not at this time, no. Q. If the geographic principle combined with the avoiding conflicts is what dictated basically Notre Dame being the only No. 1 seed that's not playing at home or at least on a neutral court, then how did you get Connecticut to Bridgeport, because it would appear that Notre Dame is the No. 2 of the No. 1 seeds, should they not have been sited first and would that not have led them to be sited to Bridgeport since that's closer to them than is Norfolk? CAROLAYNE HENRY: Again, when we placed the teams into the bracket, we go in natural seed order as you know. But when looking at geography, there are a number of other factors. It wasn't just the Columbus line that we were looking at, but we were also looking at balance in the first four lines. We're looking at potential matchups in all the regions, and by making that one shift, we would have potential conflicts, not only in Columbus, and if we tried to switch Notre Dame to another region, that created other conflicts as well. And so it was challenging to bracket with our sites but we thought this was the best bracket. Q. If I could follow up on that. Wouldn't you site to the region first and then since they're both in the Big East you wouldn't have an interconference conflict regardless who went to Norfolk and who went to Bridgeport? CAROLAYNE HENRY: The conflicts aren't only based on the first two lines. The conflicts are based throughout. And depending upon the number of teams from a particular conference that are in the tournament, other conflicts are created. When you get into seven, eight, nine teams from the same conference and the tournament, it creates conflicts throughout. Q. Moving from the top of the bracket to the bottom of the bracket, how do you explain to a team like, say, Toledo or Saint Mary's that has a good record or above the .500 level in their own conferences and had a higher RPI and in some instances a higher SOS than a team like, for example, West Virginia or Miami or Kansas, who crept in at the bottom of the bracket? CAROLAYNE HENRY: In addition to looking at your RPI and your strengths of schedule, wins and losses, when we were looking at, for example, Toledo, we look at teams that‑‑ we look at the team and whether or not they have wins in the top 25 of the RPI or whether they have wins in the top 50 of the RPI. We look at their nonconference strength of schedule. In the case of Toledo the nonconference strength of schedule was below 150, and the number of wins that were above 200 equalled six and overall strength of schedule was 225. Q. But Saint Mary's was not, for example, in that position. CAROLAYNE HENRY: In terms of Saint Mary's I understand your comment in terms of the RPI. But then we look at overall schedule and who you play and how competitive your league is in that particular instance. Q. Could you flesh out what specifically with respect to the last four in and the first four out, what the considerations were? CAROLAYNE HENRY: In terms of the last four out, we looked at, for example, wins versus top 25 RPI. We looked at the strength of schedule. We looked at the best wins and what the lowest RPI wins were for that particular team. We looked at whether or not there were games lost versus teams with 100 RPI or higher. And we looked at the overall strength of a particular conference as well as your conference as well as your nonconference strength of schedule as well as your overall strength of schedule. Q. I don't want to jump the gun if there are others out there, but I'd just like to ask‑‑ we got down to the middle and below in the schedule. How much was it necessary to slide teams up or down the line, the seeding lines, in order to make your brackets work? CAROLAYNE HENRY: As it related to seeding, when we got down to the lower lines, we did have to move a team up or down a line, understanding that we don't move them any more than up one or down one. And as much as we can, to make that bracket work. So as we got down, we did have to make a couple of switches up and down. Q. Just wanted to ask about the prior matchups. Is that primarily a concern in the first and second round? And also wanted your thoughts on just how unusual it is that the first couple of lines really look similar to last year. CAROLAYNE HENRY: In terms of your first question in terms of previous matchups, we look at previous matchups during the regular season. And we also are mindful of previous matchups in the first and second rounds in previous years, if we can make a bracket work, we also take those into consideration. And your second question was? Q. Just how unusual is it that the first couple of lines look similar to last year's bracket. CAROLAYNE HENRY: I don't know whether it's unusual or not. That's just how it happened. The same teams were at the top of the bracket this year with the exception of one. I think when we as a committee were reviewing the teams, not only was the overall field stronger, but each of the higher lines are getting stronger and stronger, hence the questions about the two line and the three line. So I think it's very competitive at the top. And it probably was just coincidence that the two are the same for two consecutive years. Q. My question was regarding the Cal/Stanford thing. Not so much that it happened, but that in the last few years, there's been an inconsistency in how this geographical preference has been applied when it comes to the top seeds and seeds from the same conference. There's a 1 versus 2 in the same league in 2008. But then it was clearly avoided in '09. Some similar circumstances went back to putting them in the same region in 2011. And then last year it was clearly moved away from and then this year we're back there. I'm just wondering if that's looked at, if you guys go back and look at previous years and look at the philosophies that were applied, say, two years ago, three years ago, to the way you apply what you're doing with your current bracket? CAROLAYNE HENRY: As you know, we have different sites every year. And the host sites are the major factor for moving teams up and down and still holding to the integrity of the bracket. But each year it's a different challenge as it relates to placing those teams into the bracket based on where those locations are. So we're just really trying hard to keep an equitable balance understanding that there may not be equal balance in the bracket. Q. I guess my question is really more to the putting higher seeded, high seeded teams, 1s and 2s or 1s and 3s from the same league in the same region when it happened this year but last year it was clearly avoided when actually, if you're applying the geography strictly, it should have been and so on and so forth. There's been an inconsistency in that. I'm just trying to figure out why that is. CAROLAYNE HENRY: Again, it varied by the sites we have in those locations and other factors within the bracket, including the number of teams from a particular conference that are in the bracket in a particular year, and trying to avoid a matchup prior to the regional final. But every year it's different and can't be compared to other years when we're placing those teams in the brackets, simply because we don't have the same locations nor do we have the same teams every year with the same issues. Q. Sorry to dominate the conversation here, but I think it's a really interesting and intricate process, one that many people don't understand very well. But I understand you to say that you could no longer move teams up or down two lines in order to make your bracket work, or are you just saying in this case you only move them up or down one? CAROLAYNE HENRY: We do not move teams up or down more than one line. So in response to your question, we do not move them up or down two lines. The maximum is one. Q. I was just concerned about with regard to the No. 1 seeds, do you start off with Baylor and then if they're the No. 1 overall, you go through their possible conflicts and get them situated and then do you move to Notre Dame and look through their conference, or do you not give any preference to the No. 1 overall, the No. 2 overall, so forth? CAROLAYNE HENRY: We place teams in the bracket based on their seed order. And we go across the first line, 1, 2, 3, 4, the second line and so on. And as the bracket develops, we may have conflicts that will come up or that are noted for us. But it gets more difficult as you go down the bracket in terms of potential conflicts. But the first line you can put in, but as you put in more lines you see conflicts developing. Q. And the conflicts that differentiated between Notre Dame and Connecticut, say, were common opponents? CAROLAYNE HENRY: There are a myriad of conflicts when you put all the teams in. The conflicts aren't related to two specific teams. They can be compounded by particular teams in other conferences that have multiple teams in the tournament, whether or not those teams match up and could match up prior to the regional final. Also looking at geography. All those factor in. It's not one or two or three things. When you put the whole bracket together, you have to take into consideration not only conflicts for a particular team but all the particular teams involved when we're trying to balance the bracket. THE MODERATOR: Thank you. 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
|