|
|||
|
|||
|
 |
|
|
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION MEDIA CONFERENCEMarch 17, 2014Carolayne HenryRICK NIXON: Good evening, everyone. I'm Rick Nixon with the NCAA welcoming you to tonight's post bracket media teleconference with chair of the Division I Women's Basketball Committee Carolayne Henry. Earlier tonight the Committee announced the bracket for the 2014 championship. Play in the championship will begin this Saturday, March the 22nd, culminating with the 2014 Women's Final Four in Nashville, with the national championship decided on April the 8th. Before we take your questions, I'd invite Carolayne to make some welcoming remarks. CAROLAYNE HENRY: Thank to all of you for joining us tonight. I'd also like to give thanks to our Committee members for the countless hours we've spent on this 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 coach's rankings and reviewing extensive team data. It's been a special year with both Connecticut and Notre Dame enjoying undefeated seasons entering the NCAA tournament. We believe we put together a bracket that will result in a very exciting 2014 NCAA Women's Division I basketball championship that begins this weekend, continuing until we crown a national champion April 8 in Nashville at the 2014 Women's Final Four. RICK NIXON: We'll open it up for questions for Carolayne. Q. Could you talk a little about the methodology of placing West Virginia as a two over Louisville as a three. Generally does it show a lack of respect for the AAC? CAROLAYNE HENRY: Well, in terms of respect or not, we don't judge conferences, we judge the teams somehow they play. When we were looking at Louisville versus West Virginia a couple things stood out. One, Louisville played six games in the top 50 with only two wins, and West Virginia had seven wins alone in the top 50. That was one of the distinguishing factors. The other thing with West Virginia, they're the Big 12 regular‑season co‑champs. Those two things along with numerous times watching those teams, the Committee gave the nod to West Virginia. Q. How close were the other one seeds besides UConn and Notre Dame? With Tennessee and South Carolina, Stanford, maybe Baylor, how close were the other twos to maybe being ones? And then you have potentially three number ones having to play on someone else's home court to get to the Final Four. There's nothing you can do about it, but was that discussed in the Committee? CAROLAYNE HENRY: First question first. When we were looking at the number one line, one of the things we tried to do is we asked ourselves, What distinguishes this number one line from the number two line and those schools. The one thing we pointed to was that none of the schools in the number one line had losses that were below the 50. It was a very, very tight discussion. But then when we started to look at distinguishing factors. You take Stanford, for example. They did have the one loss at 89. That was a distinguishing factor when you looked at what all the other teams on the number one line looked like in terms of wins and losses, in particular losses that were above the 50 marks. None of them had it. Q. With having Louisville, Stanford, Nebraska all hosting, you could have the one seeds playing for a trip to the Final Four on somebody else's home court. CAROLAYNE HENRY: We did discuss that. One of the things that we do as a priority is to try to protect the number one seeds. In doing that, as you correctly noted, we have Duke and Baylor both hosting first‑ and second‑round games. In order to protect our one seeds in the first‑ and second‑round games so they don't have to play on a lower seeded team's court, we placed South Carolina in Seattle and Notre Dame in Toledo. In doing that, in protecting those one seeds, we could not protect the number two seeds. As I said, Duke and Baylor are hosting. That left Stanford and West Virginia having to play on a lower seeded team's court. Unfortunately, the way that our procedures are and our principles, we cannot avoid that. Q. I was more talking about the regionals. UConn could play Nebraska in the regional semis. South Carolina could play Stanford in the regional final. Tennessee could have to play Louisville in the regional final. CAROLAYNE HENRY: That is absolutely true. One of the things that we went to this year was look at the regionals‑‑ I'm sorry. The schools who submitted bids for regionals, we also allowed them to host. We knew this was a possibility this could happen. We are not in 2015 allowing this, however, and we'll go back to the neutral site regionals. But we understood there was the possibility when we allowed institutions who will participate at their hosting sites. Q. Quick question about how difficult some of the final decisions would be from who would be in and out. I'm from Minneapolis. How close were the Gophers to being in? CAROLAYNE HENRY: When we were looking at the last four in, one of the things we noted was that the last four in had multiple wins over top‑50 teams. While there were some losses in those columns, most of them had more top‑50 wins than those teams that were left out. When looking at Minnesota, they lost all of their top‑25 games. They lost three games in the 51 to 100. They also lost a game above 100 at a 109. Q. Were they among the last four? CAROLAYNE HENRY: They were not. Q. If we could go back to the seedings for a moment. You said it was the low 50s loss for Stanford. Stanford had a higher RPI and better overall record. The question is to what degree that RPI plays in. It was better than either Tennessee, South Carolina or for that matter Baylor. CAROLAYNE HENRY: Again, when we looked at Stanford and we looked at distinguishing the teams that were on the first line, those teams did not have any losses above the 50. I'm looking here at Tennessee. You've stated correctly, an RPI of five, with South Carolina six. When looking at Tennessee, they have a strength of schedule of five. Then when you look at South Carolina, they had no losses lower than 21 in the RPI. That's where that loss for Stanford came to Washington at 89. They also lost to USC at 34. Q. To what degree was there sliding of teams up a line or down a line from what their original seeding would have been in order to accommodate geographic or other principles such as avoiding having teams from the same conference meet each other before the regionals? CAROLAYNE HENRY: We did move some teams up a line or down a line. As you're aware, we can't move more than one up or down. But not a significant number at all were moved. Q. Was it a problem there were so few opening round sites on the West Coast this year, with several teams from the PAC‑12, Big West, Mountain West? I believe there's only two first round sites on the West Coast. All those teams are having to travel significant distances. CAROLAYNE HENRY: We do have teams that are traveling significant distances. Within the NCAA process for site selection, the NCAA goes out and solicits institutions and entities and tries to find out if they want to host. In this particular year we did not have numerous sites in the West, but we're always trying to increase the presence in the West. It just did not happen that way this year. Q. Duke's case for a one seed. Given they've got the top strength of schedule in the nation, a better record than Tennessee, South Carolina or Baylor, and a better RPI, where were they in the process? CAROLAYNE HENRY: Duke was in the conversation. Obviously they're on the two line. When we watched numerous games over the season, we watched Duke quite a bit. We thought Duke did quite well, even though they had losses of the two key players. That factored in. When we're looking at the teams, obviously in terms of getting the team into the tournament, we look at what those teams do over the entire season. Then when we get to the seeding process, we really look at who the team is today. Today in looking at Duke, while they've done quite well with those injuries to the two key players, who they are today is different than who they've been throughout the season. But they were definitely in the overall conversation. Q. I'm asking about Middle Tennessee here. They come in as the eight seed playing Oregon State. They were number 17 in the RPI, so why did they fall all the way down to the eight line? They're going to be the higher seed playing Oregon State a lot closer to home for Oregon State. Talk about the regional focus and why they were sent all the way out there. CAROLAYNE HENRY: Again, I'll address your last question first in terms of seeding. As you're aware, we seed regionally and we try to get teams in as close a proximity to their homes as we possibly can. But due to multiple conferences having multiple teams in the tournament, sometimes it's unavoidable to send a team farther away from home to avoid having matchups of those conference teams prior to the regional final. As it relates to Middle Tennessee's placement in the bracket, as we look at with all the other teams in the tournament, they had two top‑50 wins. We're looking at their 17 RPI versus their 81 strength of schedule. They also had a loss at number 74 to Arkansas. Q. You mentioned a couple teams were moved seed line‑wise. Were they a seven that got moved down to an eight? CAROLAYNE HENRY: I don't believe that's the case, but I don't recall exactly. We moved a couple teams across the seed lines as well as one up or one down. Q. One team that did not get in, South Florida, a 19‑12 record. Speak about them. How close were they? What ultimately was not there to get them in the field? CAROLAYNE HENRY: When we were looking at South Florida, and it was a challenge when we looked at the last four in, the last four out, one of the things that we noted about South Florida is they had no wins in the top 50, then they had one win above 60 in the RPI. They were 0‑8 in the top 50. Those were pretty significant factors when you get down do the nitty‑gritty determining who is going to be in, not going to be in. On top of that they had a 57 RPI. Again, the no wins in the top 50 and actually going 0‑8, then they had one win above 60 in the RPI. Q. Were they last ones out? CAROLAYNE HENRY: They were one of the last four out. Q. A couple readers on my Twitter feed are saying why should the SEC and all these power conferences get so many more bids than mid‑majors. It's time to grow the game, that sort of thing. I know you don't specifically talk about conferences, but how do you address questions like that that come from fans, from people who aren't familiar with the procedures? Did you struggle to find enough teams to fill the bracket this year? Was that something you were looking at where you had some seven and nine teams from the SEC getting in again? CAROLAYNE HENRY: We don't look at conferences, we just look at each team on a team‑by‑team basis as opposed to looking at conferences. But what we do look at is what a team does throughout the course of the season to differentiate itself from other teams under consideration. What matters is who the team played, where they played, and how they played. So when we're looking at some teams from conferences like the SEC and some of the larger conferences, that's where we're getting into their strength of schedule, who they played, how well they fared against who they played. As of note, we do have some other conferences who are not necessarily the larger conferences that have multiple bids. The Atlantic‑10 has three, the West Coast Conference has two. I think each year all conferences are doing a really good job of improving their women's basketball teams so they can have multiple bids. Q. On Middle Tennessee, you mentioned only the two top‑50 wins, strength of schedule, loss to Arkansas. Does that not figure into the RPI? Maybe talk about the 17 RPI. Seems like that may have been something that bumped them from a six to a seven, not necessarily an eight. Was the RPI less weighted this year? How if you're 17th do you end up on the eight line? CAROLAYNE HENRY: The RPI has not changed. When we get to looking at teams that look really, really close, they look alike, then we have to look at some other distinguishing factors. Then we're looking at, okay, how many top‑50 wins did they have. They had two. Did they play any teams in the top 25. Did they have any losses within the 51 to 100. Did they have any losses that were above 100. We start to get really down into specifics. With Middle Tennessee, those were some of the things we looked at. A lot of the teams, they look alike. At the end of the day we had to make a judgment call. Keeping in mind, too, we also have the eye test. We think Middle Tennessee is a great team, as are all the other teams in the bracket. Q. I know it's a tough process every single year, I have a fair idea of how seriously the members take it, how much work they put into the process. But with so many change‑ups toward the end of the year in terms of upsets at tournaments, how would you say this year's selection process compared to years past in terms of difficulty? CAROLAYNE HENRY: That's a great question. It was as difficult, if not more difficult, than prior years. But not because of all the change‑ups. What makes it difficult, this is actually a great problem to have, our teams are getting better and better. It's becoming more and more difficult to differentiate between the teams, who should be in, who should be out. If we continue to have that problem, that will be great because we'll continue to put great basketball teams on the floor. RICK NIXON: Thanks to 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
|