|
For NCAA selection
committee, it's showtime
By The Associated Press
INDIANAPOLIS � Karl Benson came to Indianapolis with a full dossier.
He'd watched the games, taken the notes, built up the files. He'd pored over
computer printouts and debated behind closed doors about some of the best
college basketball teams in the country.
Still, he wasn't sure he was ready to whittle the field down to 65.
"There's always a little nervousness on my part, wondering if I've studied
enough and am I prepared enough," said Benson, one of 10 members on the NCAA
tournament selection committee. "It's somewhat like studying for an exam."
For Benson, commissioner of the Western Athletic Conference, and the other
committee members, this is the busiest time of year.
They'll fill out the bracket sheet only after considering many factors,
including overall records, conference records, road wins, records in the
last 10 games, schedule strength and a team's RPI.
If they need more information, there is computer help, experts on other
conferences and the NCAA staff.
"The last 24 or 36 hours is a little bit like cramming for a test," said
Benson, who has been on the committee for three years. "It's exhilarating.
But there are tough calls to make and tough decisions to make."
In some cases, the choices are easy.
St. Joseph's is ranked No. 1 and was the nation's last unbeaten team before
losing Thursday to Xavier in the Atlantic 10 tournament. Still, the Hawks
are most likely to get one of the 34 at-large bids and could be a top seed.
The more challenging decisions are those that are not so clear-cut -- taking
Dayton or Michigan, Nevada or Missouri.
That's why Judy Rose, the athletic director at Charlotte, and her colleagues
spend their winters scouting teams and taking notes.
"There's no way to prepare for it until you go through it," said Rose, a
five-year veteran and the first woman on the men's selection committee. "You
get a sense of what's important and what's not important and where you place
your values."
It's a tough, sometimes thankless job -- and one that often draws plenty of
criticism.
Last year's bracket had what many considered the nation's two top teams --
Arizona and Kentucky -- potentially meeting in the national semifinals
instead of the title game. And the committee had scheduled BYU to play in a
regional championship game on a Sunday -- when the Cougars cannot compete
because the Mormon church observes it as a day of rest.
The NCAA has since put in safeguards to prevent such a mistake, as well as
changed how the Final Four is set up.
Under the new system, the top four seeds will be ranked in order.
Previously, the selection committee has chosen the top four seeds without
declaring an overall No. 1.
The school that emerges from the region with the top overall seed will face
an opponent from the region with the fourth No. 1 seed in one semifinal.
Teams from the regions with the No. 2 and 3 seeds will meet in the other
semifinal game.
Still, things aren't fail-safe and the debates have already begun.
Some argue that two No. 1 seeds -- Mississippi State (25-2) and Kentucky
(23-4) -- could come from the Southeastern Conference. Another that will be
considered is Stanford (26-1).
St. Joseph's (27-1) and Gonzaga (26-2) also will make cases for top seeds.
"I think seven or eight or nine schools could make a case for being the top
seed," said selection committee chairman Bob Bowlsby, Iowa's athletic
director.
The six major conferences -- the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and
SEC -- each expect to land at least a handful of bids. An upset winner in
any of those league's conference tournaments would minimize the chances of a
team from a mid-major conference getting an at-large berth.
The toughest part of the process isn't necessarily picking the teams,
though; it's seeding them and then defending the process.
Rose, Benson and Bowlsby expect this year to be one of the diciest ever.
Rose and Benson said they've already received more phone calls and endured
more lobbying than in the past.
"I had a WAC coach call yesterday (Tuesday) who wanted to know if it would
be helpful to put together a video clip and send it to the committee,"
Benson said. "I said, 'I appreciate the enthusiasm to support your team, but
we have all the information we need."
The process works like this:
--If eight of 10 committee members select an at-large team on the first
ballot, that team goes up on the board.
--Everybody else is considered after that.
--Those like Bowlsby recuse themselves when their own team is being debated.
Behind the scenes, the discussions can get emotional.
"I wouldn't call it heated, but there may be differences of opinion in how
you rank a team," Rose said. "Something may be more important to one person
than another person."
Bowlsby said that if he were trying to decide between two evenly matched
teams, he would look more harshly at road records. Someone else may prefer
the RPI or schedule strength.
What makes this year especially difficult is that committee members expect
fewer than the usual 18 to 22 teams to make it through on the first ballot.
That means there will be more teams involved in the deliberations and most
likely will test the camaraderie among committee members.
Bowlsby put it this way: "It's more art than science."
Copyright 2004
The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
02/23/2007 11:03:01 AM
|
