The No. 1-seed debate actually has become no debate at all (although I'm sure someone will take me on) following LSU's convincing win over Tennessee in the SEC championship game. The Lady Tigers were the only real question mark and they answered it emphatically.

CREME'S CROP

Here's how each region of the 2003 NCAA Tournament shaped up in our second bracket projection (with top four seeds listed): East: Dayton, Ohio Connecticut, Purdue, Mississippi State, Ohio State Mideast: Knoxville, Tenn. Tennessee, Texas, North Carolina, Rutgers Midwest: Albuquerque, N.M. Duke, Kansas State, Villanova, Vanderbilt West: Stanford, Calif. LSU, Texas Tech, Stanford, Penn State Want to put the RPI, rankings and reasoning aside? Skim through our field of 64 cheat sheet. Want to see previous bracket projections? January | February

So, the more interesting discussion might be the No. 2 seeds. Of course, with the Big 12 Tournament still to come, an air of uncertainity remains. But barring something even bigger than an early upset, I'll still take Texas, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. The Raiders and Wildcats have been RPI top-five all year and Texas may be playing the best among the three right now. That left one spot. Ultimately it came down to Purdue and Stanford, two conference tournament winners whose profiles are very similar. I go with the Boilermakers because they have just a few more quality wins. But, don't get too upset, Cardinal fans. With the West Regional in Palo Alto, Stanford could potentially reach the Final Four without leaving home.

This time around the biggest problems (ones that I'm sure will also plague the committee all weekend) centered around the predetermined hosts. With only two sub-regions available to non-hosts, little flexibility was available. That is why, what I consider the biggest pitfall of the pre-determined hosts, occur in this projection -- a top seed staring at a potential road game in the second round. In this bracket if Old Dominion were to advance, LSU would need to beat the Lady Monarchs in Norfolk to get to the regionals (it gets even worse for LSU with the possibility of needing to beat Stanford at Stanford in the Elite Eight looming).

I hope something happens in this final weekend to help the committee avoid such a situation. The problem arises because two hosts each earned No. 9 and 10 seeds on the S-curve and all but one of the No. 1 and No. 2 seeds (North Carolina) are also hosts. Without doing some considerable seed-adjusting, which in most cases would be extremely unfair, the situation is unavoidable. As it was four seed shifts were made to avoid home court conflicts.

Oklahoma was an S-curve 10-seed, but swapped with Chattnooga, an 11, because Norman (as a host) was conflicting with all two-seed hosts in a potential second round matchup. Wisconsin-Green Bay/Colorado, Georgia/Minnesota and Cincinnati/Saint Joseph's were also switched. The Hawks were actually moved twice, thus forcing a two-seed adjustment, which the committee says it tries to avoid.

I forsee this as being the biggest challenge for the committee this year, largely because it's the first year under this format. No precedent, no "what'd they do three years ago?" Everyone in that room will be trying to figure it out for the first time, which makes the guess work by myself and you all the more maddening and exciting at the same time.

Other shifts were made to help avoid conference foes meeting too early, but that is nothing new.

Charlie Creme was a writer and editor at Blue Ribbon College Basketball Yearbook for 11 years. He can be reached at cwcreme@hotmail.com.