Why is South Carolina slighted? Where's the love for Liberty? Purdue, a No. 2 seed?

These were among the more popular questions sent our way after we projected the 64-team field for the NCAA Tournament for the second time in as many months. Most of the complaints were about seeding and comparing one team to another. In the minds of many, the Big East isn't getting the respect it deserves (although we had five of the league's teams invited), and Big 12 fans wondered why Texas Tech and Kansas State weren't No. 1 seeds. And of course, the homecourt situation never goes away (and it probably shouldn't).

We try to address all of those issues, and even a conspiracy theory or two.

I just saw your bracket and no No. 1 seeds for the Big 12? With Texas Tech having a great RPI, I feel that if the Lady Raiders win out or tie for the regular-season conference title, and win the Big 12 tournament, they should get the No. 1 seed either in the West or Midwest. And why are the Lady Raiders always sent to the West?

Denis Adam Pompa
Dallas

If Texas Tech does win out and win the Big 12 tournament, then the Lady Raiders might earn a No. 1 seed. What happens to the current No. 1 seeds might also have something to do with where Texas Tech falls in the committee's selections. Frankly, it will probably be difficult to unseat Connecticut, Duke or Tennessee unless those teams really stumble.

The Lady Raiders were in the West Regional last March, but in 2001 they were placed in the Mideast and played in Birmingham. In 2000, Texas Tech was also in the Mideast and lost to Tennessee in the regional finals in Richmond.

Villanova has only won two quality games: Penn State and Boston College, but has lost to all the good teams in its conference, including Rutgers (currently in second place in the league race) and struggling Notre Dame. Villanova didn't even challenge UConn. A No. 3 seed says the Wildcats are one of the top 12 teams in the tournament. What is your reasoning when they are barely in third place in a conference that is ranked fifth for strength of schedule? Penn State comes from the third-best conference, and Stanford and La. Tech have been ranked in the top 10 the entire year? Arkansas seems more qualified for a No. 3 seed than them.

Gary
Connecticut

I am a huge Villanova fan and you have them projected as a three seed in the Midwest region. I understand that they have one loss outside the RPI's Top 100 but that was to an undefeated at the time -- UMass. I was wondering how Penn State gets the more geographically friendly region with the same seed when Villanova beat the Lady Lions. I would think that if they both received the same seed then Villanova would get the top priority in the region, especially since they are so close in the RPI (Nos. 8 and 9) as well.

Raymond Davis
North East, Md.

I posted these two back-to-back just to illustrate how opinions can widely vary. Gary feels I've overrated Villanova. Raymond feels I've not given the Wildcats their due.

First, let's look at Gary's argument. While he mentions some of Villanova's losses in the Big East, he left out that the Wildcats have also beaten Virginia Tech and Boston College, and, in fact, did beat Penn State, as Raymond pointed out. And while railing Villanova's loss to UMass, he conveniently left out Arkansas' more damaging defeat at Oklahoma State.

If the debate is Villanova (18-4) vs. Arkansas (19-6) it really isn't close. While Arkansas does play in the nation's toughest conference, the advantages end there. Not to mention that the Big East is actually the third-ranked league. Through Saturday's games, this is how they stacked up (Top 100 and Top 25 indicates how each team has fared against opponents ranked in the RPI's top 25 or top 100):

TEAM		RPI	SO	Top 100	Top 25	Road	NC SOS
Villanova	9	23	11-3	4-2	7-3	46
Arkansas	15	29	8-5	2-4	4-4	68

Raymond's question brings up a good observation. Penn State and Villanova have very similar looking profiles, and as previously noted, the Wildcats did beat the Lady Lions. Perhaps they could have been switched. Keep in mind that while geography is a major consideration of the committee, it isn't the only one, so I have to look at it that way, too. Keeping the bracket balanced and avoiding conference matchups early in the tournament also go a long way to determining where teams are placed.

What is the probability of Kansas State moving to a No. 1 seed? Do you think the committee will place the Wildcats in the same bracket as UConn for the second year in a row?

Dan
Manhattan, Kan.

The probability of Kansas State moving up to a No. 1 seed plays along the same lines of how Texas Tech might fare, which we answered above. But if the Wildcats are a No. 2 seed, the committee would probably try to avoid placing them with UConn again, but there are other factors involved. If UConn is the top overall seed and Kansas State is deemed the weakest of the No. 2 seeds, then they might end up in the same region again.

I saw the most drastic change in the West Region on your new NCAA bracket predictions. LSU moving into the No. 1 seed, Texas Tech No. 2, Stanford at the 3 spot, and Mississippi St. at No. 4. Despite Texas Tech's last two losses in the last seven games, there are really no other thumbs down for this team. They have a tougher schedule, a higher RPI, and the Big 12 is by far one of the most challenging conferences in the nation. Why are they NOT a No. 1 seed in your eyes?? I feel the top four seeds in the west region should have stayed the same. Why did they not?

John
Oklahoma City, Okla.

John, you really answered your own question. In that same time period that you mentioned when Texas Tech lost twice, how many times did LSU, Duke, UConn or Tennessee lose? The answer is they didn't. And while the Lady Raiders' strength-of-schedule rank is higher than that of 22-1 LSU, the other three have higher SOS rankings, and Texas Tech is lower than all four in the RPI. While the Big 12 is a tremendous conference, it is also ranked lower than the SEC, Big Ten, Big East and ACC this season. Frankly, it's tough to argue against the No. 1 seeds this time around.

Why are you ranking UC Santa Barbara as a No. 8 seed? You have Auburn as an eight. Auburn will have a sub-.500 record in the SEC, no upsets of better teams and has only played three nonconference teams of any substance, the best being Illinois, which they lost to. Of three nonconference games for UC Santa Barbara -- LSU, Purdue and Illinois -- the Gauchos beat Purdue (No. 3 seed), took LSU (No. 1 seed) to overtime and beat Illinois (No. 9 seed). You have Louisiana Tech (a strong team in a weak conference) seeded third, why don't you treat UC Santa Barbara better?

Jim Donahue
West Lafayette, Ind.

A Gauchos fan in West Lafayette ... I love it! However, I'm not sure what your argument is. You want UC Santa Barbara higher than a No. 8 seed? If that's the case, then we need to look at the No. 7 seeds -- Arizona, Washington, Colorado, and George Washington -- and not Auburn.

All four of the aforementioned teams have considerably better RPI and SOS rankings. All have more wins about Top 100 competition and none have two bad losses (sub-100 RPI) like the Gauchos. Most of those same factors hold true in a comparison with Louisiana Tech. And if you want to label the WAC a weak conference, it's your call, but the WAC (10th) is much better than the Big West (27th). The win over Purdue is fantastic, but not enough, in this case, to vault UCSB higher.

How can you leave out Florida State? It sits in third place in the ACC. Granted, the ACC is down this year, but I think the NCAA will take three-to-four teams from that conference.

Nick
Tallahassee, Fla.

There continues to be a misconception that a quota exists for how many teams a certain league will send to the tournament. It does not. There is no maximum, and the only minimum is that each conference gets one bid. There is also a misconception that I, or anyone else, doesn't respect or like a particular team. The Seminoles' case for a bid is actually not a very good one. Through Saturday, the ACC only had three teams at .500 or better in league play. While Florida State was one of those teams, the Seminoles' RPI is 62, their SOS is 83, their best win is at home against Georgia Tech, they have three losses to sub-100 RPI opponents, and they have lost four in a row.

I think it's crummy that Stanford gets home court over a No. 1 seed. (Editor's note: This original e-mail also included a question about LSU that is no longer valid considering the Lady Tigers' loss to Tennessee on Sunday. Therefore the first part of his question was omitted.)

Kenneth Cobb
Houma, La.

With regard to Stanford having home court over a No. 1 seed, it might be "crummy," but attendance is still very important to the women's tournament. The NCAA needs to select sites that will draw well, and Stanford is one of those places, especially when the Cardinal is there. It's quite possible that one day the NCAA will move away from allowing home court in either regionals or sub-regionals, but that's what we have now and we'll have to live with it.

What do you think of the allegation that the NCAA Selection Committee has been biased against teams with male coaches? There has been a lot of anecdotal evidence in recent years (but not conclusive) that male-coached teams are unfairly pitted against each other in order to minimize their presence in the Final Four.

Henry Martin
Washington, Conn.

I'm not much on conspiracy theories. I'll leave that to Hollywood and JFK aficionados. Truthfully, there is so much that goes into this process already that it seems highly unlikely that the committee could possibly look at who the coach is and move teams around based on that when there are geographical, conference, competitive balance, home court and scheduling issues to deal with. Believe me, those considerations are enough to complicate matters.

How can you say that South Carolina is only worthy of a sixth seed in the East? Need I remind you that this is a team that has proved that last season was no fluke and sits at the same point this year as it did last year? How can you look past a team that went down to the wire with teams like North Carolina (at a neutral site which was supposed to have a mixed officiating crew only to be all ACC), as well as Arkansas (at Arkansas prior to blowing them out at home), LSU at the buzzer, and it took two overtimes and a lopsided fouls stat sheet for Georgia to beat South Carolina on its own home court? This is the same team that beat Vanderbilt on the road, Mississippi State in the SEC opener, high preseason teams in Oregon and Boston College, and need I remind you a team that put up 50 points in the second half at Tennessee giving the Lady Vols a scare? How do you justify Utah (with a weak schedule), Vanderbilt (beaten by the Lady Gamecocks), and Louisiana Tech (horrible conference and weak schedule) getting higher seeding than this South Carolina team?

Eric
Columbia, S.C.

I do enjoy the passion of the South Carolina fans. A few items to keep in mind, though:

Rankings from last season and the preseason have absolutely no bearing on the selection process. Upcoming schedules also are not a consideration as to where I place teams. It is sometimes mentioned, but just as something to watch. If I took into consideration future games, then I'd be forced to predict winners and losers. I'm certainly not in that business.

Eric mentions a number of games on the South Carolina schedule. While the committee will look at close losses and factor that in informally, most of the references were games the Lady Gamecocks still lost. What the committee won't do is consider who might have been officiating a certain game or what the foul discrepancy might have been on a particular night. Wins and losses are still mainly the bottom line.

The best point here is South Carolina's wins over Vanderbilt and Mississippi State. Trust me, this was a difficult issue. But, as I explained, I felt it was impossible to look at one SEC team vs. another merely head-to-head when among the group of Georgia, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Auburn, Arkansas and Vanderbilt, they've all been knocking off each other. The Gamecocks are 3-3 within that group, which is similar to Mississippi State's 2-2 and Vandy's 3-2.

Certainly head-to-head was a strong consideration, but because of those similar records within the group, other factors were considered. Perhaps South Carolina could have been a No. 5 seed, but geography and avoiding certain repeat or conference matchups played a role in the sixth seed.

I find your projections to be very interesting, but I would say that I disagree with Liberty's 14th seed. Consider quality wins over Virginia and Western Kentucky (beat La. Tech), and close games with Virginia Tech, Alabama and Richmond as their only losses, in addition to a 26th ranking in the most recent ESPN/USA Today poll. Also, other higher seeds have not fared all that well. Harvard's (13) losses are to Top-30 RPI teams by an average margin of 35 points, and the Crimson has no quality wins unless you count Syracuse, an 8-15 team.

Liberty is probably more comparable to Saint Joseph's, an 11th seed in your projections. Common opponents include Virginia, which St. Joe's lost by 29 points (and Liberty beat) and Richmond, which St. Joe's beat (while Liberty lost). And Florida Int'l, a 10th seed, c'mon! This is a team that lost to North Texas and Georgia State (198 RPI), and Western Kentucky by the way.

Paul Wilson
Woodstock, Ga.

A fairly well-constructed argument, Paul, but it is highly unlikely that a team with an RPI in the 60s and an SOS in the low 200s that plays in the 25th-ranked conference RPI would be more than a No. 13 seed. And using those factors, Liberty doesn't at all compare to Saint Joseph's. The Virginia win was a good one and does give the Lady Flames a leg up on Harvard, but the Crimson have a stronger RPI and SOS. Same goes for Florida International, which also has four Top-100 wins to Liberty's two. That's not to say that 20-3 doesn't go a long way. Perhaps, the two could be flip-flopped, but don't expect more than a 13th seed even by season's end.

Do you think that LSU would be better served as a No. 2 seed in the East as opposed to the No. 1 in the West? Do you think the tourney committee would possibly seed a school lower to be closer to home and therefore gain a bit of home court advantage?

Charlie Passauer
Baton Rouge, La.

This is an interesting question, Charlie. I don't think that would happen. It's an honor to be a No. 1 seed. If a team has earned that status, then that team should get it, regardless of locale. The committee is unlikely to tinker with geography when it comes to the top seeds. LSU is an outstanding team and would be able to compete with anyone in the country, so I don't see that the Lady Tigers would be better anywhere than where they deserve to be.

What is the love affair with the SEC all about? Apparently if I formed a team of fifth graders, as long as we were in the SEC, we would receive both a Top 25 ranking as well as a tournament bid. Also, how can Stanford and Texas Tech both lose to unranked teams and not be knocked out of the top 10. Worst of all, how can Penn State, who is in first place, be ranked lower than Purdue, who is in second place? My guess is either people are voting for their favorite teams or a big Payola scandal is about to hit the ranking systems. Although I enjoyed seeing Oklahoma with a 12 seed, (I am a big fan of Oklahoma and Sherri Coale -- I really like her coaching style), I am not convinced at this point in the season that they even deserve a tournament bid.

Mike P.
Seattle

Trust me, Mike, no one is getting paid off. I have no favorite teams and committee members aren't even allowed in the room when their particular school is being discussed. There is no love affair with the SEC. It's quite simple actually. The league has a bunch of good teams, in fact, seven in the RPI Top 20. The RPI is a numerical formula, not a vote, and it's tough to argue with those numbers. I can't speak for the rankings, but the losses by Texas Tech and Stanford did hurt their respective places in my latest projections. I addressed the Purdue/Penn State situation in my column. Purdue's record against high-quality competition is just too hard to ignore (6-1 vs. Top 25, 10-3 vs. Top 50).

I have a question about something in your column. You refer to the committee moving teams a seed line to avoid some kind of conflict, but I'm not following you.

Here's the part that confuses me: The obvious conflict that exists is that a higher seed can play a road game in the first round. In this month's bracket projections, that's precisely the case when fifth-seeded Rutgers plays New Mexico at "The Pit." Boston College, another No. 5, must win at Oklahoma against the Sooners to advance. In those cases, Texas or Mississippi State could be playing the Lobos or Sooners on the road in the second round. Also, Cincinnati is hosting a sub-regional despite being a No. 11 seed. The committee will move teams a seed line (ie. an 11 to a 10, an 8 to a 9) to help avoid conflicts like these.

Call me dense, but can you explain what the conflict is and why "seed lines'' will be moved? It's not clear to me, though I'm sure it should be. Thanks.

Troy Phillips
Fort Worth, Texas

First off, I'd never call you dense. What I'm saying is with the pre-determined sites, teams chosen as hosts might need to be dropped a seed or moved up a seed to accommodate this new rule. For instance, all things being equal, Team A would be a No. 7 seed and Team B would be a No. 10 seed in the same region. Neither can be shipped to another region because teams from their respective conferences are sitting in positions to play in similar slots in the first or second rounds. However, Team A and Team B were both pre-determined to be hosts. Obviously, they both can't both be at home. So, one will have to have its seed changed. The committee has always allowed for this.

Also, we know that while sometimes it has to happen, it's not ideal for lower-seeded teams to host games. Although this is the first year of the pre-determined sites, I'm figuring that the committee will try to avoid as much of that as possible. Thus, we have another instance where teams' seeds might have to be adjusted.

I saw your projections for the regions and I am curious why, every year, Tennessee always seems to get to play in Tennessee. WHY? The Lady Vols should have to travel out-of-state like Connecticut and Duke. They always seem to get special treatment at tournament time.

Jim Peraro
Townsend, Del.

It's not that Tennessee, specifically, is getting special treatment. The NCAA likes packed arenas, so the games are placed in locations that draw well. Does anyone draw better on a consistent basis than the Lady Vols in Knoxville? As I've said, a day might come when this changes, but for now, economics and the best possible exposure still play a major role. If Storrs had been chosen as a host this season, Connecticut would be right there, just as Duke was in Raleigh last season.

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