|
|
 |
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Video Plus Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities 
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE
|  |
Reactions: Women's selection committee Posted: Monday March 12, 2001 4:48 PMUpdated: Monday March 12, 2001 4:48 PM CNNSI.com users were asked how they would you rate the women's NCAA Tournament selection committee this year. The overwhelming majority of the responses pointed out the large number of male-coached teams in the East Rwegion. Here's a sample of the comments we received: How ignorant can the women's committee be? Talk about shooting itself in the foot! You have a once-in-a-lifetime player, Jackie Stiles (the new NCAA all-time leading scorer), and a women's basketball crazed town that sells out their arena for women's games (gasp!). They win their conference title and breeze through their conference tournament. Jackie Stiles finishes the last HALF of basketball in her home arena with 35 points (21 of them consecutively), out scoring Drake (who also made your tournament) by herself in that half in a show like anything I have ever seen in women's basketball (35 to 31). Nobody has seen a women's player quite like her and the committee boots their automatic bid out to someplace called New Jersey! Can't get a number four seed? Heck, they can't even make the Midwest bracket! No wonder women's basketball can't get the exposure they desire, look who's making their decisions! What an opportunity missed!
I think that the East region indicates the NCAA women's committee's bias against men coaches in the women's game. How could UConn, Georgia, and Louisiana Tech be placed 1,2,3 in the same region when they're ranked in the top six in the country? How? They are all coached by men. Imagine the backlash if three of the four teams in the 2001 Final Four were coached by men. That would greatly slow the recent trend to hire women coaches in the women's game. I assume that the selection committee is comprised mostly of women, so I understand their concern, but they could have been a little more subtle. Good luck guys, and especially Coach Landers, who was not only snubbed for a No. 1 seed, but got placed in this difficult bracket.
It seems that the number one goal of the selection committee was to avoid the possibility of two male-coached teams meeting in a nationally televised game. All male-coached contenders (UConn, Vandy, Georgia, Iowa St. and Louisiana Tech) were seeded in just two of the eight sub-regions on the same side of the overall bracket. This means there is no possibility of two male-coached teams meeting in any Regional final or tournament semi-final or final game. Either they think we're too stupid to see this or they just don't care.
I'm just trying to understand how the committee looked at SMS and made them a fifth seed. Granted, their RPI the day of selection was 20, but I think you've got to look at all factors to give a team a coveted four or better seed. How can you justify not having SMS host when they are in the top five in attendance in all of Division I year after year? Attendance MUST play a part of the seeding process because you would be playing at neutral sites from the beginning if it weren't. You would think the nation's leading scorer (NCAA All-time and the last two years) would at least have her team considered to host when all of the factors can justify it. Sometimes info behind the numbers tell the story. The answer that the polls don't enter into it isn't a good enough reason.
As usual, the selection committee showed it's bias towards Tennessee and female coaches. Regardless of its talent, determination and record, the University of Connecticut seems to rub the committee the wrong way. Perhaps its because of its relatively squeaky clean program (men and women alike). Watching the Big East tournament and the officiating that took place there, in South Bend, and at Tennessee earlier this year, there seems to be some undercurrent from the Big East to the NCAA that Connecticut should be given the most difficult road to travel.
I'm surprised that Notre Dame was seeded higher than UConn. They split the regular season title, UConn won the tournament and UConn had a higher RPI. They split their two meetings, each winning at home, but UConn's win was with more on the line. What gives? UConn is now in a very tough bracket.
They did their homework when they picked the University of Oregon women's basketball team. It would have been easy to miss this team based on the record that Oregon posted this year. You don't make the tournament too often with just 17 wins. But the fact is the Ducks won the Pac 10 title in 1999 and in 2000. They would also have had an easy time of it this year as well exempt for a rash of injuries and illness which caused UO to have a disastrous mid season five-game losing slide. Oregon ended the season with a five-game winning streak during which they beat several of the top Pac 10 team. The committee must have taken into this into account as well as the fact that they had qualified for the big dance seven strait years. I am very impressed that the committee didn't overlook Oregon. Keep an eye on them. They may do some damage!
What is the point of playing a tough non-conference schedule if you are not going to be rewarded for it? Or why is there an RPI rating system if the selection committee is going to ignore it? There is absolutely no justification for Texas being awarded a six-seed in this tournament: top 10 RPI, top 10 schedule strength, winners of eight out of their last nine games, participants in the Big 12 title game, 25 wins, dominating performances against Illinois and Iowa State.
The Committee showed the nation that Women's basketball in the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference is on the rise by giving Fairfield an at-large bid with a 12 seed. I've watched the MAAC women for about 10 years now and the level of play has risen remarkably. Siena and Fairfield are the class of the MAAC and their opponents will know they are in a game no matter who wins.
|
