If South Carolina beats the Lady Vols in their match up, I don't see the Lady Vols getting a#1 seed. If Baylor and/or Maryland run the table, they'll get a #1 seed. Don't know what the committee will do if both run the table. There's also a possibility that Notre Dame could lose a conference game.
Chairperson also said the B12 has the strongest conference RPI. I don't know how they continue to do this as they're not the strongest conference for WBB.
Whenever I hear a committee member site the RPI, I cringe. Watching this interview was just painful. All I could think was either a) this woman was just the face for a lot of people who don't really follow basketball and was in an impossible position or b) doesn't actually know anything about basketball herself. I think Charlie Creme's analysis is pretty accurate when he says that
"top-25 poll voters usually are the the only culprits in succumbing to tradition. It appears that somehow happened to the committee here." (sic) Hancock says at one point that they put Tennessee over Baylor and Maryland because...and then she only mentions Baylor having fewer top 50 wins than Tennessee. For starters I wish these people would stop talking about 'top 50'. Women's basketball isn't yet men's basketball and 'top 50' includes a lot of pretty mediocre basketball teams. The depth of the women's game just doesn't go that far yet. Secondly, Tennessee got the nod because they have 10 wins over top 50...Maryland has 11. Sounds like they were cherry picking the stats they wanted to get the results they wanted.
With her reply to the question about Mississippi State vs Texas A&M, Hancock just embarrassed herself. Non-conference schedule was cited here and the fact that they
"just didn't have as many opportunities to win big games against teams in the top 50". Mississippi State has 5 wins against top 50 while A&M has 3. (I hate mentioning top 50, but it's a criteria they use) as well as a better overall record, better conference record and a win in head-to-head with A&M.
The Stanford and Oklahoma discussion was equally painful. Stanford, despite their 7 losses gets the nod largely because of an early win over UConn...
"a big, big factor" according to Hancock...(so early season games count), but Oklahoma gets the nod despite the fact that they
"started a little bit slow" (so early season games don't count). Again, cherry picking the stats they want to get the results they want. At this point to quote Charlie Creme, Oklahoma
" just isn't top-five seed material". I'd go a little further and say that, in spite of their current 2nd spot in the Big 12, they aren't even a lock to be in the tournament. There is a chance that going into their conference tournament they could be 17-12 or 18-13 overall. An early exit from the conference tournament and they probably don't deserve a bid, much less a top 20.
vowel guy said
"Gives an early peak into how the committee is thinking and evaluating performance so far. Provides some insight into what might happen with final selections." Scary thought. I can only hope that when the final tournament seedings are done, and in spite of the evidence against it happening, that the committee does an exponentially better job at the end of the year than this preliminary go.
