Ask Bleill about his experience here

INDIANAPOLIS – As I ambled out of the NCAA headquarters after Day 1 of our mock bracket selection process last week, my head throbbed.

For the third straight year, the NCAA invited a smattering of media and coaches to engage in a mock selection exercise, and I was one of the lucky ones in the mix. I had just spent nearly eight hours in a conference room with 20 other lucky souls, part of an event that aims to demystify the process of selecting, seeding and bracketing the 64 teams into the NCAA women's basketball tournament. The roster included some of the sport's most recognizable names – ESPN's Carolyn Peck, Kara Lawson and Rebecca Lobo; three head coaches (most notably Louisville's Jeff Walz); and several of its most respected writers. And me.

I have been asked each March by my editor to submit a bracket to The News-Gazette one day before the committee releases the official version, and there have been occasions during that period when I believed – wholeheartedly and without a hint of false modesty – that I had done a better job than the committee.

While exiting the NCAA building after the first day of our process, my headache growing deeper with each step after hours of soul-searching and pondering, I was hit by the realization that the committee's job is tougher than mine for at least one reason: It has so much more information to consider.

Me? I have RPI listings, season results, a rudimentary "Nitty Gritty" report and the knowledge gained by having watched nearly 200 games each season.

The committee gets so much more information it boggles the mind. They can see games from even the most obscure conferences, thanks to DVDs made for them. Their elaborate numerical breakdowns would make the most hardcore statistician blush. What once took reams of paper now is encapsulated in a wonderful computer program, the brainchild of an NCAA programmer who no doubt deserves some sort of award from the Arbor Day Foundation. And that's just the start of the voluminous information at the committee's fingertips.

From the ground up

When we gathered on a Thursday afternoon, our group was guided through the process by Sue Donohoe, the NCAA's vice president for Division I women's basketball, and Jane Meyer of Iowa, the selection committee's chairwoman.

As participants, we were paired up to represent one member of the real committee. For example, Jody Demling of the Louisville Courier-Journal and I were to represent Wood Selig, the athletic director at Western Kentucky.

At each step, we took the same path as the actual committee, starting with the selection of the 33 at-large teams, then progressing to seeding the field; and, finally, to bracketing the teams. (OK, we weren't totally mimicking the committee, which is sequestered on the third floor of the Westin Hotel for four days; we were free to come and go.)

The NCAA's only request was that we, as media members, did not use direct attribution when writing about the process so as to protect the integrity of the conversations in the room. For example, it wouldn't be fair to Louisville's Walz to divulge his opinions on other teams.

Armed with laptops full of info, the first chore was to list our 33 at-large selections, along with any other teams we thought deserved consideration for one of those spots. To my surprise, Illinois was among the teams our group considered – albeit briefly – for a spot.

In any event, we would eventually debate and vote our way into 18 of the 33 at-large slots being filled. In the interest of time, the NCAA went ahead and completed the field by using RPI, so we could move ahead in the process.

What did I learn? Many things, some of which served to bust myths that are often promulgated each March by media and fans alike:

– First is that the RPI isn't the end-all, be-all that many people believe. It is a tool that the NCAA uses, but the committee goes much deeper than just that single number. For example, the committee uses a "Nitty Gritty" report that can break down a team's results and schedule in myriad ways, including how a team fared in conference and out of conference, or against teams that were ranked 1-25 in the RPI, 26-50 in the RPI, etc.

– Another myth: That the committee considers how a team fared in its last 10 games. Not true. The committee uses the final 12 games.

– There often is healthy disagreement and dialogue among committee members about a team or its seeding. And each member's frame of reference is different. For example, one member might be a "numbers person," someone who most highly values how a team fares in the statistical breakdowns mentioned above. Another member favors the "eye test." Which team, based on what I've observed in watching them play, is better?

– Conference standings don't matter, and neither does the number of teams that get in from a certain conference. As we were instructed repeatedly, a team's conference doesn't matter. You're determining whether that team gets in, not whether its conference is any good.

– The basic information presented in debates on sports talk shows doesn't adequately portray the complete picture of a team's resume.

Here's an example of a little-known piece of info that can be handy for the committee, and you'll never hear it mentioned on ESPN. Each geographic region of the country has a committee of head coaches that each month ranks the teams within their territory. (For example, Illinois was ranked 20th among teams in the Midwest region during February by those Midwestern-based coaches.) The opinions of the coaches are taken seriously by the committee, as they should be, and can be a key factor when trying to "split hairs" between, say, Oklahoma State and Texas A&M.

Eyes wide open

Near the end of Day 1 we finished our selection of the teams. (The NCAA had determined the automatic qualifiers for us, mixing in a few conference tournament upsets to give a real feel for the flavor of this.) We then began seeding the field, a process that wasn't unlike the discussions we'd had earlier in the day. You're debating the relative strengths of each team, but it is a tedious and lengthy chore. Of course, the discussions that took us five minutes, we were often reminded, usually take an hour or more for the real committee. Because we didn't have that kind of time, we had to move things along.

Early in our second and final day, we headed into the most complicated, arduous – and misunderstood – piece of the exercise: bracketing the 64-team field. It isn't nearly as "easy" as the men's side; in the women's field, there are 16 predetermined sites, and home teams that earn a spot in the field must play on their homecourt in the first and second rounds. Then there are the dozens of "principles and procedures" that must be adhered to, a list that takes up four single-spaced pages to detail.

It seems easy, at first. You take your seeds, in order, and place them into the bracket based on the regional site that is the closest. The four regional sites this year are Dayton, Ohio; Kansas City, Mo.; Memphis, Tenn.; and Sacramento.

Connecticut, as our overall No. 1 seed, was placed in Dayton. Stanford, our next No. 1 seed, was put in Sacramento. Nebraska, our next No. 1 seed, was placed in Kansas City, and Tennessee, which garnered our last No. 1 seed, was put in Memphis. Worked out pretty well, we thought.

But then it got really tricky. Our top No. 2 seed was Notre Dame. According to the S-curve, the Irish should be placed in the same region as the weakest No. 1 seed, but that's not how the "principles and procedures" dictate the process. Notre Dame must go to the region that is closest to South Bend, which means the Irish were placed in Dayton ... with Connecticut. But the process really gets complicated because of other considerations, like the mandate that teams from the same conference can't meet until the regional final; or that because some teams must play the first and second rounds on their home court, they can't be grouped in the same seeding bracket (say 1 vs. 16, 8 vs. 9) with another team that is scheduled to host. If UConn is a host and eighth-seeded Wisconsin is a host, obviously they can't be in the same region because they'd have to meet in the second round.

We went around and around for several hours while trying to work out those sorts of kinks in our bracket; by the time we adjourned for good, my headache had returned.

It was, in all, an enlightening and informative process that showed us a glimpse of the intricate details and pitfalls that the committee must navigate each March. When it convenes in Indianapolis in a few weeks to begin another weekend of deliberations, I'll have a bit more empathy ... even if I won't agree with every decision.