By Mel Greenberg
INDIANAPOLIS _ Day One of the 16-member NCAA Mock Women's Basketball Tournament Committee was quite an education Thursday in terms of the intensity in attempting to produce a 64-team simulated bracket using the same principles and procedures the real committee will use a month from now.
As we headed out of our hotel to the bus to take us to NCAA headquarters, the Guru mused to ESPN's Carol Stiff and Carolyn Peck, `Gee I thought you would have TV cameras on the sidewalk with a reporter broadcasting, `And there they go leaving the hotel to be sequestered for the rest of the day and tomorrow to produce the components of this season's Big Dance."
We arrived and were escorted to the "war room," where an array of TV screens and computers along with NCAA staff were assembled to give us a sense of everything the real committee undergoes.
And believe it or not, the real committee was on hand to observe us after having had its own private session earlier to get a head start on the women's scene entering the stretch drive.
We got under way at around 2:30 p.m. and by 9:30 p.m. had somehow produced, but not officially signed off, the 64-team field that will compete.
The next major steps to complete the sessions will occur very early Friday morning when we seed the teams and then place them into the bracket.
Each of us took the role of a real committee member, thus not being allowed to discuss certain teams, and also given resonsibilities on balancing the bracket when we get to that phase of the simulation.
On Wednesday, the Guru's report showed how he deliiberated his individual 64-team ballot.
Aware of the "role playing" involved, he was going to jokingly remark, ``With my luck, they'll make me be Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference commissioner Richard Ensor," who is on the real committee.
The Guru has known the MAAC commissioner for a long time.
Upon taking my seat, you'll never guess what name was assigned to the Guru?
"Gee, I can't wait to tell my mother Mel Greenberg was me," Ensor joked. Former Texas Tech coach Marsha Sharp served as a chair along with ESPN's Stiff at the head of the table.
A giant TV screen at one end of the room enabled us to "watch" several games at once and also get a line on the news of the world.
The NCAA staff filled the room with snacks and drinks for us, the way it would for the real committee and we also took our dinner at headquarters.
Several introductory remarks were made by different NCAA officials and then, with the help of the staff, we were guided into the software programs in the laptops in front of us that had all the team data and voting mechanisms for us to operate.
The ground rules as the Guru understands them is we can't share our approach to specific teams with specific data, but we can talk about the experience of the deliberations in a general sense.
As we deliberated, we were able to run team profiles side-by-side, and go through the various steps in placing at-large candidates into the tournament.
Nmber of teams out of a conference were not allowed to be discussed because the issue is never addressed in the real deliberations.
We also simulated that the season had ended right before we arrived here. Thus, as mentioned earlier, we had some automatic qualifiers -- including some who gained the distinction with upsets,
We were given updated results from the night before. Some eye-catchers were Temple's win over Charlotte in the Atlantic Ten and a loss by Western Kentucky in the Sun Belt.
It will be interesting Friday morning to see if the hyper-extended knee injury to Tennessee's Candace Parker Thursday night becomes part of our discussion.
To return to the narrative, after we were given a "tour" of the laptop software, we each entered our 64-team ballot into our computers. Any team that received seven votes went into the field.
Some teams we put on the board would ultimately move off the at-large group into the automatic qualifier contingent if they would go on and win their conference tournaments.
Seventeen of the 31 titles will be decided by the time the real committee gets to work here.
The NCAA magically created a number of automatic qualifiers as part of the simulation. Some of this is discussed in the previous post about this exercise.
One piece of data not mentioned much in the media, but of critical importance, is the monthly regional rankings by advisory panels of coaches. A specific team can be tracked as to how its regional coaches ranked it early in the season, in the middle of the season, and just before the tournament discussions get under way.
It was also noted that as the shufflings on and off the board get down to the last few teams being placed in the tournament, one should step back from the computer and the numbers and go to the reality: Which of these (remaining) teams absolutely belong in the field?
There were several differenting groupings in attempting to get the 33 at-large teams identified. From a large "nomination" category, a consensus number would propel anywhere from four to eight teams into the "holding" column and then from there we would rank those teams in another vote. The ones with the best consensus would move.
There were moments when we pulled teams from the board in favor of other teams.
In one surprise, there was a conference that didn't have a high regard from media members as the deliberations got under way, but it ultimately fared better when individual teams would be compared.
Besides the data on teams, when several would be real close in the comparisons, different mock panelists would be allowed to address positives on teams from their own area to the rest of the group. Thus, Midwest panelists discussed teams in the Chicago area, while the Guru was asked about one of his local teams that was being compared with others in the voting.
The NCAA staff helped the mock committee in its deliberations to speed things up, but it was noted that in the real committee discussions, the same topic might be on the table for several hours while data comparsions were made.
Injury situations played a role in our moving teams on and off the board depending on whether a candidate had been able to prove it could still operate at a high standard after a player or players had dropped off the active roster.
So now it's time to get some shuteye for the early wakeup -- Associated Press national women's writer Doug Feinberg noted we were going to be arisen at a time when some of us usually go to sleep.
Besides these reports, Steve Tucker is giving his take at the Chicago Sun's web site, Doug will be writing the wire story in the next day or so, and Mechelle Voepel will be writing at ESPN.com and the Kansas City Star.
Incidentally, a large chunk of the Guru's personal 64-team ballot made the field, as it stands.
In fact, very early on when we began deliberations we were a little stuck because Voepel and I believed much of what went up on the board from the get-to was going to find its way into the real field.
However, every team standing when we left headquarters Thursday night is still susceptible to being taken off the board and replaced until we sign off on our final bracket.
-- Mel