Following the Division I Selection Show Sunday evening, when the NCAA tournament field was announced, we sat down with Natalie Shock, chairperson of the tournament’s Selection Committee, to delve into the selection process, including how teams were seeded and placed; when geography and other off-field elements become factors; who barely made the field and who just missed it; and much more.
In case you missed it, our breakdown of the entire bracket is here.
Justin’s World of Softball: How difficult were the deliberations on the individual seedings of the first four teams?
Natalie Shock: It was… I wouldn’t say difficult, but there was a lot of discussion, just like there was with all of the seedings and putting all of the people in. We discussed everything a lot, but I wouldn’t necessarily call it difficult, just a lot of discussion and going through all of the things that we look at. It does take a while and there is definitely a lot discussion about it.
JWOS: What set Oregon apart to be the #1 seed?
Shock: They had a very good resume overall, the total body of work. They had a lot of wins in the top 25 and a lot of wins in the top 10. They didn’t really have any bad losses and they had a very good strength of schedule, which were things that we looked at when we compared to other teams. They just set themselves apart as the #1 seed.
JWOS: What vaulted Florida into the #2 position, and how much did the SEC tournament championship play into them receiving that seed?
Shock: I wouldn’t say that it played into it a lot. I mean obviously, it gave them more games. It gave them more games to play and it gave them some more wins. We did look at it, but basically, it just gave them more games on their schedule and gave them another top 10 win. It gave them some top 25 wins. It did play a part in it, so that part was what we looked at.
JWOS: What teams were in play for the last final couple of regional hosting positions that did not get them?
Shock: We looked at Auburn, we looked at Long Beach State and compared them. We also looked at Baylor and compared them with the teams that we looked at and felt like that they did not compare as well and that was how we ended up where we were – or where we are.
JWOS: Speaking specifically just to the logistics of setting the seeds and such, how much do geographical and travel considerations come into play, especially when you’re setting the non-seeded teams in each regional?
Shock: It’s all about geographics, because the bracket parameters define that with trying to set as competitive of a bracket as we can with the least amount of flights. So geography is very big when we set the bracket. And the conferences… you also have to avoid, you can’t have conferences in the same region, so when you have as many PAC-12 and SEC teams in the tournament as we do, then you have some teams that get locked into places when they could drive somewhere else, but they can’t go there because it is a conference opponent.
JWOS: Who were the last few teams to just barely eek into the field?
Shock: The last four in were Houston; Notre Dame; South Florida; and Wisconsin, in no particular order.
JWOS: Similar question, who were the first few left out?
Shock: Once again, in no particular order, Florida Gulf Coast; Pittsburgh; Louisville; and Nebraska.
JWOS: What was the case made for Missouri after not making the conference tournament?
Shock: Well, we looked at their body of work on the field and they had the #2 strength of schedule in the county. They had six top 25 wins, one top 10 win. They really had no bad losses and they won fifteen games in the top 100, eleven games in the top 50, so we felt like they had done what they needed to do to be in the tournament.
JWOS: Proverbially speaking, were there any “points deducted” for the late-season scheduling change that played a role in making Missouri actually even eligible for the tournament?
Shock: It was a non-factor. All that we looked at was what they had done on the field, because that’s what we are charged to do.
JWOS: Other than RPI, what factors are considered in setting the seeds and determining the at-large teams? What do y’all use other than RPI?
Shock: We look at top 10 wins, top 25 wins, top 50, top 100. We look at strength of schedule, we look at common opponents. We look at head-to-head, so those are some of the things that we look at when we are deciding who goes in.
JWOS: How much of a factor do conference tournament championships play?
Shock: It really doesn’t play a factor because, once again, it gives you more games, it might give you some wins in a category but it doesn’t play a factor. We don’t look at ‘well, you won a conference tournament so we’re going to put you here’. That doesn’t come into play at all.
JWOS: Other than the obvious restriction of conference opponents playing each other in the regional round, does it, if at all, come into play if teams have played each other already during the regular season?
Shock: It doesn’t come into play.
JWOS: Were there any qualms on the committee’s part about putting all of the SEC teams into the field?
Shock: We really… truthfully, when we are in there in the room, we don’t really pay attention maybe until it’s over. All we’re doing is comparing teams to teams and looking at what we look at, and if we decide they’re good enough and have what it takes to go in, they go into the field. Then we may go back when it’s over and say ‘oh, we put all of the SEC teams in’, but when you’re going over the numbers, you’re not really paying attention to that at all.
JWOS: Similar question, about having four from the American conference in the field. Were there any drawbacks to having four from the American in the field?
Shock: No.
JWOS: You mentioned that South Florida and Houston were two of those ‘last few in’. What differentiated between, say, South Florida and Florida Gulf Coast, to put South Florida in and keep FGCU out?
Shock: The main reason was strength of schedule. South Florida had a better strength of schedule and Florida Gulf Coast did not have what we were looking for when compared to each other and the last few teams that we put in. There was a lot of discussion… between that and our seeding, that probably took up most of our discussion. Comparing them to the teams that we left out and making sure that we did not make a mistake and that we did not put somebody in that needed somebody below them to go in. So we spent a lot of time on that.
JWOS: That was actually the next question that I was going to ask you. When it comes right down to those last four that get in or four that squeeze out, when it comes right to the end, how much and what kind of discussion goes into it to make sure that you’ve got the right ones going in to fill those last few spots?
Shock: We just look at the data and make sure, in going through it and going down below the teams that we have put in, checking them and double checking them and making sure that we have done the right thing.
JWOS: What was the case for and against Pittsburgh?
Shock: They fell into the same category similar to Florida Gulf Coast with the strength of schedule. They had some key losses that were what we consider ‘bad losses’ and they just didn’t quite make it compared to the teams that we did put in.
JWOS: I know that you mentioned Long Beach State as a team that was looked at to host a possible regional. How as Long Beach State viewed in the committee’s eyes as a non-conference champion mid-major but with such a high RPI?
Shock: I mean, we compared them just like we did Auburn, to the teams that we were putting in. They had some good wins and a good resume, just not quite enough to be one of the top sixteen seeds.
JWOS: I’m not going to ask you to name names, because I want you to be comfortable to answer this. But the sixty-four teams that you have, are you comfortable that you got the best sixty-four teams in the field?
Shock: Yes, I’m very comfortable with that.
JWOS: When it comes to your process as the committee chairwoman, what is your process during the year? How much time do you have to devote to keeping up with these teams before you get to this time of year?
Shock: A lot. I was kind of a softball junkie before I got on the committee, but now I have a reason to watch it. On the weekends and even during the week, it’s a lot of watching softball, taking notes, evaluating my region, and making sure I’m on top of what’s going on on a national landscape. It is a lot of watching softball. I’ve watched a lot of games over the last four years and a lot of games this year.
JWOS: How much time do y’all spend actually deliberating ‘this team, that team, this seed, that seed’ when it gets to this weekend?
Shock: Well, we started at 5:00 on Friday and went to about 11. We came back at 8:30 Saturday morning and we were here until close to midnight. Then back at it at 9:00 am [Sunday] morning and I’m still here [at 11 pm].
JWOS: South Carolina coming in at the #9 seed, Arizona State at #8, right on that line of potentially hosting a Super. What was it that kept South Carolina just out of that opportunity to be in the top eight and put Arizona State in.
Shock: Arizona State did have a better overall resume. They had some better quality wins. More wins in the top 10, more wins in the top 25. So that’s where we landed just because of their body of work throughout the entire year.
JWOS: Auburn to Florida State. What was the reasoning behind that placement?
Shock: Well, with Auburn being an SEC team, they were limited in places that they could go, because they couldn’t go to a region where an SEC team was hosting and there are nine of those. So, once again, following the bracket parameters and having the least amount of flights and keeping them where they could be regionally-based, that’s where they landed.
JWOS: When it comes to selecting the sixty-four teams, do you pick all of the teams and then place them, or do you do it as you go?
Shock: We pick our teams first and after we get our teams picked, then the bracketing process starts.
JWOS: So sixty-four teams, then you decide where they’re going?
Shock: Yes.
