Former women’s basketball coaches Marsha Sharp, Joe Ciampi and Theresa Grentz can add the terms “nitty-gritty,” “tiling” and “toggling” to their vocabularies now.

The trio shared an inside look on how the selection process works for the Division I Women’s Basketball Championship when they took part in mock selections earlier this month in Indianapolis.

Sharp, formerly at Texas Tech, Ciampi (Auburn) and Grentz (Illinois) joined national media representatives and Women’s Basketball Coaches Association members for the exercise. Sue Donohoe, the NCAA vice president for women’s basketball, and the rest of her staff facilitated the seminar. Division I Women’s Basketball Committee Chair Judy Southard and other committee members also took part.

The “nitty-gritty” report – which the women’s basketball committee uses to compare teams that are under consideration during the at-large selection and seeding process – was only a small aspect of what the coaches learned during their peek into what it’s like to be a selection committee member.

All three former coaches were astounded by the thorough process used to construct the 64-team field.

“I was impressed with the attention to detail,” said Ciampi, who led Auburn to 16 NCAA tournament appearances, including three Women’s Final Fours. “The presentation showed how serious the committee is about putting together the best field and giving everyone an equal opportunity. Material-wise, the process was overwhelming at times.”

When she was coaching at Texas Tech, Sharp could only perceive what went on in the room. For example, she assumed that the Rating Percentage Index played a huge part in the deliberations, but she quickly found out during the mock selections that the RPI is just one among the myriad tools the committee has at its disposal.

“We really just used the RPI as a guide,” said Sharp, who coached the Lady Red Raiders to the 1993 NCAA title. “The RPI wasn't an overwhelming factor as we discussed the teams under consideration. I remember a lot of coaches and media talking about a team’s conference record in the past. People would say, ‘If you aren’t .500 in your league, you can’t get in.’ Conference record wasn't that much of a factor in what we talked about.”

Grentz, who coached Rutgers to the last Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women national title in 1982 before going to Illinois, liked the fact that the selection, seeding and bracketing process isn’t all about the numbers.

“The human element is a big part of this, and that is just good plain common sense,” she said. “We had constant conversation and exchanged opinions on what we thought about certain teams. This type of dialogue is consistent with the information exchange during the actual selection, seeding and bracketing process.”

Getting started

Identifying the 33 best at-large teams was the first step for the mock committee.

Each committee member submitted 64 institutions in alphabetical order that should be considered for selection. Teams that received nine or more votes on the initial ballot were moved into the at-large board and at that time were considered part of the tournament field as an at-large selection. Those teams are moved in and out of the tournament (or “toggled”) throughout the consideration process.

An at-large nomination board was formed, which consisted of teams that received more than one vote on the initial ballot, teams recommended by more than one committee member, and teams that won or shared a regular-season division or conference championship. A team may be added to the nomination board at any time provided it receives at least three votes. A team may be removed from the nomination board if it receives a vote of seven eligible voters.

Each committee member was then asked to list eight teams from the at-large nomination pool, and they are the prime candidates to join the teams on the at-large board. Once the eight teams are identified, each committee member then ranks those teams one through eight (with one being the best), and those receiving the fewest votes are moved to the at-large board and are considered in the tournament.

The process of listing eight teams, then ranking eight teams, is repeated throughout the selection to determine the 33 at-large teams, as well as seeding the teams one through 64.

“I don’t know how the real committee handles that,” Ciampi said. “My head would be spinning. I’ve come away with great appreciation for everyone on the committee.”

Finishing touch

At each step of the process, the mock committee found itself having conversations much like the real committee will have in the days leading up to the release of the bracket on March 17.

Identifying the seeds and ranking them brought about a spirited debate.

“When you have 10 people voting … I guess that’s why you have vanilla, chocolate and strawberry ice cream,” Ciampi said. “Everyone has different reasons why they prefer one team over another.”

Grentz was amazed at the support the women’s basketball staff provided when the mock committee talked about the merits of one team over another.

“As you are going through the process of comparing teams, you look up at a giant screen and you make comparisons,” Grentz said. “The NCAA staff gives you every possible injury report, and all the information is right there. That was in incredible piece of the process that I didn’t know about.”

Overall, the coaches came away with more respect for the commitment that the Division I Women’s Basketball Committee has to complete this task.

“Any time there is an opportunity to put more information out there, it is a positive,” Sharp said. “Going through this exercise makes you feel better about the process. Everything is out in the open. It was a great thing for us to do.”