Add active coaches to the list of people who now have a better understanding of how teams are selected, seeded and bracketed into the NCAA Division I Women’s Basketball Championship.

Sherri Coale of Oklahoma, Muffet McGraw of Notre Dame, Doug Bruno of DePaul and Gary Blair of Texas A&M took time from their busy in-season schedules to attend the 2009 mock selection exercise February 5-6 in Indianapolis.

All four coaches had games Wednesday, February 4 and had already scheduled to give their respective teams a day off on the 5th. They all left early afternoon on the 6th to conduct practice and prepare for games on Sunday, February 8.

Coaches are creatures of habit, and for them to break their routine this late in the season, the offer had to be something they couldn’t refuse.

“To be asked to come here is an honor,” said Bruno, who is a past president of the Women’s Basketball Coaches Association. “There is no perfect time to do this. If you turned this down, though, you’d really have to be self-centered as a coach. The game is bigger than you and your team. To learn how one of the major processes in the game works is something you just have to do. I didn’t think twice about it.”

The four head coaches – who all lead teams ranked in the Associated Press Top 25 poll – were joined in the exercise by print and broadcast media members, former Colorado coach and current associate athletics director Ceal Barry, WBCA Chief Executive Officer Beth Bass and WBCA consultant Betty Jaynes. Most of the NCAA Division I Women’s Basketball Committee members also attended part of the event on Thursday to offer insights to the mock group.

The mock selections have become an annual exercise for both the NCAA women’s and men’s basketball staffs. The goal is to bring transparency to the process, and the addition of active coaches added a twist to the procedures.

“Over the years, we’ve talked about continuing to find opportunities to inform, educate and shine the light on this process,” said Sue Donohoe, the NCAA vice-president for Division I women’s basketball. “We are in constant communication with the WBCA and its leadership. Having four active coaches attend this exercise is valuable to this educational effort.”

These coaches are leaders in the coaches association, so they were privy to information that most coaches wouldn’t have available to them. Still, the depth of information on each team that is readily available, like the “Nitty-Gritty” team reports, and the principles and procedures that must be followed every step of the way was an eye-opening experience.

There were plenty of furrowed brows, and at times it became apparent that the light came on above the heads of the mock committee members.

“Most coaches would be absolutely shocked as to how this actually works,” said Coale, the current WBCA president. “A lot of coaches don’t know how complicated the process is.”

Some of the more interesting moments came when the coaches gave fellow mock committee members information about teams that came up for debate. Much like the real committee’s proceedings, these conversations stay in the room.

But they are the types of conversations that will occur when the selection process starts next month.

“It is gratifying to see how fair the process is,” Blair said. “I didn’t see a lot of politics involved.”

Blair previously coached at Stephen F. Austin and was always concerned if the Southland Conference had a representative in the room to stand up for his league. Now, he knows each of the 10 committee members are assigned conferences to monitor throughout the season, and no one is being slighted.

“I would tell coaches out there that you better have everything in place,” Blair said. “You better have strength of schedule, some road wins, some have key wins and avoid bad losses.”

He also found out that a person from the Southland Conference office wouldn’t be able to take part in any vote involving a team from that league. Committee members from an institution must leave the room while their team is being discussed.

The coaches were glad to hear that the process is more than the numbers. The “Nitty-Gritty” team reports have all the information on them such as wins and losses against different segments in the rating percentage index, but it doesn’t tell the whole story.

Questions like extenuating circumstances, such as whether a player missed the game due to injury, are answered by the NCAA women’s basketball staff.

The coaches also found out that each committee member watches between 150-200 games over the course of the season.

“It is really interesting to see the amount of data that the committee has at its fingertips,” said McGraw, whose team hosted Bruno’s DePaul’s squad on Sunday (Notre Dame won, 62-59). “There is definitely subjectivity. You can’t always compare scores. Teams are at different points when they play different teams.”

One of the criticisms of the women’s basketball committee is that it is made up of administrators and not enough “basketball” people. Bruno believes that’s an unfair knock on the committee.

“That is a knee-jerk reaction based on a presumption of ignorance,” Bruno said. “The committee spends time watching games. They know what they are doing.”

During the mock selection, some of the principles and procedures that are unique to the women’s game came into play.

The mock committee came across scenarios in which a higher-seeded team would have to play on a lower-seeded team’s home court in the early rounds of the tournament. For example, if an eighth-seeded team in a region is scheduled to host a first- and second-round site, the teams seeded Nos. 1, 8, 9 and 16 would be sent to that venue. That sets up a possible second-round matchup in which the No. 1 seed could play on the eighth-seeded team’s home court with a berth to the regional semifinals at stake.

It’s not an ideal situation, but this is the state of the women’s game right now. Stakeholders in the sport are trying to grow the game’s attendance, which will contribute to a better experience for the student-athletes.

Most coaches in the room thought that a No. 1 seed should be able to win regardless of where a game is played. Still, if that scenario comes to fruition in March, it will definitely be a hot topic of conversation.

Coale said it is the responsibility of all four coaches who attended the mock selection to inform their colleagues about how the process actually works.

Donohoe agreed.

“There will always be people who don’t agree with the decisions, but they also question the process,” Donohoe said. “We now have four coaches, as well as media representatives, who can say, ‘Wait a minute, I understand the process, and this is how it works.’ That is invaluable.”