ESPN women’s college basketball bracketologist Charlie Creme and women’s college basketball analyst Andy Landers participated in a media conference call on Friday, March 10. Creme and Landers will both be a part of the NCAA Women’s Basketball Selection Special Presented by Capital One on Monday, March 13, at 7 p.m. ET, when ESPN exclusively reveals the 64-team field for the championship.

Transcript of the call is below.

Q. For either of you guys. The question is specific to Ohio State. The Ohio State women’s team has seemingly been on the precipice of a four-seed seemingly the last two, two and a half months. They have had the slip-ups against teams like Michigan State and Purdue. They have had the big win over Maryland. I guess my question is now, looking at this team relative to potential other four seeds, has Ohio State done enough at this point to be able to host the first two rounds in the tournament?
CHARLIE CREME: I think that Ohio State has, but barely. I have them as the 16th team and I think that’s going to be one of the major questions to look for on Selection Monday is who is that last team? I think they have done a little bit more by having the co-championship in the Big Ten in the regular season and basically the teams they’re competing with would be DePaul, NC State primarily, maybe put Miami in that mix, because Miami having that big win over Florida State in the ACC tournament. But I think Ohio State’s done a little bit more, schedule you would up significantly more in the non-conference than say a NC State did. Maybe not quite as much as a DePaul, but enough to overtake DePaul in that they had an a long run of wins kind of between the Michigan State loss and then the loss in the Big Ten tournament. So I have them in as the 16. As you said, they then sort of just, in all the reviews, I think they have probably just been kind of on the outside looking in. I think with some of the other things that happened that I think they’re probably that last team.

ANDY LANDERS: Yeah, I agree with every one of those points. I thought Ohio State’s schedule early was good in terms of its strength. I thought their win over Maryland late, I would think that that would mean something going forward with this hosting. I would think that they’re 16 barely.

Q. In general, we’ve seen from an RPI standpoint that the Big Ten has struggled this year. Do you think that in general over the course of the year it’s kind of hurt teams like a Maryland or like a Michigan or an Ohio State, just based on RPI and strength of schedule and things like that.
CHARLIE CREME: I think it has to some degree. It’s certainly been impactful on Maryland. I think Maryland’s non-conference schedule was more of a hindrance to them elevating than maybe than their Big Ten schedule, but I think what happened is in most years or many years being in a conference like the Big Ten will kind of help negate if you schedule down to accommodate for youth, maybe in the case of Maryland, coming into the year, having some young players. But it didn’t this year. And it because just the really the bottom half of the league was as far as the any of the metrics are concerned was really bad. And so Maryland never really got a significant boost. Ohio State didn’t get that significant boost. Both of those schools are still in solid shape as far as the numbers are concerned, but in terms of that making that one little extra little push or having that one little nugget on the resume to say, okay, Maryland should be a one-seed, that’s been a discussion, there was a discussion for much of the year, or is Ohio State still get qualified as a top 16. That would be, I would put that on the list at the top of things that, if those things don’t work out or didn’t work out, that would be why.

Q. Question for Andy. The next tier of teams, of that group of the one seeds and the two seeds out there, who are the teams that you think that Connecticut should fear the most and what, I guess if I’m a Connecticut fan, what am I worrying about heading into this tournament?

ANDY LANDERS: I think with them of the No. 1 seeds, Notre Dame Baylor and North Carolina any of those matchups would be worrisome. I really like Notre Dame they are the most like UConn in the approach to the game and how they play offense the way that, the way that they play offense, the weapons that they have on the offensive end. I think when you get to the tournament, there’s a premium with the ability to score points. I think you have to score to advance more times than not. Defense is great, it’s important, but offensive ability at the end of the day will carry you through a tournament. I think Notre Dame has that type of ability. I think Baylor and South Carolina as it relates to UConn are intriguing because they have what UConn doesn’t. And I know that they have both played UConn, but it’s still intriguing to me. They have billing, back to the basket players. UConn does not have that. They play more four out at times four out and a high post, which essentially is five out, which puts a burden on those big players defensively. But on the other end of the floor, if Baylor and South Carolina could successfully get the ball into the low post area, I just don’t know how UConn defends that. UConn has done a good job of keeping it out of there, and they have done it one-on-one. They have done it defending the high shoulder and just keeping the ball from coming in, but if that ball ever gets in there, I just don’t know how UConn defends that with the size and the bulk that I guess you could say they don’t have down low.

On the two-line, Maryland, I think, is the only team that has the offensive ability to stay with UConn. I think Mississippi State, Oregon State, Stanford, with struggle to put points on the board against UConn.

Q. Charlie, I was kind of wondering, what’s stopping Iowa State from getting into the tournament right now. And then, Andy, I kind of wanted to ask you, with how well Iowa State’s played down the stretch, what kind of problems do they post for teams right now?
CHARLIE CREME: Well in terms of what would stop Iowa State from getting into the tournament, well first of all overall record is not great. And they were kind of languishing there for quite some time. The non-conference schedule wasn’t great, but what I think has them in the tournament is the way they finished. Primarily I think everybody could point to the fact that winning at Texas right near the end of the regular season to me that elevated them in. I kind of had them on the outside looking in until that game, but there was, it was so hard to find any teams kind of, if you want to call it the bubble, that were struggling to elevate themselves. And then when someone did, like an Iowa State beating a Texas, on the road, that was enough to make that leap. And despite the fact that they lost their first game in the Big-12 tournament, I think that that coupled with the fact that there was a five game winning streak at the end of the year was enough to put them in. Some other teams just could not find any sort of traction at the end of the season when they had their opportunities and it then becomes a numbers game. You got to get 64 in, well who is doing enough to elevate, who is not doing that, and in the case of Iowa State, I think they did. But if they were to not make the tournament, I would just point to those, the rough stretch they had kind of mid-season in the Big-12 and the fact that they just didn’t do anything of significance at all in the non-conference.

ANDY LANDERS: To follow-up the question you had for me, I think where Iowa State, there are a handful of teams that play a little bit differently than everyone else. I hear people from time to time when they’re commentating or doing color on games or on television or talking about different teams, talk about teams play, how they play defense and typically refer often times to them playing a matchup zone and that’s just not true. There’s only a handful of teams who really play a matchup zone. And Iowa State is one of them. I think that that defense can present real problems for people who have not gone against it, and let’s face it, if there’s only a handful of teams playing it, they probably haven’t gone against it. That can present real problems for the opponent. Because you’re unfamiliar with that and here you are in the tournament, and you’re scheming and game planning for something that you typically don’t go against. Their ability on the defensive end presents problems. The second thing I would say to you is Billy has been there and done that before. There’s something to be said, come tournament time, for experience, particularly people who have had success in the NCAA Tournament. The experience of just going isn’t what I’m talking about. The experience of playing games and advancing. You understand how to prepare a team, how to get a team to maintain focus, to listen, and that improves their ability to advance. So Billy’s experience there — and then of course on the offensive end, Iowa State typically is a team that can hurt you with some balance, but they usually are very good with the three ball and out on the perimeter.

Q. Charlie, with Michigan State obviously playing a month without Suzy Merchant, how much is that kind of figured in when evaluating them and the push they made after her return late in the season did they kind of solidify themselves on that 8, 9 line seed line in your mind?
CHARLIE CREME: I think so. And Coach Merchant missing would be a discussion point. I don’t think it would carry that much heavy emphasis. It’s going to come down to the fact that Michigan State finished pretty well and that they have a win over Ohio State and kind of similarly to what we spoke about with Iowa State, that was enough to kind of elevate them a little bit over some of the other teams that maybe didn’t play well down the stretch. So to the Merchant point, I think, yeah, they will talk about it and say, okay, what did they do without her, what did they do immediately upon her return, were they a different team, but ultimately I think that’s sort of a secondary issue to just let’s just look at the blood and guts. How did they do against their best competition, how did they finish the season, did they schedule well, how did they do against that schedule, and I think all of those things check off enough to get them in the tournament and put them as you said in kind of that probably that 9, maybe, possible a 10, I think more likely a 10 than an 8. But in that they’re going to be kind of in that realm.

Q. Do you see Tennessee pretty much locked in as a 7 seed? Is there any wiggle room one way or another and Charlie, is there any chance that they could host Stanford?
CHARLIE CREME: I wouldn’t use the term locked in at 7. Because I think there’s a possibility they could be a 6. It’s going to depend on how the 10 people kind of analyze a very schizophrenic season. But in terms of — so I see them as a 7, I don’t think they could be lower than that, I think maybe there’s a possibility they could inch one line higher. I have them at 26 overall. So they would have to basically get two spots up, two notch he’s on the 64 list in order to elevate to a 6. In terms of hosting Stanford, I think it’s a, it’s going to be an interesting conversation piece. It’s one of the things I’m really looking forward to seeing what the committee does. The fact that the two played in the regular season I think probably hurts that possibility, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility and it would be a major story line, if the committee decided to go in that direction. The way I kind of, the plotting out and doing the bracket and the 7 seeds and how it played, the only, with the principles and procedures that followed in taking into consideration that Stanford and Tennessee played each other during the regular season. While it’s not a mandate that they not be placed together, the committee typically tries to avoid any kind of regular season rematch in the first or second round. Sometimes it’s not avoidable. But in this case it would be and when all those scenarios play out that’s why West Virginia ends up being that team as opposed to any of the other three.

Q. A question for each of you. Charlie, first of all, what chance if any does South Carolina have getting seeded in Lexington and do you think how well they travel plays into the NCAA’s thinking here?
CHARLIE CREME: I think it’s, to me, it’s pretty clear the pecking order now of the 1’s. UConn, Notre Dame, South Carolina, Baylor, in that order. So, I think that if you’re being honest and doing this with the most integrity possible, Notre Dame has got to go to Lexington. So I don’t think we’re going to see South Carolina in Lexington. The question is, to me, and maybe the biggest question mark to come out of Selection Monday and the answer will be who goes to Oklahoma City and who goes to Stockton. And I think it’s, following the S curve and keeping that integrity alive, I think you’ve got to have South Carolina going to Oklahoma City and keeping closer, even though you get into the debate about, well, Baylor could to Oklahoma City where South Carolina’s getting on a plane either way. But South Carolina would be traveling across the country, it would be the second time in four years that they were placed in the West Coast, the four year window’s not usually something that undermines that, but it’s something to consider, I think, in the conversation. But so I guess I don’t see a scenario where they end up in Lexington. I do see a scenario where they can end up in either of the other two regions, though.

Q. To follow that up with coach, if you were in Dawn Staley’s shoes and you got shipped about as far away from South Carolina as you could be for the third time in four years, would that be a frustrating thing?
ANDY LANDERS: First of all, that happened to us a number of times. We went West more than any other region. And that’s over a 33 year period or 32, I think, bids. And obviously you’re disappointed and I think that she would be disappointed that they would have to travel. I think the challenging part is the time zones. And it’s not necessarily going out there, although you would need to go, let’s assume for a minute they went to Stockton, and like Charlie, I think they end up in Oklahoma City. But if you go to Stockton, you go out and you get acclimated to that time zone and you play. That’s a challenge, but that’s not as great a challenge as returning back and preparing for, let’s say a Final Four when you advance to that point. We did that. The time zone presents a challenge. Now, believe it or not, you’re disappointed that you’re having to travel, you’re disappointed that it’s a hardship for your fans. But going to the West Coast really for us made it easier from a focus standpoint. Because we had no distractions. We didn’t have fans milling around the hotel or friends trying to drop by and visit our players. It was basically just us and the rest of the world. And from that standpoint, as a coach, we always felt like we were the only people our kids could talk to. So the conversation was what we wanted it to be. So, yeah, could it be frustrating for her? Yes. But it happens, it happened before, it can happen again. For Georgia, it was something that happened often when I coached at Georgia. As a college basketball coach you find yourself this time of year, I think the smart thing for a college basketball coach this time of year is let the committee do what they want to do, accept it, and move on. Because anything else is counterproductive to coaching your basketball team.

Q. Question about the Connecticut criteria when you’re seeding for, let’s say the top 8-over all teams in the field. I’m going to ask this as it pertains particularly to Maryland which played Connecticut tougher than anyone besides Florida State. How much should Maryland’s game against Connecticut impact how high their seed is.
CHARLIE CREME: I think it’s something that, it’s something that the Connecticut factor you want to call it, I think, you’re looking at a team, you’re evaluating a team in a lot of different ways and how they measure up against the very best is certainly a good way to evaluate where they should be, where they should be placed on the S curve. So it would be something in the discussion, I’m sure. It’s something that I’ve thought about all year and in terms of where some of these teams go from on a week to week basis. It’s something that’s, okay, they showed this against Connecticut, because Connecticut’s the bar. And so I go through that, too. But it’s not at the highest level of thinking. I think it’s a piece to consider, but the other factors overall, in an overall season is far more important. For instance, I think maybe the Ohio State loss was more detrimental than the way they competed against UConn was a positive for Maryland. And I think if they had beaten Ohio State, we would be having a real argument about them as a one-seed. But they didn’t. And so I think that like the Connecticut factor, it gets diminished a little bit because of that.

ANDY LANDERS: I agree with Charlie’s assessment. I think that how they played Connecticut comes up in conversation after the criteria that the committee has put out as being important has been discussed and evaluated. It doesn’t jump in front of the metrics, it doesn’t jump in front of strength of schedule or RPI. But once those things have all been considered, then, yes, they played Connecticut very well and that’s something that even after a room full of people discuss it, lingers in each individual’s mind when they’re trying to decide exactly where Maryland should be. Maryland is an excellent basketball team. I don’t think you’ll find anyone that would say anything different than that. And here is a question. As a basketball coach I know what my team is going to be evaluated on and how I’m going to, how this team is going to be evaluated come tournament time, then I have a decision to make regarding scheduling. And if I choose not to schedule in a manner that would meet the requirements that have been put forth, then I really shouldn’t be concerned — and I’m not saying that Brenda is concerned about being a two-seed. That may have been the plan all along. There may have been something with this team from a developmental standpoint that she wanted to schedule a certain way. We do that. I’ve done that. But at the end of the year, I knew my fate would be in the hands of the NCAA committee. So, all that said, I go, I’ll repeat myself, I think Maryland is an excellent basketball team, I don’t think anyone in the tournament would look forward to playing them, but you can’t schedule a game against the best team in the country, even when you didn’t know that they were going to be that, Connecticut has surprised most of us, you can’t schedule that game, play it close, and hope that it carries the season. I think that, again, with Charlie, I think that the loss to Ohio State, had they won there, the conversation would be a little bit different but even with a win against Ohio State and playing Connecticut closely, all the other evaluation tools are still in play.

Q. As a follow-up to another team in the DC area, GW, I see you have them as one of your Last Four in. What’s the concern about that loss to Duquesne in the tournament, that that may even knock them out of the field?
CHARLIE CREME: Yeah, of all the teams I have in, GW is my biggest concern and my biggest, the one that I feel the least strongly about. That loss to Duquesne, I think if they had advanced, let’s say to the A-10 final, I certainly wouldn’t be as concerned here. The fact that they lost that much earlier is a tough one to kind of get past, but there’s a lot of other circumstances with some other teams that are hard to get past, too. It’s almost like I have GW making it as more of a, they were less bad than — in certain aspects in the criteria than some of the other teams that would be under consideration. So, one of the things that I am going to be keenly zeroed in on Selection Monday is going to be the status of George Washington, because, frankly, you could make a big, a very good case that they shouldn’t be in the tournament and someone else should. And then someone else could sit at the other side of the table and argue the opposite and I don’t really know that you would ever really come to a conclusion that would satisfy anyone.

Q. For coach, it looks like Louisville is probably a 4 seed right now. Do you think they might be able to move up to a 3 and assess their chances on maybe making the Final Four, coach.
ANDY LANDERS: I think they’re a 4-seed. I don’t think they have a chance to move up to a 3. I think that those Top-12 seeds are locked in. Do I think Louisville could get to the Final Four? Louisville’s one of the scary teams, to me. Louisville’s personnel, their athleticism, their shear athletic ability, they can make some noise and I think might make some noise in this tournament. Jeff has been there before, he’s done this before, he’s experienced with it, but from just from a talent standpoint they can beat some people seeded on higher lines than they are. I look at Louisville, I watched Louisville all year, I actually called the first rounds up there in Louisville last year for television, so I’ve seen their talent up close and I know what a healthy Asia Durr looks like, having watched her for years. I think my question on Louisville will be, if they’re chemically correct, if their chemistry is good going into the tournament, they’re another team that people will not want to play, because they can present so many problems for you on the perimeter and at the same time inside. They have the power game, they have the perimeter game, and if they get both of those going at the same time, they’re a tough out.

Q. To follow-up, Charlie, and also the ACC looks like they have got seven in, could Virginia be that eighth team, sir?
CHARLIE CREME: I think so. And this is a similar conversation to the Iowa State discussion, in that it’s kind of the end of the at large pool, you’re looking for something. What did this team do. What did this team prove its ceiling is. Can they compete with tournament level teams. And that win over Iowa State showed Virginia’s ability to compete and that’s one of the criteria the committee uses is, they call it kind of an ability to advance or ability to compete, ability — winability. That’s the exact terminology, winability. And Virginia proved its winability near the highest level of the game by beating Florida State. The discussion for some of the other teams in the conversation, they didn’t do, they didn’t have, they can’t, didn’t show that kind of winability at any point during their season. Virginia did it somewhat recently. So, I think really kind of based on that, when you’re parsing hairs about who is going to be 32 on the list of at larges and who is going to be 33 and 34, that’s something that’s a differentiator and that’s why I have had Virginia in the tournament basically ever since that game.

ANDY LANDERS: I watched Virginia all year long. They have been an interesting team to me. I know that they have some youth that they’re playing and that they’re somewhat inexperienced with all of this, but they seem to be a basketball team that has grown in their competitiveness game by game. This is a team that led Syracuse most of the game, that played even with Notre Dame for up until the last five or six on the road at Notre Dame last five or six, I just kind of had a feeling that a win like the Florida State win was going to happen because all of the good teams with the exception of one in the ACC, they competed for 35 to 38 minutes with, but just didn’t have the experience or something to pull out a win. Against some of those teams they had big leads over and if they had just done that once it wouldn’t have got my attention. Twice would not have gotten my attention. But they consistently competed with the best teams in the ACC all year long.

Q. Charlie, I know you touched on it earlier with West Virginia, but do you feel like the people there in Morgantown should get their hopes up about hosting or do you feel really strongly about that?
CHARLIE CREME: This isn’t a difficult subject to be, to feel strongly about. To have a two-seed, if I’m correct in Stanford’s assessment as a two-seed, we haven’t seen this circumstance yet when we — we have seen top four seeds not be able to host because of venue circumstances, but not a seed this high. So it’s a little bit on the unprecedented side here. If I’m correct in my assessment not only of Stanford as the two but of the seven seeds in totality, then the way it breaks down it would, there is, there really is no other choice if the committee is doing everything it has to do by rule and everything that it tries to do, within placing teams in the bracket. It’s a little bit of a bouncing ball here, but I can kind of take you through how I did it. So you’ve got the 4-7 seeds. West Virginia, Tennessee, Marquette, and Arizona State. Well, Arizona State, because of the placement of the other three PAC-12 teams or of the four, but the three in question, Arizona State can only go to one spot and that’s the 7 seed in the Stockton region. So that place is taken, there’s no flexibility there whatsoever, Arizona State has to go there. If you put Tennessee with Stanford, we talked about earlier, they played each other, so you try to avoid that. So, then you go to Marquette and now Marquette I have as the top 7 seed, so in theory that should give them the first choice of being able to host. Well if you put them there, then you’ve got to put West Virginia in either Oklahoma City or Lexington. Well they can’t go to Oklahoma City because Texas is on the 3 line and that conflicts with conference foes meeting before the regional final. But you can’t as also, putt but you can also not put Tennessee there because — and you could theoretically, but the committee, this is one of the things they also try to avoid — that would put Tennessee going to Oregon State. Well Tennessee traveled to Tempe last year. They try to keep teams from making those kind of trips in short windows of time as much as they can. So if Tennessee can’t go there and West Virginia can’t go there, well Marquette has to go there because, so then that leaves West Virginia having to go to Bridgeport and getting the luxury, perhaps, of hosting games in the first two rounds.

Q. Did you feel like coming into the post-season that they had to win at least one game in the Big-12 tournament or did you feel like they would have gotten in without that?
CHARLIE CREME: I did feel like they had to win a game. The non-conference schedule was troubling, it was a thing I wrestled with all year and they have actually been one of the more intriguing teams to me following all season long, because they have this — not that the committee uses specifically any of the other metrics like Massey or Sagarin, but I look at them to try to get a feel and West Virginia was one of those teams with a massive swing between the two. They were in the 20s in Sagarin, even with the weak non-conference schedule, pretty much all season. But the RPI had them in the high 50s, in the 60s, and that’s kind of hard to get your mind around sometimes. So, they were a tough one for me to evaluate, they made it a lot easier by not just winning one game in the Big-12 but even winning that second game and beating Texas, if even if they hadn’t beaten Baylor they certainly made it a lot easier. But I did think they needed to win that game, that first one, as you said, because there were still some missing pieces and they kind of needed to show that their long stretches, their long stretch of losing at one point was in fact in the rear view mirror and that was the team that exists now. Clearly it’s not now. Now we know clearly it’s not.

Q. Coach, had you heard much about Tynice Martin coming up through the ranks in AAU and high school?
ANDY LANDERS: Yes, I saw her play several times.

Q. What were your impressions of her?
ANDY LANDERS: Tremendously athletic. You obviously are familiar with her. She is as athletic a basketball player as there is in the country, really. And when I say that, she jumps, not only does she jump high, she jumps quick, everything is explosive. She sprints, but she can also move quickly from a lateral standpoint, anything athletic, Ty can do. She, as a basketball player, I would think that you could probably imagine this. As a freshman, that athleticism didn’t come overnight, she was athletic as a freshman. More athletic than she was basketball player. Or more athlete, I should say then she was basketball player, but as she went through her high school career, she developed those basketball skills and she was always a good player, don’t misunderstand me, a good skill set, but you could see that skill set start to grow and become a little bit more polished and eventually as you see it now almost catch up with her athleticism. I don’t think it will ever catch up with her athleticism because from an athletic standpoint she’s one of those one of a kind kids.

Q. Do you think it was a surprise to a lot of people that West Virginia was able to get her out of there and then obviously the SCC and the ACC recruits that area hard?
ANDY LANDERS: No, Mike does a good job of recruiting and he does a — one of the things that has impressed me through the years is West Virginia has an ability to identify recruits that they can relate to. Which is what we all should do as college coaches. If you can’t relate to a player, you’re wasting time, really, recruiting them. But that’s something that West Virginia has done a good job of. And when I say that, I just don’t see them wasting their time recruiting players for long periods of time that they don’t get. But with Ty, they recruited her for a long time, they recruited her consistently, I think that they were able to relate to her, to her family, and get her to come to West Virginia.

Q. One last thing, I know Kim Mulkey had mentioned at the Big-12 tournament that he might coach man defense as well as anybody that you’ve seen. Your thoughts of the man defense that West Virginia plays.
ANDY LANDERS: Well I think Mike probably does as good a job as anybody in the country, first of all, and I think this is the key part to their man defense, of getting kids to play hard and getting them to be aggressive. Aggressiveness isn’t necessarily something that’s in everybody’s nature. And I always found that to be one of the challenges in coaching. I had some really nice kids who were really good basketball players, but they weren’t necessarily aggressive. And what he does an excellent job of is getting kids to play hard and developing aggressive nature about them. Now when you get those two pieces in place, and you’re a good, and he is more than a good fundamental basketball coach, and we’re talking defense, defensive fundamental coach, you’re going to create something special on the defensive end and he has done that since he’s been at West Virginia. I mean that’s the staple of West Virginia basketball. You buy in to three things. You’re going to play hard, you’re going to be aggressive, you’re going to fear nothing, and you’re going to play defense.

Q. First question is for you, Charlie. Given the strong presence that the ACC is likely to have this year, how much do you think that Louisville’s performance in conference play and in the conference tournament this season has prepared them for this tournament?
CHARLIE CREME: Oh, very well. I think one of the things you don’t have to worry about with Louisville is preparation for big games. I think Jeff Walz is one of the great coaches at getting his team ready to play against elevated competition. And so the definitely they don’t have to worry about that. The ACC is a gauntlet every season, it’s such a deep league, especially that kind of that first 8 to 10 teams, it’s a real battle every night. So, just from that perspective they’re getting competitive games all the time. But from the guys sitting on the sidelines, they’re definitely well prepared to go against the best. He’s gotten two teams to Final Fours that weren’t necessarily high, high seeds, and they beat higher seeds along the way to do, so he knows what it takes to game plan and motivate to play the best teams.

Q. Do you see them making a run beyond the Sweet 16?
CHARLIE CREME: I think that’s a very — I definitely wouldn’t call it a likely possibility, but coach hit on this earlier, they are a team, if you’re looking for a group of teams from outside the top two seeds that would be capable, placed in the right region with the right matchups, because that’s really what this comes down to is I’m affirm believer in tournament success comes down to at least one of the big ingredients is the matchups. How do you matchup with the teams you end up getting to play and do you maybe catch a break along the way of getting to play a team that you’re better matched up with than you would have been otherwise. And so that’s really, I think, what it comes down to, at least in part. So, that would be kind of the little caveat I would put on that. But if they’re put in a region with kind of the right matchups, I certainly think when this is all said and done and we’re heading to Dallas, that they could be one of those teams.

Q. Coach, last year they were in a very similar situation, top four-seed, hosting and they kind of faltered in the second round against DePaul. Do you think that they have enough fire power this year to avoid that fate and do you see anyone who is, has the potential to kind of pose the same problem to them in the second round?
ANDY LANDERS: Well, I think you hit on what Charlie just said, matchups are so important. And bracketing is important because it’s what’s going to drive the matchups. Last year the Louisville-DePaul game was a horrible matchup for Louisville. Louisville’s a more athletic team, bigger team, their style of play a little bit more open, wide open at times, and then you have DePaul who plays fast, but everything’s calculated. It’s more of a cat and rat game, a cat and mouse game. They take what you give them. You take something away, they get something somewhere else. And that presented real problems for Louisville. So the matchups, as Charlie was saying, I think are really important to everyone in this tournament and it’s hard, it’s hard to say how deep, not that I would know, because I’ll be the first to tell you, I don’t know, but it would be hard for me to say how deep a team could go or what kind of team could make what kind of a run, without a bracket. There’s definitely teams out there that present problems for other teams that some folks my not recognize, just in their style of play or a particular type of defense that they might ’em employ, but Louisville is a basketball team that has the ability, that has the roster, of a Final Four team. And there’s teams, I haven’t really counted them, there’s probably eight teams that have that kind of roster. Now will the bracket be in their favor, will the matchups be in their favor, are all of those teams chemically correct, do they have good chemistry going into this tournament, are they healthy, are they going to stay healthy, are they going to stay out of foul trouble, you get into all those kind of things, all of a sudden there’s not that many Final Four teams. But just looking at roster and shear ability and the ability of their coaches and Jeff, they have the makeup of a Final Four team.

Q. For Charlie, I think before the Big-Ten tournament Purdue wasn’t even in the discussion and wouldn’t even be in the field and your answer’s probably going to be similar to Iowa state and some of the others that you talked about, but how did Purdue make that jump?
CHARLIE CREME: Getting big wins on the biggest stage, yeah, you’re right, it’s very similar conversation. There was so much vulnerability amongst the group of teams that were vying for those last couple of spots and so you’re looking for someone to make an impact. Purdue made an impact. Some other teams did not. They either lost their first game in their conference tournament but I guess, not that the committee compares one team to one team, but if you’re looking kind of for an example, Purdue gets to a Big-Ten final, Iowa goes out in its first game. And when you’re trying to make a differentiation between or among a group of teams, then that’s something you can really point to. And Purdue was able to pick up some decent wins. The win over Ohio State goes into that category of a Virginia beating Florida State, Iowa State beating Texas, West Virginia beating Texas. So that’s why it would seem like they kind of came from off the picture and into the field because there was so much vulnerability amongst those teams and once they went out early in their conference tournaments, they stopped having the ability to help themselves. Purdue by continuing to play was helping its case each and every game. And that’s really the difference.

Q. Also about Indiana, where do you see them at right now?
CHARLIE CREME: I do see them on the outside looking in. And it’s exactly it fits what we just kind of discussed. It was that there’s, there was room for them to do some, do something for themselves, and they didn’t do it. They didn’t take advantage. And one of the big things that — you look at Indiana’s overall record, 20-10, it’s pretty good. Their schedule was not great. I think that holds them back. But the biggest thing I think with them is they played eight games against the top-50 and won just one time. And you are talking about like we talked about earlier, winnability. What’s a team’s chance of actually winning games in the tournament? And if you only keep getting one out of eight against teams that would, that normally would be classified in that tournament-worthy category, then what is your real, what is your real opportunity, proven over the course of a season, you really don’t have a high level of that winnability and I think that’s a big factor in Indiana’s circumstance.

Q. Charlie, the committee’s kind of made it clear that strength of schedule is important and non-conference strength of schedule ranks high with them. Are you seeing teams listening to that message?
CHARLIE CREME: They listened in the PAC-12. I think that’s pretty nicely documented that the coaches kind of had a discussion about that and they all elevated their schedules and it’s reflected in the RPI. Some people might call that somewhat of a manipulation, but it did get them to schedule better. And it doesn’t mean that you have to go out and schedule top-10 teams every year, it just means you can’t — you have to go out and schedule teams between 50 and 120 as opposed to teams over 200. Now conversely, we have seen it with Maryland this year, they actually downgraded their schedule this year. They played a lot of teams over 200 in the RPI. And as we have documented, it kind of hurt them. So some teams are elevating their schedules and I think they’re going out and trying to do more. A lot of the ACC schools do a pretty good job of going out and scheduling in the non-conference. But there was a decent amount of Big Ten teams, talking about the Big Ten that this year didn’t. Maryland being one but Indiana was one. Michigan’s non-conference schedule was kind of enchhc, but Michigan State did a pretty good job of going out and scheduling. So it’s still a little bit of a mixed bag. I don’t think maybe the message has gotten through entirely. Because when coaches are putting schedules together there’s other things they have to consider. You don’t want to over schedule and just crush your team’s spirit before they even get to the conference. So, yeah, the number on paper looks good, but your record is 4-8 going into the conference or something like that. Let’s face it, it almost, almost happened to Texas. They scheduled crazy good and were 2-4 at one point. 2-4. Now, if Karen Aston, I’m assume, did a very good job of repairing some of that psyche on that roster, and once they got through that 2-4 hump, they went crazy. And they won a lot of big games and up until the end they were very dominant in the Big-12 and it worked out for them. It worked out great for them. But it doesn’t always work out. You start, you over schedule in the beginning of the season, and you never really recover. I think that the best example I can think of off the top of my head of a team that that happens to occasionally is the Michigan State men. Tom Izzo puts out schedules every year, great, and some of his teams, if they suffer an injury here or they’re too damaged from all the losses, they don’t recover and they don’t end up having a good season. So it’s a balancing act, for sure.

Q. Looking at the PAC-12 we talked about some of this, but you just talked about the scheduling. I know Tara VanDerveer was pretty adamant that the schedule should get seven maybe eight teams. I don’t see eight. I know you got six in right now. Cal in the first four out. What are your thoughts on what maybe kept Cal out and how the PAC-12 maybe has improved over the last couple years with the scheduling?
CHARLIE CREME: Well, yeah, it’s definitely helped the conference. I think that’s very effect with being a No. 1 RPI rated conference. But I think sometimes coaches get almost too carried away with that, saying, okay, we’re the No. 1 RPI conference, so we should have this many teams in. That is not at all, that never is a conversation. And I can — I sat in on mock discussions with bracketing, with putting together a 64-team field, there’s never a discussion of, well this conference is rated high, so it, we need to get X amount of teams from that conference in. It just doesn’t happen. I think there’s still a misconception about that and it might just be the coaches trying to sell, trying to sell to the committee members that are listening because, obviously, it’s good for a league to maximize the number of teams that get in the field. And it’s a pride thing, for sure. It’s a recruiting helpful tool as well. So, but coaches kind of need to move away from that dialog, because it’s just, it just isn’t relevant. It doesn’t happen. It’s not — every team is looked at individually, it’s not a collection of a conference as a bunch of teams and say okay well this is why, this is why they should be in. Now, in the case of Cal, I think certainly there’s a discussion of, okay, they played a difficult schedule and because the conference is good, that schedule was that much more difficult. That’s part of it. But it really comes down to the schedule. Cal’s issue is they didn’t schedule great in the non-conference. I know they beat Oklahoma and that was on a neutral floor and that was a great win, I was actually at that game, but then you kind of look at some other things, overall record is into the great. 13 losses is somewhat tough to overcome. Six games, as good as the Pac-12 is, six games below .500 in your league? That’s hard to overcome. It’s hard to justify, I think, I think, it’s hard to justify putting a team in the tournament that can only win a third of its conference games. Whether they’re playing great teams or not. Cal lost to some teams within the league that didn’t have good seasons. And I think that’s a huge knock and that’s going to, that’s something that as I go through my internal discussions, the one-man conversation that I have when I’m putting these brackets together, that just keeps, that keeps stumping me. That 6-12 in the league, this conference record is something they look at, not conference RPI, but conference record is something to look at. And I just can’t get over it. And I don’t know if the committee will be able to or not, but I certainly couldn’t.

Q. And then Oregon State was in Stockton, I know all the fans really want to go there. Is there any chance, I listened earlier, it sounds like they’re pretty much locked into Oklahoma City, do you think?
CHARLIE CREME: Well, not necessarily. Let’s just take for instance a scenario where maybe the committee looks at, let’s say, I have it UConn, Notre Dame, South Carolina, Baylor Mississippi State, Oregon State, Maryland, Stanford. That’s my order. Let’s just say that the committee has exactly the same order, except they flip-flop, they flip-flop a couple of the teams in there. And it would be in the middle, the Mississippi State, Oregon State, Maryland scenario. So — or if they, let’s just say they put Baylor in Oklahoma City and — I’m thinking — it’s like a puzzle really when you’re putting this together, it really is like a puzzle and you put a piece down and it’s like well it kind of fits, but I’m not really sure, so let’s take it out and let’s try another one first. So there could be a scenario where they end up in Stockton, but it would probably necessitate Baylor being there and then Oregon State being — well this would be the scenario — Baylor being in Stockton and then Oregon State being number — well, no, that doesn’t work either — the stickiest one for them is the fact that South Carolina is a 1 and Mississippi State’s a 2 and can’t be together. So that’s really what’s kind of would be hindering their ability to be there. Now South Carolina, if South Carolina was in Stockton and maybe Oregon State could be, depending upon where the committee put them, but that’s, that’s really the whole, going to be the hold up for them being there is the fact that South Carolina and Mississippi State have to be separated and so Oregon State has to go to the other spot.

Q. On Oregon State, what have you seen, kind of a great season for them, losing so much from last year, what have you been impressed by what Scott and his staff has done this season with Oregon State?
ANDY LANDERS: I’ve been impressed with just that, based on what they lost, I did not expect them to be a two-seed in this year’s tournament. His ability to put it together with some new faces, with some players who didn’t play that much last year, has been incredible. I think when I look at Oregon State, the thing that resonates with me is I think that at some point Scott looked at his basketball team this year, compared it to last year, and said, we’re really different. We have always played good defense, but last year we had a balance with really good offense. This year we’re going to have to ride our defense. And they have been able to do that. And it has created great success for them. But I think going forward that that becomes a concern for me. I’ve been there and done that. When you get to the tournament, and I said this earlier, you have to score points. There aren’t very many — there’s not anybody out there that’s going to hold the likes of UConn and Notre Dame to 50 points. So that becomes my concern for them. They obviously have a terrific player in Sydney Wiese, who can generate offense for herself and for her teammates, but I worry about whether or not it can be enough. I think it’s one of the great stories this year. I think he’s done a fantastic job, but I think that they will be challenged offensively as they move through the tournament.

-30-