	products recent interviews FastScripts archive about ASAP Sports

Our Clients:

Browse by Sport

Find us on

Subscribe to RSS

Click to go to
Asaptext.com

View our
e-Brochure

NCAA 2017 BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP

March 12, 2017

Mark Hollis

Indianapolis, Indiana

DAVE WORLOCK: Good evening, everyone. Appreciate your patience tonight on a day that's been exciting. I know you're anxious to talk to Mark Hollis.

A reminder that a transcript of today's call, as is the case with all transcripts from press conferences throughout the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship, will be housed at www.NCAA.com/Transcripts.

This will be the only media opportunity for Mark Hollis before he heads to Dayton for the First Four. Mark will be in Atlanta with us for the start of the first round on Thursday.

Without further ado, we will turn it over to the media to ask any questions you might have of Mark Hollis.

Q. Mark, I'm curious if you can break down the seed list that concerns the Big East. It's pretty clear that Marquette, Xavier and Providence probably caused you some trouble.
MARK HOLLIS: I think as you go through the Big East situation, many teams very comparable. We looked at the interchange between each of the different programs there. Remember, we don't look at them as conference programs, per se. But obviously very comparable rÃ©sumÃ©s as we were going through that situation.

I don't know if you have anything specific that you want to ask relative to them.

Q. Providence beat Marquette twice. They only played twice. They were a full line ahead of Providence. Providence goes to the First Four and they do not.
MARK HOLLIS: As you know, being from Providence, it's a unique situation in that Providence was out of the First Four. Rhode Island was in as an at-large. By winning the AQ, that's what positioned Providence to play there.

Specific to the numbers, I think as we were looking through different teams in this framework, they were so incredibly close. I think that's part of what's making the seed selection so difficult, but also the tournament so competitive.

Q. Mr. Hollis, unless I'm missing something, it looks to me like the mid-majors, so-called mid majors, that received at-large bids are Saint Mary's, VCU and Dayton. Was there a feeling this year that the mid-majors just weren't measuring up as they might have in the past?
MARK HOLLIS: I think one of the things you have to look at, it's very difficult to define what a mid-major is in today's world. At the same time, of the 32 tournaments, 20 of them were won by the No. 1 seed or the co-champion in those conferences. You had a lot of quality teams percolating up and winning conference titles and getting the AQs.

That would have an impact, as I mentioned as far as the competitive nature of the tournament, but also those teams that would be available for at-large selection.

Q. Mark, with the big storm coming to the East Coast, have you changed any sort of travel arrangements for the teams?
MARK HOLLIS: The answer to that question is we're concerned about Buffalo. We've been reminded of this, number one is safety, it's of the foremost protocol.

The process is to try to get everyone in early. We're making maneuvers to do that at this point in time with our travel agent, reaching out to teams, officials, and publicly to fans, that if you're headed to Buffalo, that would be a location that you want to watch the weather, you want to be safe, and make those arrangements.

The NCAA staff, JoAn Scott, Dan Gavitt, are working at this time in efforts to ensure that safety is at the forefront, that getting the teams into those locations is handled.

Q. You talked on the CBS show, about Duke. Can you rehash that, starting on the 4 seed line, weren't able to get higher than the third spot.
MARK HOLLIS: As you look at the procedures, we don't start seeding on Sunday. We start selecting teams and seeding on Wednesday.

When Duke came onto the line, they were on the 4 line. I believe they were the first team on the 4 line. Throughout the week, they picked up a number of neutral-site, top-25 wins, three of them, which has an impact on scrubbing.

'Scrubbing' is a comparison of one team against another, providing an opportunity for those teams to move up and down the seed line.

Duke, I believe, was the team that moved the most. Arizona moved along in similar fashion from the 3 line. They were stopped by Kentucky.

As you look at the 2 line, Kentucky stopped Arizona, Arizona stopped Duke, and neither Duke nor Arizona were compared directly with any team that was sitting on the 1 line.

It's not a situation where we come in on Sunday and look at everything with a clean slate. These are the procedures that we follow. Those procedures are reviewed every summer. But feel very good about how they've played out, in a good position.

Q. This year there was supposedly a softer bubble. Syracuse's rÃ©sumÃ© is either similar or maybe a little better than the one it had last year. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. How much did Jim Boeheim's nine-game suspension come into play last year, because many of Syracuse's bad losses a year ago were when Jim was under suspension?
MARK HOLLIS: Well, first of all, there's no comparison to last year. We don't do those comparisons, nor was that a conversation at all in this deliberation. Every year is a different year. We looked at this one straightforward.

Syracuse had some good wins. I think you're also probably aware of the challenges that they had in their rÃ©sumÃ©, both with wins out of the Carrier Dome, but also the losses against teams that they had that weren't tournament teams, going 8-5 in the non-conference with a non-conference strength of schedule of 215.

Those were challenges for this year. Anything relative to last year, nothing was even discussed.

Q. I didn't mean to compare necessarily this year to last year. I was mainly wondering, going back to last year, how much was Jim Boeheim's suspension really a factor?
MARK HOLLIS: Like any conversation you're going to have with either a player or coach availability, it's something that committee members are aware of.

I can speak honestly in talking last year, not a major conversation. We were looking at neutral wins that they had last year, the road win at Duke last year. Those were things that were relatively significant that didn't exist on this year's rÃ©sumÃ©.

Not a major conversation whatsoever, but awareness.

Q. Mark, I'm calling from Louisville. Louisville didn't have a ton of great wins away from home. Obviously their strength of schedule was highly rated. How did you approach them in terms of ranking them where you did and giving them a 2 seed?
MARK HOLLIS: Well, I think, again, they came in I believe on the 2 line. It was something that we hit on the front end.

As you look at their rÃ©sumÃ©, as you look at basically 50 and beyond, no losses, no bad losses whatsoever. You look at road wins that they did have, winning at Pitt, winning at Syracuse, both top-100 wins.

Also having the win at home with Duke, having the win at home with Kentucky. Those were very significant wins with a 4 and a 6.

Those were the factors.

They also, I believe, beat the Big Ten champ, Purdue, which was a top-20 win for them. Wichita State is another team in the tournament. Neutral-site win.

You kind of go through those rÃ©sumÃ©s, look at where they had wins, where were their bad losses, if any, which they did not have any.

Like some other teams, you want to take a look at who did they schedule. Strength of schedule overall was a 2. Strength of schedule in non-conference, I believe they were ranked about 5.

Those are very strong indicators. Who did you schedule, who did you beat, and where did you play. Those are the things we looked at. Louisville came out high on the committee's votes.

Q. Mark, how long did Monmouth stay in the conversation? At what point were they eliminated from the conversation?
MARK HOLLIS: They were not on the under consideration board at all. They were not voted onto the under consideration, so they were not discussed.

Q. Mark, the deal about who you played, when you played them, where the game was, if you beat them, that kind of mantra. Again, getting back to the Duke thing. They have more top-25 RPI wins and more top-50 RPI wins than anybody. Why were they blocked moving up, based on that, forget what they did in the ACC tournament, it seems their body of work, doesn't it compare to almost any team in the country?
MARK HOLLIS: Yeah, they have a very good rÃ©sumÃ©, obviously. They were a fifth seed in the ACC regular season. That's something that we're aware of in that process.

It's a matter of putting rÃ©sumÃ©s against each other. I don't, unfortunately, have them in front of me right now. But as you take the vote of the committee, what they're looking at are all the things that we just mentioned.

As they were moving up against the progression line, we're aware of things that happened, games that took place throughout the season. That's where the vote stopped.

With a scrubbing process, that's how it works. That's how the procedures work.

It's not a head-to-head with anyone up there. But as you look, Arizona State and Kentucky both won their regular season and their tournament. Committee members can take that into consideration as they're going through the process.

Q. Also the idea of geographical placement.
MARK HOLLIS: I meant Arizona and Kentucky.

Q. Right. Geographic placement, try to keep teams close to their locations. If you just look at the top two lines, 1 through 8, the 2 line doesn't match up with the 1 line. Are we really talking analog versus digital here, having what supposedly would be competitive matchups based on the seed line, versus trying to keep teams close to home?
MARK HOLLIS: If I understand your question, you're asking about an S-curve.

Q. The seed list you put out, if it was just the top eight teams, it's obvious how it would match up.
MARK HOLLIS: There is not an S-curve that's used. There is a protocol that the first 1 not play the first 2.

What we look at is conference affiliation and geography. Those are the two components. So as you're going through each line, on the top four lines, the first four teams that come out of any conference are in separate regions. You have to take that as a given. Then what you do is take the first team out of each line, and you give them geographical preference.

The only caveat I'll go back to is the top 1 not playing the overall 5 or the top 2. There is not an S-curve, per se, provision. Things we protect are not moving teams up and down seed lines. We have provided geographical preference based upon the principles that have been put in place.

Q. Mark, again, the broader mid-major at-large question. I have no doubt you did what you were supposed to do, and probably arrived at the right teams. I was wondering if you could additionally put on your athletic director hat. You know what it's like to run an athletic department. Yours has more resources than most mid-major schools do. Is there ever a part of you that at least sympathizes with the fact that it does seem like mid-majors are having something of a tough time of securing those at-large bids?
MARK HOLLIS: Well, again, I represent a total of 10 members of the NCAA committee that come from very diverse backgrounds, very different schools. I also worked in the Western Athletic Conference back in the day that was challenged in similar ways.

I will say there are teams that have found successful ways to go about and have been rewarded in the tournament. You can look at different examples, as you go through the seed line, on teams that have reached out.

What the committee is looking for is something to provide a comparison against other teams that are being under consideration for the tournament.

I would say it wouldn't take much. But if you want to ask about a specific school, I'd be happy to go into it.

You have to have something that gives you the opportunity to do some of those comparisons, programs that have done it have been recognized and have been rewarded in the tournament process over the years.

Q. Mark, a couple Big Ten questions. I know you start seeding on Wednesday. Did Michigan move up through the week? Were they at the 7 this morning? Could that championship game have much effect?
MARK HOLLIS: They were not at the 7 this morning. That game basically created a switch between Wisconsin and Michigan from the 7 and 8 lines.

Q. That's a case where you have two different brackets?
MARK HOLLIS: We had a total of eight brackets that were built, but had contingencies to build up to 25. As games were being played out throughout Sunday, we were able to back off some of those.

Q. Michigan State. Obviously you can't be in on any of those conversations. What kind of feedback were you given from the other members once they were placed in their spot?
MARK HOLLIS: None.

Q. They don't offer that for you at all?
MARK HOLLIS: No. I think they give an update. It's from a standpoint of it's best. We have a number of committee members that had teams that are in the conversation. In order to keep open dialogue, there's not a situation or an environment where you can come in and they're going to say, This is what they're saying about you. That's not the way this committee works, nor should it work.

Duke, Kentucky, Creighton, myself, we step out of the room. When we come back, we're provided information in order that we can move forward with conversations of other teams that are around us.

But specific to Michigan State, I was not provided with any information, nor did I expect any in the process.

Q. Mark, historically we hear from the committee where they emphasize quality wins. Syracuse this year had six wins against teams in the top 50. Southern Cal only had two. Kansas State four. With those facts in mind, what put Kansas State and USC ahead of Syracuse?
MARK HOLLIS: I'm going to pull in the mid-major question at the same time. It's what you do with your opportunities.

As you look at Kansas State, they had three wins away from home against tournament teams, including two through road wins. While their RPI was around 57, they were considered significantly higher in other metrics. But the three wins away from home, a significant consideration for Kansas State.

With USC, they had a 6-5 record on the road. Recognizing that half of those were against teams that were 200 and higher, they also had two in the top 100 that gave them an edge over other teams under consideration.

USC also had the situation with a student-athlete that was injured, Bennie Boatright, during February. He's come back and is making significant contributions there.

Those were the things that the committee talked about prior to them making their votes in that process.

Q. Mark, I want to clarify what you were saying before about Arizona. Were they on the 3 line entering the week? Also, going into the Pac-12 tournament, did you have all three of those teams in a pretty comparable start where the winner would be in the West as the 2?
MARK HOLLIS: I can't draw conclusions because we didn't do the votes. But Arizona did start in the middle of the 3 line and ended up as the overall 6 on the 2 line.

Obviously being a co-champion during the regular season, and the tournament, that was discussed in the room, along with other teams that had done something similar: Villanova, Gonzaga, Kentucky. Kansas and North Carolina both won their regular seasons, as well.

Those were things that were discussed as sort of secondary components, but Arizona did move up from the middle of the 3 line.

Q. Is that unusual and/or is it more difficult or easy when you have three teams with similar rÃ©sumÃ©s entering the championship week?
MARK HOLLIS: We had several of those in different leagues. It is challenging. It's especially challenging when games end on Sunday.

What you're looking at is the full rÃ©sumÃ©s. I think there's a pretty good indication of, in some cases, those teams that rise up.

Another thing with Arizona is all their losses came to top-16 teams on the RPI. So as you're looking through those, they're rising, they get the wins on the neutral court against pretty good teams in the tournament, with Oregon and UCLA. That helped bring them up.

Those were pretty big moves by both Duke and Arizona historically when you're looking at the scrubbing process.

Q. In evaluating all these teams, being as the Final Four hasn't been in the West for 20 some years, what is the mood, the feeling, of you and the committee? Can one or two of these teams out West make it?
MARK HOLLIS: Can one or two of the teams make it where? One is going to make it.

Q. To the Final Four, based on your evaluations. Have you seen a year like this where you have a fair amount of contenders out West like that?
MARK HOLLIS: I've had the opportunity to see Gonzaga play. I've seen Saint Mary's play live. I've seen UCLA, as well. Very good basketball being played.

I guarantee you one of the teams out of the West Region will make it to the Final Four. But they're very good teams, very good teams, very good basketball being played.

DAVE WORLOCK: As there are no more questions, we want to thank everyone for joining us this evening. We hope you enjoy the start of March Madness, which is Tuesday night with the First Four from Dayton, Ohio. Enjoy March Madness, and we'll see you on the road to the Final Four.

FastScripts Transcript by ASAP Sports

ASAP Sports, Inc. | T: 1.212 385 0297