On Sunday, the Hokie women's basketball team was given a # 4 seed in the East, and was awarded a sub-regional.  Tech will host three other teams (# 5 seed Texas, # 12 seed Auburn, and # 13 seed St. Peter's), and the Hokies will begin by playing St. Peter's.

The #4 seed is a little problematic (more on that later), primarily because it sets up a second-round game with Auburn, a team that is used to playing in front of big crowds in the SEC and (probably) won't be intimidated by a packed Cassell Coliseum.  But that's only a concern if the Hokies can get by St. Peter's first.  Ask last year's Hokie upset victim, Wisconsin, how dangerous dissing a first-round opponent can be.

According to ESPN.com, the Hokies will play St. Peter's at 6:30 p.m. on Saturday, March 13th. On a personal note, ordinarily, I would be thrilled about this, but Baby HokieCentral is getting baptized at 5:15 Saturday, with dinner immediately following.  You guessed it - I've got about a four-hour window in the Friday to Monday time frame where I absolutely can't go see the game (4:30-8:30 Saturday), and they pegged it.  Boy, I hope the Hokies win the first-round game so I can see the next one!

This is indeed a treat, one that none of us saw coming back in November, when the Hokies tipped off against Liberty and started what has turned out to be a magical season.  Now we get to continue that season, right here in our own back yard, in our own lovable pit, Cassell Coliseum.  Is it time to get ready for the first women's basketball sellout ever?  Probably.

Congratulations to Coach Bonnie Henrickson and her players, who have come farther faster than anyone expected and have galvanized a community and a fan base that never thought they would find themselves analyzing the seedings of the women's NCAA tournament, as I'm about to do (stay tuned).  These truly are special times at Virginia Tech, and we should all count ourselves lucky to say that we were watching when it happened.

Tickets for the sub-regional go on sale at 9:00 a.m. sharp at the Tech ticket office.  I believe that a ticket is $20 for the full three-game sub-regional, but don't quote me on that.  Call 1-800-VATECH4 to order yours, and let's fill the Cassell up for the NCAA's!!

So we got what we wanted - we're going to host games - but the actual seed, a # 4, leaves me furrowing my brow.  There's a game we Hokies like to play whenever we're given an NCAA bid.  It's not a game we get to play very often - almost never in men's basketball - but it's game that we always have the materials to play.

The name of the game is, "Let's complain about how the selection committee gave us the shaft this time."

So let's play, shall we?  I can give you all the information you need to know with a simple table showing the Top 16 teams in the RPI ratings and their NCAA seeds:

My, that's interesting, isn't it?

First of all, in the interest of fairness, I have to say that the RPI ratings I show here are "an independent duplication" of the RPI that is used by the NCAA.  The NCAA selection committee doesn't release their version of the RPI, which is a cute trick that allows them to play politics to their heart's content.

Good, now that the fairness garbage is out of the way, let's talk turkey.

I originally came up with this table, showing the Top 16 RPI teams and their resulting seeds (plus a pair of # 4 seeds that were not in the Top 16 of the RPI), to demonstrate with clear numbers just how bad Virginia Tech has once again been screwed over by an NCAA selection committee.  And my little table serves that function quite well.  Note that VT is the highest RPI-ranked # 4 seed, and note also that #10 Old Dominion and #14 Clemson are both # 2 seeds.

Let's take it from the top:

# 1 Seeds:  Tennessee (#1 RPI), Purdue (# 2), La Tech (# 3), and UConn (# 5).  No argument here.  Next!

# 2 Seeds:  Texas Tech (# 5 RPI), Colorado State (# 6), ODU (# 10), and Clemson (# 14 RPI).  Well, no problem with Texas Tech, and we'll cut a little slack with Clemson (#14 in the RPI), because they finished strong, winning the tournament in a tough conference.  But even so, a # 2 seed may be a bit of a stretch for the Tigers.

But for indignation, the Hokies need look no further than Colorado State, which finished one step above Tech in the RPI, lost in their conference tournament (just like the Hokies), had a similar strength of schedule (# 43 to Tech's # 45), and yet, got a # 2 seed when Tech didn't even get close to a # 2.  And it's not like CSU has a "name" that Tech doesn't have.  So can anyone explain that one to me?

As for ODU, maybe that's politics and "name recognition," maybe not.  Let's take a look-see.  Well, obviously, ODU rode the strength of their conference ... wait, they play in the Colonial ... rode their strength of schedule ... no, wait, it was # 65, compared to Tech's # 45 ... drat, this analysis just isn't working at all, is it?

# 3 Seeds:  Duke (# 8 RPI), Georgia (# 9), Rutgers (# 12), UCLA (# 15).    Mathematically, Duke, Georgia, and Rutgers belong as # 3 seeds, but not if you're knocking Tech down to a #4 seed.   Particularly since (all together now) Tech beat Duke!!  Hello, anybody remember that?

# 4 Seeds:  VT (# 7 RPI), Iowa State (# 13), UNC (# 19), and LSU (# 25).  Oh, please, this is embarrassing.  Here's where the RPI-versus-seedings correlation really starts to break down.  Once again, Tech has the distinction of being one of a handful of schools in the country for which a high RPI rating is not used to justify a high seeding.  Tech's high RPI rating is instead ignored in the face of a low seeding.

The only school that mathematically belongs here is Iowa State.  UNC - eh, whatever.  There's no sense in trying to get in the middle of the love affair that the NCAA has with UNC.

But LSU?  LSU??  We're talking about a team that was 20-7 and lost in the quarterfinals of the SEC tourney.  The quarterfinals.   To Kentucky, not Tennessee.  Well, then they must have a good strength of schedule, right?  Nope.  LSU's SOS was # 62.  Sixty-two.   They feasted on wimpy out of conference opponents, got mauled in the SEC, barely won 20 games, finished # 25 in the RPI, and got a # 4 seed for their efforts.  That's a crime.

To summarize, it's just as we thought.   So, among the Top 16 seeds, Tech was given the worst deal.  If you use the reasoning that RPI ratings of 1-4 equate to a 1 seed, 5-8 equate to a 2 seed, 9-12 are a 3 seed, and 13-16 are a 4 seed, then every one of the Top 16 seeds has a seed that is as good as or better than their RPI rating - except for two.  Duke has a # 3 seed (instead of a 2), and Tech has a # 4 seed (instead of a 2).

Sure, I know the RPI isn't a straight tournament seeding rating.  But no one will disagree that the NCAA selection committee uses the RPI when it's to their advantage, and ignores it when it's not.  Virginia Tech is living proof of that, in both men's basketball, and now, women's.

You think Tech got a raw deal?    How about Notre Dame?  RPI-ranked # 11, they did not get a Top 4 seed, making them the highest-RPI-ranked team not to get a Top 4 seed.  But how in the world did this happen to Notre Dame?  I figured their name alone would get them the seed.  And this is a team that is ranked # 8 in the AP poll, # 9 in the coaches' poll, and comes from a strong conference, the Big East.  I hate to say it, but I think the deal Notre Dame got was worse than the deal anyone else got, because they got no deal at all.

Don't worry, be happy.  I hope that little ditty about Notre Dame left you with the one impression you ought to be left with.   Namely, be happy that the Hokies get to host a sub-regional.  Despite the lower-than-hoped seeding, at least we didn't get totally shut out of hosting, like N(bc)D.   So let's not whine, because it veers our attention away from Bonnie and her players, where it ought to be.

Tech Note and a Correction

• The Hokies hired Lorenzo Ward from Tennessee-Chattanooga to replace departed defensive backs coach Lou West.  Ward sounds like a pretty darn good coach and a good recruiter.  The best article linked by a message board poster was this one from the Chattanooga Times and Free Press.

• I recently reported John Engelberger's 40-yard time as 4.45.   Wrong.  It's actually 4.55, just a tad slower.  It only feels like 4.45 if he's chasing you.

TSL Home