A Radical Idea

[toadfoot]

Given that Stanford has, or certainly should have, played themselves out of a #1 seed, the selection committee has now been placed in the position of having two #1 seeds play on the home court of the #2 seed. That creates a clear conflict between the goal of helping to promote the women's game and increase attendance and the perception of fairness. Therefore I'd like to suggest a radical idea, none of the #1 or #2 seeds play on their home court.

And before everyone disagrees let me also suggest that given the current outlook the NCAA may get a modest boost in attendance, but the risk of having the FF teams determined in large part by home court advantage will be far more deleterious to the women's game in the long run.

Now we all know that the seeding committee will never do this, but it seems to me fairness should override money. Oh silly me!

 

[easttexastrash]

Given that Stanford has, or certainly should have, played themselves out of a #1 seed, the selection committee has now been placed in the position of having two #1 seeds play on the home court of the #2 seed. That creates a clear conflict between the goal of helping to promote the women's game and increase attendance and the perception of fairness. Therefore I'd like to suggest a radical idea, none of the #1 or #2 seeds play on their home court.

And before everyone disagrees let me also suggest that given the current outlook the NCAA may get a modest boost in attendance, but the risk of having the FF teams determined in large part by home court advantage will be far more deleterious to the women's game in the long run.

Now we all know that the seeding committee will never do this, but it seems to me fairness should override money. Oh silly me!

This isn't the decision of the selection committee. Hasn't UCONN hosted a regional in the past?

 

[toadfoot]

This isn't the decision of the selection committee. Hasn't UCONN hosted a regional in the past?

The fact that UConn has hosted a regional in the past has nothing to do with the situation that's developed this year. And as far as the right or options available to the selection committee... I don't care. All I'm positing is that creating a bracket where the FF participants could be determined in large part by home court advantage will be damaging to the women's game. If there's a way the committee could remove home court from the equation they should do it.

 

[ThisJustIn]

So, start planning for NEXT year. What are your rules and when do you set them? Who hosts and when do you tell 'em?

And yes, if women's bball teams are so delicate that they think " fair" is more important than income, building the game and/or what the players themselves have id'd as important:championship atmosphere -- lets by all means be "fair."

Now define fair...

 

[toadfoot]

So, start planning for NEXT year. What are your rules and when do you set them? Who hosts and when do you tell 'em?

And yes, if women's bball teams are so delicate that they think " fair" is more important than income, building the game and/or what the players themselves have id'd as important:championship atmosphere -- lets by all means be "fair."

Now define fair...

Tell me how creating a bracket that rewards lower seeded teams with home court advantage "builds the game". It makes a mockery of the spirit of competition.
I love the women's game, but if it can't generate interest without having a tilted playing field for the tournament it deserves to die.

 

[uconnfan68]

So, start planning for NEXT year. What are your rules and when do you set them? Who hosts and when do you tell 'em?

And yes, if women's bball teams are so delicate that they think " fair" is more important than income, building the game and/or what the players themselves have id'd as important:championship atmosphere -- lets by all means be "fair."

Now define fair...

Fair is not having a higher seed play for a Final Four at the lower seed's home court. It really shouldn't be that difficult to accommodate.

 

[tomcat]

Well, the way they've chosen sites this year, it looks like it may be impossible to accommodate.

 

[ocoandasoc]

Sites would not bid for the Tourney unless they knew that the ir was a good to great chance that the home team would be playing there. Did you notice the huge number of empty seats at most of the conference tourney games this weekend? Last time I looked there are still tickets available for the Women's Final Four. Attendance HAS to be a consideration for the Women's sites and seedings. Most likely the only team that won't have to play a lower seeded team on their home court in the Tourney will be Notre Dame.

 

[Scotter]

Tell me how creating a bracket that rewards lower seeded teams with home court advantage "builds the game". It makes a mockery of the spirit of competition.
I love the women's game, but if it can't generate interest without having a tilted playing field for the tournament it deserves to die.

It's fair that the programs that have done the hard work of building a significant fan base and bid to host get to. Instead of the programs that are far too comfortable playing in front of empty seats.

 

[Shenandoah]

So, start planning for NEXT year. What are your rules and when do you set them? Who hosts and when do you tell 'em?

And yes, if women's bball teams are so delicate that they think " fair" is more important than income, building the game and/or what the players themselves have id'd as important:championship atmosphere -- lets by all means be "fair."

Now define fair...

Everyone gets a trophy...

 

[Phil]

Given that Stanford has, or certainly should have, played themselves out of a #1 seed, the selection committee has now been placed in the position of having two #1 seeds play on the home court of the #2 seed. That creates a clear conflict between the goal of helping to promote the women's game and increase attendance and the perception of fairness. Therefore I'd like to suggest a radical idea, none of the #1 or #2 seeds play on their home court.

And before everyone disagrees let me also suggest that given the current outlook the NCAA may get a modest boost in attendance, but the risk of having the FF teams determined in large part by home court advantage will be far more deleterious to the women's game in the long run.

Now we all know that the seeding committee will never do this, but it seems to me fairness should override money. Oh silly me!

??? Are you truly suggesting that the NCAA should overturn promises they have made in writing?

If you want to argue that it is becoming increasingly clear that this "experiment" was a bad idea, and should not be repeated, I'm on board. (But that decision has already been made).

If you are arguing that the committee should abrogate contracts, that's not going to happen.

 

[Phil]

This isn't the decision of the selection committee. Hasn't UCONN hosted a regional in the past?

No, though I can understand why you might think so. The 2004 regional was in Hartford, hosted by the Big East. Needless to say, PSU was not amused.

 

[DobbsRover2]

It's a messy situation, but I'm hoping that in the years ahead that alternating sites with large capacities but with no strong connection to a WCBB power team can be set up for each region. Give the top seeds the home advantage for the first two rounds and then they should be on their own on quasi-neutral courts to decide who goes to the FF. Hopefully tradition can overcome any kick that the home court for a power team can do for a regional site.

Many regional sites have actually won bids as regional hosts without any real expectation of a home team making the Sweet 16, and there are those sites like Fresno, Sacramento, and Kingston that are at least some distance from a power school although obviously having a Stanford or a UConn in the area figures in the bid. Only a minority of the regional sites in the past years have had a true home team in the S16 and E8 games.

And what happens despite the fervent hopes of the regional hosts when bad things happen and a local Dayton team does not make the tourney in 2010 and the region's #2 seed Ohio State bombs out in the second round? Does that disappointment discourage them from bidding in the future?

Hopefully WCBB can grow up and mature to a relatively good tournament hosting model.

 

[toadfoot]

??? Are you truly suggesting that the NCAA should overturn promises they have made in writing?

If you want to argue that it is becoming increasingly clear that this "experiment" was a bad idea, and should nto be repeated, I'm on board. (But that decision has already been made).

If you are arguing that the committee should abrogate contracts, that's not going to happen.

Did you actually read the original post... where I said "Now we all know that the seeding committee will never do this, but it seems to me fairness should override money. Oh silly me!"

 

[easttexastrash]

Did you actually read the original post... where I said "Now we all know that the seeding committee will never do this, but it seems to me fairness should override money. Oh silly me!"

Money, not fairness, makes the world go 'round. I, too, wish that there could be total fainess in these seedings and regional placements, but that simply is not realistic since CBB is a business, when you get right down to it.

There are a few programs that will knowingly bring out fans and those programs have earned the right to be rewarded by hosting. Like it is with UCONN when people say that UCONN is "bad for the game," go out and prove that you can be as good at putting butts in the seats. Full arenas create enthusiasm.

 

[Phil]

Did you actually read the original post... where I said "Now we all know that the seeding committee will never do this, but it seems to me fairness should override money. Oh silly me!"

I did read the original post.

So I'll ask again, are you really suggesting that signed contracts should be abrogated?

Are you claiming that if a contract is signed, it is fair to ignore the contract?

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

My gripe is that the NCAA has plenty of money. Yes, it's nice to have full houses at all of the venues, but it is unfathomable that a lower seed should play for a Final Four berth on their home court. There are plenty of neutral courts out there or the NCAA could just make everyone play away from home, if they have to use home courts.

 

[asuwish]

I did read the original post.

So I'll ask again, are you really suggesting that signed contracts should be abrogated?

Are you claiming that if a contract is signed, it is fair to ignore the contract?

I believe the original poster says their idea won't happen due to the money, they just wish it would. The women's tourney looses money no matter where it is played. Keeping teams closer to home only eases the pain. Uconn or TN are 2 of the only programs that can actually draw crowds away from home. Their may have been an assumption that schools like Stanford would be shoo ins for a 1 seed, and this leeds to the problem they committee faces today.
I wonder how much of a problem the other non fan drawing sports like volleyball, soccer, field hockey, ect have when it comes to dealing with the fairness vs money issue. One way to ensure a lower seed not hosting a higher seed would be to have the higher seeds (in groups of 4) always host the game and if they get knocked out then the next highest seed would become the host the following weekend until you get to the final four. This would reward a teams record, not attendance and since the top teams would be home attendance would probably be as high as one could expect. No system is perfect, but I think the goal should be to create a balance.

 

[pinotbear]

No, though I can understand why you might think so. The 2004 regional was in Hartford, hosted by the Big East. Needless to say, PSU was not amused.

It's my impression that the list of things that PSU, and Rene Portland in particular, found "unamusing" was extensive.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

It's my impression that the list of things that PSU, and Rene Portland in particular, found "unamusing" was extensive.

<---Shudders. I'm so glad Portland is no longer coaching.

 

[calpedaler]

No, though I can understand why you might think so. The 2004 regional was in Hartford, hosted by the Big East. Needless to say, PSU was not amused.

I was.