Changes to the Women's Tournament

eebmg

Fair and Balanced
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
14,808
Likes
30,104

the Q

Thanos was right...
Joined
Mar 28, 2017
Messages
6,366
Likes
5,058
I'm afraid if we followed the money there would be precious few women's teams in college sports including basketball.

It wouldn’t be shocking if there would be zero.
 

HuskyNan

You Know Who
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
15,485
Likes
34,677
Or men's teams for that matter.
??

Basically, March Madness is the NCAA’s bread and butter. In 2019, college athletics’ governing body earned $1.05 billion in revenue from the tournament, representing more than 90% of its annual revenue.

 

Monte

Count of Monte UConn
Joined
Feb 15, 2015
Messages
1,362
Likes
1,715
These committees have to issue sporadic statements to show that they are working hard to earn their salaries.
 

Tonyc

Optimus Prime
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,023
Likes
9,010
JMO folks If you wanna develop WCBB then you must include as many good teams as possible. Giving those not top 25 schools a chance to compete against the best. This will encourage those teams who win their conference a chance to play one of the top 25 teams which will help them build their program. Otherwise it is my fear that the top teams will continue to get the top players.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
171
Likes
152
wonder if this is a reaction to having that report that the women's tournament lost 2.9 million
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
4,505
Likes
8,202
wonder if this is a reaction to having that report that the women's tournament lost 2.9 million
Some of that deficit is due to a west coast final. I watched but fringe fans who never see a PAC12 game might not. I wonder what the deficit would have been if there were 16 sites to pay for?
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
1,338
Likes
2,715
There really aren't even 32 quality tournament teams in the Women's Division. The talent is really diluted after the top 20 -25 teams, and most early tournament games are non-competitive blowouts. Harsh, but true.
However, they have to include every Conference champion. To whittle down to 32, they would need to have four divisions, which isn’t a terrible idea.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
171
Likes
152
Some of that deficit is due to a west coast final. I watched but fringe fans who never see a PAC12 game might not. I wonder what the deficit would have been if there were 16 sites to pay for?
no this was 2019
 

Vowelguy

Boneyard contrarian since 1998
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
17,276
Likes
18,142
well the quality of play doesn't support 48 either...:confused:
Perhaps, but no reason to make it worse.

Let the game catch up. It's getting there quality wise.
For those of us who follow bracketology closely, it's hard to find those last few teams every year.
 
Joined
Jan 16, 2018
Messages
1,931
Likes
4,710
I don't think the present bracket set up supports 68 due to competitiveness but I do understand wanting more schools to be part of the tournament from a grow the game and business point of view.

I just hate the early round slaughters.

It would be better if the top half got some byes and the lower half played a couple qualification rounds to get into the later rounds. I think we'd get more competitive games instead of the heavyweights just killing these smaller schools in the first round after they worked so hard to just get to the tournament.

I don't know what ratings there would be but the games would be more competitive if say #9 played #16 and etc. in the first round. The winners would play seeds 5-8 and so on.

Its not perfect, nothing would be but just an idea to build on.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
4,505
Likes
8,202
I don't think the present bracket set up supports 68 due to competitiveness but I do understand wanting more schools to be part of the tournament from a grow the game and business point of view.

I just hate the early round slaughters.

It would be better if the top half got some byes and the lower half played a couple qualification rounds to get into the later rounds. I think we'd get more competitive games instead of the heavyweights just killing these smaller schools in the first round after they worked so hard to just get to the tournament.

I don't know what ratings there would be but the games would be more competitive if say #9 played #16 and etc. in the first round. The winners would play seeds 5-8 and so on.

Its not perfect, nothing would be but just an idea to build on.

I like the idea. Right now a bunch of small conference champs get to drive 5 hours by bus to get their butts kicked. The highlight of the game for them is warmups.
Give some teams double byes and a bunch single byes. Let the bottom half of the bracket compete with each other for a game or 2.
But the NCAA appears to be void of anyone with imagination or the guts to try something new. I'll bet they need 4 meetings over 2 months to decide on where the Holiday party will be held.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
160,622
Messages
3,844,604
Members
8,508
Latest member
montyrb

Top Bottom