Changes to the Women's Tournament | The Boneyard

Changes to the Women's Tournament

eebmg

Fair and Balanced
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
20,037
Reaction Score
88,660

the Q

Yowie Wowie. We’re gonna have so much fun here
Joined
Mar 28, 2017
Messages
7,029
Reaction Score
11,269
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.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
1,107
Reaction Score
3,272
I'm afraid if we followed the money there would be precious few women's teams in college sports including basketball.
Or men's teams for that matter.
 

HuskyNan

You Know Who
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
24,496
Reaction Score
194,105
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
2,043
Reaction Score
6,444
These committees have to issue sporadic statements to show that they are working hard to earn their salaries.
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
853
Reaction Score
6,455
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.
 

Tonyc

Optimus Prime
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
5,404
Reaction Score
34,105
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.
 
W

wolfe613

wonder if this is a reaction to having that report that the women's tournament lost 2.9 million
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
6,616
Reaction Score
25,683
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
2,592
Reaction Score
11,464
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.
 
W

wolfe613

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
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
21,272
Reaction Score
50,278
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
2,746
Reaction Score
13,982
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
6,616
Reaction Score
25,683
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.
 

Online statistics

Members online
563
Guests online
3,474
Total visitors
4,037

Forum statistics

Threads
155,763
Messages
4,030,804
Members
9,863
Latest member
leepaul


Top Bottom