Changes to the Women's Tournament | The Boneyard

Changes to the Women's Tournament

.-.
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.
 
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.
 
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.

 
These committees have to issue sporadic statements to show that they are working hard to earn their salaries.
 
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.
 
.-.
wonder if this is a reaction to having that report that the women's tournament lost 2.9 million
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
.-.
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.
 
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 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.
 
How about letting as many teams play as possible for the love of the game those “lesser” teams and players have? For them, making the tournament and taking that 5 hour bus trip is their “national championship”! They dedicate themselves and generally speaking put in the same effort as the “elite” players many on this board fawn over every time one of them crosses the street.
Just my opinion obviously.
 
Our goal every year is to win the National Championship. The same can be said for SC, Baylor, Stanford, and the list goes on, but not on and on. There are schools that have a dream of making it to the final four. Iowa, Ohio State, Georgia, etc.

Now, the mid majors, the lower conferences, the schools that play for the dream of just having the opportunity to play college basketball. They really don't have such dreams, at least, not in the forefront of their minds. Win the conference championship, for that is their NC. Their biggest dream above that is just to make to the big dance, knowing that they really don't stand a chance to win, but the thrill of playing against one of the big boys, playing against the iconic players that they have watched on TV, and yes, having the chance to be on TV themselves, maybe for the first time and the last time in their basketball careers. You don't have to be "great" to play CBB, but the opportunity to be relevant in the game fuels their passion. They may not be good enough to play for a NC contender, but what is on their minds as they hoist up a shot in their driveway growing up. We all have done it, maybe we never played even High School basketball, but we have been to the FF in our minds, taking the shot that wins the NC for the local school. What I'm trying to say is that these kids in the lower schools deserve a better shot of getting in, having a chance to live out their dreams. Probably the worst feeling in the world to them is to win the year long conference title, but to lose in the conference tournament and lose their birth. The conference winner should get in, as well as the tournament winner. We should be giving these small leagues more ways to get in, not just reward at large bids to large schools based on reputation. Remember, this is just a game, and the excitement from these kids will last a lifetime in their minds, while for the other kids, just another year.
 
Last edited:
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.
Agree with you 1,000%.
And I like the idea of single/double byes—first round games 1 vs 16 with scores of 93-26 are not good for the game.
 
Otherwise, known as the ND expansion. I know the joke wont age well but what the heck. ;)
The outside agency Kaplan, Hecker & Fink LLP is not to be confused with Kaplan, Finkle and Einhorn, LLP, or is it Kaplan, Einhorn and Finkle, LLP....

 
.-.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,515
Messages
4,579,897
Members
10,489
Latest member
smAAAll


Top Bottom