Division I Elite League is needed

[SVCBeercats]

The NCAA needs to create a Division I Elite/Select women's basketball league consisting of the teams which have demonstrated consistent excellence in level of play over time. Maybe with a stretch there will be 20 teams. They just play each other. Maybe there are two conferences. The level of play and competition might be such that new fans will be attracted to the women's game ... well ... at least the Elite/Select league. There needs to be a consistently higher level of play and competition for the women's game to become interesting enough for new fans and new money. The NCAA tourney can still exist and can be used to identify candidate schools to be added to the Elite/Select league. Also to determine if an Elite/Select teams needs to be demoted. There is not enough talented women players for all 300 some teams to make the women's game interesting and popular. The talent pool is too small. UCONN is basically in high school caliber league. Yeah, I know UCONN is great but really the vast majority of the AAC teams are terrible.

 

[HoopsFan21]

They need to do this with all sports. I was actually thinking about this earlier as well and it all boils down to the money question.

 

[SVCBeercats]

They need to do this with all sports. I was actually thinking about this earlier as well and it all boils down to the money question.

Money? Yes! And getting coaches to agree since in theory their teams will probably lose more games per year than they are used to. Their legacy will be diminished.

 

[HoopsFan21]

Even the big money sport, football, is pathetic. It's funny how the only sport that seems to get called out for its lopsidedness is women's basketball.

 

[donalddoowop]

There is too much turnover in WCBB. Look at Washington this season. The last three years they were good but this season, not so good. What about teams that are weak now but in two years will be very good. How would they be able to get into the league?

 

[j66kicker]

Can you imagine the "cluster" situation deciding who gets in and who doesn't? Maybe qualify by some minimum resource requirement to indicate commitment (minimum # coaches & staff, minimum recruiting budget, minimum travel budget, minimum arena size, minimum historical attendance records?). Who is the committee that decides who gets in?

Here are 30 I think are "for sure", except for maybe ______ ?:

UConn
Notre Dame
Louisville
Duke
NC
NC State
Florida State
Maryland
Rutgers
Michigan State
Purdue
Ohio State
Minnesota
Baylor
Texas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Stanford
UCLA
USC
Oregon
Oregon State
ASU
Washington
South Carolina
Tennessee
Mississippi State
LSU
Missouri
Texas A&M

Here are 25 more who would definitely fight to get in. Should any of them?
South Florida
Georgia
Georgia Tech
Pittsburgh
Penn State
Iowa
Iowa State
TCU
DePaul
Marquette
St. John's
Villanova
Old Dominion
Nebraska
Indiana
Illinois
Louisiana Tech
UW Green Bay
Cal
Washington State
Dayton
Alabama
Vanderbilt
South Dakota
South Dakota State

 

[Centerstream]

So basically the usual 4 NCAA Tournament 1 Through 6 seeds would play each other all season long? Then who would make the tournament, even the best of the best would probably only win 3 out of every 4 games and the bottom feeders could still have winning seasons?

 

[Charliebball]

The NCAA needs to create a Division I Elite/Select women's basketball league consisting of the teams which have demonstrated consistent excellence in level of play over time. Maybe with a stretch there will be 20 teams. They just play each other. Maybe there are two conferences. The level of play and competition might be such that new fans will be attracted to the women's game ... well ... at least the Elite/Select league. There needs to be a consistently higher level of play and competition for the women's game to become interesting enough for new fans and new money. The NCAA tourney can still exist and can be used to identify candidate schools to be added to the Elite/Select league. Also to determine if an Elite/Select teams needs to be demoted. There is not enough talented women players for all 300 some teams to make the women's game interesting and popular. The talent pool is too small. UCONN is basically in high school caliber league. Yeah, I know UCONN is great but really the vast majority of the AAC teams are terrible.

I'm not sure that the concept is doable or really necessary................UConn's conference may not be competitive but it seems to me that plenty of the others certainly are.................if you wanted more equality among DI teams, further limiting the number of scholarships per team would be a much easier fix.........

 

[DefenseBB]

They need to do this with all sports. I was actually thinking about this earlier as well and it all boils down to the money question.

Yes,they should, oh wait, they have that already it’s called PROFESSIONAL.

 

[CTrefugee]

Nah........
Others make money when UCONN and other top teams come to town. I don't expect UCONN to remain a super power after Geno/CD leave.

I think most kids love a chance to play (and yes, lose) to legendary teams.

p.s. I am a tournament bridge player and regularly play against "pros" who can beat my brains out. I enjoy it and learn from it.

 

[JordyG]

The NCAA needs to create a Division I Elite/Select women's basketball league consisting of the teams which have demonstrated consistent excellence in level of play over time. Maybe with a stretch there will be 20 teams. They just play each other. Maybe there are two conferences. The level of play and competition might be such that new fans will be attracted to the women's game ... well ... at least the Elite/Select league. There needs to be a consistently higher level of play and competition for the women's game to become interesting enough for new fans and new money. The NCAA tourney can still exist and can be used to identify candidate schools to be added to the Elite/Select league. Also to determine if an Elite/Select teams needs to be demoted. There is not enough talented women players for all 300 some teams to make the women's game interesting and popular. The talent pool is too small. UCONN is basically in high school caliber league. Yeah, I know UCONN is great but really the vast majority of the AAC teams are terrible.

Nice idea. Like this will ever happen.

 

[Nuyoika]

I'm not sure that the concept is doable or really necessary......UConn's conference may not be competitive but it seems to me that plenty of the others certainly are.......if you wanted more equality among DI teams, further limiting the number of scholarships per team would be a much easier fix....

I have never understood that argument. Please explain? The best coaches in WCBB have never needed 15 to beat you and actually rarely have 14 on the roster let alone 15. Give Geno, Muffet, & Tara each 6 of the best in the nation W/O injury and I would bet money they would still run the rest of the country over repeatedly. You can move the players around all you want, it won't make the coaching any better.

 

[Charliebball]

I have never understood that argument. Please explain? The best coaches in WCBB have never needed 15 to beat you and actually rarely have 14 on the roster let alone 15. Give Geno, Muffet, & Tara each 6 of the best in the nation W/O injury and I would bet money they would still run the rest of the country over repeatedly. You can move the players around all you want, it won't make the coaching any better.

I don't think it's possible to totally over turn the competitive edge of the perennially strong WBB schools but if you were to cut the number of scholarships from 15 to 12 you would be able to redistribute a number of very good players to more teams.........I think "lesser" teams would love to have the chance to recruit players that otherwise would be playing for top twenty teams...............the competitive balance might be effected enough to add at least a few wins a year for certain well coached but formerly under talented middle tier schools and who knows what upsets might happen......

 

[Nuyoika]

I don't think it's possible to totally over turn the competitive edge of the perennially strong WBB schools but if you were to cut the number of scholarships from 15 to 12 you would be able to redistribute a number of very good players to more teams....I think "lesser" teams would love to have the chance to recruit players that otherwise would be playing for top twenty teams.....the competitive balance might be effected enough to add at least a few wins a year for certain well coached but formerly under talented middle tier schools and who knows what upsets might happen.

What do you think would happen with the transfer situation if you paired smaller rosters with the ability to be immediately eligible? I think every April would be even more lucrative for the top 20 teams than it is already. You could go to1 school until there's a spot for you where you really wanted to go.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I don't think it's possible to totally over turn the competitive edge of the perennially strong WBB schools but if you were to cut the number of scholarships from 15 to 12 you would be able to redistribute a number of very good players to more teams....I think "lesser" teams would love to have the chance to recruit players that otherwise would be playing for top twenty teams.....the competitive balance might be effected enough to add at least a few wins a year for certain well coached but formerly under talented middle tier schools and who knows what upsets might happen.

I get the idea, but I think it sounds better on paper than it would work in practice. Those 13 - 15 roster spots on good teams are not often filled by folks that would help other schools, lets say half of the players at most are and half are just lucky bench-warmers (and remember that few schools have 15 on scholly to begin with). And if these relative few did end up in "lower level" schools, it doesn't mean that someone serviceable wouldn't not go to that school then.

Just don't see it working, to be simple.

 

[Nuyoika]

I get the idea, but I think it sounds better on paper than it would work in practice. Those 13 - 15 roster spots on good teams are not often filled by folks that would help other schools, lets say half of the players at most are and half are just lucky bench-warmers (and remember that few schools have 15 on scholly to begin with). And if these relative few did end up in "lower level" schools, it doesn't mean that someone serviceable wouldn't not go to that school then.

Just don't see it working, to be simple.

Yeah the logic there also doesn't pan out. It is based on the theory that good players go to UConn, Notre Dame, Louisville, Baylor ect. repeatedly because there is room. What it doesn't factor in is the walk ons and the kids that aren't ranked coming out of HS on UConn and Notre Dame's roster. In effect it may actually make the "problem" worse where maybe Geno doesn't take a Kyla Irwin or Molly Bent and leaves those spaces open for another Top 20 kid.

The roster size argument is an oversimplification of the reasoning behind why kids go where they go. Recruiting is part of coaching. Kids go where they believe they will be successful. It's up to the staff at that school to prove it. Also, what do you do for the teams that have been good but not great over the long haul but have traditionally needed 15? Oh sorry you are gonna have to do better with 2 less players but now there's more players available that you likely still can't get to come to your school?

 

[Woof 101]

Nice idea. Like this will ever happen.

No attack JordyG, just a change in words . You said ever happen, I would have used never happen.
No attack on the OP either but it is a thread of fairy dust. (Should there be an abundant amount left over of what induced these thoughts please PM me.)

 

[Rocket009]

The NCAA needs to create a Division I Elite/Select women's basketball league consisting of the teams which have demonstrated consistent excellence in level of play over time. Maybe with a stretch there will be 20 teams. They just play each other. Maybe there are two conferences. The level of play and competition might be such that new fans will be attracted to the women's game ... well ... at least the Elite/Select league. There needs to be a consistently higher level of play and competition for the women's game to become interesting enough for new fans and new money. The NCAA tourney can still exist and can be used to identify candidate schools to be added to the Elite/Select league. Also to determine if an Elite/Select teams needs to be demoted. There is not enough talented women players for all 300 some teams to make the women's game interesting and popular. The talent pool is too small. UCONN is basically in high school caliber league. Yeah, I know UCONN is great but really the vast majority of the AAC teams are terrible.

So isn't that what the P5 is? While it doesn't have a women's basketball focus, essentially they are segmenting themselves from the other conferences.

I really don't see this as a positive thing. It's just a way to maintain the status quo - making it harder for outsiders to break into the old boy/girls club.

Level the playing field and let the best teams rise to the top.

 

[Charliebball]

In general I actually think college WBB is pretty competitive this year.............I certainly don't feel that UConn can just sleep walk it's way to an NC............Baylor, Miss State, ND, Texas, Oregon State all have a legitimate chance at the championship....................I just looked at a few of the conferences and in many cases like the Pac12, the ACC and the Big10 there are three to four teams bunched at the top of the standings which seems to illustrate how competitive they are...........

 

[MD#12Fan]

Can you imagine the "cluster" situation deciding who gets in and who doesn't? Maybe qualify by some minimum resource requirement to indicate commitment (minimum # coaches & staff, minimum recruiting budget, minimum travel budget, minimum arena size, minimum historical attendance records?). Who is the committee that decides who gets in?

Here are 30 I think are "for sure", except for maybe ______ ?:

UConn
Notre Dame
Louisville
Duke
NC
NC State
Florida State
Maryland
Rutgers
Michigan State
Purdue
Ohio State
Minnesota
Baylor
Texas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Stanford
UCLA
USC
Oregon
Oregon State
ASU
Washington
South Carolina
Tennessee
Mississippi State
LSU
Missouri
Texas A&M

Here are 25 more who would definitely fight to get in. Should any of them?
South Florida
Georgia
Georgia Tech
Pittsburgh
Penn State
Iowa
Iowa State
TCU
DePaul
Marquette
St. John's
Villanova
Old Dominion
Nebraska
Indiana
Illinois
Louisiana Tech
UW Green Bay
Cal
Washington State
Dayton
Alabama
Vanderbilt
South Dakota
South Dakota State

Without looking too closely, you basically listed the "power 5" conferences. So, I would say UConn's problem is with being in the AAC. Think about it, if UConn was in the Pac12, they would have 4 or 5 tougher games than they have now, Big10 same, Big12 same, ACC same, and SEC same. These are big leagues, that have many competitive sports men and women.

 

[MD#12Fan]

People are saying that there is a limited number of good players to go around in a huge D1 world.
My question is, what is the state of girl's high school basketball? You would think it would be growing. Girl's have similar resources to the boys. There's great college players as role models and a pro league. International expansion? I know our American pros go overseas to make money.
American consumers of sports don't like watching girls or women? Is UCLA with John Wooden a good analogy for Geno's UConn women?
What's going on?

 

[Charliebball]

People are saying that there is a limited number of good players to go around in a huge D1 world.
My question is, what is the state of girl's high school basketball? You would think it would be growing. Girl's have similar resources to the boys. There's great college players as role models and a pro league. International expansion? I know our American pros go overseas to make money.
American consumers of sports don't like watching girls or women? Is UCLA with John Wooden a good analogy for Geno's UConn women?
What's going on?

I think there are numerous good players there just aren't so many great players...........if you look at the rosters of the top twenty teams you will see they are loaded with good talent.................I believe high school basketball participation is pretty stagnant or down slightly as they are losing players to volleyball and other growing sports.............in addition to the stats, I see this in my daughter's school and hear about it from other folks with kids of that age

 

[MD#12Fan]

I think there are numerous good players there just aren't so many great players......if you look at the rosters of the top twenty teams you will see they are loaded with good talent.......I believe high school basketball participation is pretty stagnant or down slightly as they are losing players to volleyball and other growing sports...in addition to the stats, I see this in my daughter's school and hear about it from other folks with kids of that age

Thanks for the feedback!
So, a small number of teams are "stacked" with good players as you say? I see UConn having 7 good-great players, arguably no superstar. I don't feel Geno's hoarding the talent. UConn players get better as they progress in college, that's a difference.
What other sports? Volleyball over basketball? Volleyball is fall, basketball is winter. Winter is indoor track. Really??? Basketball is the most fun sport there is...period..end of story! Watch a HS "open gym" situation and see what the kids play. Something's up. I need an answer!
Volleyball over basketball....baaaaa....wrong answer.

 

[shizam]

The NCAA needs to create a Division I Elite/Select women's basketball league consisting of the teams which have demonstrated consistent excellence in level of play over time. Maybe with a stretch there will be 20 teams. They just play each other. Maybe there are two conferences. The level of play and competition might be such that new fans will be attracted to the women's game ... well ... at least the Elite/Select league. There needs to be a consistently higher level of play and competition for the women's game to become interesting enough for new fans and new money. The NCAA tourney can still exist and can be used to identify candidate schools to be added to the Elite/Select league. Also to determine if an Elite/Select teams needs to be demoted. There is not enough talented women players for all 300 some teams to make the women's game interesting and popular. The talent pool is too small. UCONN is basically in high school caliber league. Yeah, I know UCONN is great but really the vast majority of the AAC teams are terrible.

You are right about the talent. I was at Cal Irvine @ UC Davis yesterday. Didn’t hold my interest. I was a L’ville fan but normally by mid season I lose interest due to lack of team chemistry and execution. This year is different but the rest of the ACC is boring. This year the top teams in WBB as a whole aren’t as good as years past. L’ville was not challenged much and they are not that great.

 

[Charliebball]

Thanks for the feedback!
So, a small number of teams are "stacked" with good players as you say? I see UConn having 7 good-great players, arguably no superstar. I don't feel Geno's hoarding the talent. UConn players get better as they progress in college, that's a difference.
What other sports? Volleyball over basketball? Volleyball is fall, basketball is winter. Winter is indoor track. Really??? Basketball is the most fun sport there is...period..end of story! Watch a HS "open gym" situation and see what the kids play. Something's up. I need an answer!
Volleyball over basketball....baaaaa....wrong answer.

Our high school has had five players six feet two or taller in the past four years...............four out of the five played volleyball only.............most of the best athletes today specialize in one sport and frankly they tell me it's easier to get a volleyball scholarship then a basketball scholarship right now.......women's lacrosse has also taken some of the best athletes from basketball