ESPN: NCAA women's tournament brass may mull changes this summer | The Boneyard

ESPN: NCAA women's tournament brass may mull changes this summer

ThisJustIn

Queen of Queens
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,196
Reaction Score
12,265

Personally, I loved having the 16/8s in the same place 'cause I could get there and see a TON of basketball.
 

Personally, I loved having the 16/8s in the same place 'cause I could get there and see a TON of basketball.

Lots of basketball in fewer places. What do you think about the Eastern Region in Alabama and Texas the next 2 years?

I agree with Geno and Tara that the old system is better. Spread out the teams and put games in cities that will draw.
 
Why does it feel that everything the NCAA does for WCBB is because they have to do it, not because they want to do it?

NCAA: "What, we have to put on a women's tournament? Women play basketball?"
 
Yeah, the Eastern regional in Texas and Alabama. How the hell is that fair for any team from the northeast? If the NCAA wants to continue this they have to use their brains, or maybe they need a map of the US. Of course, if money is involved than they are not doing the wbb teams any favors. Even to the casual observer, this is asinine and to me it makes the NCAA look like a bad joke that doesn't care about the teams, but the money that may be going into someone's pocket. Unbelievable.
 
Feels like forever ago that I posted these maps. The flight line between each regional was just to show locations wrt each other, the final four (red square), and what it looked like from each region of the country:

1711634609250.jpeg
1711634623678.jpeg
 
I thought Geno's comment to a local reporter after the game against USC was telling - he said the city would be great for a FF, but the combined regional was just too crowded - trying to get practice time on the game court with eight teams just didn't work. I suspect that 'crowding' also bled into the weight rooms, training rooms, practice courts, etc. Now if you chose cities with two comparable venues and used one for each of the 'regionals' that could address that, but ...

I understand the idea of getting 'buzz' at a super regional with eight sets of fans, but you also lose on more total distances traveled for fans and teams, and you lose on spreading the buzz around the country.
 
I recognize the internal logistics are a nightmare (but I'm sure ESPN LOVED not having to have four set up/crews).

Clearly, there was enough grumping that they'll move back to the four sites.

Will say that when folks ask, "why doesn't fillintheblank host, it's important to remember it take a LOT of time, energy, organizing and money to host. You still have to run your athletic programs while dealing with media, ESPN, NCAA regs and teams. An article I wrote in '09:
 
I think it would be premature to move to neutral sites for the first two rounds. Yes, the popularity of the game is over the moon right now. That does not mean neutral sites are the way to go. I just think the tournament needs to be realistic and not go too far overboard. The Clark bump is real, but it may not carry the momentum forward like people expect. On the other hand, four regional sites is a no brainer that should have never been messed with.
 
I recognize the internal logistics are a nightmare (but I'm sure ESPN LOVED not having to have four set up/crews).

Clearly, there was enough grumping that they'll move back to the four sites.

Will say that when folks ask, "why doesn't fillintheblank host, it's important to remember it take a LOT of time, energy, organizing and money to host. You still have to run your athletic programs while dealing with media, ESPN, NCAA regs and teams. An article I wrote in '09:
Thanks - that was an outstanding read. Very informative. Interesting how "equity" was emphasized yet it didn't really come to a head until just a couple years ago.
 

Online statistics

Members online
272
Guests online
3,519
Total visitors
3,791

Forum statistics

Threads
164,193
Messages
4,386,912
Members
10,196
Latest member
ArtTheFan


.
..
Top Bottom