NCAA WCBB Changes

[Vowelguy]

Of all the things suggested by Val Ackerman's committee, the first change adopted is ...

Teams can now play on their home court in the Regionals.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball...ball-committee-outlines-next-steps-enhance-pl

What the $%^&!?
Dumb dumb dumb.

I don't mind going back to hosting the opening rounds, but wanted at least some pseudo-neutrality for the Regionals.

 

[alexrgct]

Strictly from a Uconn perspective, I don't see how this change makes much difference. Cool, we can bid to have regionals in Hartford or Storrs instead of Bridgeport and Kingston.

I do think a change like this negates the possibility of the amazing scene in OKC last season or in Dallas between A&M and Baylor in 2011...if Baylor had bid and been awarded the regionals, obviously.

 

[alexrgct]

The fact that Ackerman's (generally ridiculous) white paper is being considered at all seriously is the real lead here. Yikes.

 

[Phil]

The fact that Ackerman's (generally ridiculous) white paper is being considered at all seriously is the real lead here. Yikes.

You surprise me.

While I think there are several options in the white paper I do not like, I give her credit for not sticking to modest thinking. Many people use the "outside the box" expression, but don't seem to understand what it means. She did pursue a number of options that are more than window dressing. I don't think she or anyone involved expected all to be adopted, but it provided a long list of potential options for serious consideration.

Like vowelguy, I'm not enamored with allowing regionals on a home court, but I do think some of the options, such as the double-bye option, will be an interesting experiment, if they have the guts to try it.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

The fact that Ackerman's (generally ridiculous) white paper is being considered at all seriously is the real lead here. Yikes.

Glad you said it. I read the whole dang thing and yikes: what an amalgam of off the cuff remarks and platitudes. Throughout I'm thinking: Somebody paid good money for this repetitive, redundant mélange of stuff?!?

 

[Alydar]

Prediction: A dozen years from now another "white paper" will rehash the whole thing again, make most of the same suggestions and no one at the NCAA will be able to find copies of Ackerman's report.











0

 

[alexrgct]

You surprise me.

While I think there are several options in the white paper I do not like, I give her credit for not sticking to modest thinking. Many people use the "outside the box" expression, but don't seem to understand what it means. She did pursue a number of options that are more than window dressing. I don't think she or anyone involved expected all to be adopted, but it provided a long list of potential options for serious consideration.

It's one thing to think outside the box. It's another to suggest throwing marketing resources at the issue without having much in the way of specific insight. It's yet another thing to suggest things so off-the-wall that they would make the sport a laughingstock. And still another to make appearance-related suggestions that are borderline racist (at least culturally insensitive), and well-over-the-line misogynist.

 

[DobbsRover2]

You surprise me.

While I think there are several options in the white paper I do not like, I give her credit for not sticking to modest thinking. Many people use the "outside the box" expression, but don't seem to understand what it means. She did pursue a number of options that are more than window dressing. I don't think she or anyone involved expected all to be adopted, but it provided a long list of potential options for serious consideration.

Like vowelguy, I'm not enamored with allowing regionals on a home court, but I do think some of the options, such as the double-bye option, will be an interesting experiment, if they have the guts to try it.

Well, yeah. Some of the ideas were in opposition to each other there like where to host the FF, so no one expected wholesale adoption, but there were a lot of fresh ideas for consideration to at least try to breathe some new interest factors into WCBB.

We can sit on our behinds and moan and bitch about attendance issues or quality of play, but if we do we shouldn't complain if we're squatting in some old crappy problems. But yeah, regionals at some fairly traditional fan-supportive metro centers would be better.

 

[stwainfan]

I like the lower seeds playing each other. I think this makes for better first round games.

 

[DobbsRover2]

It's one thing to think outside the box. It's another to suggest throwing marketing resources at the issue without having much in the way of specific insight. It's yet another thing to suggest things so off-the-wall that they would make the sport a laughingstock. And still another to make appearance-related suggestions that are borderline racist (at least culturally insensitive), and well-over-the-line misogynist.

Make the WCBB a laughingstock? Yep, I'll be falling out of my seat laughing at flashier uniforms, more user-friendly NCAA websites, bringing in 10-second rules and maybe lower baskets, having the lower-seeded tournament teams play each other, training and educating the referees better, and staging 3-5 games each year in "unusual or iconic" settings are all just so silly and ridiculous. Why even think of them and the many other kick-about ideas when everything is so perfect now for the WCBB?

Like Phil said, a white paper's purpose is to provide ideas to chew over and either experiment with or reject as not viable. It's to get the blood flowing to the brain in an institution that often seems moribund and stale. Before you go blowing a wad of money that the WCBB does not have on "market research," you need to decide which subset of ideas are going to get broad support for review and further studies. If you read the report, Ackerman refers to many studies and trend numbers that have been done already and to communications with authorities in the field, so she's not just pulling everything out of some bong session. She's saying, here's a bunch of ideas to kick around, and maybe they'll lead to some other cool ideas for the future.

But yeah, why even try? The players are already shooting them up in Perfectville.

 

[Sonny44]

I like the lower seeds playing each other. I think this makes for better first round games.

Ugly, ugh.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I will grant that there were a lot of stupid ideas in the paper, some objectionable on a variety of grounds. That said, I don't really see a "problem" with the ones they are currently looking at. While I prefer regionals on neutral courts, a look at the attendance makes it logical to make the change. For the remainder that they mentioned as under consideration for future years, I have no problem with any of them, although the rational for switching days seems forced to me.