Poll: Did Early Upsets of ND, So Carolina, Maryland & Baylor Hurt WBB

[Wbbfan1]

Did the early Upsets of ND, So Carolina, Maryland & Baylor help or hurt WBB this year. Early upsets led to an early story line that parity has finally happened in WBB. Led to the story line that there were 3 New teams at the Final Four. However, teams were unknown to the average Women's Basketball fans and not at all to General Sports fans. If Notre Dame, Baylor and recent elite team So Carolina were at the Final Four would the games have been more competitive and appeal to more Sports Fans. If the Championship Game had been UConn (Sorry Baylor fans) vs Notre Dame or So Carolina would more sports fans have tuned in to watch the game? Would the game had been more competitive?

Besides answering the Poll, would love to read your opinions.

 

[Buster]

Yes, the upsets were great, but I think they did negatively impact the competition of, at least, the championship game. Any one of the upsettees might have provided a better challenge.

 

[Sonny44]

They were great for the parity paranoiacs, but for me it was way less exciting and less enjoyable than beating another 1 seed.

 

[BroadwayVa]

The number of people watching ND, Baylor, USC, Syracuse, Texas, Miss St, to beat the living daylights (by a whopping 1 point) out of UConn filled the viewing public. When all except Syracuse went the way of the DooDoo bird or the carrier pigeon I'm sure the number of viewers decreased. To be very truthful if Uconn wasn't in the final 4 I may have "lurked" at the Final 4 games but unless a team I disliked (I stopped hating along time ago) was being beaten I probably wouldn't stayed to the finish. And I think of me as a College WBB fan!!

Parroty (for the wordsmiths to salivate on) while a buzz word, some think for mediocrity, just didn't exist even with the loss of Baylor, ND, SC, Stanford, Texas, Miss St

 

[Plebe]

I am very reluctant to buy into the notion that particular outcomes are "good" or "bad" for the sport as a whole. Obviously, the upsets were good for the winning teams and bad for the losing teams. Does a certain degree of unpredictability raise interest in the tournament? My initial impulse is to say yes, on the whole. But then, from a short-term perspective, the upsets probably took a toll on attendance and viewership in the Final Four, since the large, passionate fan bases of Notre Dame, South Carolina and Baylor no longer had their teams to root for.

 

[Carnac]

Did the early Upsets of ND, So Carolina, Maryland & Baylor help or hurt WBB this year. Early upsets led to an early story line that parity has finally happened in WBB. Led to the story line that there were 3 New teams at the Final Four. However, teams were unknown to the average Women's Basketball fans and not at all to General Sports fans. If Notre Dame, Baylor and recent elite team So Carolina were at the Final Four would the games have been more competitive and appeal to more Sports Fans. If the Championship Game had been UConn (Sorry Baylor fans) vs Notre Dame or So Carolina would more sports fans have tuned in to watch the game? Would the game had been more competitive?

Besides answering the Poll, would love to read your opinions.

To answer your question, YES. No one outside of the fan bases for those other three programs was interested in watching them compete. Dark horses rarely command a lot of attention. This year's final four featured not one, not two, but three dark horses. As you mentioned, hardly anyone outside of WCBB knew of the other three.

Their fan base made no plans of going to Indy because none of them thought their team would make it that far. Conversely, if Notre Dame, South Carolina or Baylor had made the cut, attendance for those games would have been substantially greater, as those programs travel very well.

The entire population of Notre Dame Nation would have traveled the 139 miles (2hr 35 min) from South Bend to Indianapolis to cheer on their team. Of course I had UConn winning on my bracket, but I also had the other 3 #1 seeds making it to Indy as well. I could not fathom anyone defeating them. Right after the other one seeds fell, I took off the turban & cape and stored them away, as my ensemble had obviously lost its mojo (a wardrobe malfunction). I didn't see that coming (and I wasn't alone). I assumed they would get to Indy, then knock each other off for the championship.

 

[Carnac]

To answer your question, YES. No one outside of the fan bases for those other three programs was interested in watching them compete. Dark horses rarely command a lot of attention. This year's final four featured not one, not two, but three dark horses. As you mentioned, hardly anyone outside of WCBB knew of the other three.

Their fan base made no plans of going to Indy because none of them thought their team would make it that far. Conversely, if Notre Dame, South Carolina or Baylor had made the cut, attendance for those games would have been substantially greater, as those programs travel very well.

The entire population of Notre Dame Nation would have traveled the 139 miles (2hr 35 min) from South Bend to Indianapolis to cheer on their team. Of course I had UConn winning on my bracket, but I also had the other 3 #1 seeds making it to Indy as well. I could not fathom anyone defeating them. Right after the other one seeds fell, I took off the turban & cape and stored them away, as my ensemble had obviously lost its mojo (a wardrobe malfunction). I didn't see that coming (and I wasn't alone). I assumed they would get to Indy, then knock each other off for the championship.

Allow me to edit this comment.

Poll: Did Early Upsets of ND, So Carolina, Maryland & Baylor Hurt WBB?
Allow me to recant and rephrase part of my comment. To the poll question: "Did the early upsets of Notre Dame, South Carolina, Maryland and Baylor hurt women's college basketball"?

I say NO. The early exit of those programs did absolutely nothing to impact WCBB as a whole. It did however have a profound affect on the latter stages of the tournament. It negated travel plans for those fans that bought game tickets, secured airlines tickets and booked hotel accommodations for that weekend, anticipating their team's participation in the final four.

Those early exits did hurt said program's fan groups and possibly TV viewership. The teams that survived and advanced were in no way "hurt" by the early departure of these teams. Quite the contrary, they were ecstatic. They were a happy as a mega-lottery winner, as were their fans. Those losses by the 3 one seeds also addressed the parity concerns of some fans. When three top rated seeds go down, you have parity. Syracuse was a 7 seed, and made it to the championship game. When dark horses emerge victorious, that's parity.

 

[2Husky]

I think it's great when those teams lose

 

[Checkmate]

no, it just proved that the polls and seeds were wrong. Teams that played in strong conferences did not have great records and were underrated. The University of Washington makes the final 4 and they are not ranked in the end of the season polls. When did they vote ?

 

[Carnac]

They vote right after all of the teams complete their REGULAR season games. Then they vote again AFTER the conclusion of the NCAA tournament, which by the way had Washington ranked 8th.

Notre Dame fell from #2 to #6. UConn of course was first, followed by Oregon St., Syracuse, Baylor and South Carolina at #5. Texas, Washington, Maryland and Ohio State round out the top 10.

The poll I'm referring to is the USA Today coaches poll that was updated on April 6, 2016.

 

[AdamOwe]

The entire population of Notre Dame Nation would have traveled the 139 miles (2hr 35 min) from South Bend to Indianapolis to cheer on their team.

Hadn't really thought of that. Maybe ND's stumble got lost in the travails of the other #1's missteps. With all that pregame "bad for the sport stuff", had ND made it to the final, there would have been a buzz. the game would have sold out given the location, and with Lou's injury, Achonwa's story would have a reprise. Pay back, wounded champion, turn-about, etc.

I voted no though. TV ratings aren't the only measure. The overall quality of play was very good as evidenced by the upsets. I have a feeling that the Big 3 are going to have a big impact over the next decade. It's already begun.

 

[winitall]

I was at this year's FF and I've been to a number of them before, and believe me the lack of competition made this one the most uninteresting to attend. It was great for the 3 schools that had never been to a in FF before, in that way it may help to grow their women's basketball programs, but as far as interest and competition it lost all it's luster. There were a lot of unsold seats in the lower levels that I have never seen before. It really hurt that there was no other big name women's basketball schools to play against. Two 30 point blowouts in the at the FF make UConn fans rest easy but was it the competition level that we really wanted to see at the FF?

 

[Sonny44]

no, it just proved that the polls and seeds were wrong. Teams that played in strong conferences did not have great records and were underrated. The University of Washington makes the final 4 and they are not ranked in the end of the season polls. When did they vote ?

The polls weren't wrong. It's just a matter of probability. Do you think Syracuse is really a better team then ND? Or that Washington is better than SC, etc.?

 

[Charlie]

Winning teams always have a larger following. so when the number one teams did not continue I believe many of those fans did not continue to watch and attendance fell as the number one teams fell. Syracuse did not have a great attendance record this season which hurt attendance even more. The drop in attendance and loss of the top seeds hurt basketball. Parity for me is a negative. A team with a rich history of winning and excellence always grabs and holds my attention. Other teams may get some attention for a short time but I would have to really love that specific sport. In that case, no matter the team I would be watching but the exceptional team grabs the other fans and grows the sport.

 

[Roundball fan]

I think the reason that women's basketball struggles is that they play sloppy boring basketball. UConn is the only team that has a fluid offense and in your face defense along with an exceptional transition game. I will say ND is not far behind offensively but defense is not that great. South Carolina for the players they have is not a whole lot of fun to watch, their offense is slow, not much passing with a lot of dribbling. Baylor I only watch a couple of times and they played pretty good until they played a slower team who controlled the ball and their defense just wasn't good enough to win. 99 percent of women's basketball is just down right bad. I watch the SEC this year and heard how good the defense was. Like most of the boneyard we know it wasn't the defense that was good. No one has any offense, Tennessee and South Carolina love to dribble the ball around, witch to me any way is not how basketball should be played. I can just enjoy the fact that we have a great coach who wants the game played the right way. Yes we are lucky and can hope that other coaches will want to be like Geno.

 

[AdamOwe]

The poll I'm referring to is the USA Today coaches poll that was updated on April 6, 2016.

It's Saturday morning, the final was on Tuesday night but ESPN, the de facto home of the sport, hasn't updated the WCBB standings web page nor done a story on the final polls. Why not!

I can't find the AP poll; Carnac's USA is here. You'd think there would be something to say: OSU at #2, 'Cuse at #3, Baylor hangs on, ND and SC slip together. MissSt, I still feel bad for them, at 18, a tick above beloved UTenn, a final 8 at 19. The network could at least maintain the core functionality of the site while the flames of the Summit story are being fanned, if that even matters now that it's off-season.

 

[Checkmate]

The polls weren't wrong. It's just a matter of probability. Do you think Syracuse is really a better team then ND? Or that Washington is better than SC, etc.?

I think that teams that play weak schedules are overrated. And that teams that play hard schedules are underrated. The PAC 12 was a much stronger conference than most people thought. Voters look at records, they rarely factor in schedules.

As far as ND is concerned, I never thought they were as good as their record. They are well coached and have some smart seniors. They had a great record, however were not a dominate team. Five of their wins were very close.

Also, yes ESPN has not updated their ranking from 3 weeks ago.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

What it hurt was TV ratings, nothing more.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Allow me to edit this comment.

Poll: Did Early Upsets of ND, So Carolina, Maryland & Baylor Hurt WBB?
Allow me to recant and rephrase part of my comment. To the poll question: "Did the early upsets of Notre Dame, South Carolina, Maryland and Baylor hurt women's college basketball"?

I say NO. The early exit of those programs did absolutely nothing to impact WCBB as a whole. It did however have a profound affect on the latter stages of the tournament. It negated travel plans for those fans that bought game tickets, secured airlines tickets and booked hotel accommodations for that weekend, anticipating their team's participation in the final four.

Those early exits did hurt said program's fan groups and possibly TV viewership. The teams that survived and advanced were in no way "hurt" by the early departure of these teams. Quite the contrary, they were ecstatic. They were a happy as a mega-lottery winner, as were their fans. Those losses by the 3 one seeds also addressed the parity concerns of some fans. When three top rated seeds go down, you have parity. Syracuse was a 7 seed, and made it to the championship game. When dark horses emerge victorious, that's parity.

I voted No for the well stated reasons above.

 

[DataNerd]

There's no "madness" to March without upsets. Therein lies the excitement for me. Cinderella stories create great buzz and views: recall Jimmy V's NC State and Gonzaga on the men's side; Dayton last year, and Louisville's knock out of Baylor on the women's side. If you want predictable Final Four ratings, then tell NCAA to go with football's BCS format -- top 4 in final poll(s) duke it out -- by that IMHO calcifies the top echelon. The Dance is one of the best ways to see how your team -- and conference -- compares to everyone else. It tests conditioning, instinctive fundamentals, and how nimbly coaches and players can respond to teams about which they know little, or who play unusual styles: Washington flamed out on both ends of the court against Syracuse because they couldn't adapt or play disciplined offense. We could, and did.

 

[Adesmar123]

So let me see.....there is parity if top teams lose, and there is parity if top teams don't lose.

I think that is a parody of parity.

 

[ricky]

I became a fan of WBB when I just happened to watch a UConn game. I just said to myself "Wow, they are really fun to watch". I just don't have these wow moments watching other teams. Since this fans experience is mainly a result of Geno's coaching and bringing so much great talent and good people together on one team, then I can only imagine that his exit from the game would kill my interest in WBB. Unless they can find someone at least half as good as Geno, I probably won't watch anymore.

 

[Adesmar123]

Unless they can find someone at least half as good as Geno, I probably won't watch anymore.

Did he die or get fired?

 

[EricLA]

From a "casual fan" perspective - I would say it probably hurt that those other programs lost. Possibly. I'm a more casual fan of the MCBB and I LOVED seeing the upsets. I was thrilled UNC lost (as well as Duke, Kansas, Kentucky (early on) and several others. I was actually rooting for Oklahoma or Oregon - and was glad 'Nova won. Point is that I do think casual fans love seeing the underdog.

I think it was disappointing that Washington had such a poor showing vs. Syracuse. I think probably the most exciting game was Oregon State over Baylor. How many eyeballs watched that game vs. some of the others? THAT will give you an indication of whether or not fans tune in to see exciting basketball, or to see "their team" play.

Did the lack of 1 seeds hurt attendance? Of course. Did it hurt the eyeballs glued to the TV? I would say probably not. Go back and compare the elite 8 viewership and final 4 numbers to last year, and then maybe we can offer an objective opinion (I'm not saying one way or the other - I honestly don't know)...

 

[ricky]

Did he die or get fired?

Did he die or get fired?

I don't know. Let me check.