Too many teams | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Too many teams

Wbbfan1 said:
Stanford lost two starters to ACL injuries after the seeds were announced. If Stanford was healthy no way would Harvard have beenen them.
Expand ...
Just sayin’, stuff happens. And Feaster was the best player on the floor.
 
Wbbfan1 said:
I agree with the premise that number of teams should be reduced. I would suggest 48 teams. However, if you did that the 16 at large teams would all come from major conferences, including the Big East. If there are any upsets in the Mid Major conferences the Regular season champion probably wouldn't get invited. If you reduce the number of teams, then I would also suggest you limit the number of teams a conference can get into the tournament.

Women's Tournament by Seeds. Wiki: NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament upsets - Wikipedia
Expand ...

There would still be 1 non-P5 At-Large bid (Missouri State) in either a 56 or 48 team field this year.

Below table shows team's that would be excluded for both proposed changes on this year's tourney.

1616432898419.png
 
uconnfan68 said:
So UConn is JV?
Expand ...
Technically, yes. It's stuck in a mid-major conference because when the conference realignment music stopped, there were no chairs left. That said, UConn easily holds its own against many of the grandfathered P5 teams in many metrics whether that be by athletic department size, media market, academic ranking, etc. Unfortunately until the money starts drying up, the P5 won't be in a hurry to kick out dead weight to make room for teams that could contribute more. That's why a premier league style conference as suggested above is intriguing. You either run with the big dogs or you get knocked down to the "everybody else" level.
 
CajunHusky said:
On the one hand I guess they are "JV" in football but certainly not in any other intercollegiate sport ... which proves my point P5 relates to FOOTBALL.
Expand ...
The original post was about going to 16 teams, 2 each from each P5, and 6 at-large teams. I agree that P5 shouldn’t have any bearing on wcbb selections.
 
.-.
hoopsfan22 said:
Technically, yes. It's stuck in a mid-major conference because when the conference realignment music stopped, there were no chairs left. That said, UConn easily holds its own against many of the grandfathered P5 teams in many metrics whether that be by athletic department size, media market, academic ranking, etc. Unfortunately until the money starts drying up, the P5 won't be in a hurry to kick out dead weight to make room for teams that could contribute more. That's why a premier league style conference as suggested above is intriguing. You either run with the big dogs or you get knocked down to the "everybody else" level.
Expand ...
Now I see why Mississippi gets 2 spots.
 
Someone mentioned the movie, "Hoosiers". I grew up in Indiana and I liked the idea that every high school in Indiana competed in the tournament. There was something special about being able to compete even if you knew you wouldn't advance very far. I wouldn't try to do that for colleges, but I would be sad to see the NCAA tournament to be reduced below the 64 team starting group.
 
The game experience is worth a thousand words. Gaining experience is what life is all about. Let them play at 64 teams. Everybody is richer for this opportunity. Let the players vote, see what they say!
 
hoopsfan22 said:
Technically, yes. It's stuck in a mid-major conference because when the conference realignment music stopped, there were no chairs left. That said, UConn easily holds its own against many of the grandfathered P5 teams in many metrics whether that be by athletic department size, media market, academic ranking, etc. Unfortunately until the money starts drying up, the P5 won't be in a hurry to kick out dead weight to make room for teams that could contribute more. That's why a premier league style conference as suggested above is intriguing. You either run with the big dogs or you get knocked down to the "everybody else" level.
Expand ...
but as suggested the "premier league" members would be different for each sport ..... the problem with the current setup is some people insist in applying P5 as a qualifier to non football championships such that if you want to play for a NC in any sport other than football you have to have a P5 football team. That is just absurd.
 
I think I am going to switch over to FEB and watch Tiffany Hayes and the Samuelson sisters play in the Spanish league.

Batouly is starting for the opposition
 
Last edited:
.-.
Look, I started this thread and I am undecided. A quick look counted 32 Division 1 basketball conferences so if each champion makes it, that is half the field. It is easy to call the lesser conference champions “participation” ribbon winners but they do deserve recognition but not an automatic first game exit. Perhaps a better solution is to give first round byes to top seeded teams and pit lower seeded teams against each other. It might be fun to see High Point battle Utah Valley for the right to face a Stanford or UConn.
 
dabears17 said:
Utah Valley made the tournament because Cal Baptist isn't allowed to play in the NCAA's yet. Cal Baptist gave Stanford a scare November 2019.
Expand ...
Cal Baptist is now in the NIT quarterfinals, at 26-0, with a 29-game winning streak which started last year. I hope they win the NIT to embarrass the NCAA.
 
oldhuskie said:
It can be boring for the great teams, but for teams from the weaker conferences it can be the memory of a lifetime. They generally can't recruit far beyond their own backyard, they don't have games on TV, or much local newspaper coverage. Within their competitive realm every conference champion had a great season.

Many years from now they might be telling their kids, I got to play in the NCAA tournament, I played against Uconn and Paige one time, and see their reaction. Remember too that maybe they are weaker teams in Division 1, but it still is Division 1. There are roughly 25,000 graduating high school women who played basketball. Only about 1,000 of those get to play for a Division 1 program.

Finally it is one game, and two days later most of those teams are eliminated. The last teams in are usually equivalent to number 35-40 nationally, so 12 seeds and better are pretty competitive, as is the tournament once they get to 32. It costs two days to give those teams their day in the sun, and a reward for a good season. I don't like the concept of play in games, but think the 64 team field is perfect. Arguably the greatest sporting event of the year, as is.
Expand ...
Oldhuskie, I knew if I read enough of the posts on this that someone would hit it out of the park, I Think you came darn close to a grad slam. A trip of a lifetime for many lower seeded teams, a chance to be seen on the tube, a great way to have recruits see your teams style of play and coaching. For some it's the last game of their college career. What's the down side, Like you I don't see any down side. While no one knows when they may loose each win gives the players another game and that's why they play the game they love. A chance, that's all they want, just a chance for the next win.
 
The fact is the P5 (football) conferences have a huge advantage in athletic department budget over all other colleges/universities and it shows in a general way across most team sports in their facilities and their ability to recruit top coaches and top HS talent. There are of course a number of P5 universities that do not invest heavily in excellence in other team sports, and some that do not invest heavily excellence in football, and there are some non-P5 universities that do invest heavily in excellence in certain team sports including football. BUT, as a rule, using 'P5' to designate high budget athletic departments vs other athletic departments works as a pretty good dividing line in football and men's basketball and women's basketball.

The OP was about the experience for the lowest seeded teams to end their season in a drubbing and how sad it was for their players to play in an NCAA tournament. And I think you could ask every one of the players and every member of their families and get a 99% positive response on the experience of being beaten by 40 or 60 or whatever.

Just have to look at the excitement displayed at Colgate when they invited Breanna to come thrash them by 44 - they had a blast and a much better experience than Ohio State invited her the same year with the same result! Or Nevada inviting Gabby to beat them by 31 vs Michigan State the previous game who lost by 34. Not to mention Texas and Miss State who both met Uconn in the second weekend of successive NCAAs and lost by 51 and 60 respectively - did they wish they had lost the round before so they wouldn't have been embarrassed in their last game of the season?
 
FridaFriend said:
Someone mentioned the movie, "Hoosiers". I grew up in Indiana and I liked the idea that every high school in Indiana competed in the tournament. There was something special about being able to compete even if you knew you wouldn't advance very far. I wouldn't try to do that for colleges, but I would be sad to see the NCAA tournament to be reduced below the 64 team starting group.
Expand ...
In England, The FA Cup is open to virtually any team in England, Wales, and the small surrounding islands. One year they had 763 teams.

Yesterday, the three best teams (in my opinion) in Division I won by blowouts. Many of the other games were reasonably competitive, and there were a couple near upsets. (Just got our first upset today, BYU 69, Rutgers 66).

Before you start cutting the tournament size down, you might ask High Point, Jackson State, or Utah Valley if they would rather just skip the tournament. Even #16 Mercer kept it reasonably close against South Carolina until mid 3rd quarter.
 
Wbbfan1 said:
Stanford lost two starters to ACL injuries after the seeds were announced. If Stanford was healthy no way would Harvard have beenen them.
Expand ...
With at least one (if not both) of the ACL injuries, Stanford chose not to divulge the detail(s) before the seeds were announced, however when Sales tore her achilles, UConn got punished with a 2 seed.
 
.-.
ScuderiaDiU said:
Don't forget when Harvard beat Stanford a few years back. I have no doubt that Berube's team could have given Stanford fits this year. Of course, the NCAA would have put them as our 16 seed instead.
Expand ...


The 1-16 scenario involving Stanford and Harvard was a scenario that won't happen again. It was 23 years ago, and Stanford was crippled by injuries. The team they sent out onto the court vs Harvard was more like a seven seed. Lost stars Vanessa Nygaard and Kristin Folkl to serious knee injuries in the week prior to the game. And Harvard probably should have been no worse than a 14 seed. They were 21-5 and very experienced. Their seed was affected by anti-Ivy bias and/or a committee that was fairly clueless.

Vanderveer later said that after the second horrible ACL injury, her team really didn't want to play in the tournament.
 
This year might just be an anomaly in regards to strength of teams/leagues. No way anyone could have planned for all the challenges and disruptions during the season. IMHO the women's tourney is a few years behind the men's and before long, we'll see more than the 8/9 upsets, where the 5/12 and even more will become a norm. I've always believed that the men's tourney weighed the purported "blue bloods" more on tradition than actual skill level, and great teams in less marketed conferences suffered.
 
stamfordhusky said:
The 1-16 scenario involving Stanford and Harvard was a scenario that won't happen again. It was 23 years ago, and Stanford was crippled by injuries. The team they sent out onto the court vs Harvard was more like a seven seed. Lost stars Vanessa Nygaard and Kristin Folkl to serious knee injuries in the week prior to the game. And Harvard probably should have been no worse than a 13 seed. They were 21-5 and very experienced. Their seed was affected by anti-Ivy bias and/or a committee that was fairly clueless.

Vanderveer later said that after the second horrible ACL injury, her team really didn't want to play in the tournament.
Expand ...
You wonder what would have happened if Stanford's seed was lower due to injuries and how far they would have gotten.
 
.-.
Arkansas definitely feels they should exclude all those weak conferences from the tournament - just not competitive teams! CViv absolutely agrees!
 
Dokey said:
Watching NCAA teams get blown out by 40 points does make you ask if 64 teams is too many. Is it really a reward for a decent season for a school such as High Point to be humiliated by UConn or for Baylor to crush a team I’ve already forgotten? I watched a few minutes of Stanford against Utah Valley, a school I’ve never heard of—if this were a boxing match, the referee would have ended it on a technical knockout. Maybe it would be for the best to make the NCAA 32 teams and WNIT 64.
Expand ...
So, to do that, you're taking away the automatic bids for certain conferences. How is it determined which conference deserves a bid and which do not. In the old days with men, when there were 32 teams in the tournament, what was missing were the at-large bids. Look at all the 8-9 games in men's and women's. Sometimes the best games in the round of 64. They would be gone. Syracuse, men's and women's gone.
Famous team- best team ever not to make the NCAA tournament when it had 32 teams. Only the conference tournament winner qualified- University of Maryland 1973. Ended up 4th rank overall, 2nd in the ACC, 3 NBA starters- John Lucas, Len Elmore, and Tom McMillen. As Mad Dog would say, "now that's a college basketball team".
 
Some will never be satisfied, simple solution to those not wanting to see blowout games of 40+ points...don't watch the first two rounds.

As of this writing, in todays games, 3 upsets; #12 Belmont over #5 Gonzaga, #13 Wright State over #4 Arkansas and #11 BYU over #6 Rutgers. I bet if you ask Belmont, Wright State and BYU they'll be happy to take the "reward" of being in the NCAA tourney.
 
stamfordhusky said:
The 1-16 scenario involving Stanford and Harvard was a scenario that won't happen again. It was 23 years ago, and Stanford was crippled by injuries. The team they sent out onto the court vs Harvard was more like a seven seed. Lost stars Vanessa Nygaard and Kristin Folkl to serious knee injuries in the week prior to the game. And Harvard probably should have been no worse than a 14 seed. They were 21-5 and very experienced. Their seed was affected by anti-Ivy bias and/or a committee that was fairly clueless.

Vanderveer later said that after the second horrible ACL injury, her team really didn't want to play in the tournament.
Expand ...

Agreed. Context is extremely important for referencing that.

Harvard was badly underseeded and played with a chip on their shoulder. Probably the only #16 seed to ever have a WNBA double digit scorer on its roster.

And Stanford was a bad team before Kristin Folkl joined midway through the year. They were 3-4 to start and she joined after leading Stanford to another volleyball championship. With her they went 18-1. Then both her and Nygaard went out with ACLs. They probably shouldn't have been a #1 seed to begin with, and they weren't a good team without their 2 best players.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,506
Messages
4,579,325
Members
10,489
Latest member
Djw06001


Top Bottom