White Paper Summitt Results

[meyers7]

Spreading the talent you are speaking of to other schools will not likely raise those schools.

Yea, it will. More talent at the lesser schools makes them better.

It simply denies the schools at the next level protection from falling dramatically when injuries occur.

No it actually helps them with better 2nd stringers, possibly 1st stringers. Nobodies using, even for depth, 13-15 players. Put UCONN 13-15 player on a lesser team and they are now 8-9 players at least if not higher. Those players become 10-11, etc. Teams only use about 8-9 players regularly anyway. The depth for injuries is 10-12/13.

When the talent is spread out too much with smaller rosters It increases the advantage of those with the best talent within those limited rosters.

No, it makes the lower teams rosters stronger. The big schools are still gonna get theirs, they are just not gonna get everyone else's also. They don't need them, they don't play them anyway.

 

[Icebear]

Maybe, maybe not at least in terms of parity. If the goal is more parity from 20-40 possibly but I do not think it brings competitive parity near the top because of the vulnerability to seasons lost to injury because of a smaller roster. How many times did we hear in the past about seasons lost to injuries at WVU, MD, DePaul. Shorter benches increase that likelihood. I understand your point I simply disagree. It's not a problem.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I believe the main change from all this is that the women will have to come up with a new nickname for their tournament when it gets pushed back a week. Instead of March Madness, maybe it becomes April Anarchy.

 

[meyers7]

Maybe, maybe not at least in terms of parity. If the goal is more parity from 20-40 possibly but I do not think it brings competitive parity near the top because of the vulnerability to seasons lost to injury because of a smaller roster. How many times did we hear in the past about seasons lost to injuries at WVU, MD, DePaul. Shorter benches increase that likelihood. I understand your point I simply disagree. It's not a problem.

Even with 13 or even 12 player rosters, you are not gonna get parity at the top, probably some with the mid teams. Not enough talent out there to stock everyone's 1-8 players.

Again, you are incorrect (agreeing or disagreeing is irrelevant). Stocking a somewhat shorter bench with players that do make a difference vs stocking a longer bench with players that won't make a difference, makes for more parity.

Think of it this way, if we went to 20 the upper echelon would just stockpile more talent. Leaving less for the lower teams, hence less parity.

And besides, injuries really don't have anything to do with parity. Have more to do with a lost season (as you're using them).

 

[Icebear]

As I said I disagree that's all. I see counter arguments to be made. You don't, wow, not like that hasn't happened before.

 

[MarlboroughMike]

To change things significantly, significant changes must be made - and the white paper does not do that. The biggest change should have been to reduce the rosters to 11 (not 13) to begin the process of improving parity. Oh wait, it would be impossible to win a NC with only 11 on the roster - a player could be out for the year and others be among the walking wounded. Or maybe it is not impossible.

The idea of playing super regionals and the final four at the same venues for several years may nave a small impact year one, but I suspect it will loose ground after that. The core market demographic for Women's CBB is young women and older couples, a demographic that is constrained by finances. Two super sites instead of four regionals creates longer travel distances will associated increases cost - not a great guarantee of increased attendance. One of the arguments for stable venues was the success of the Softball World Series. The SWS drew and average of slightly more than 8800 per session in 2013 and this with Oklahoma playing in the championship game in Oklahoma City and three other teams within reasonable travel distance; would the NCAA be happy with 8800 per session at the final four.

In terms of creating excitement for the tournament (which seems to be the NCAA priority) , I believe Phil presented them with some statistics that would presumably do just that - I see no mention or discussion of that approach (again, to change things significantly, significant changes must be made).

The meat of the white paper is #7 & #8 ( #10 is just gee, we need to play the game better, the real action items are in #7 & #8 to get #10 accomplished) and look at the priority given referee and coaches training (#7 & #8). And where is the marketing to the parents of younger children, with a supporting structure at the national level to create play time and instructions where it is not now available. More players results in more parents and grandparents in the stands.

The white paper is but a minor tweak when real action can be taken.