Who do you "Need to Know" ??

[doggydaddy]

Some exciting freshman coming to the scene.. Mercedes Russell, DeShields, and Kaela Davis should be three to see.. I know I will watch..

Upperclass..Stewart, KML, Simms, Williams, Maggie Lucas (one of the most exciting players to watch)

Stewart is only a sophomore. I know, it's not fair.

 

[Kibitzer]

I think the chosen five -- Sims, Ogwumike, Thomas, KML and Stewie -- are the most deserving among many talented wcbb players. Sims (ahem, one "m") and Chiney were deservedly unanimous AA's last year and Thomas is a terrific player. Although not seniors, KML and Stewie have already demonstrated extraordinary ability. Five superb choices.

Inclusion of freshmen based on HS achievement is about as reliable as earmarking for HoF induction those baseball "phenoms" who show up every spring in Florida.

 

[bschwartz]

Just listened to the podcast. Regarding the physicality changes, it sounds like it is a plan to help the mediocrity out there and penalize aggressive defense. Won't it be fun when a big game is decided by a ticky-tack foul. A lot of the other stuff sounds good. I am just a little troubled with the notion of making defenses ease up (or at least be less aggressive) because kids can't shoot. Would prefer kids work at shooting. There a lot of tough, strong girls out there in the game. Ask them if they need coddling like this.

 

[ThisJustIn]

I have a feeling I'm not gonna like "Need to Know" any better than I did "Three to See".

I find people's negative reaction to the Three To See goofy. There's a general complaint that women's basketball doesn't get the attention it deserves. Then someone comes up with an advertising plan that GETS women's basketball attention, and all they can do is gripe. Can't win for losing, I guess.

 

[Icebear]

I find people's negative reaction to the Three To See goofy. There's a general complaint that women's basketball doesn't get the attention it deserves. Then someone comes up with an advertising plan that GETS women's basketball attention, and all they can do is gripe. Can't win for losing, I guess.

Just because it is attention doesn't mean it is good or helpful. Three to See or 5 to Know is excessively reductionist. There are far, far more stories that are worth telling.

But I understand the ESPN tightening of budgets now is forcing minimalist approaches to things. After all, they seem to repeat some of their programming 20 times a week and tons of it is the same groups of talking heads saying nothing or long collections of best plays or worse plays numbing the audiences until they can't change the channel.

 

[pinotbear]

I find people's negative reaction to the Three To See goofy. There's a general complaint that women's basketball doesn't get the attention it deserves. Then someone comes up with an advertising plan that GETS women's basketball attention, and all they can do is gripe. Can't win for losing, I guess.

Oh, I agree completely that WBB needs & deserves more attention. And, if the advertising powers-that-be had broken out "3-to-see" at the start of last season, as an intro to the season, with periodic updates, I suspect I'd've been fine with it. My objection was, "they" opened the season with Three To See, and then seemed to ride that horse - and, only that horse - the whole dam' season. It seemed like that was the only advertising theme, the only promotion - with little update or adaptation as the season went on. It irked me because it became so repetitive, so inflexible, so unimaginative, and it permeated the entire seasons' commentary on the 2012-2013 season. It was like listening to a bunch of parrots squawking "Three To See! Three To See! WWraaaaaauk!"

I think the dictated fixation on those three players robbed other players and other programs of deserved attention. I think that it gave announcers and pundits an excuse not to think or look any further, and not to actually pay much attention to how the season was actually playing out. It was almost as if "the powers that be" said to themselves, "OK, we did our obligatory WBB promotion, and now we don't have to do anything else". It was lazy and superficial.

TJI, it did get attention for WBB,, but, by the end of the season, it was like watching the same commercial, over and over again. Not only do you tune it out, but, you come to acquire negative feelings towards the product.

 

[UcMiami]

Why not adopt a very simple policy of having one regional in each of the four time zones of the contiguous 48 states? Simple way to spread things out. And ESPN should love it!

So, yes, there are more sites in the east than in the Rockies, but first round games will mostly go there.

Maybe not an ideal solution but worthy of discussion.

I think if you look at regional teams each year you would find a large majority hail from the two eastern time zones vs. many fewer from mountain and pacific. As in 12 to 4 kind of ratio so ... I think geographically it makes more sense to have an eastern/midwestern bias with 3 of 4 and only one rockies/pacific location.
On edit - it also allows for a north/south distinction in the east/midwest which I think is valuable. The three 'eastern locations this year are pretty central on a N/S axis as well as being pretty far west.