An idea to fix women's basketball

[betterstill]

The big problem with women's basketball is the disparity between the very top teams and the rest of the teams. The Connecticut domination is getting ridiculous. A lot of the better players are not apparently looking for playing time to get in the WNBA. Also there are not that many great women's basketball players, IMO, compared with men's basketball.

My idea is to allow players to transfer from teams that have been in the top 8 any time in the last two years, without the transferees having to sit out a year. I do not know if even this drastic a scheme would work but something needs to be done.

Another thing to do would be to cut the playoffs to 32 teams. Or 48 and give the top seeds 1st round byes.

 

[inoref]

The big problem with women's basketball is the disparity between the very top teams and the rest of the teams. The Connecticut domination is getting ridiculous. A lot of the better players are not apparently looking for playing time to get in the WNBA. Also there are not that many great women's basketball players, IMO, compared with men's basketball.

My idea is to allow players to transfer from teams that have been in the top 8 any time in the last two years, without the transferees having to sit out a year. I do not know if even this drastic a scheme would work but something needs to be done.

Another thing to do would be to cut the playoffs to 32 teams. Or 48 and give the top seeds 1st round byes.

I think it's more of some coaches out working others. Add pressure to the coaching staff to work harder, recruit better players. If that doesn't work then clean house. Just looking at OU IMO the biggest problem right now is poor recruiting, that falls on Sherri Coale. Leave everything else as is..Connecticut domination was earned by hard work and great coaching.

 

[O-State2009]

The big problem with women's basketball is the disparity between the very top teams and the rest of the teams. The Connecticut domination is getting ridiculous. A lot of the better players are not apparently looking for playing time to get in the WNBA. Also there are not that many great women's basketball players, IMO, compared with men's basketball.

My idea is to allow players to transfer from teams that have been in the top 8 any time in the last two years, without the transferees having to sit out a year. I do not know if even this drastic a scheme would work but something needs to be done.

Another thing to do would be to cut the playoffs to 32 teams. Or 48 and give the top seeds 1st round byes.

Yes. In order to fix WBB, make it more likely that the top teams get the top players. That makes absolute sense. You think talent disparity is bad at this point, that makes it 100 times worse.

The scholarship limit needs to be reduced to 13 to match the men's game.

 

[MsProudSooner]

The scholarship limit needs to be reduced to 13 to match the men's game.

I understand the logic behind that - don't let the UConn type teams stockpile talent. But, with the knee injury problems the women have, I'm not sure decreasing the scholarship limit is a good idea.

 

[SoonerSpock]

The big problem with women's basketball is the disparity between the very top teams and the rest of the teams. The Connecticut domination is getting ridiculous. A lot of the better players are not apparently looking for playing time to get in the WNBA. Also there are not that many great women's basketball players, IMO, compared with men's basketball.

My idea is to allow players to transfer from teams that have been in the top 8 any time in the last two years, without the transferees having to sit out a year. I do not know if even this drastic a scheme would work but something needs to be done.

Another thing to do would be to cut the playoffs to 32 teams. Or 48 and give the top seeds 1st round byes.

Your suggestion may level the playing field for teams 2-20 and perhaps better the game but I do not see it having any impact on UConn as long as Geno is running the show. He know how to identify the players with the right physical and mental skills to compete for championship and skill maximization. He knows how to get their commitment and signature.

Once at Storrs Geno know what buttons to push to get each player to produce to their maximum potential. No present coach has the skill set to consistently effective compete with him.

It is what it is and I do not see it changing anytime soon.

 

[SoonerSpock]

I understand the logic behind that - don't let the UConn type teams stockpile talent. But, with the knee injury problems the women have, I'm not sure decreasing the scholarship limit is a good idea.

We must not forget that Geno only has 10 players on his roster this year and basically plays only 7. It matter little how you change the rules Geno will continue to dominate. He is the key ingredient.

 

[Sweetest OU Girl]

One thing that could help is to put some limits on how often a given team gets to play at home in the tournament. There are a number of possible approaches, but one idea might be to limit a school to one home hosting every 3 years.

Here is why that would help.

1. Everyone knows that letting stronger teams play at home almost guarantees them a win. This year (as most years) 90% of the games were won by the home team. That means if your school has to go on the road, you will likely make the Sweet 16 just once every 10 years. No matter how good you are. #16 goes to the sweet 16, 9 out of 10 years. #17 goes once every 10 years. That is stupid.

2. Recruiting is at least partially impacted by success in the tournament. So spreading the wealth would even things up quite a bit.

3. The men's tournament is very successful without selecting the winners in the bracket assignments. In fact, that is what makes it exciting. Make it competitive - and it will be more popular.

4. One reason UCONN almost never loses in the tourney is because they virtually NEVER play a road game. Give them a bit of a challenge.

 

[betterstill]

You have to have the home games or attendance will be too low. Have to have that for TV, etc.

 

[inoref]

I see nothing wrong with the best/better teams getting to play close to or home games.
Just as when OU got to play OKC..I didn't dear anyone crying about that. It's really simple, just get better and the rest will take care of itself

 

[AdaSooner]

I get what betterstill is saying about UCONN's domination. It's not much fun for the teams that know they're likely playing for second place or worse every season. But the answer is for them to get better, not find a way to make winning championships more difficult for UCONN.

Geno's run is not unprecedented. John Wooden's UCLA team's won ten men's NCAA national titles in the span of twelve years. I remember those days well. It definitely got old for fans of other schools.

Coaches like Sherri Coale and others need to get off of their duff and work harder if they don't want to accept runner up as their goal every season. Recruiting is obviously the key. UCONN gets some of the best recruits because the players want to win championships. If Sherri and the other coaches want to compete, they have to recruit better. It's that simple.

I'll add that OU will have to compete at a higher level in the Big 12 before they set their sights on a national championship. We're not the top dog in our own conference anymore.

 

[SoonerSpock]

It appears maximizing exposure and and insuring there is a level playing field for each competitor are mutually exclusive. It is more of an either/or decision rather than maximizing both exposure and insuring equal opportunity for all.

There is a valid arguments for both sides of this issue. The NCAA has to make the tough decision. And presently that decision is to maximize attendance, exposure, etc.

 

[Sweetest OU Girl]

You have to have the home games or attendance will be too low. Have to have that for TV, etc.

It isn't about not having home games. The crowds at schools ranked 17 - 32 would be as good as - maybe better than - those at schools 1 - 16. But what it does is makes it possible for a school ranked 17 or 20 or 25 a chance to win more than once in 10 years. Obviously the rankings by the committee are not anywhere close to perfect, but the bracket assignments have the effect of declaring winners in almost every case.

The point was made earlier that crowds are dwindling. You can ignore it, or you can use your wisdom to look for possible solutions. Admitting, of course, that nothing can be guaranteed. Well except for winners when brackets are assigned like they are now.

When weaker teams get to play at home occasionally, some of them will win on occasion. That is what sport is all about. Real competition.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Yes. In order to fix WBB, make it more likely that the top teams get the top players. That makes absolute sense. You think talent disparity is bad at this point, that makes it 100 times worse.

The scholarship limit needs to be reduced to 13 to match the men's game.

Might want to make note that the UConn roster this year was 10 plus they had two transfers on scholarship for a total of 12 scholarships.

 

[SoonerSpock]

It isn't about not having home games. The crowds at schools ranked 17 - 32 would be as good as - maybe better than - those at schools 1 - 16. But what it does is makes it possible for a school ranked 17 or 20 or 25 a chance to win more than once in 10 years. Obviously the rankings by the committee are not anywhere close to perfect, but the bracket assignments have the effect of declaring winners in almost every case.

The point was made earlier that crowds are dwindling. You can ignore it, or you can use your wisdom to look for possible solutions. Admitting, of course, that nothing can be guaranteed. Well except for winners when brackets are assigned like they are now.

When weaker teams get to play at home occasionally, some of them will win on occasion. That is what sport is all about. Real competition.

Cannot dispute some of the weaker teams getting home games in the first two rounds will generate a few, perhaps very few, more upsets. But given the NCAA because of pressure from TV moguls are going to place some emphasis on attendance you have to look at the NCAA's priorities. Would they rather set up a tournament to give the weaker teams more of an advantage and generate a few more upsets. If so give them the home court advantage.

Or do they want to design the tournament to maximize the opportunity for the the best team to win the tournament. If so you give the home court advantage to the top 16 seeds. If you want total equity have a neutral site for all games (virtually impossible).

Also I will take issue that the crowds at the home court of teams ranked 17-32 would be as large as those of teams ranked 1-16. Using the NCAA attendance figures for 2016 (latest available). The top 16 teams in attendance included 8 teams seeded in the top 16 and 13 of the 16 were ranked in the top 50 attendance schools.

Teams ranked 17-32 had 1 team ranked in the top 16 attendance schools and only 7 teams ranked in the top 50. Estimating (swag) the average attendance for all schools not ranked in the top to be 2,000 for each school allows for an extrapolated comparison with the comparison advantage to schools 17-32 because they have more schools (9 vs 3) not ranked in the top 50 of attendance.

Using the extrapolated number reference above the average attendance for the top 16 ranked schools was 5,056 and for schools 17-32 was 2,924. Hence projected NCAA tournament attendance at the top 16 schools could be projected to be about 73% better than the schools ranked 17-32 for the first two rounds.

Personally if I am going to provide an advantage to any segment of the tournament I am going to error on the side of giving the advantage to those teams that have earned that right on the court via wins, losses and level of competition not a lower quality team.

Upsets are fun to watch as it is the American way to root for the underdog. But to me the objective of the NCAA tournament is to crown the very best team the champion. If that happens to be UConn 6 out of the last 10 years so be it. If one does not like those results then their team needs to get better. We all started on a level playing field and some have worked harder, smarter and longer to earn the right to be champions.

 

[j2d2]

There may be several ways to improve women's basketball, some more effective than others no doubt, but for both men's and women's basketball I suggest much tougher grading of referees, more and better training (much more)and some sort of discipline for egregiously bad calls. This would mean more pay but it would be well worth it.

 

[Sweetest OU Girl]

Cannot dispute some of the weaker teams getting home games in the first two rounds will generate a few, perhaps very few, more upsets. But given the NCAA because of pressure from TV moguls are going to place some emphasis on attendance you have to look at the NCAA's priorities. Would they rather set up a tournament to give the weaker teams more of an advantage and generate a few more upsets. If so give them the home court advantage.

Or do they want to design the tournament to maximize the opportunity for the the best team to win the tournament. If so you give the home court advantage to the top 16 seeds. If you want total equity have a neutral site for all games (virtually impossible).

Also I will take issue that the crowds at the home court of teams ranked 17-32 would be as large as those of teams ranked 1-16. Using the NCAA attendance figures for 2016 (latest available). The top 16 teams in attendance included 8 teams seeded in the top 16 and 13 of the 16 were ranked in the top 50 attendance schools.

Teams ranked 17-32 had 1 team ranked in the top 16 attendance schools and only 7 teams ranked in the top 50. Estimating (swag) the average attendance for all schools not ranked in the top to be 2,000 for each school allows for an extrapolated comparison with the comparison advantage to schools 17-32 because they have more schools (9 vs 3) not ranked in the top 50 of attendance.

Using the extrapolated number reference above the average attendance for the top 16 ranked schools was 5,056 and for schools 17-32 was 2,924. Hence projected NCAA tournament attendance at the top 16 schools could be projected to be about 73% better than the schools ranked 17-32 for the first two rounds.

Personally if I am going to provide an advantage to any segment of the tournament I am going to error on the side of giving the advantage to those teams that have earned that right on the court via wins, losses and level of competition not a lower quality team.

Upsets are fun to watch as it is the American way to root for the underdog. But to me the objective of the NCAA tournament is to crown the very best team the champion. If that happens to be UConn 6 out of the last 10 years so be it. If one does not like those results then their team needs to get better. We all started on a level playing field and some have worked harder, smarter and longer to earn the right to be champions.

The weakness with the positions taken in the bolded sections is this: There is absolutely no possibility that the "best" teams are in the top 16 and the others are "weak".

Even the polls disagree on many of the positions from 10 to 25 or 30. And they tend to change from week to week. So the way they end up at season end is not some kind of "objective and perfect" way to rank teams. The men's bracket clearly gives great evidence of that with so many upsets.

Unfortunately, assigning 16 teams home courts in WBB almost guarantees the winners. As pointed out, the home court teams win over 90% of the time in the tourney. So the selection committee is picking the winners - rather than letting the teams decide that on the court.

If the "best" team wins no matter where the game is played, why do teams consistently win more at home than on the road? That is especially clear in the Big-12 - with everyone playing each other home and away.

We won't all agree on doing away with that, but the game will be stymied - competition wise - until it stops. So if one wants to let a biased group select winners, push for home court assignments by a committee - and thus assigned winners. If one wants a competitive sport, push for more neutral assignments. I simply suggested requiring a team to play away from home 2 out of 3 years. Maybe a start would be every other year. Your argument seems to be that the site of the game is immaterial - the best team will win anyway. Try neutral courts and we will find out. By the way, if we could rank them perfectly the argument about the "best" teams deserving home courts would be stronger. The problem is no one can do that.

You must be very careful comparing stats about attendance. They are manipulated and distorted by the way schools report that number.

 

[SoonerSpock]

I beg to disagree. 13 of top 16 advanced to the Sweet 16. That is a 81.26% accuracy. Six top 8 seeds made the Elite Eight (75%) and 2 of the top 4 seeds (50%) made the Final Four and 1 of the 2 top seed made the finals with the #2 seed winning it all.

Pretty damn accurate projections. If you want to isolate things to just the #10-16 seeds that have a lot a variation more thanhalf of them still made the Sweet 16.

With 20/20 hindsight the rankings/seeding were highly accurate. Very easy to conclude the brackets were an accurate positioning teams and that the sight location of the first two rounds did not alter those results.

I would like to see the women's bracket work like the men's regarding sight locations but the results of the tournament confirms the results are reasonable accurate relative to the perceived quality of the teams.

 

[Sweetest OU Girl]

I beg to disagree. 13 of top 16 advanced to the Sweet 16. That is a 81.26% accuracy. Six top 8 seeds made the Elite Eight (75%) and 2 of the top 4 seeds (50%) made the Final Four and 1 of the 2 top seed made the finals with the #2 seed winning it all.

Pretty damn accurate projections. If you want to isolate things to just the #10-16 seeds that have a lot a variation more thanhalf of them still made the Sweet 16.

With 20/20 hindsight the rankings/seeding were highly accurate. Very easy to conclude the brackets were an accurate positioning teams and that the sight location of the first two rounds did not alter those results.

I would like to see the women's bracket work like the men's regarding sight locations but the results of the tournament confirms the results are reasonable accurate relative to the perceived quality of the teams.

And some people use statistics like an inebriate uses a lamppost. More for support than illumination.

To get to the sweet 16, how many games did the top 16 play - and how many did they win?

Upsets between reasonably matched teams happen on neutral courts - but almost never on home courts. If teams 17 - 25 had played on home courts several of them would likely have advanced to the sweet 16. So, suddenly the seedings would look weak. The position that all those teams won because they were better flies in the face of home court advantage - which is absolutely real - and very strong.

With that in mind, of course the top 3 or 4 seeds are likely to be successful. But it is teams ranked 10 - 25 that are primarily impacted by the committee assignments. I am not trying to get you to want a competitive tournament. That appears to be unimportant to you. But some fans like a competitive sport with outcomes in doubt. Exactly what they do with the men's tournament - and with lots of surprises and interest. Lots of potential viewers - even on TV - have little interest in non-competitive games in a tournament.

If we believe seedings are the only indicator of strength, why in the world are there so many upsets in the men's bracket - on neutral courts. Even 10 seeds winning games on occasion.

 

[Oliver Hardy]

This thread is beginning to remind me of the Conference Re-Alignment Thread on LandThieves.

Let's talk about whether Sherri is getting too old to have the same hairdo she did 20 years ago.

I come down on the keep it side, myself.

 

[Sweetest OU Girl]

This thread is beginning to remind me of the Conference Re-Alignment Thread on LandThieves.

Let's talk about whether Sherri is getting too old to have the same hairdo she did 20 years ago.

I come down on the keep it side, myself.

I will admit I wish she could keep it from falling down over her eyes.