An idea to fix women's basketball

[tycat947]

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.

I believe the women's game did go to neutral site first/second round games a few years ago and it lasted for a few years and they returned to home court because of the terrible attendance. I think the home playoff attendance is worse than regular season as tickets are priced higher and all are televised. I don't know what the statistics were for won/loss results of higher seeds versus lower seeds but not sure they were a lot different. I think today there would be a higher probability of upsets on neutral courts but not sure. Women's game has lots of problems from officiating to attendance (there are exceptions) they seem to be doing relatively well on TV. Will be interesting to see what happens the next few years.

 

[inoref]

I hope Sherri doesn't spend the off season worrying about her hair.

 

[SoonerSpock]

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.

And some people could comprehend what statistics can tell them if they opened their minds then there are others that are nothing more than a lamppost. It is not that I do not prefer neutral sites for all games but the reality is the desires of our television partner is a major determining factor in site location and has more imput than either you or I have. Pragmatism says move on.

Playing at neutral sites might result in two or three additional upsets in the first two rounds. Playing home games with a couple of home teams winning a couple more games is a small price to pay to accommodate your TV partner, maximize attendance and TV revenue. Unfortunately there are no free lunches. It is what it is and it appears you will continue to have to deal with it.

If you compare the Sweet 16 for both the men's and the women's tournament the men had 12 teams from the top 16 seeds make it. The women had 13 teams from the top 16 seeds make it. Net net the results for both tournaments were virtually the same. Once you are at the Sweet 16 both tournaments site determinations are identical.

It might also be noted that the lowest seeded team in either tournaments to advance to the final four was 10 seed (36-40 overall seed) Oregon in the women's tournament who made it to the semi-finals.

 

[sybarite]

If we permit home court advantage in order to further the profit of our television provider and contract, we are admitting that we do not have equity or fair play on our mind as much as profit. That is not the goal of a legitimate educational institution.

In some respects, this is somewhat like accepting TV programs into English Literature because they would generate more interest and higher profits. We might even charge additional to see a first-run movie.

Our goal should be to eliminate profit from education as a purpose. The problem tends to arise because of sport.

 

[SoonerSpock]

If we permit home court advantage in order to further the profit of our television provider and contract, we are admitting that we do not have equity or fair play on our mind as much as profit. That is not the goal of a legitimate educational institution.

In some respects, this is somewhat like accepting TV programs into English Literature because they would generate more interest and higher profits. We might even charge additional to see a first-run movie.

Our goal should be to eliminate profit from education as a purpose. The problem tends to arise because of sport.

Idealistically there is merit to your premise. Pragmatically speaking our capitalistic society is going to continue to focus on profit. And a capitalistic society's educational institutions should be teaching the concept of profit in the real world with real world examples. Moreover college athletics is not going to relegate itself back to being just club sports and someone has to pay. Idealist be damned.

 

[sybarite]

Idealistically there is merit to your premise. Pragmatically speaking our capitalistic society is going to continue to focus on profit. And a capitalistic society's educational institutions should be teaching the concept of profit in the real world with real world examples. Moreover college athletics is not going to relegate itself back to being just club sports and someone has to pay. Idealist be damned.

And, so is the point of education to teach reality, whatever form it takes, or idealism? Perhaps both?

We have seen some attempt by college Presidents to exercise some authority over the NCAA which has become an intruder in their midst. They may decide to take further steps to get it under control. But, reality may exert a greater force. If the players do get court-ordered recognition of salary, the entire scope of sports associated with colleges could be a thing of the past.

 

[SoonerSpock]

And, so is the point of education to teach reality, whatever form it takes, or idealism? Perhaps both?

We have seen some attempt by college Presidents to exercise some authority over the NCAA which has become an intruder in their midst. They may decide to take further steps to get it under control. But, reality may exert a greater force. If the players do get court-ordered recognition of salary, the entire scope of sports associated with colleges could be a thing of the past.

No question that the salary for players above the cost of living stipend recently provided could be the death meal for college sports as we know it. Very few schools operate their athletic programs in the black and really none can afford to take additional millions from their academic budget to fund additional college athletic expense.

Club sports might then truly become the wave of the future. Fortunately for me, living in Norman, were I could still get my OU sports fix living in watching the club sport contests.

Additionally were college sports to become a thing of the past many college presidents would need to develop another vehicle to attract their alums back to campus. Today college sports is the primary mechanism to regularly get alums on campus where they can develop relationships and solicit the needed donations to fund their university.