View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 Posts: 16382 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
Posted: 12/13/17 1:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I guess I don't understand what "tournament-worthy" is supposed to mean.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 12/13/17 2:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Never mind.
I think It's been explained.
Obviously the suggestion that the quality is down in a rather dramatic and obvious extent across the board this year hit a sore nerve.
Why that is evidently taboo to discuss still escapes me, but so be it. If dreaming that by March there will be 5 or 6 strong teams in every conference fighting for bids makes everyone happy, so be it.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67121 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 12/13/17 2:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ArtBest23 wrote: |
If dreaming that by March there will be 5 or 6 strong teams in every conference fighting for bids makes everyone happy, so be it. |
That doesn't exist in any college sport and never has. Expecting it in this WCBB season is unrealistic.
_________________ I'm sick and tired of the stories that you always tell
Shakespeare couldn't tell a story that well
See, you're the largest liar that was ever created
You and Pinocchio are probably related
Full of criss-crossed fits, you lie all the time
Your tongue should be embarrassed, you're a threat to mankind
|
|
mzonefan
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 Posts: 4879 Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Back to top |
Posted: 12/13/17 3:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I paid to watch a D1 team shoot 17.5% last night and wondered how it was a D1 team. I think we are way too saturated.
I also think the Big Ten is fading fast. I'm glad that Michigan has finally climbed up, but I don't think the league is anywhere where it was 10-15 years ago.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9776
Back to top |
Posted: 12/13/17 3:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
There should be 64 teams at any point who are better than the other 240. That's good enough for me.
|
|
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014 Posts: 3519
Back to top |
Posted: 12/13/17 4:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
You can't have 64 worthy teams if half of them are automatic bids. That puts a lot of teams into the tournament that don't have a hope in **** of making it past the first two rounds. I'm not advocating that we eliminate the automatic bid process because I think that has a lot of other merits, but it clearly impacts the worthy team issue.
I also think the conference realignments in the past few years have had a negative impact on the worthiness issue. The rich get richer, and other conferences fall by the wayside.
|
|
mikeyc22
Joined: 20 Apr 2006 Posts: 2396
Back to top |
Posted: 12/13/17 9:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ArtBest23 wrote: |
Never mind.
I think It's been explained.
Obviously the suggestion that the quality is down in a rather dramatic and obvious extent across the board this year hit a sore nerve.
Why that is evidently taboo to discuss still escapes me, but so be it. If dreaming that by March there will be 5 or 6 strong teams in every conference fighting for bids makes everyone happy, so be it. |
Completely understand your point that the overall depth of other teams is down compared to the past few years. The typical power conference teams in the middle of the pack look a hot mess.
|
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18064 Location: Queens
Back to top |
Posted: 12/13/17 9:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
FrozenLVFan wrote: |
You can't have 64 worthy teams if half of them are automatic bids. That puts a lot of teams into the tournament that don't have a hope in **** of making it past the first two rounds. I'm not advocating that we eliminate the automatic bid process because I think that has a lot of other merits, but it clearly impacts the worthy team issue.
I also think the conference realignments in the past few years have had a negative impact on the worthiness issue. The rich get richer, and other conferences fall by the wayside. |
I don't think Art's point was related to the auto-bids, but to the at-large pool. I've seen some of the softness in the ACC and the Big East with my own two eyes.
_________________ Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014 Posts: 3519
Back to top |
Posted: 12/14/17 9:56 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Queenie wrote: |
FrozenLVFan wrote: |
You can't have 64 worthy teams if half of them are automatic bids. That puts a lot of teams into the tournament that don't have a hope in **** of making it past the first two rounds. I'm not advocating that we eliminate the automatic bid process because I think that has a lot of other merits, but it clearly impacts the worthy team issue.
I also think the conference realignments in the past few years have had a negative impact on the worthiness issue. The rich get richer, and other conferences fall by the wayside. |
I don't think Art's point was related to the auto-bids, but to the at-large pool. I've seen some of the softness in the ACC and the Big East with my own two eyes. |
Then the question becomes finding 32 worthy teams.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11219
Back to top |
Posted: 12/14/17 10:39 am ::: |
Reply |
|
The women have 64 teams because the men do (just as they have conference tournaments), which is an incredibly stupid, if not sexist, rationale.
But that said, there aren't 64 men's teams with a chance of winning the tournament -- maybe 20? I would say the number is fewer on the women's side, but the idea is the same: Those actual contenders who can't take care of business against teams with no real chance are eliminated, and the last team standing has shown a) it can beat mediocre teams and b) contending teams.
Now, a different question is the overall level of play of the 64 teams, and how that level compares to the past. I think that's always a tough comparison, given that the game has changed in significant ways in the past few years (the realization that three-point shooting is very important, for example), but I would say that the elite teams are as good as ever, if not better.
I'm not convinced, however, that the talent at the lower levels is the same, but that's very difficult to show by any objective standard. For example, how do you compare the No. 24 team in the rankings right now to the No. 24 team in the rankings in 2012 or 2007?
The eye test suggests that No. 24 was better before, but that's a shaky foundation for any serious conclusion.
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67121 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 12/14/17 10:47 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
The women have 64 teams because the men do (just as they have conference tournaments), which is an incredibly stupid, if not sexist, rationale. |
The men actually have 68 now
_________________ I'm sick and tired of the stories that you always tell
Shakespeare couldn't tell a story that well
See, you're the largest liar that was ever created
You and Pinocchio are probably related
Full of criss-crossed fits, you lie all the time
Your tongue should be embarrassed, you're a threat to mankind
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 756 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
Posted: 12/14/17 4:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I know it only happened once but Stanford DID lose to a #16 seed.
I have a lot less of a problem with 64 teams and a lot more of a problem with this nonsense of having the NC game on the Sunday night they are having it on.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8269 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 12/14/17 6:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I predict the WCBB SelComm will find 64 teams.
I don't think there's any objective or empirical way to determine whether today's D1 teams, in the aggregate, are more or less talented than 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. The coaching expertise, in the aggregate, is likely better than 40 years ago, but I'd say the fitness of the athletes may be less. 40 years ago is when the obesity epidemic took off in the USA.
As already said, there's never been 64 competitive teams in WCBB. BeKnighted used to be the expert as to the lowest seeded teams ever to make the Final Four, make the NC game, and win the NC game. I don't think it's ever gone very deep. Anyone have that info? |
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009 Posts: 5167 Location: Carson City
Back to top |
Posted: 12/14/17 7:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Stonington_QB wrote: |
I know it only happened once but Stanford DID lose to a #16 seed.
I have a lot less of a problem with 64 teams and a lot more of a problem with this nonsense of having the NC game on the Sunday night they are having it on. |
To be clear when Stanford lost to 16th seed Harvard the Crimson had no business being a 16th seed. That was 1998 and the matchup was made for TV purposes, along with another 1 vs 16 matchup Tennessee vs Liberty (the only two unbeaten teams in the country). Harvard, led by Alison Feaster, the nation's leading scorer, was 22-4 and should have been at least a 13 seed (their only two non conference losses were to major conference teams) ESPN wanted some interesting games for its coverage. So they matched up Harvard and Stanford, but then Stanford had 2 major injuries to Vanessa Nygaard and Kristen Folkl. It was an exciting game and a big upset, but it never would have happened if the seeding committee had seeded the bottom four teams at 16.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9776
Back to top |
Posted: 12/15/17 2:09 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Stonington_QB wrote: |
I know it only happened once but Stanford DID lose to a #16 seed.
|
Even though Alison Feaster had a great game, I think the real reason was due to late-season injuries on Stanford.
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 756 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
Posted: 12/18/17 9:50 am ::: |
Reply |
|
What about Quinnipiac's run last year? These things happen. It may not happen every year, but what's everyone's excuse for that happening? It was the feelgood story of the tournament. How about we just leave the best formula in sports the way it is?
Like I said before, my biggest problem with the current formula is the fact that the NC title game is now up against another "championship" (if you want to call it that) on the same night that will absolutely crush women's basketball every time they try it. I'm talking about Wrestlemania. All you need to do is look at any website on Monday morning, and the only thing you're going to read about is Wrestlemania's results with maybe a small footnote about the women's Final Four. The viewership numbers aren't even in the same ballpark.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 Posts: 16382 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
Posted: 12/18/17 11:20 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Stonington_QB wrote: |
Like I said before, my biggest problem with the current formula is the fact that the NC title game is now up against another "championship" (if you want to call it that) on the same night that will absolutely crush women's basketball every time they try it. I'm talking about Wrestlemania. All you need to do is look at any website on Monday morning, and the only thing you're going to read about is Wrestlemania's results with maybe a small footnote about the women's Final Four. The viewership numbers aren't even in the same ballpark. |
I can honestly say that I have never once seen a single story about Wrestlemania results.
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011 Posts: 2819 Location: Indiana
Back to top |
Posted: 12/18/17 3:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
PUmatty wrote: |
Stonington_QB wrote: |
Like I said before, my biggest problem with the current formula is the fact that the NC title game is now up against another "championship" (if you want to call it that) on the same night that will absolutely crush women's basketball every time they try it. I'm talking about Wrestlemania. All you need to do is look at any website on Monday morning, and the only thing you're going to read about is Wrestlemania's results with maybe a small footnote about the women's Final Four. The viewership numbers aren't even in the same ballpark. |
I can honestly say that I have never once seen a single story about Wrestlemania results. |
Me either...but then again, I have never looked. Also, I highly doubt there is very much crossover in the people that are watching Wrestlemania and the NCAA Women's Basketball National Championship.
|
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009 Posts: 5167 Location: Carson City
Back to top |
Posted: 12/18/17 5:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Stonington_QB wrote: |
What about Quinnipiac's run last year? These things happen. It may not happen every year, but what's everyone's excuse for that happening? It was the feelgood story of the tournament. How about we just leave the best formula in sports the way it is?
Like I said before, my biggest problem with the current formula is the fact that the NC title game is now up against another "championship" (if you want to call it that) on the same night that will absolutely crush women's basketball every time they try it. I'm talking about Wrestlemania. All you need to do is look at any website on Monday morning, and the only thing you're going to read about is Wrestlemania's results with maybe a small footnote about the women's Final Four. The viewership numbers aren't even in the same ballpark. |
First, regarding Quinnipiac, I agree that one of the fun things about the tournament is getting to see some of the smaller schools. They are generally more fundamentally sound but have less athletic players and get a chance to pull an upset or two. The chances are increased on neutral sites (which I would prefer if there would be more than 2000 people in attendance). And those games provide an interesting contrast when they are competitive. This year I am looking at Belmont and Princeton which could both pull a few upsets with the right draw.
Second. regarding WrestleMania, you make an interesting point. These two events are both the largest events of the year for niche sports. While within the sports world they are about as diametrically opposed to one another as two events can be, I still believe there is a sizeable number of people who follow both, many of whom would not admit it to their friends in either camp. But as for the size of the two groups, I believe that the number of people that actually watch the women's basketball championship live will be significantly larger than those that watch WrestleMania (at least legally). On the other hand, the number of people that follow the results through social media for WrestleMania will dwarf women's basketball. Indeed while I doubt anyone would do such a poll it would be interesting to know how these dual sports junkies handle the situation, watch one first and then the other on delay (it isn't like other events where you have to worry about the announcers blurting out the results of the other event), watch one and follow the other on social media, or watch both together.
|
|
btharner
Joined: 17 Feb 2008 Posts: 109
Back to top |
Posted: 12/18/17 8:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
For what it's worth, WrestleMania is April 8th, a week after the NCAA Championship.
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 756 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
Posted: 12/18/17 8:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
calbearman76 wrote: |
Second. regarding WrestleMania, you make an interesting point. These two events are both the largest events of the year for niche sports. While within the sports world they are about as diametrically opposed to one another as two events can be, I still believe there is a sizeable number of people who follow both, many of whom would not admit it to their friends in either camp. But as for the size of the two groups, I believe that the number of people that actually watch the women's basketball championship live will be significantly larger than those that watch WrestleMania (at least legally). On the other hand, the number of people that follow the results through social media for WrestleMania will dwarf women's basketball. Indeed while I doubt anyone would do such a poll it would be interesting to know how these dual sports junkies handle the situation, watch one first and then the other on delay (it isn't like other events where you have to worry about the announcers blurting out the results of the other event), watch one and follow the other on social media, or watch both together. |
I would like to disagree heavily about a couple of things here. Yes, they are niche sports. BUT, look at the viewership numbers. In another thread, it was reported that the women's NC game drew somewhere around 600,XXX viewers. I'll be generous and say that maybe 700 people at best pirated the game which I will generously bump that number to 700,000 (and yes, I'm aware my math is not adding up here). But Wrestlemania? Not as much of a niche as women's basketball. I happen to enjoy both. But the viewership of Wrestlemania is around 2 million. That's 2 million LEGAL viewers who paid for the event. Now how many illegal viewers were there? I would say more than the number of people who actually paid for it. That's 4-5 million people. That's not even close. Mind you both these events happened on the same night this year. And it's not hard to remember which event was in the headlines the following day. This year I had to make a choice, where normally I wouldn't have had to. Do I watch Wrestlemania, or do I watch a game where my team isn't even playing and I really have no emotional investment in the outcome? If it was still on Tuesday night I would have definitely watched it. My point is, they are forcing many people to make a choice. It's not going to help grow the sport this way.
btharner wrote: |
For what it's worth, WrestleMania is April 8th, a week after the NCAA Championship. |
Good. Because this year they were on the same night.
|
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009 Posts: 5167 Location: Carson City
Back to top |
Posted: 12/18/17 9:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Stonington_QB wrote: |
calbearman76 wrote: |
Second. regarding WrestleMania, you make an interesting point. These two events are both the largest events of the year for niche sports. While within the sports world they are about as diametrically opposed to one another as two events can be, I still believe there is a sizeable number of people who follow both, many of whom would not admit it to their friends in either camp. But as for the size of the two groups, I believe that the number of people that actually watch the women's basketball championship live will be significantly larger than those that watch WrestleMania (at least legally). On the other hand, the number of people that follow the results through social media for WrestleMania will dwarf women's basketball. Indeed while I doubt anyone would do such a poll it would be interesting to know how these dual sports junkies handle the situation, watch one first and then the other on delay (it isn't like other events where you have to worry about the announcers blurting out the results of the other event), watch one and follow the other on social media, or watch both together. |
I would like to disagree heavily about a couple of things here. Yes, they are niche sports. BUT, look at the viewership numbers. In another thread, it was reported that the women's NC game drew somewhere around 600,XXX viewers. I'll be generous and say that maybe 700 people at best pirated the game which I will generously bump that number to 700,000 (and yes, I'm aware my math is not adding up here). But Wrestlemania? Not as much of a niche as women's basketball. I happen to enjoy both. But the viewership of Wrestlemania is around 2 million. That's 2 million LEGAL viewers who paid for the event. Now how many illegal viewers were there? I would say more than the number of people who actually paid for it. That's 4-5 million people. That's not even close. Mind you both these events happened on the same night this year. And it's not hard to remember which event was in the headlines the following day. This year I had to make a choice, where normally I wouldn't have had to. Do I watch Wrestlemania, or do I watch a game where my team isn't even playing and I really have no emotional investment in the outcome? If it was still on Tuesday night I would have definitely watched it. My point is, they are forcing many people to make a choice. It's not going to help grow the sport this way.
|
The actual numbers for last year's championship game were as follows:
Average TV viewers 3,827,000
Average streaming 59,000
Total 3,886,000
Peak viewership 5,338,000
And by the way, when you asked the question on the other thread I gave you the site, so I'm not sure where your 600,000 number comes from.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67121 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 12/18/17 9:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
It doesn't matter what the championship game is up against. The sports media is not going to spend any more time than they have to talking about WBB.
_________________ I'm sick and tired of the stories that you always tell
Shakespeare couldn't tell a story that well
See, you're the largest liar that was ever created
You and Pinocchio are probably related
Full of criss-crossed fits, you lie all the time
Your tongue should be embarrassed, you're a threat to mankind
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 756 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
Posted: 12/18/17 10:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
calbearman76 wrote: |
Stonington_QB wrote: |
calbearman76 wrote: |
Second. regarding WrestleMania, you make an interesting point. These two events are both the largest events of the year for niche sports. While within the sports world they are about as diametrically opposed to one another as two events can be, I still believe there is a sizeable number of people who follow both, many of whom would not admit it to their friends in either camp. But as for the size of the two groups, I believe that the number of people that actually watch the women's basketball championship live will be significantly larger than those that watch WrestleMania (at least legally). On the other hand, the number of people that follow the results through social media for WrestleMania will dwarf women's basketball. Indeed while I doubt anyone would do such a poll it would be interesting to know how these dual sports junkies handle the situation, watch one first and then the other on delay (it isn't like other events where you have to worry about the announcers blurting out the results of the other event), watch one and follow the other on social media, or watch both together. |
I would like to disagree heavily about a couple of things here. Yes, they are niche sports. BUT, look at the viewership numbers. In another thread, it was reported that the women's NC game drew somewhere around 600,XXX viewers. I'll be generous and say that maybe 700 people at best pirated the game which I will generously bump that number to 700,000 (and yes, I'm aware my math is not adding up here). But Wrestlemania? Not as much of a niche as women's basketball. I happen to enjoy both. But the viewership of Wrestlemania is around 2 million. That's 2 million LEGAL viewers who paid for the event. Now how many illegal viewers were there? I would say more than the number of people who actually paid for it. That's 4-5 million people. That's not even close. Mind you both these events happened on the same night this year. And it's not hard to remember which event was in the headlines the following day. This year I had to make a choice, where normally I wouldn't have had to. Do I watch Wrestlemania, or do I watch a game where my team isn't even playing and I really have no emotional investment in the outcome? If it was still on Tuesday night I would have definitely watched it. My point is, they are forcing many people to make a choice. It's not going to help grow the sport this way.
|
The actual numbers for last year's championship game were as follows:
Average TV viewers 3,827,000
Average streaming 59,000
Total 3,886,000
Peak viewership 5,338,000
And by the way, when you asked the question on the other thread I gave you the site, so I'm not sure where your 600,000 number comes from. |
Hmmm I stand corrected on that number thank you for clarifying. However, I stand by my point. No need to compete if you don't have to. Tuesday night they had all to themselves. Viewership on the NC was up from last year but still down from 2 years ago. This year there is no conflict, but next year who knows... Also no need to cut down the number of teams unless it's killing them financially IMO. Give the teams a chance.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 Posts: 16382 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
Posted: 12/19/17 10:41 am ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
It doesn't matter what the championship game is up against. The sports media is not going to spend any more time than they have to talking about WBB. |
And yet, they will still give the women's championship more time than they do Wrestlemania.
|
|
|
|