RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

So where are they going to find 64 teams?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12271



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 10:52 am    ::: So where are they going to find 64 teams? Reply Reply with quote

If the season to date is any indication, I don't see any possibility of there being 64 tournament-worthy teams come March.

The P5 ALL look much shallower than usual. There's no league that can claim 5 or 7 or 9 deserving teams. In some cases (like the B10) they're lucky to find three or four.

The BE, A10, WCC, AAC, CUSA certainly are not rushing to fill the void.

I suppose when conference play starts someone has to win and thus some teams will build gaudy records beating their even worse conference brethren. But this looks like the thinnest season I can remember. Maybe the tournament will end up with lots of parity and upsets and be a lot of fun.

Is my impression completely off base? I kind of hope I'm mistaken here.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55278
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 11:22 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

There never are 64 worthy teams in men's or women's ball.



_________________
He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners
summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 4370
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 12:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Periodic reminder: It's DECEMBER, not March.

You're welcome.



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 9266
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 12:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WCB would do well limiting the field to 16, and even then several teams would suck.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4287
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 12:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
There never are 64 worthy teams in men's or women's ball.


So e-x-t-e-n-s-i-v-e-l-y true.

Perhaps they should limit the tournament to four teams, like football. No poorly attended preliminaries, just a one weekend Final Four.
Joe Foss



Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 3817



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 12:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Although it hasn't happened in 20 years or so, I think the MAC has a chance for an at-large bid. The best candidates look to be either Ball State (8-0, 33 Massey rating) or Central Michigan (7-1, 44 Massey rating). Buffalo (7-1, 51) and Toledo (7-2, 62) aren't far behind, and the league as a whole seems to have more depth than usual, with only two teams outside Massey's top 150. But as summertime blues says, it is pretty early.



_________________
Ohio Bobcats WBB Fan
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12271



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 1:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

summertime blues wrote:
Periodic reminder: It's DECEMBER, not March.

You're welcome.


If by your snarky comment your mean to suggest it's too early to assess teams, I completely disagree. It's not mid November. The reality is that the season is more than a third complete, and the OOC schedule - the opportunity for teams to demonstrate where they fit on the national landscape - is nearly over. We're about to move on to conference play. If a conference is bad (as demonstrated in OOC play), it merely means that bad teams will be beating up on each other.

Take Michigan St as simply a convenient example. In recent years a regular Tourney participant (12 of last 14 years). This year, they don't look very good. They lost the only three "real" games they played, two of them being total beatdowns to two of the top teams, the other a loss to Miami which is similarly a step down from its recent quality.

It doesn't really make Michigan St. any better to now proceed (assuming the best case) to build a good record beating NU, IU, Minn, Purdue, PSU, WI, NW, none of whom has demonstrated they are a quality team.

I think MSU has already demonstrated who they are. It would be unusual for that to change in any meaningful respect between now and selection day regardless of their record in a weak conference.

But, as I said in my initial post, "I suppose when conference play starts someone has to win and thus some teams will build gaudy records beating their even worse conference brethren." So MSU may build a record that makes it look like they belong in the tournament. After all, they have to fill 32 at large bids from somewhere. But I submit that just demonstrates my point that this is one of the thinnest years in memory, and a bunch of MSU-like teams that have proven nothing will end up in the Tournament field.

Think of some of the teams that are well below their usual recent strength. For example, MSU, NU, NW, Miami, UNC, KY, OU, ASU, Stanford, Dayton, GW, Gonzaga, DePaul, etc.

Good chance many of those will still end up in the tournament.

Regarding the MAC, while I would be happy to see them be a two-team league, the reality is that the conference is 3-16 against the RPI top 50. And two of those wins are by Ball St. If Ball St wins the conference, it leaves the remainder currently at 1-16. Again, contrary to the "it's early" theory, there are very very few opportunities left to change that narrative. Now they just get to beat each other, which doesn't prove anything about where they stand in the larger universe.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 1893
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 2:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

64 teams is 64 teams. You can talk about some teams being up or down but in the end there will be 64 that make it, and as has been the case forever the top teams will cruise. Right now these would be my picks:

American 2 (UConn, USF)
ACC 8 (Louisville, Notre Dame, Florida St, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, Duke, Miami, Georgia Tech)
Big 12 5 (Texas, Baylor, W Virginia, Oklahoma St, Kansas St)
Big East 4 (Villanova, DePaul, Marquette, St John's)
Big 10 6 (Ohio St, Maryland, Iowa, Michigan, Rutgers, Michigan St)
Pac 12 7 (Oregon, UCLA, Oregon St, Stanford, California, USC, Arizona St)
SEC 6 (Tennessee, South Carolina, Mississippi St, Missouri, Texas A&M, Georgia)
One Bid Conferences 25
One wild card (upset winner that steals bid)

I suspect that by tournament time the Pac 12 will only get 6, and maybe even 5, and that the SEC, Big 12 and/or the American could each pick up a bid. But regardless, there will be 64 teams that make the tournament, another handful worthy of consideration, and at least one that isn't considered among the top 32 that will wind up in the final 16.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12271



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 3:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
64 teams is 64 teams. You can talk about some teams being up or down but in the end there will be 64 that make it, and as has been the case forever the top teams will cruise. Right now these would be my picks:

American 2 (UConn, USF)
ACC 8 (Louisville, Notre Dame, Florida St, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, Duke, Miami, Georgia Tech)
Big 12 5 (Texas, Baylor, W Virginia, Oklahoma St, Kansas St)
Big East 4 (Villanova, DePaul, Marquette, St John's)
Big 10 6 (Ohio St, Maryland, Iowa, Michigan, Rutgers, Michigan St)
Pac 12 7 (Oregon, UCLA, Oregon St, Stanford, California, USC, Arizona St)
SEC 6 (Tennessee, South Carolina, Mississippi St, Missouri, Texas A&M, Georgia)
One Bid Conferences 25
One wild card (upset winner that steals bid)

I suspect that by tournament time the Pac 12 will only get 6, and maybe even 5, and that the SEC, Big 12 and/or the American could each pick up a bid. But regardless, there will be 64 teams that make the tournament, another handful worthy of consideration, and at least one that isn't considered among the top 32 that will wind up in the final 16.


Well I should thank you for assembling all the proof necessary to demonstrate my point. There are at least 2 or 3 in nearly every one of those conference lists that have no business being anywhere near the tournament.

But because, as you say, there will be 64 teams, a bunch of totally undeserving teams will get in. A lot more than usual. It's a weak year.

Where I disagree is that there will be a single team "worthy of consideration" that gets left out. There may be some teams left out who are essentially equal to other teams who are also unworthy but sneak in, but if you don't make it in this year, you have nobody to blame but yourself and have nothing to whine about.


FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 621



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 4:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

P5 conference play is going to help teams with young players improve, especially if their OOC schedule was laden with cupcakes.


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15390
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 7:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm a Big East fan and I don't think my conference deserves more than two bids. Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe three.



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 1893
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 9:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
I'm a Big East fan and I don't think my conference deserves more than two bids. Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe three.


The Big East is very much like the Pac 12 right now in that they may be getting an extra team just because of the way the teams near the bubble fall. But for now I can justify 4. Villanova is undefeated with a win over Duke, IN. St John's has only two losses to South Carolina and USF, both top 25 teams, and have a win on the road at Miami. IN. DePaul has an OT loss to FGCU, a loss to Northern Colorado and a loss to UConn, but they are picked to finish second in the conference. Borderline, but if they play up to expectations in conference they squeak in. Marquette has lost 4 games. When they opened up with a loss at New Mexico it was seen as a bad loss, but New Mexico is undefeated and on the edge of the top 25. Since then they've lost in OT to Tennessee, @Green Bay and @Michigan. Again if they play up to expectations in conference they get in. On the other hand if Butler or Creighton pull some upsets on these top 4 teams it is certainly possible that the conference will drop to 3. But this year the conference is clearly the sixth best conference, closer to the top 5 than to the American at seventh.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12271



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 9:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
I'm a Big East fan and I don't think my conference deserves more than two bids. Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe three.


Serious question. Who's the second?

There's not likely to be anyone other than Nova with an attractive resume come March.

This is a perfect example of my point. All the conferences seem unusually thin. Teams are going to make it for no reason other than that there are 32 at large slots that need to be filled. The Big East will get more than one, but it will likely be hard to find any team other than Villanova that would really be offensive to omit, except in comparison to other undeserving teams from other conferences that will get in.

I just look around and find this to be an exceptionally weak year beneath a very thin veneer at the top. Just no depth. We always talk about how stratified WCBB is, but even considering that, this year seems extreme to me. And it's across the board, not just one or two conferences.


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15390
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/17 10:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Queenie wrote:
I'm a Big East fan and I don't think my conference deserves more than two bids. Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe three.


Serious question. Who's the second?

There's not likely to be anyone other than Nova with an attractive resume come March.

This is a perfect example of my point. All the conferences seem unusually thin. Teams are going to make it for no reason other than that there are 32 at large slots that need to be filled. The Big East will get more than one, but it will likely be hard to find any team other than Villanova that would really be offensive to omit, except in comparison to other undeserving teams from other conferences that will get in.

I just look around and find this to be an exceptionally weak year beneath a very thin veneer at the top. Just no depth. We always talk about how stratified WCBB is, but even considering that, this year seems extreme to me. And it's across the board, not just one or two conferences.


I think much will depend on the conference tournament. DePaul is shakier than usual this year, but they have tradition behind them, and we all know how much the committee loves tradition. They've also got the conference tournament back again (pet peeve: can we maybe get it on the East Coast again at some point, on account of this being the Big East an' all?).

Villanova has that very solid win over Duke; that might be enough.

St. John's hasn't done anything indefensible. Yet. Would have loved to beat South Florida, though.

I suspect Marquette will recover in conference play.

(I would have also boosted Seton Hall, but that epic fail fourth quarter against Rutgers has me negative on them right now. If they beat UCLA, though...)

So I can see two bids, or a one-plus-one if someone less than expected wins the conference tournament while DePaul or someone more secure as an at-large wins the regular season title.

I'm not saying you're wrong about the general shallowness of competition this year- I've noticed it too. A handful of schools are at the top, which is down from the multiple handfuls of the last couple of years, the absolute bottom is a steaming mess, and the middle seems to be sinking to the bottom.

(no, I must resist making an economic comparison here, let's not derail this thread into politics)



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
UK1996



Joined: 03 Sep 2015
Posts: 294



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/17 2:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

summertime blues wrote:
Periodic reminder: It's DECEMBER, not March.

You're welcome.

Couldn't agree more, how you are playing in March is much more important than how you play in December. There are several young teams that will get better throughout the year.


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15390
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/17 10:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
St. John's hasn't done anything indefensible. Yet.


welp



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 21210



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/17 10:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It always comes down to pulling a few names out of the random hat. Maybe I'll vote for your team if you vote for mine...



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12271



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/17 11:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
Queenie wrote:
St. John's hasn't done anything indefensible. Yet.


welp



Soooooooooo, where are they going to find 64 teams?


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15390
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 12:22 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Queenie wrote:
Queenie wrote:
St. John's hasn't done anything indefensible. Yet.


welp



Soooooooooo, where are they going to find 64 teams?


Have you checked the couch cushions?



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12271



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 12:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Queenie wrote:
Queenie wrote:
St. John's hasn't done anything indefensible. Yet.


welp



Soooooooooo, where are they going to find 64 teams?


Have you checked the couch cushions?


Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8514



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 10:53 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I think one of the things we're seeing here is the slow hollowing-out of the talent at the lower levels. Volleyball especially is taking away top-shelf athletes, and soccer (played in the winter in California) is not far behind.

The lifeblood of any sport is the people who play it, and girls' basketball isn't the automatic default for elite athletes that it once was.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
TotalCardinalMove



Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1030



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 11:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Who cares? It’s December. A lot of teams and players will more than likely be playing a lot differently come tournmant time. Regardless, they’ll find 64 teams.


Nixtreefan



Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 1383



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 11:57 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Be prepared for some wrath Laughing I think someone tried that approach above but yes.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12271



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 12:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I get a chuckle every time someone responds "they'll find 64 teams". Sure they will. There are over 300 teams. They'll pick some warm bodies to fill up the bracket. As has been acknowledged several times already.

Which of course has nothing to do with the point of the thread which is that there won't be 64 TOURNAMENT-WORTHY teams. And absent the sudden appearance of Dumbledore and his magic wand, that's not going to change between now and March.

Why raising that reality for discussion evidently offends some people escapes me. If you don't care, then why respond at all?


TotalCardinalMove



Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1030



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 12:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
I get a chuckle every time someone responds "they'll find 64 teams". Sure they will. There are over 300 teams. They'll pick some warm bodies to fill up the bracket. As has been acknowledged several times already.

Which of course has nothing to do with the point of the thread which is that there won't be 64 TOURNAMENT-WORTHY teams. And absent the sudden appearance of Dumbledore and his magic wand, that's not going to change between now and March.

Why raising that reality for discussion evidently offends some people escapes me. If you don't care, then why respond at all?


When has there ever been 64 TOURNAMENT-WORTHY teams? Doesn’t the “bubble” exist every season? It’s a moot point anyway, regardless of who gets in, it will likely be the usual teams competiting at the end anyway.


PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14008
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 1:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I guess I don't understand what "tournament-worthy" is supposed to mean.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12271



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 2:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 55278
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 2:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.



_________________
He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners
mzonefan



Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 2876
Location: Ann Arbor, MI


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 3:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 5740



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 3:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 621



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 4:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 2239
Location: Connecticut


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 9:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 15390
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/13/17 9:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 621



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/14/17 9:56 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 8514



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/14/17 10:39 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 55278
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/14/17 10:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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



_________________
He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 307
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/14/17 4:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 4287
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/14/17 6:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 1893
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/14/17 7:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 5740



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/15/17 2:09 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 307
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/18/17 9:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 14008
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/18/17 11:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 2213
Location: Indiana


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/18/17 3:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 1893
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/18/17 5:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 105



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/18/17 8:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

For what it's worth, WrestleMania is April 8th, a week after the NCAA Championship.


Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 307
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/18/17 8:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 1893
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/18/17 9:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 55278
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/18/17 9:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.



_________________
He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 307
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/18/17 10:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 14008
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/19/17 10:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin