View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66916 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 03/15/18 10:36 am ::: How The NCAA Women's Basketball Selection Problem Undermines |
Reply |
|
https://www.thedailystampede.com/2018/3/13/17114678/the-ncaa-womens-basketball-selection-problem-and-how-it-undermines
Quote: |
By suppressing up-and-coming women's teams and then not generating the buzz for mid-majors that the men's media and leadership does, they contribute to the narrative that there are only a few good teams. As a result, a high school girl who may be a D1 athlete, but may not be good enough to play at UConn or Notre Dame, will be much more easily discouraged than a high school boy who isn't good enough to play for Kentucky or Duke. |
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009 Posts: 5155 Location: Carson City
Back to top |
Posted: 03/15/18 12:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Thanks for posting the article.
While I agree with some of the sentiments regarding how women's basketball is covered and that there isn't as much care taken in setting the brackets, his examples are completely flawed. This is because he relies on RPI to make his case for establishing bias. USF is a good team, but it is hard to make a credible case for them as a top 4 seed other than their RPI. Their Strength of Schedule is 23, but only because they lost to UConn three times by a combined 96 points. Without those games their SOS would be roughly 75. USF essentially played a season of 7 representative games and went 5-2. Wins over Ohio St(H), LSU(H), St John's(H), Dayton(N), George Washington(A), and losses to Oklahoma(A) and Michigan St(N). They also beat an overrated UCF team 3 times but lost to Wichita St. Worthy of a 6 seed, maybe a 5, but not a 4.
|
|
CBiebel
Joined: 23 Dec 2004 Posts: 1055 Location: PA
Back to top |
Posted: 03/15/18 1:22 pm ::: Re: How The NCAA Women's Basketball Selection Problem Underm |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
https://www.thedailystampede.com/2018/3/13/17114678/the-ncaa-womens-basketball-selection-problem-and-how-it-undermines
Quote: |
By suppressing up-and-coming women's teams and then not generating the buzz for mid-majors that the men's media and leadership does, they contribute to the narrative that there are only a few good teams. As a result, a high school girl who may be a D1 athlete, but may not be good enough to play at UConn or Notre Dame, will be much more easily discouraged than a high school boy who isn't good enough to play for Kentucky or Duke. |
|
But if they gave USF a #4 seed, they couldn't put them in UConn's region!
One minor nit on his article. When discussing the "G5 teams moved down" towards the end, he uses the example of Georgetown, but the Big East at that time was a power conference.
I'm well aware of the committee's blindness for teams on the rise. It's not just a matter of mid-majors, but also teams that aren't considered "power teams" yet.
I remember back in 1999 when ND was trying to get a hosting spot. ND had been in the top 10 all year. Niele Ivey went down with an ACL in the BET Semis, and ND ended up with a 5 seed. All the talk at that time was that ND lost the hosting seed because of that injury. However, I ran into a guy I knew online, and he basically said, "The injury really didn't matter. They weren't going to give it to ND even before that."
I was reminded of his comments the following year when an article in the SB Tribune mentioned a NCAA rep visiting ND to check out the facilities to see if ND could host. It seems that when a school hasn't hosted much before, they send a rep to check out the school's facilities to see if they have enough infrastructure to handle hosting. The thing is, though, that they never sent anyone to check out ND's facilities in 1999! That suggests that what my friend had told me had some weight to it. Also, the SB Trib article suggested that the NCAA official seemed surprised at ND's facilities and how well they could hand hosting (Gee, they have Football games that have 80,000 people watching! Duh!)
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008 Posts: 32335
Back to top |
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004 Posts: 12851 Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
Posted: 03/15/18 5:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
A D1-level player will be discouraged from trying to get a basketball scholarship because Dayton isn't a household name in WCB?
What?
I do agree that the SelCom (and ESPN) mickey mouse enough of the game to warrant disdain.
_________________ Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11148
Back to top |
Posted: 03/16/18 9:29 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I don't know how much contact the writer has with high school basketball, but my experience would suggest that girls who are the D-1 level have committed to the game by middle school and are happy to get a scholarship anywhere.
It's also important to remember that the vast majority of high school players are not fans of women's basketball and have no idea about the seeding. In fact, few can name the national champion and even fewer the WNBA champion. These are not issues for girls the way they are for boys.
The committee may do a poor job, etc., but its impact on the entire sport is not that great -- underseeding teams like USF has little impact because history has made it pretty clear teams like that are not going to win the national title, or even make the Final Four.
The reason is that the talent pool on the women's side is not nearly as deep as it is on the men's side so the chances of upsets are not as great, no matter how you do the seeding. (And the shallower talent pool has nothing to do with the way the NCAA tournament is structured.)
It's good that people like the writer care, and that they are fired up enough to rant, but even such things as officiating are not critical issues (though I could go on a rant myself about the way officials are selected and promoted).
I think the biggest thing that could help the sport would be to find a way to have women become fans of women's basketball, but as Yogi Berra pointed out, if the fans don't want to come, you can't stop them.
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 Posts: 16359 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
Posted: 03/16/18 9:35 am ::: Re: How The NCAA Women's Basketball Selection Problem Underm |
Reply |
|
CBiebel wrote: |
pilight wrote: |
https://www.thedailystampede.com/2018/3/13/17114678/the-ncaa-womens-basketball-selection-problem-and-how-it-undermines
Quote: |
By suppressing up-and-coming women's teams and then not generating the buzz for mid-majors that the men's media and leadership does, they contribute to the narrative that there are only a few good teams. As a result, a high school girl who may be a D1 athlete, but may not be good enough to play at UConn or Notre Dame, will be much more easily discouraged than a high school boy who isn't good enough to play for Kentucky or Duke. |
|
But if they gave USF a #4 seed, they couldn't put them in UConn's region!
One minor nit on his article. When discussing the "G5 teams moved down" towards the end, he uses the example of Georgetown, but the Big East at that time was a power conference.
I'm well aware of the committee's blindness for teams on the rise. It's not just a matter of mid-majors, but also teams that aren't considered "power teams" yet.
I remember back in 1999 when ND was trying to get a hosting spot. ND had been in the top 10 all year. Niele Ivey went down with an ACL in the BET Semis, and ND ended up with a 5 seed. All the talk at that time was that ND lost the hosting seed because of that injury. However, I ran into a guy I knew online, and he basically said, "The injury really didn't matter. They weren't going to give it to ND even before that."
I was reminded of his comments the following year when an article in the SB Tribune mentioned a NCAA rep visiting ND to check out the facilities to see if ND could host. It seems that when a school hasn't hosted much before, they send a rep to check out the school's facilities to see if they have enough infrastructure to handle hosting. The thing is, though, that they never sent anyone to check out ND's facilities in 1999! That suggests that what my friend had told me had some weight to it. Also, the SB Trib article suggested that the NCAA official seemed surprised at ND's facilities and how well they could hand hosting (Gee, they have Football games that have 80,000 people watching! Duh!) |
Simiarly, there were a couple of years (2000) springs to mind, when I think Purdue was shifted from a 5 to a 4 so that they could host. This is when they were still a top program and had very good attendance. I remember, 5-seed Oklahoma beat them in West Lafayette that year in a game that really should have been played in Norman.
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010 Posts: 2313 Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
Posted: 03/17/18 8:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
With the benefit of hindsight, I'm not 100% sure USF was indeed worthy of the 4 seed this guy wanted them to get.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013 Posts: 7842 Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
Posted: 03/18/18 12:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
There are times I think that WBB in particular needs to go to a D-I, D-IA system like football. It probably wouldn't hurt the men's game either. It would eliminate the ridiculous blowouts like UConn-St. Francis, make the DI tournament more equal and efficient (while still prone to upsets), and give the mids a tourney where they wouldn't get blown out in the first or second round. And don't tell me the WNIT is that, because it isn't. Conferences could decide what level they wanted to play at. I suspect the MAC might want to go D-I, and I'm sure the BEAST would. Somebody other than the AAC might have to take in UConn, though....
_________________ 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.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004 Posts: 12851 Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
|
Coyotes
Joined: 28 Jan 2018 Posts: 1467
Back to top |
Posted: 03/18/18 2:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
cthskzfn wrote: |
summertime blues wrote: |
There are times I think that WBB in particular needs to go to a D-I, D-IA system like football. ...It would eliminate the ridiculous blowouts like UConn-St. Francis, |
I remember you had the same reaction last year, after Baylor demolished Texas Southern by 89, still the largest MOV in NCAAWT history. |
I mean, there already is D-1, D-II, D-III and NAIA among others. If we went to a separate division as proposed, we wouldn't get upsets like FGCU, Central Michigan, and Buffalo.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66916 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 03/18/18 2:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
summertime blues wrote: |
There are times I think that WBB in particular needs to go to a D-I, D-IA system like football. It probably wouldn't hurt the men's game either. It would eliminate the ridiculous blowouts like UConn-St. Francis, make the DI tournament more equal and efficient (while still prone to upsets), and give the mids a tourney where they wouldn't get blown out in the first or second round. And don't tell me the WNIT is that, because it isn't. Conferences could decide what level they wanted to play at. I suspect the MAC might want to go D-I, and I'm sure the BEAST would. Somebody other than the AAC might have to take in UConn, though.... |
The NCAA should really abandon the current three division structure in favor of a promotion/relegation plan similar to European soccer leagues. There are about 1100 NCAA member schools, so the most highly participated in sports would have a 10 or 11 level pyramid.
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009 Posts: 5155 Location: Carson City
Back to top |
Posted: 03/18/18 4:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The biggest problem with the imbalance in women's basketball is at the top. If you look at the Sagarin rating system there is basically an 80 point difference between the number 1 team (Connecticut) and the number 349 team (Winthrop) in Division 1. (That probably understates the imbalance because teams tend to ease off at a certain point so point based ratings can become biased by coaching philosophies.) If you divide the teams by 20 point groups, you get 7 teams in group 1, 70 in group 2, 199 in group 3 and 73 in group 4.
The structure of college athletics is such that you will not be able to break up conferences. There are 20 conferences with at least 1 team in groups 1 or 2 and there 11 conferences with at least 2 teams. So even though it may be desirable to eliminate these known blowouts, trying to segment the teams is not the answer.
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011 Posts: 1273
Back to top |
Posted: 03/19/18 8:27 am ::: |
Reply |
|
The D1, D1-A system, or the promotion/relegation plan as used in Europe both intriguing but it seems to me that conference alignments which are important (maybe too important) would make that difficult.
If the goal is to improve the competitiveness of the tournament as opposed to worrying about the overall regular-season, I put together a proposal to use a double bye system as was used in the old Big East postseason conference tournament.
That would eliminate the UConn St. Francis blowouts, create many more competitive games and many more potential upsets. It would require one extra round but I think that can be easily accommodated.
I propose this before and would be interested in critical feedback — so far the only negative feedback I've heard is "that's not the way we do it" which doesn't sound like a solid argument.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9624
Back to top |
Posted: 03/19/18 10:09 am ::: |
Reply |
|
My complaint is with ESPN. They consider the best first round games the ones with the highest seed playing.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66916 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 03/19/18 10:17 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Phil wrote: |
I propose this before and would be interested in critical feedback — so far the only negative feedback I've heard is "that's not the way we do it" which doesn't sound like a solid argument. |
In conference play the byes are earned. Finish first and you get the bye. Top seeds in the NCAAs are often political. People whine about seeds now when all it affects is your path to the title. Ultimately teams still have to win six games regardless of where they're seeded. You're proposing the committee be in charge of giving some teams an actual advantage. That's asking for favoritism, cronyism, and corruption (to say nothing of the committee's questionable competence in the first place).
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011 Posts: 1273
Back to top |
Posted: 03/19/18 1:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I'm not sure I am catching your point.
I understand the challenges of seeding — I have participated in discussions and criticisms of the seeding process. Using a double by system doesn't change the need to do seeding. In fact, I think the process would be virtually identical with the minor exception that the distinction between eight and nine seed which is almost irrelevant under the current situation, becomes more important.
The seeding system by definition give some teams an actual advantage. Did you mean to say that a double bye system would create more of an advantage for some teams? If so can you give an example?
If you simply mean that some teams would have to win seven games to win the national championship which would be a burden, my response is that those teams are not remotely able to make it to the final game so worrying about that is sort of like worrying that USF might meet UConn prior to the final four — a theoretical, but not a practical concern.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66916 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 03/19/18 4:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Phil wrote: |
I'm not sure I am catching your point.
I understand the challenges of seeding — I have participated in discussions and criticisms of the seeding process. Using a double by system doesn't change the need to do seeding. In fact, I think the process would be virtually identical with the minor exception that the distinction between eight and nine seed which is almost irrelevant under the current situation, becomes more important.
The seeding system by definition give some teams an actual advantage. Did you mean to say that a double bye system would create more of an advantage for some teams? If so can you give an example?
If you simply mean that some teams would have to win seven games to win the national championship which would be a burden, my response is that those teams are not remotely able to make it to the final game so worrying about that is sort of like worrying that USF might meet UConn prior to the final four — a theoretical, but not a practical concern. |
The major difference will be between a #4 and a #5 seed. That's a big advantage now because of home court, adding a second bye for top four seeds makes it even bigger.
Not to mention, you haven't addressed where the early games will get played. If we persist with the top four hosting, how much draw will games get if the fans know they'll only get to see the home team once, on the final day of the sub-regional? You really think Baylor fans will show up to see Northern Colorado vs Grambling?
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
|
|