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

Has Debbie Antonelli said one word about
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
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
linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 4354



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/02/20 10:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
It's a simple, appropriate question- why hasn't Antonelli decried the local aspect of 3 of the 4 regionals, as she has done for the past several years?


During tonight's game she continued to focus on UConn's regional placement and how it's about time they had to fly to a regional. Not a peep about the big 3.


ucbart



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 1651
Location: New York


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/03/20 8:05 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
It's a simple, appropriate question- why hasn't Antonelli decried the local aspect of 3 of the 4 regionals, as she has done for the past several years?


During tonight's game she continued to focus on UConn's regional placement and how it's about time they had to fly to a regional. Not a peep about the big 3.


Debbie Anotnelli is the most annoying person in WCBB. I cringe when I turn on a game and she is doing the game.


Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 948
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/03/20 8:43 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Again, it's nothing but pure whataboutism from CT fans. so a game announcer criticizes Team A getting to play close to home year after year after year after year, when no other team ever was given such "homerism" placement on such a huge sample size by the tournament committees, but then when ONE SEASON there are teams B and C and D that are benefitting from the same type of backyard benefit, and CT fans are wondering why that announcer isn't doing the same about them....


Why? It's just one year, not 70% or 80% of the time over a 12-15 year span. It's yelling oranges about apples. And again, the selection processes are done way before anyone knows for sure that Teams A, B, C, or D will even play a role, but again it's not about the Teams, its about the LOCATIONS. Why is Albany and Bridgeport getting so many regional sites year after year??? What the hell do those places have to do with WCBB??

Oh, we know. Connecticut. There's nothing equitable about criticizing the location of Regionals for ONE season - they have to be placed SOMEWHERE - and complaining about the location of Regionals year after year after year. It's just sour grapes from a fanbase.......... Rolling Eyes


Most likely Antonelli isn't griping as hard about this season's Regionals, because they more closely resemble what she wants out of the NCAAT - Regionals being placed somewhere else besides in Albany or Bridgeport every year. The fact that Baylor, Oregon, or South Carolina will benefit is incidental to the issue - they are still the exception of the practice, not the rule. The rule has always been Albany, Bridgeport, and Connecticut. Like it will resume once again starting next season.

And again, Antonelli will have the logical cause to resume criticizing it again starting next season, if she doesn't change her stance...


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12719
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/03/20 9:26 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

As expected from the guy who, more than once, talked shit about how his team would kick UConn's ass, then avoided this site for a month+ when it didn't happen.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.


Last edited by cthskzfn on 03/03/20 12:20 pm; edited 2 times in total
Davis4632



Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 637



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/03/20 10:37 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Conway Gamecock wrote:
Again, it's nothing but pure whataboutism from CT fans. so a game announcer criticizes Team A getting to play close to home year after year after year after year, when no other team ever was given such "homerism" placement on such a huge sample size by the tournament committees, but then when ONE SEASON there are teams B and C and D that are benefitting from the same type of backyard benefit, and CT fans are wondering why that announcer isn't doing the same about them....


Why? It's just one year, not 70% or 80% of the time over a 12-15 year span. It's yelling oranges about apples. And again, the selection processes are done way before anyone knows for sure that Teams A, B, C, or D will even play a role, but again it's not about the Teams, its about the LOCATIONS. Why is Albany and Bridgeport getting so many regional sites year after year??? What the hell do those places have to do with WCBB??

Oh, we know. Connecticut. There's nothing equitable about criticizing the location of Regionals for ONE season - they have to be placed SOMEWHERE - and complaining about the location of Regionals year after year after year. It's just sour grapes from a fanbase.......... Rolling Eyes


Most likely Antonelli isn't griping as hard about this season's Regionals, because they more closely resemble what she wants out of the NCAAT - Regionals being placed somewhere else besides in Albany or Bridgeport every year. The fact that Baylor, Oregon, or South Carolina will benefit is incidental to the issue - they are still the exception of the practice, not the rule. The rule has always been Albany, Bridgeport, and Connecticut. Like it will resume once again starting next season.

And again, Antonelli will have the logical cause to resume criticizing it again starting next season, if she doesn't change her stance...


Great post, but the "rebuttal" is going to either be whatabouts or deflections.


Davis4632



Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 637



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/03/20 10:45 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Double Post.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10288



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/03/20 10:54 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The phrase "follow the money" pretty much completely describes the placement of regionals.

Those who love conspiracies can dig deeper, but really, it's a gamble by the hosts who are bidding that a team near them will qualify. And what better team to gamble with than UConn?



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 948
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/03/20 3:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
As expected from the guy who, more than once, talked shit about how his team would kick UConn's ass, then avoided this site for a month+ when it didn't happen.


So a troll response from you, in response to my on-topic comments? Expected..... Rolling Eyes


Also, while you've chosen to use this troll at me for several years now, care to actually provide evidence of my "more than once" shit talking? I already know the answer. And are you 14 by the way?? Why would a troll poster troll someone else over several years, regarding the same old tired troll about a fan smack talking about another team, on a fanbase message board?? One would think Connecticut never had any smack talk from fans of other teams. But again, show me the evidence.

Really, the "U MAD" efforts have more value than what you devise here.....


NFL1



Joined: 20 Mar 2008
Posts: 127
Location: Ithaca, NY


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/05/20 4:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
you wanna grouse about FF's? None on the West Coast! I'm guessing Vegas will get it at some point.


I've been complaining about this for a LONG time - '99 in San Jose was the last one...though folks I've spoken to with NCAA claim Denver counts as west...to me that is Mountain/Southwest.

I really hope that Portland and Phoenix BOTH are chosen in the next cycle!
Nancy


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10288



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/20 10:33 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

NFL1 wrote:
myrtle wrote:
you wanna grouse about FF's? None on the West Coast! I'm guessing Vegas will get it at some point.


I've been complaining about this for a LONG time - '99 in San Jose was the last one...though folks I've spoken to with NCAA claim Denver counts as west...to me that is Mountain/Southwest.

I really hope that Portland and Phoenix BOTH are chosen in the next cycle!
Nancy


As mentioned, they have to bid, and a FF in L.A., say, or Seattle, would only generate ticket sales if local teams were playing -- and would you want to risk a lot of money on UCLA and USC, say, reaching the Final Four three years from now?

It's not about the NCAA "deciding" -- it's about making it work financially for the NCAA and the host.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
ucbart



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 1651
Location: New York


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/20 12:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
NFL1 wrote:
myrtle wrote:
you wanna grouse about FF's? None on the West Coast! I'm guessing Vegas will get it at some point.


I've been complaining about this for a LONG time - '99 in San Jose was the last one...though folks I've spoken to with NCAA claim Denver counts as west...to me that is Mountain/Southwest.

I really hope that Portland and Phoenix BOTH are chosen in the next cycle!
Nancy


As mentioned, they have to bid, and a FF in L.A., say, or Seattle, would only generate ticket sales if local teams were playing -- and would you want to risk a lot of money on UCLA and USC, say, reaching the Final Four three years from now?

It's not about the NCAA "deciding" -- it's about making it work financially for the NCAA and the host.


The next time Debbie bitches about Albany/Bridgeport getting regionals, would someone remind her of the crowd for the SEMIS of the ACC tourney? There is nobody there.


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 26481



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/20 12:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Debbie did BTW complain about the unfairness factor of regional locations during one of the games yesterday.



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



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 948
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/20 4:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
Debbie did BTW complain about the unfairness factor of regional locations during one of the games yesterday.


I doubt that fact has relevant merit for "some" posters here: so a sports-media personality complains about regionals placement assisting certain programs over and over and over and over, then when the NCAA places regionals that assist OTHER programs for ONE year, these posters gripe that the media personality should now complain about that, to be fair and equitable.

But that is NOT fair and equitable. The complaints have been about the placements going to the same locales so many years in a row, NOT that they are placed somewhere at all. And the NCAA is only doing this one odd year, then is returning to those same tired old locales again starting next year.

Why should Antonelli complain? What has she got to complain about?? That for one year at least, the NCAA actually did what she wanted them to do, and put the regionals somewhere else other than Albany and Bridgeport?

But as I said above, certain posters here are not interested in being objective with their perspectives.....


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12719
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/20 6:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Conway Gamecock wrote:
myrtle wrote:
Debbie did BTW complain about the unfairness factor of regional locations during one of the games yesterday.


I doubt that fact has relevant merit for "some" posters here: so a sports-media personality complains about regionals placement assisting certain programs over and over and over and over, then when the NCAA places regionals that assist OTHER programs for ONE year, these posters gripe that the media personality should now complain about that, to be fair and equitable.

But that is NOT fair and equitable. The complaints have been about the placements going to the same locales so many years in a row, NOT that they are placed somewhere at all. And the NCAA is only doing this one odd year, then is returning to those same tired old locales again starting next year.

Why should Antonelli complain? What has she got to complain about?? That for one year at least, the NCAA actually did what she wanted them to do, and put the regionals somewhere else other than Albany and Bridgeport?

But as I said above, certain posters here are not interested in being objective with their perspectives.....


Some posters here understand consistency, and simply ask it of commentators such as Antonelli, who has been an outspoken critic of the WCB tournament in terms of regionals.

I know there is at least one poster here who couldn't conceive of the idea that I actually am in agreement with Antonelli.

What I won't tolerate is duplicity. If "home " regional games are no good for UConn, then they're no good for Oregon, Baylor, and South Carolina.

Consistency- a simple concept that eludes at least one poster here.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
ucbart



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 1651
Location: New York


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/09/20 7:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Conway Gamecock wrote:
myrtle wrote:
Debbie did BTW complain about the unfairness factor of regional locations during one of the games yesterday.


I doubt that fact has relevant merit for "some" posters here: so a sports-media personality complains about regionals placement assisting certain programs over and over and over and over, then when the NCAA places regionals that assist OTHER programs for ONE year, these posters gripe that the media personality should now complain about that, to be fair and equitable.

But that is NOT fair and equitable. The complaints have been about the placements going to the same locales so many years in a row, NOT that they are placed somewhere at all. And the NCAA is only doing this one odd year, then is returning to those same tired old locales again starting next year.

Why should Antonelli complain? What has she got to complain about?? That for one year at least, the NCAA actually did what she wanted them to do, and put the regionals somewhere else other than Albany and Bridgeport?

But as I said above, certain posters here are not interested in being objective with their perspectives.....


Beat it! I know UCONN has had advantages, but I will say this:

***Other than last year, every year that we were in Albany/Bridgeport, there is no way those UCONN teams weren't making the FF. Sorry, but we could've played on other teams home courts and not had our fans allowed in the building, and we still would've won. Remember, we were bad for the game? That was the complaint about UCONN during those years.

***Debbie, to me, had an axe to grind with UCONN specifically. When you use words like "coddle UCONN" in a broadcast, that's what it is. My bitch is that EVEN this year, her biggest things is "UCONN is going west." She didn't complain that SC, Baylor, and Portland were playing in their backyard, but more on the UCONN bs.

***I think regionals should be in close proximity to campuses and the committee should do their best to put those teams there. In every other women's college sport, home fields/courts are used for "reionals" for crowd purposes....look at volleyball. Those crowds are massive at Sweet 16 and Elite 8's in home gyms. The women's regionals get NOBODY at them if they're totally neutral. They just don't. This is about putting butts in the seats. Soccer is played on the highest teams home fields until the College Cup. The women try to emulate the men's tournament too much and it just doesn't work.

***I like the one or two regional ideas, but how many of those fans are going to travel two weekends in a row? Will there really be that many more people that attend because they can watch all the games? So, me for instance. I live in Syracuse and the regional is in Albany, which is a 2 hour drive. I can drive back and forth each day to the regional semifinals and final. Then the next week, I can plan a trip to the FF.....because I've done this twice already. I know I'm one person, but still. That's a lot of money. I would NEVER be able to fly to Vegas for the S16 & E8, attend the games, come home, and then immediately do it over again the next weekend.

***Listen, I am not mad at all about this season. We've had regional closeness for a long time, we get it back in 2021 & 2022, and I think if this stayed like this, SC and Portland would host regionals OFTEN.....and they deserve to. Those teams puts butts in the seats.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10288



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/09/20 12:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

There has been a long-standing yet unsupported by facts belief that women's basketball regionals could become big money-makers at completely neutral sites, just like the men.

It's simply not true. Women's NCAA basketball requires home teams to fill the seats at regionals, just as it does for conference tournaments.

I dislike the idea of having regionals at home sites, but if you want to sell a lot of tickets, that's what you need to do.

Is it fair? No, though of course getting a high seed so you can host would count as some kind of justification.

Would it be a better atmosphere? No question.

Would the income be greater? Without a doubt.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 948
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/09/20 5:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
There has been a long-standing yet unsupported by facts belief that women's basketball regionals could become big money-makers at completely neutral sites, just like the men.

It's simply not true. Women's NCAA basketball requires home teams to fill the seats at regionals, just as it does for conference tournaments.

I dislike the idea of having regionals at home sites, but if you want to sell a lot of tickets, that's what you need to do.

Is it fair? No, though of course getting a high seed so you can host would count as some kind of justification.

Would it be a better atmosphere? No question.

Would the income be greater? Without a doubt.


What facts support your above belief?? What Antonelli proposes is a central site for the Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight rounds - what the NCAA call the Regionals - at a destination location, as opposed to four separate locations.

This would result in a convergence of realized costs for organization and hosting: instead of costs for four separate sites - 4 venues, 4 sets of hotel accommodations, 4 sets of network broadcast crews and support staffs - there'd be one centralized hub. And with it being a nationally recognized destination location like say, Las Vegas, it would assist in generating fan excitement to travel and attend the games, and make the whole thing a vacation event, so to speak.

Antonelli has also talked a lot about breaking the WCBB sport away from the established system the NCAA uses for national marketing and endorsement of the NCAAT that it chiefly designed for the men's NCAAT, where they rely on endorsements from companies and sponsors that typically do not care about WCBB.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10288



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/20 9:03 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Conway Gamecock wrote:
ClayK wrote:
There has been a long-standing yet unsupported by facts belief that women's basketball regionals could become big money-makers at completely neutral sites, just like the men.

It's simply not true. Women's NCAA basketball requires home teams to fill the seats at regionals, just as it does for conference tournaments.

I dislike the idea of having regionals at home sites, but if you want to sell a lot of tickets, that's what you need to do.

Is it fair? No, though of course getting a high seed so you can host would count as some kind of justification.

Would it be a better atmosphere? No question.

Would the income be greater? Without a doubt.


What facts support your above belief?? What Antonelli proposes is a central site for the Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight rounds - what the NCAA call the Regionals - at a destination location, as opposed to four separate locations.

This would result in a convergence of realized costs for organization and hosting: instead of costs for four separate sites - 4 venues, 4 sets of hotel accommodations, 4 sets of network broadcast crews and support staffs - there'd be one centralized hub. And with it being a nationally recognized destination location like say, Las Vegas, it would assist in generating fan excitement to travel and attend the games, and make the whole thing a vacation event, so to speak.

Antonelli has also talked a lot about breaking the WCBB sport away from the established system the NCAA uses for national marketing and endorsement of the NCAAT that it chiefly designed for the men's NCAAT, where they rely on endorsements from companies and sponsors that typically do not care about WCBB.


Consolidating the regionals into one site -- Las Vegas, say -- makes a lot of sense. There are logistical issues, certainly, but I like this idea.

I don't think, however, that having two or four regionals at neutral sites works for women's basketball. When the NCAA allowed teams to bid for first- and second-round hosting, instead of awarding them to top seeds, attendance plummeted.

Like most sports, attendance is driven by fans of particular teams, not fans of the sport overall. And given travel costs and logistics, women's basketball fans have shown little desire to make travel arrangements on short notice to follow their team to a distant regional.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 60481
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/20 9:22 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The first two rounds should be at eight sites, awarded to the highest seeded teams that win auto-bids. In 2019 the hosts would have been Notre Dame, Baylor, Mississippi State, Connecticut, Stanford, Iowa, DePaul, and South Dakota State.



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12738
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/20 10:36 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
The first two rounds should be at eight sites, awarded to the highest seeded teams that win auto-bids. In 2019 the hosts would have been Notre Dame, Baylor, Mississippi State, Connecticut, Stanford, Iowa, DePaul, and South Dakota State.


I like that! Cool That's a real perk to a fan base.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 948
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/20 3:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Conway Gamecock wrote:
ClayK wrote:
There has been a long-standing yet unsupported by facts belief that women's basketball regionals could become big money-makers at completely neutral sites, just like the men.

It's simply not true. Women's NCAA basketball requires home teams to fill the seats at regionals, just as it does for conference tournaments.

I dislike the idea of having regionals at home sites, but if you want to sell a lot of tickets, that's what you need to do.

Is it fair? No, though of course getting a high seed so you can host would count as some kind of justification.

Would it be a better atmosphere? No question.

Would the income be greater? Without a doubt.


What facts support your above belief?? What Antonelli proposes is a central site for the Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight rounds - what the NCAA call the Regionals - at a destination location, as opposed to four separate locations.

This would result in a convergence of realized costs for organization and hosting: instead of costs for four separate sites - 4 venues, 4 sets of hotel accommodations, 4 sets of network broadcast crews and support staffs - there'd be one centralized hub. And with it being a nationally recognized destination location like say, Las Vegas, it would assist in generating fan excitement to travel and attend the games, and make the whole thing a vacation event, so to speak.

Antonelli has also talked a lot about breaking the WCBB sport away from the established system the NCAA uses for national marketing and endorsement of the NCAAT that it chiefly designed for the men's NCAAT, where they rely on endorsements from companies and sponsors that typically do not care about WCBB.


Consolidating the regionals into one site -- Las Vegas, say -- makes a lot of sense. There are logistical issues, certainly, but I like this idea.

I don't think, however, that having two or four regionals at neutral sites works for women's basketball. When the NCAA allowed teams to bid for first- and second-round hosting, instead of awarding them to top seeds, attendance plummeted.

Like most sports, attendance is driven by fans of particular teams, not fans of the sport overall. And given travel costs and logistics, women's basketball fans have shown little desire to make travel arrangements on short notice to follow their team to a distant regional.


Of course as you know they are called "Regionals" only because of the regions they are located in - if both the SS and EE were played in Vegas, that event would not be called a "regional" anyways, but rather be its own separate event, like the Final Four venue is not called a "regional". Yes, having "regionals" at neutral sites - or in areas outside of their regions - generally is not a good idea, and in fact counters the very purpose of having regionals in the first place.....


linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 4354



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/20 6:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Conway Gamecock wrote:
myrtle wrote:
Debbie did BTW complain about the unfairness factor of regional locations during one of the games yesterday.


I doubt that fact has relevant merit for "some" posters here: so a sports-media personality complains about regionals placement assisting certain programs over and over and over and over, then when the NCAA places regionals that assist OTHER programs for ONE year, these posters gripe that the media personality should now complain about that, to be fair and equitable.

But that is NOT fair and equitable. The complaints have been about the placements going to the same locales so many years in a row, NOT that they are placed somewhere at all. And the NCAA is only doing this one odd year, then is returning to those same tired old locales again starting next year.

Why should Antonelli complain? What has she got to complain about?? That for one year at least, the NCAA actually did what she wanted them to do, and put the regionals somewhere else other than Albany and Bridgeport?

But as I said above, certain posters here are not interested in being objective with their perspectives.....


What's the difference between driving 3 hours and flying 2 hours, given that the flights are charters.
You miss the whole point which is that no matter what the NCAA does some teams are going to benefit. The only issue is who benefits. The only fair answer is that the teams that have performed at a high level all year.
And to be clear, I'm all in favor of holding the 3rd and 4th round games at one site, eliminating all the rules and just creating and using an S-curve based on a fact-based analytic system.


ucbart



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 1651
Location: New York


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/20 7:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
Conway Gamecock wrote:
myrtle wrote:
Debbie did BTW complain about the unfairness factor of regional locations during one of the games yesterday.


I doubt that fact has relevant merit for "some" posters here: so a sports-media personality complains about regionals placement assisting certain programs over and over and over and over, then when the NCAA places regionals that assist OTHER programs for ONE year, these posters gripe that the media personality should now complain about that, to be fair and equitable.

But that is NOT fair and equitable. The complaints have been about the placements going to the same locales so many years in a row, NOT that they are placed somewhere at all. And the NCAA is only doing this one odd year, then is returning to those same tired old locales again starting next year.

Why should Antonelli complain? What has she got to complain about?? That for one year at least, the NCAA actually did what she wanted them to do, and put the regionals somewhere else other than Albany and Bridgeport?

But as I said above, certain posters here are not interested in being objective with their perspectives.....


What's the difference between driving 3 hours and flying 2 hours, given that the flights are charters.
You miss the whole point which is that no matter what the NCAA does some teams are going to benefit. The only issue is who benefits. The only fair answer is that the teams that have performed at a high level all year.
And to be clear, I'm all in favor of holding the 3rd and 4th round games at one site, eliminating all the rules and just creating and using an S-curve based on a fact-based analytic system.


So, if they're all at one site, why not re-seed the tournament?


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 Previous  1, 2
Page 2 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