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

Dominance bad for the game?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
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
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11102



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/13/14 8:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

leelyn wrote:
make ND or Uconn travel clear across the country and then see how they hold up....the truth is the womens NCAA really doesn't want other teams....they are happy with their 4-5 teams......and who the hell cares about Green Bay or Gonzaga or South Dakota anyway? /sarcasm/

if they cared to increase the fan base country wide, they would be open to more than just the same old team playing in Storrs Conn or ND playing in South Bend ...


An interesting angle ... did you see the Ackerman report?

First, I think it's important to define "women's NCAA" here. Who is that exactly? Is it the official NCAA committee on women's basketball?

And to say they "don't want" other teams is unclear to me. Does that mean they actively discourage other teams by punishing them in brackets? If so, how does that message get passed on to the selection committee? Is there a meeting? A memo?

My impression would be rather that they don't know how to open it up, or to replicate the depth of the men's field. I think the people running the NCAA, and individual college programs, would love to see more teams be successful, because then everyone makes more money (if nothing else). I don't see a rationale to be "happy with four or five teams", though maybe I'm missing something.

In the end, I think the Ackerman report is a good place to start any discussion of why there isn't more depth of quality competition in the women's game, and also look at why participating in basketball for girls is going steadily down in high school while volleyball, soccer, lacrosse and water polo are on the rise.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1255



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/13/14 8:52 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

leelyn wrote:
make ND or Uconn travel clear across the country and then see how they hold up....the truth is the womens NCAA really doesn't want other teams....they are happy with their 4-5 teams......and who the hell cares about Green Bay or Gonzaga or South Dakota anyway? /sarcasm/

if they cared to increase the fan base country wide, they would be open to more than just the same old team playing in Storrs Conn or ND playing in South Bend ...


Notre Dame didn't have to travel far, but the NCAA has agreed that regionals at home courts was a mistake, and will not do that again.

That said, the geographical rule is unlikely to change, which means top rated teams are likely to stay reasonably near home. This is driven by economics, not a desire to keep the same teams at the top.

Of the 89 championships run by the NCAA the Women's Basketball Tournament loses the most money, even after the cost savings measures of the geography rule. Do you think the NCAA should ignore financial considerations?


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/13/14 8:56 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Phil wrote:
Do you think the NCAA should ignore financial considerations?


The NCAA is a non-profit organization, so it should not be the #1 priority



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/13/14 9:46 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Phil wrote:
Do you think the NCAA should ignore financial considerations?


The NCAA is a non-profit organization, so it should not be the #1 priority


Obviously there are limits here, but I would agree.

In terms of athlete participation, people in seats and eyeballs on TV, the women's tournament probably is one of the top 5 in every category (and with the change to top-4 hosts for the first two rounds next year, it could move up in attendance). That's pretty important.


geeceem



Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 123



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/13/14 10:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Phil wrote:
Do you think the NCAA should ignore financial considerations?


The NCAA is a non-profit organization, so it should not be the #1 priority


Maybe I'm missing the point here, or maybe I'm just old and cynical, but the fact that the NCAA itself is a non-profit seems to ignore the 800 lb. gorillas in the room: the universities whose revenue streams are the driving force behind their decisions regarding conferences and the NCAA.

The whole reason for the Ackerman report is concern over the declining return on investment in the women's game. Costs are rising and revenue is declining. Increasing parity in the women's game is only one of several projected strategies to achieve the goal of enhancing the revenue stream.

Maryland is going to the Big Ten because they'll get more football money. That's it; that's the list. The other sports are secondary at Maryland--and many other schools.




Last edited by geeceem on 04/13/14 10:36 am; edited 1 time in total
Happycappie25



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 4174
Location: QUEENS!!!!


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/13/14 10:34 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The NCAA is working to resolve some of the issues by going to top 4 seeds.

I do think things are getting better just under the surface. There were more close calls and upsets in round 1 than normal (Carolina's E8 run took a Pete Maravich shot to avoid being upset by Martin) And I think Margin aside from Uconn and ND was inflated due to fouls this year. Both in trips to the line and teams who were bringing strong pressure being forced back due to players in foul trouble. (Uconn BYU comes to mind as does St John's Tennessee.)

You did have a 12 in the 16 and who did hang with Uconn for an impressive 28 minutes.

Also in the regular season you had a true battle for the last 2 #1 seeds...the issue was no one was beating Uconn or ND and that IS a problem.

I can be a Mrs. Kimborough and point out Uconn's lack of depth and the fact that their class is very good but not #1 the last 2 years so there's hope and if they do run it Credit should be given to Geno where it's due. I can also bring up concerns about the AAC eroding RPI and the fact that Uconn did do it with only 6-7 on the floor most nights.

But the issue is that 6 players were lighting up even #2 in the country...that's not good.

The thing is below Uconn and ND we had some exiting close basketball...there were some good conference races, some thrillers and of course Baylor Kentucky. There IS movement toward Parity.

I think the issue is LESS, oh Uconn is too dominant, break them up and more, LOOK there are quality teams with good talent under them, see a different game.

the Fix there is more exposure...Scoring averages (and it's an up down I admit) are getting closer to the Men, FG% has been helped by the new rules although the games are choppier thanks to whistles and that needs to be looked at.

I would like to see TV games not be a forced booking of Uconn or ND...Tennessee, I'll live with at this point. I'm not saying air I dunno New Orleans Grambling LOL but I am saying, Baylor Kentucky should have been on ESPNU at LEAST, 2 top 10 teams...This is how Gavitt made the Big East dominant in the 80s, wanna show the big games, have to make room for the small games ratings be damned. It was a competitive advantage before the other conferences wised up in the 90s and we got the Men's game you're all familiar with. Some version of this needs to be in play. You're already seeing it a little with BTN, where Big 10 schools are evening up or at least attempting to invest to get more TV games.

The gavitt rule works even if it means more partners, so be it (But Internet is NOT television PERIOD) I wanna see a deal that says Want Uconn ND on ESPN1 on Monday, Great, Put Maryland NC State on ESPN2 on Tuesday and Rutgers Seton Hall on ESPN U on Saturday Noon.

If that has to instead be FOX or a new partner like CBSSN So be it...I'm not married to ESPN...since ratings tanked when none of the Big Schools made it in 2005, All I've seen is ESPN harp about Uconn endlessly. Even in games when Uconn isn't playing...THAT causes disconnect and THAT is bad for the game...If ESPN loses the tourney to FS1 I really can't feel bad...I really can't



_________________
"Leave it to the NCAA women's basketball committee to turn a glass slipper into glass ceiling" Graham Hays
Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1255



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/13/14 10:53 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Phil wrote:
Do you think the NCAA should ignore financial considerations?


The NCAA is a non-profit organization, so it should not be the #1 priority


I'm frankly stunned by this response.

Non-profit is not a synonym for "OK to be financially irresponsible".

I have noticed an odd tendency of some contributors to decry the fact the wbb is a money-loser for many schools. True, but misses the point. No one asks if the chess club is making money for the school, or the band, or the a capella club or the robotics team or the debate team or a host of other school organizations, so why so much emphasis on the bottom line of wbb?

That said, no non-profit organization allocates money for a project and tells the recipient to blow it on whatever they choose, with no need to be fiscally responsible (one hopes). Just because someone is non-profit, it doesn't mean that there is no interest in providing a lot of bang for the buck, to explore options to deliver a quality product at a reasonable cost.


The decision to allow schools to host regionals was rooted in a desire to cut costs,a ad I agree it was a bad decision.

The rationale for allowing geography to be a consideration in the tournament selection process was also rooted in fiscal responsibility, and I think that was a prudent move. Do you disagree?


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/13/14 10:54 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

geeceem wrote:
pilight wrote:
Phil wrote:
Do you think the NCAA should ignore financial considerations?


The NCAA is a non-profit organization, so it should not be the #1 priority


Maybe I'm missing the point here, or maybe I'm just old and cynical, but the fact that the NCAA itself is a non-profit seems to ignore the 800 lb. gorillas in the room: the universities whose revenue streams are the driving force behind their decisions regarding conferences and the NCAA.


Almost all of the NCAA member universities are also non-profits. Only one D-I school (Grand Canyon University) is a for profit enterprise.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/13/14 10:57 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Phil wrote:
pilight wrote:
Phil wrote:
Do you think the NCAA should ignore financial considerations?


The NCAA is a non-profit organization, so it should not be the #1 priority


I'm frankly stunned by this response.

Non-profit is not a synonym for "OK to be financially irresponsible".


No one is saying financial considerations should be ignored, only that they should not be the overriding concern.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
Rock Hard



Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Posts: 5348
Location: Chocolate Paradise


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/13/14 11:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

For a long time Tennessee dominated women's college basketball under the helm of Summit. When dementia ended her career it ended Tennessee's dominance. The same thing will happen at UCONN. When Geno decides to retire or move on to other adventures then UCONN will cease to dominate women's basketball.



_________________
You can win, as long as you keep your head to the SKY! Be OPTIMISTIC!
Happycappie25



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 4174
Location: QUEENS!!!!


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/13/14 11:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Pat is a good comparison but not quite the same, she lost in the final 4 a good 5 times before and won close games and lost games and won national titles off the #1 seed (Her most famous title was as a 10 loss team)...Also her real era of being 1a to Geno's 1 ended when Parker graduated...but that's to be expected...it's a good example but not like Geno where the issue is he's even beating #2 by 20 points on a regular basis



_________________
"Leave it to the NCAA women's basketball committee to turn a glass slipper into glass ceiling" Graham Hays
geeceem



Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 123



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/13/14 12:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:

Almost all of the NCAA member universities are also non-profits. Only one D-I school (Grand Canyon University) is a for profit enterprise.


It's irrelevant, alas. There is a misconception about non-profits: they are indeed allowed to make a profit. The big difference between for-profits and non-profits is that non-profits cannot distribute their profits back to owners/shareholders; rather, they must roll them back into their organization and its operations. But make no mistake: there is no penalty for non-profits when income exceeds expenditures.

For a lot of D-1 schools, football generates major revenues--in fact, I'd guess that Alabama and Texas alone probably generate close to a quarter of a billion dollars in income. Annually. That kind of money frees up the university to use the rest of its budget elsewhere.

But that kind of money also establishes a de facto standard by which other athletic programs are evaluated. (It also distorts everything: the Big East was a brilliant basketball conference with all the competitiveness and parity you could ask for. Football money destroyed it.)

Someone asked about the chess club, etc. The question we pay bean counters to ask is "How much are we spending on X and how much are we getting in return?" The answer regarding all those small groups like chess clubs is that a university typically spends nothing or next to nothing on them, so they don't really care--or that those groups are funded from different, non-athletic programs for which the accountabilities are different.

Just about two years ago, U of Maryland cut seven intercollegiate sports from their athletic program--not because they weren't competitive, but because they weren't able to generate enough income. The university set explicit financial goals for them that they were unable to meet, so they were cut. (The shadow reason here is that Maryland's football program has been running at a deficit, and the University can't afford to make up the difference for the football program. Something had to give, so seven unprofitable non-football programs got cut. The whole reason for going to the Big Ten is that the Big Ten's football money will cover the deficit in Maryland's football program. No other program matters.)


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/13/14 12:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

My wife runs a non-profit and I was the treasurer of a different non-profit for six years. It's absolutely true that you look at what makes money and what doesn't, but the real bottom line is that your goal should be to support your mission, recognizing that a lot, often most, of your activities will lose money. The NCAA actually is a lot like the non-profit where I was treasurer, in that there's one big event that more or less supports the rest. That's really not unusual. So, saying that the women's tournament loses money is not that meaningful.


geeceem



Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 123



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/13/14 1:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
My wife runs a non-profit and I was the treasurer of a different non-profit for six years. It's absolutely true that you look at what makes money and what doesn't, but the real bottom line is that your goal should be to support your mission, recognizing that a lot, often most, of your activities will lose money. The NCAA actually is a lot like the non-profit where I was treasurer, in that there's one big event that more or less supports the rest.


I'd say that the biggest difference is that the NCAA was organized by and for the universities that are its members. It's not really independent; what it does is act as a sort of agent/clearinghouse for the members for certain activities. It negotiates some TV contracts and provides oversight for some tournaments, etc.--note well the absence of a championship tournament in D-1 football.

College athletic programs--meaning football--do have revenues beyond those generated by the NCAA. Ticket sales, donations, and bowl participation earnings are all outside the financial structures of the NCAA. The monies these activities generate go directly to the athletic departments of the individual universities, e.g., the BCS bowl games money is independent of the NCAA.

The top ten D-1 football programs alone generate more revenue than the NCAA's entire annual budget.

In essence, the NCAA is the servant of the institutions that make it up--and, as is usually the case in such situations, the golden rule applies: them what's got the gold make the rules.


geeceem



Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 123



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/13/14 1:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Sorry to be on a high horse about this, but it angers me to see how college athletics has been turned into a huge money-making machine at the expense of the kids under the pretense of educating them. Every time I hear the carefully-calibrated term "student-athlete", I want to hit somebody in the face with a cream pie.

One of the reasons I like WBB at the college level is because there is still a lot of amateur spirit here: these women play because they love the game. I'm not a Tarheel fan, but I was nevertheless quite disappointed to see their WBB team included in the allegations of academic fraud in the UNC athletic department. Football led the way, of course...


summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7745
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/13/14 4:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Phil wrote:
Do you think the NCAA should ignore financial considerations?


The NCAA is a non-profit organization, so it should not be the #1 priority


And that's the biggest joke of all. Just like the NFL is a non-profit organization, or MLB. Sure they are, all of them Shocked



_________________
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
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9543



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/13/14 5:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Phil wrote:


Of the 89 championships run by the NCAA the Women's Basketball Tournament loses the most money, even after the cost savings measures of the geography rule. Do you think the NCAA should ignore financial considerations?


If it loses more than say, lacrosse, it must be because of the number of teams involved. They should cut the field at least in half, or by 75%.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9543



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/13/14 5:17 pm    ::: Re: Dominance bad for the game? Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/04/09/best-womens-college-basketball-rating-in-a-decade-for-uconn-notre-dame/252758/

Quote:
Monday nights victory by the University of Connecticut over University of Notre Dame in the NCAA Womens National Championship earned a 2.8 US rating, the highest for any ESPN womens college basketball game in a decade.


This was a game of two unbeaten teams. I think it would have been a better sign that people like to watch dominance if it had been UConn and Maryland.


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/13/14 5:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Phil wrote:


Of the 89 championships run by the NCAA the Women's Basketball Tournament loses the most money, even after the cost savings measures of the geography rule. Do you think the NCAA should ignore financial considerations?


If it loses more than say, lacrosse, it must be because of the number of teams involved. They should cut the field at least in half, or by 75%.


It. will. never. happen.

And the reason is the same as why we'll never get rid of conference tournaments - everybody wants to dance.

Besides, baseball has 64 teams, too, so it's not like it's just basketball.

By the way, where does the claim about losing so much money come from? I'm curious.


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, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
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