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

Brennan: To grow NCAA women's tournament, move it
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
GEF34



Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14102



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/21/15 5:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
zune69 wrote:
beknighted wrote:


I don't think that addresses my point. The gap between the 5s and 6s and the 15s and 16s is much, much bigger than the gap between the 5s and 6s and the 11s and 12s.

Just for instance, NW State played 3 tournament teams this year - 10 seed Arkansas beat them 78-30; 6 seed TAMU beat them 75-42; 5 seed Texas beat them 74-34.


I don't think it's fair to post a regular season score without pointing out the circumstances of the schedule.For example,NW State 40 pt loss to Texas was the final game of a 3 game road trip,while Texas was playing the 5th game of a 9 game home stand.Tired team at the end of a road trip versus well rested team at home.

And under my new playoff scenario,NW state a 15 seed ,would not even make the tournament.The 1st rd matchups would be:

#5 vs #12
#6 vs #11
#7 vs #10
#8 vs #9

As I've already mentioned in my previous post.all games between the 5 through 12 seeds (17 -48 ranked teams)on Friday were competitive games.There were no blowouts.


Sorry, that's not what you proposed - you said 48 and keep the auto bids. All of the 13-16 seeds are auto bids.


This is pure speculation, based on this years field, but here would be the 48 team field if we are going on the above proposed tournament.

Auto Bids (current seeds):
America East: Albany (13)
American: Connecticut (1)
Atlantic 10: George Washington (6)
ACC: Notre Dame (1)
Atlantic Sun: Florida Gulf Coast (7)
Big 12: Baylor (2)
Big East: DePaul (9)
Big Sky: Montana (16)
Big South: Liberty (13)
Big Ten: Maryland (1)
Big West: Cal State Northridge (13)
Colonial: James Madion (12)
Conference USA: Western Kentucky (12)
Horizon League: Green Bay (9)
Ivy League: Princeton (8 )
Metro Atlantic: Quinnipiac (12)
Mid-American: Ohio (14)
Mid-Eastern: Savannah State (16)
Missouri Valley: Wichita State (13)
Mountain West: Boise State (15)
Northeast: St. Francis Brooklyn (16)
Ohio Valley: Tennessee State (15)
Pac-12: Stanford (4)
Patriot: American (14)
SEC: South Carolina (1)
Southern: Chattanooga (7)
Southland: Northwestern State (15)
SWAC: Alabama State (15)
Summit League: South Dakota State (14)
Sun Belt: Arkansas-Little Rock (11)
WCC: BYU (14)
WAC: New Mexico State (16)

At Large (current seed):
33. Kentucky (2)
34. Florida State (2)
35. Tennessee (2)
36. Louisville (3)
37. Iowa (3)
38. Arizona State (3)
39. Oregon State (3)
40. California (4)
41. North Carolina (4)
42. Duke (4)
43. Texas (5)
44. Oklahoma (5)
45. Ohio State (5)
46. Mississippi State (5)
47. South Florida (6)
48. Washington (6)

First 4 Out:
1. Texas A&M (6)
2. Dayton (7)
3. Northwestern (7)
4. Rutgers (8 )

Seeding wise this is how it would breakdown:
4 1 seeds
4 2 seeds
4 3 seeds
4 4 seeds
4 5 seeds
3 6 seeds
2 7 seeds
1 8 seed
2 9 seeds
1 11 seed
3 12 seeds
4 13 seeds
4 14 seeds
4 15 seeds
4 16 seeds


beknighted



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


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/21/15 9:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

zune69 wrote:
beknighted wrote:

Sorry, that's not what you proposed - you said 48 and keep the auto bids. All of the 13-16 seeds are auto bids.


And again,those auto bids would not have to play against a top 4 seed in the first RD,which would mean a more competitive 1st RD of basketball games.

Or.....maybe they should make a rule that conference champions only get an automatic bid if they have one of the top 64 RPI's or 3 wins against the teams with the 64 best RPI's.


You might want to go back and read my earlier post. I was talking about current 5 and 6 seeds playing current 15s and 16s who get in via auto bids, which is exactly what you were talking about. And when I point out that a 16 actually played 3 different teams in the right range during the regular season and got crushed every time, your response is that regular season games are different.

And now you're changing your proposal again. As noted above, there is no universe in which the conferences that get in via auto bids are going to permit any rule changes that keep their teams out of the tournament, so even if there were any chance of going to 48 teams, which there isn't, they never ever would let that happen.


pilight



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


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/21/15 9:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

zune69 wrote:
And again,those auto bids would not have to play against a top 4 seed in the first RD,which would mean a more competitive 1st RD of basketball games.


The tournament was 48 teams from 1989-1993. There were 235 games in those five tournaments. 64 of those games were decided by 20+ points. That's 27.2% of all tournament games. 84 of them were decided by single digits or in overtime. That's 35.7% of all tournament games.

Since 1994 the tournament has been 64 games. In those 21 tournaments (not counting this year) there were 1323 games. 395 of those were decided by 20+ points. That's 29.8% of all tournament games. 429 of them were decided by single digits or in overtime. That's 32.4% of all tournament games.

Yes, the tournament was slightly more competitive with 48 teams than it has been with 64. I don't think the difference is worth dashing the hopes and dreams of dozens of players who get to play in the tournament under the current format but wouldn't in a 48 team setup.



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



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7746
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/21/15 9:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Why does anyone even listen to Christine Brennan?



_________________
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
zune69



Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 8180



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/21/15 9:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Thanks for the info pilight.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/22/15 10:43 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

OMG.

Tonight espn is dedicating it's 2 major networks to simultaneous airing of the women's tournament in the crucial Sunday night 7-11 time slot.

espn 7-9; 9-11 NCAA Tournament, Second Round
espn2 7-9; 9-11 NCAA Tournament, Second Round

According to SB Nation:

No. 1 South Carolina vs. No. 8 Syracuse, 7 p.m., ESPN
No. 3 Oregon State vs. No. 11 Gonzaga, 7 p.m., ESPN2
No. 1 Notre Dame vs. No. 9 DePaul, 9 p.m., ESPN
No. 4 California vs. No. 5 Texas, 9 p.m., ESPN2



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
Youth Coach



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 4752



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/22/15 6:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

And all the games will get less viewers than one episode of The Walking Dead.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/22/15 6:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
OMG.

Tonight espn is dedicating it's 2 major networks to simultaneous airing of the women's tournament in the crucial Sunday night 7-11 time slot.

espn 7-9; 9-11 NCAA Tournament, Second Round
espn2 7-9; 9-11 NCAA Tournament, Second Round

According to SB Nation:

No. 1 South Carolina vs. No. 8 Syracuse, 7 p.m., ESPN
No. 3 Oregon State vs. No. 11 Gonzaga, 7 p.m., ESPN2
No. 1 Notre Dame vs. No. 9 DePaul, 9 p.m., ESPN
No. 4 California vs. No. 5 Texas, 9 p.m., ESPN2




silly me! of course this couldn't happen. they gotta show the jerkovic/federer final from east bumfuk, which will certainly outdraw the walking dead.



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



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/15 9:42 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Federer and Djokovic playing in one of the most important tennis tournaments of the year -- and two of the greatest players of our era, if not all-time -- is more compelling to most viewers than a second-round tournament game.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7746
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/15 11:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Federer and Djokovic playing in one of the most important tennis tournaments of the year -- and two of the greatest players of our era, if not all-time -- is more compelling to most viewers than a second-round tournament game.


To most advertisers, you mean. I do not know a single person in my fairly wide field of acquaintance who watches tennis (or for that matter golf, or Formula 1 racing). I do know quite a few who watch basketball (both men's and women's), soccer, football, and even NASCAR, but will turn off the TV if tennis is all there is or even shows up.



_________________
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
GEF34



Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14102



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/15 4:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

summertime blues wrote:
ClayK wrote:
Federer and Djokovic playing in one of the most important tennis tournaments of the year -- and two of the greatest players of our era, if not all-time -- is more compelling to most viewers than a second-round tournament game.


To most advertisers, you mean. I do not know a single person in my fairly wide field of acquaintance who watches tennis (or for that matter golf, or Formula 1 racing). I do know quite a few who watch basketball (both men's and women's), soccer, football, and even NASCAR, but will turn off the TV if tennis is all there is or even shows up.


I'm not sure if I'm reading the numbers right, but if I am the Australian Open women's singles championship match in 2015 had a 0.7 viewership rating and the men's singles championship match had 0.8 viewership rating and the WNBA Championship game 2 in 2014 had a 0.6 viewership rating, which was tied for the highest since 2007. So you may not know a lot of people who like tennis, but I'd say nation wide more people would prefer to watch tennis over women's basketball.


summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7746
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/15 4:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

You're comparing the Australian Open to the WNBA. We are not talking about the WNBA here. I don't think we're even talking about the Australian Open. And I repeat, I don't know a single soul who watches tennis. I have no idea WHERE those people are. I have a fairly wide-ranging circle of acquaintances and friends and they don't watch tennis. Granted, they don't all watch WBB either, but that's not the point.



_________________
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
beknighted



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


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/15 5:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The demographics of the tennis audience are very attractive, even though it's small. This also is why golf gets so much coverage - the people who watch have a lot of money.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/15 5:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GEF34 wrote:
summertime blues wrote:
ClayK wrote:
Federer and Djokovic playing in one of the most important tennis tournaments of the year -- and two of the greatest players of our era, if not all-time -- is more compelling to most viewers than a second-round tournament game.


To most advertisers, you mean. I do not know a single person in my fairly wide field of acquaintance who watches tennis (or for that matter golf, or Formula 1 racing). I do know quite a few who watch basketball (both men's and women's), soccer, football, and even NASCAR, but will turn off the TV if tennis is all there is or even shows up.


I'm not sure if I'm reading the numbers right, but if I am the Australian Open women's singles championship match in 2015 had a 0.7 viewership rating and the men's singles championship match had 0.8 viewership rating and the WNBA Championship game 2 in 2014 had a 0.6 viewership rating, which was tied for the highest since 2007. So you may not know a lot of people who like tennis, but I'd say nation wide more people would prefer to watch tennis over women's basketball.



so one of the men's MAJORS final outdrew a WNBA finals Game 2 by 0.8 to 0.6?

if correct, i wonder what last night's final drew.

it's only a lack of will that prevents espn from airing all games the way CBS does.

production is already at each site. it would take all of throwing a switch in the control room. the same worthless ads that run on the usual worthless shows can be run.

i doubt disney's bottom line would notice.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
GEF34



Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14102



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/15 7:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

summertime blues wrote:
You're comparing the Australian Open to the WNBA. We are not talking about the WNBA here. I don't think we're even talking about the Australian Open. And I repeat, I don't know a single soul who watches tennis. I have no idea WHERE those people are. I have a fairly wide-ranging circle of acquaintances and friends and they don't watch tennis. Granted, they don't all watch WBB either, but that's not the point.


It doesn't matter if you know a single person who watches tennis, unless you know at least 10% of the entire nation, who you know has no bearing on what ESPN shows and who watches what on ESPN or any other network.

And yes those events are on bigger scales than what is being discussed here, but they are women's basketball and tennis, which makes it more relevant than just saying I don't know a single person who will watch tennis.

BTW there are posters here who often post things about tennis, to say you know you don't know a single soul who watches tennis is an exaggeration, as you may not interact with everyone, but I'm sure you have some interaction with at least one of the people who watches tennis on here.

I tried looking for ratings for yesterday, but I couldn't find anything, the few websites that I found didn't post anything about ESPN, so at this time I can't post those numbers to show which is higher than the other.


GEF34



Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14102



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/15 7:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
GEF34 wrote:
summertime blues wrote:
ClayK wrote:
Federer and Djokovic playing in one of the most important tennis tournaments of the year -- and two of the greatest players of our era, if not all-time -- is more compelling to most viewers than a second-round tournament game.


To most advertisers, you mean. I do not know a single person in my fairly wide field of acquaintance who watches tennis (or for that matter golf, or Formula 1 racing). I do know quite a few who watch basketball (both men's and women's), soccer, football, and even NASCAR, but will turn off the TV if tennis is all there is or even shows up.


I'm not sure if I'm reading the numbers right, but if I am the Australian Open women's singles championship match in 2015 had a 0.7 viewership rating and the men's singles championship match had 0.8 viewership rating and the WNBA Championship game 2 in 2014 had a 0.6 viewership rating, which was tied for the highest since 2007. So you may not know a lot of people who like tennis, but I'd say nation wide more people would prefer to watch tennis over women's basketball.



so one of the men's MAJORS final outdrew a WNBA finals Game 2 by 0.8 to 0.6?

if correct, i wonder what last night's final drew.

it's only a lack of will that prevents espn from airing all games the way CBS does.

production is already at each site. it would take all of throwing a switch in the control room. the same worthless ads that run on the usual worthless shows can be run.

i doubt disney's bottom line would notice.


If I recall correctly, they have cut down on the games they showed, maybe because there aren't any Southern California teams in the tournament this year, but I could have sworn they would always show at least 2 full games on ESPNU each day, and now it seems like if they do show a game, it's only one, and before they would start games or show full games on ESPNews, and at least I haven't noticed them doing that either.

I also remember for the 2nd round at least 2 channels would show multiple games, looking at the tv schedule this year, today there are only 3 time slots, 1 on ESPNU and 2 on ESPN2, which is a lot less than before. So there has to be reason for that other than just because they decided to change it this season.


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