|
|
Post by linkster on Sept 27, 2021 20:49:21 GMT -5
If Notre Dame can join the ACC except for football why can't UConn join a P-5 conference for womens basketball only? The other BE programs with one or two exceptions have no interest in elite level womens basketball. My guess is that it would be obvious if we could see the budgets difference between their mens and womens programs. Now I understand how Fox might be opposed to it but I think ESPN would love it. And so would I. I like the history of BE basketball but Rutgers, Notre Dame and Louisville are gone and no one but DePaul seems to give a damn.
|
|
|
|
Post by knightsbridgeaz on Sept 27, 2021 23:47:19 GMT -5
Well, primarily, because they would have to get the BE and the P5 conference to agree to it. And almost certainly, that would be a non-starter.
Part of the Notre Dame saga (and yes, I know it is football) has always been getting a conference to accept their sports without football. Hence, the ACC negotiated for a certain number of games per year and the B1G told them to go pound salt.
Playing a single sport in a conference is most common when your conference doesn't offer the sport; that doesn't apply here.
|
|
|
|
Post by linkster on Sept 28, 2021 0:26:28 GMT -5
Well, primarily, because they would have to get the BE and the P5 conference to agree to it. And almost certainly, that would be a non-starter. Part of the Notre Dame saga (and yes, I know it is football) has always been getting a conference to accept their sports without football. Hence, the ACC negotiated for a certain number of games per year and the B1G told them to go pound salt. Playing a single sport in a conference is most common when your conference doesn't offer the sport; that doesn't apply here. You are right. There are excellent reasons for the conference structure. However in sports with limited elite level talent, like women's basketball it results in one dominant team per conference. Not every year but a lot. Notre Dame battled in the BE and went to the ACC and went undefeated for their first two years. The PAC12 has been competitive for a couple of years but for a long stretch Stanford won every year. Baylor too. Is SCar going to lose the SEC? There should be some mechanism to bring these teams together every year besides the personal pique of the coaches of those teams. The SCar game, the Baylor game and the Stan/SCar game were compelling TV. Everyone wants the womens game to prosper financially but they continue to expect the general public to embrace the status quo. It isn't going to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by swash on Sept 28, 2021 9:27:41 GMT -5
If Notre Dame can join the ACC except for football why can't UConn join a P-5 conference for womens basketball only? The other BE programs with one or two exceptions have no interest in elite level womens basketball. My guess is that it would be obvious if we could see the budgets difference between their mens and womens programs. Now I understand how Fox might be opposed to it but I think ESPN would love it. And so would I. I like the history of BE basketball but Rutgers, Notre Dame and Louisville are gone and no one but DePaul seems to give a damn. I think your assessment of the BE is a bit harsh. I think the BE schools have quality Women's coaches. Unclear how much freedom and budget they've provided for the Women's teams, but several of those same schools have top tier men's programs. Some of those are a tough sell to top recruits, but most are getting "next tier" players from the lower end of the top 100 rankings. Let's see if adding two UCONN games really does help them improve their pool of interested talent. Let's see how well they negotiate the new world portal ... for which it is likely to be tough to tease out the underlying trends for at least a couple more years post COVID rules. You talk about the schools that are not in the BE any more, but since their departure, only Louisville has improved. Rutgers has been similar to Villanova or Marquette in quality. ND has hit a rough patch from which they may recover, or they may join formerly excellent and enduring programs like Tennessee, Long Beach, Louisiana Tech, or Old Dominion ... dreaming of the good old days when they were relevant. Other schools have had an extended stumble, but may be moving back up the ladder - Duke, UNC, Texas (maybe the Lady Vols belong in this list instead, but it's fun to put them into the prior category). |
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on Sept 28, 2021 10:30:37 GMT -5
Ah, but if we could play in the ACC. What a basketball conference that would be!
|
|
|
|
Post by swash on Sept 28, 2021 10:56:58 GMT -5
Well, primarily, because they would have to get the BE and the P5 conference to agree to it. And almost certainly, that would be a non-starter. Part of the Notre Dame saga (and yes, I know it is football) has always been getting a conference to accept their sports without football. Hence, the ACC negotiated for a certain number of games per year and the B1G told them to go pound salt. Playing a single sport in a conference is most common when your conference doesn't offer the sport; that doesn't apply here. You are right. There are excellent reasons for the conference structure. However in sports with limited elite level talent, like women's basketball it results in one dominant team per conference. Not every year but a lot. Notre Dame battled in the BE and went to the ACC and went undefeated for their first two years. The PAC12 has been competitive for a couple of years but for a long stretch Stanford won every year. Baylor too. Is SCar going to lose the SEC? There should be some mechanism to bring these teams together every year besides the personal pique of the coaches of those teams. The SCar game, the Baylor game and the Stan/SCar game were compelling TV. Everyone wants the womens game to prosper financially but they continue to expect the general public to embrace the status quo. It isn't going to happen. I would like to see a preseason tourney for the top 8 or 16 teams (3 or 4 games) - using some criteria ... last season's rankings, repeat of the sweet sixteen, pre-season poll, etc. Play this one at a great destination. Then have a mid-season event where the top four teams from each region play over a weekend (but the regional winners do not meet ... leave us wanting more). Use the current AP or coaches poll, and play at an arena close enough that fans can bus there from several schools. Flex the regional boundaries based on the teams that will attend Finally, we keep the NCAA tourney as is. I'm not a fan of 68 (8 teams play one game to earn the right to play the top seed in each region). Why not 76 teams (16 teams play two games to yield one bottom team for each region)? This would: - Eliminate some of the cupcake festival that is OOC for most teams
- Give fans a reason to pay attention early in the season
- Provide top teams an incentive to gear up early
- Create better data for NCAA seeding
- Amp media coverage and topics for analysis
- Nudge into the lucrative world of sports betting ... which the NCAA claims is not really there
- Fuel NIL activity - even for players/teams that don't make either of those two early tourneys
- Get sponsors for each of those events
- National TV deals for them, too
|
|
|
|
Post by UConnChapette on Sept 28, 2021 11:11:42 GMT -5
You are right. There are excellent reasons for the conference structure. However in sports with limited elite level talent, like women's basketball it results in one dominant team per conference. Not every year but a lot. Notre Dame battled in the BE and went to the ACC and went undefeated for their first two years. The PAC12 has been competitive for a couple of years but for a long stretch Stanford won every year. Baylor too. Is SCar going to lose the SEC? There should be some mechanism to bring these teams together every year besides the personal pique of the coaches of those teams. The SCar game, the Baylor game and the Stan/SCar game were compelling TV. Everyone wants the womens game to prosper financially but they continue to expect the general public to embrace the status quo. It isn't going to happen. I would like to see a preseason tourney for the top 8 or 16 teams (3 or 4 games) - using some criteria ... last season's rankings, repeat of the sweet sixteen, pre-season poll, etc. Play this one at a great destination. Then have a mid-season event where the top four teams from each region play over a weekend (but the regional winners do not meet ... leave us wanting more). Use the current AP or coaches poll, and play at an arena close enough that fans can bus there from several schools. Flex the regional boundaries based on the teams that will attend Finally, we keep the NCAA tourney as is. I'm not a fan of 68 (8 teams play one game to earn the right to play the top seed in each region). Why not 76 teams (16 teams play two games to yield one bottom team for each region)? This would: - Eliminate some of the cupcake festival that is OOC for most teams
- Give fans a reason to pay attention early in the season
- Provide top teams an incentive to gear up early
- Create better data for NCAA seeding
- Amp media coverage and topics for analysis
- Nudge into the lucrative world of sports betting ... which the NCAA claims is not really there
- Fuel NIL activity - even for players/teams that don't make either of those two early tourneys
- Get sponsors for each of those events
- National TV deals for them, too
How do we get you on the NCAA committee? |
|
|
|
Post by swash on Sept 28, 2021 15:45:22 GMT -5
I would like to see a preseason tourney for the top 8 or 16 teams (3 or 4 games) - using some criteria ... last season's rankings, repeat of the sweet sixteen, pre-season poll, etc. Play this one at a great destination. Then have a mid-season event where the top four teams from each region play over a weekend (but the regional winners do not meet ... leave us wanting more). Use the current AP or coaches poll, and play at an arena close enough that fans can bus there from several schools. Flex the regional boundaries based on the teams that will attend Finally, we keep the NCAA tourney as is. I'm not a fan of 68 (8 teams play one game to earn the right to play the top seed in each region). Why not 76 teams (16 teams play two games to yield one bottom team for each region)? This would: - Eliminate some of the cupcake festival that is OOC for most teams
- Give fans a reason to pay attention early in the season
- Provide top teams an incentive to gear up early
- Create better data for NCAA seeding
- Amp media coverage and topics for analysis
- Nudge into the lucrative world of sports betting ... which the NCAA claims is not really there
- Fuel NIL activity - even for players/teams that don't make either of those two early tourneys
- Get sponsors for each of those events
- National TV deals for them, too
How do we get you on the NCAA committee? I'd be willing to do it for say half what Emmert got paid   |
|
|
|
Post by semper on Sept 28, 2021 15:56:45 GMT -5
Yay, Swash! I was thinking something similar but didn't have it so well worked out. This would be fabulous!
|
|
|
|
Post by chicagogg on Sept 29, 2021 7:38:55 GMT -5
How do we get you on the NCAA committee? I'd be willing to do it for say half what Emmert got paid The difference being - you would earn your money! |
|
