NCAA WBB Tourney May Return to Top Seed Host Schools for First Rounds
- Thread starter twistedredbird
- Start date
This would be great, not only for teams like ISU, but because it would probably make the NCAA more money.
Most of the article centers on tournament suggestions, so this was somewhat buried: She suggests 10-minute quarters, instead of halves. Hate that idea. It's a unique part of the college format.
I wouldn't be against a slight reduction in the number of regular-season games, although I doubt that happens.
however if this had been the case the last 10 years or so that we have been at neutral sites ISU has only been a top 16 seed twice.
I really hope they do this. The top seeds have earned it, so why not? If you don't like it, win more games.
I wouldn't have a problem if they did this for the men either. The venues may not be as large as they would like, but I think it would be more fair than it is today. A team like Iowa State, even with a good seed, has no hope of playing close to home. Unless they deem Wells Fargo good enough, our "home" arenas are either in Minnesota, Kansas City or Omaha. Teams in big states with good seeds almost always get a home court advantage in their own state. Something we will never see without a change.
I wouldn't have a problem if they did this for the men either. The venues may not be as large as they would like, but I think it would be more fair than it is today. A team like Iowa State, even with a good seed, has no hope of playing close to home. Unless they deem Wells Fargo good enough, our "home" arenas are either in Minnesota, Kansas City or Omaha. Teams in big states with good seeds almost always get a home court advantage in their own state. Something we will never see without a change.
Also, shortening the shot clock won't necessarily help scoring. Actually calling the hold/grab/shove/check like the rule book says will free up the offenses.
Reminds me of how everyone was complaining that the Big 12 was so badly (and many believed wrongly) unranked last season...
They have been headed in the right direction to provide balance with neutral sites. The women's game lacks parity and going back to top16 sites.
They have choices, make all sites neutral and have even less attendence then they have now or use sites (top seeds or) of schools who support their team and the game like we do. It is sad to see a tourney game and see the place less then 40% filled. If they are going to make changes they also need to look at how they send some teams way out of their area and let others play most of their games at home or very close to it.
I like Ackerman's recommendations of shortening the season (but I would shorten it by more than just two games), reducing the regional sites from four to two, and having the Final Four at the same site for a few years, like Omaha and the CWS. But the biggest suggestion I agree with is reducing schollies from 15 to 13. Spread the wealth, and get the talent out to more schools.
The 13 schollies would do more for the sport than anything IMO. Not only spread the talent, but on the recruiting side, schools would have to be more judicious with their offers, and certain top tier teams wouldn't have as many "in the bag" scholly to cherry pick in late recruiting stages when other schools have been recruiting a player for 3 or 4 years.
Couldn't agree more Bird. The scholarship limit change could have a dramatic effect by spreading the wealth from the top 6-10 teams to the top 30.