Parity is like the weather, everybody talks about it, nobody does anything about it. There are some simple things that can be done. 1. Reduce scholarship limit to 13 or even 12. Certainly would help prevent the "elite" programs from stockpiling talent so much. Though if the talent pool is shrinking thst might not make enough difference. 2. No program could play an NCAA Tournament game within 150 miles of its home court. Vall it the Pat Summit Memorial Rule. 3. Change the culture that elite recruits should go to only a small number of elite programs. Promote the idea of going to a place where they could make their own mark. Of course the media is deeply invested in promoting the elite teams. The fewer teams they need to know about the easier their job. And of course the Power Five and the elite programs are invested in not making changes. 4 Replace seeding with a blind draw. The most neutral, fair and equitable way.
Last Edit: Mar 18, 2023 14:55:43 GMT -5 by jake1951
I’m so for the scholarship reduction. Even one or two down to 14 or 13 would make a difference imo. I’m also somewhat coming around to the idea of the top-4 seeds not hosting and having pre-planned neutral sites across the board. Worse for tv, but yes, better for parity.
All of those smaller changes combined would create greater change. Great post.
Welcome, Jake ... and I apologize in advance for disagreeing with pretty much everything (but, as veterans know, that's what I do):
1. Reduce scholarship limit to 13 or even 12. Certainly would help prevent the "elite" programs from stockpiling talent so much. Though if the talent pool is shrinking thst might not make enough difference.
Few teams have 15 scholarships and if they do, it's because they have to balance with football.
In addition, the 14th and 15th players on P5 rosters are not going to move the needle for a mid-major. If the woman can't play for her P5 team, she's not likely to beat them in postseason if she were at another school.
2. No program could play an NCAA Tournament game within 150 miles of its home court. Vall it the Pat Summit Memorial Rule.
Maybe, but why punish faithful fans? And of course if you didn't have home games, the gyms would be even more empty than they are now.
When they didn't allow the home teams to host, they had to put out first-round sites to bid. No arenas would bid so it was schools -- and it meant that a rich school with a 10th seed would wind up hosting games while a mid-major with no money and a higher seed had to play on a lower seed's home court.
And arenas will not bid if home fans have to fly to games. No one will come and they will lose lots of money.
3. Change the culture that elite recruits should go to only a small number of elite programs. Promote the idea of going to a place where they could make their own mark. Of course the media is deeply invested in promoting the elite teams. The fewer teams they need to know about the easier their job. And of course the Power Five and the elite programs are invested in not making changes.
The media is not deeply invested in promoting the elite teams -- the media doesn't care. Women's basketball is of almost no importance, except to ESPN, which needs counterprogramming for the men's tournament. And of course, there really isn't any media covering women's basketball, and elite recruits don't read what coverage there is anyway.
And it's not that hard to keep up with more teams. Your assumptions about the media are a little troubling, but if you have any research or comments from media people to back them up, I'd love to see them.
"Change the culture," in this case, means "change human nature." Go down to the park and watch pickup games -- everyone wants to win and play with the best players. Elite recruits are looking for professional careers that can generate literally millions of dollars, and they can best advance their hopes of cashing in by playing with and against other elite recruits. The combination of these two factors pretty much guarantees that super teams will continue to thrive.
You are spot on, though, about P5 programs wanting to retain their monopoly. Their only chance to generate significant revenue is to corral as many elite players as possible.
4 Replace seeding with a blind draw. The most neutral, fair and equitable way.
As a long-time coach, this would drive me nuts. It's not fair or equitable for the two best teams in the tournament to play in the first round. You work for years, and play 30 games, and prove yourself to be one of the best 10 teams in the country and your reward is play the eighth best team? Meanwhile, one of teams 55 and 54 advances to the second round.
This might be an interesting idea, and is neutral, but fair and equitable? No.
Few teams have 15 scholarships and if they do, it's because they have to balance with football.
In addition, the 14th and 15th players on P5 rosters are not going to move the needle for a mid-major.
I vibe with all your points except for this one. Going from the 14th/15th roster spot on a P5 team to like the 10th/11th roster spot on a mid-major team makes all the difference as it pertains to getting in on the rotation. You crack a rotation, you then can see a path to working your way up. The talent threshold absolutely drops off below the P5 level, too, so it’s not like a P5 transfer into a midmajor (or lower!) can’t come in and immediately be better than four or five pre-existing players on the roster.
And then of course, there are those P5 benchwarmers who transfer to a midmajor and end up starting and having a big role. Definitely saw that with at least one former Husky, and she helped her team beat us this year lol.
Last Edit: Mar 19, 2023 12:00:45 GMT -5 by Deleted
Few teams have 15 scholarships and if they do, it's because they have to balance with football.
In addition, the 14th and 15th players on P5 rosters are not going to move the needle for a mid-major.
I vibe with all your points except for this one. Going from the 14th/15th roster spot on a P5 team to like the 10th/11th roster spot on a mid-major team makes all the difference as it pertains to getting in on the rotation. You crack a rotation, you then can see a path to working your way up. The talent threshold absolutely drops off below the P5 level, too, so it’s not like a P5 transfer into a midmajor (or lower!) can’t come in and immediately be better than four or five pre-existing players on the roster.
And then of course, there are those P5 benchwarmers who transfer to a midmajor and end up starting and having a big role. Definitely saw that with at least one former Husky, and she helped her team beat us this year lol.
These are good points, as depth is a key difference between a P5 and mid-major. But still, 14 and 15 are 14 and 15 for a reason. Now, 11 and 12 on a P5 definitely have a chance to help a mid-major.
I vibe with all your points except for this one. Going from the 14th/15th roster spot on a P5 team to like the 10th/11th roster spot on a mid-major team makes all the difference as it pertains to getting in on the rotation. You crack a rotation, you then can see a path to working your way up. The talent threshold absolutely drops off below the P5 level, too, so it’s not like a P5 transfer into a midmajor (or lower!) can’t come in and immediately be better than four or five pre-existing players on the roster.
And then of course, there are those P5 benchwarmers who transfer to a midmajor and end up starting and having a big role. Definitely saw that with at least one former Husky, and she helped her team beat us this year lol.
These are good points, as depth is a key difference between a P5 and mid-major. But still, 14 and 15 are 14 and 15 for a reason. Now, 11 and 12 on a P5 definitely have a chance to help a mid-major.
though what the reason is is key here. if they're low-level recruits and agreed to join the team knowing full well they'd be the equivalent of practice players/depth pieces, that's one thing. (though idek how often that happens in the real world.) for some of these top programs that are the ones hoarding the good recruits though, those 14 and 15 (or even 12 and 13, etc) are simply the odd men out. can't realistically have a 14-player rotation. hell, most teams don't even go past a 9- or 10-man one.
one good example of this that comes to mind is Louisville. when former Cardinals AC Sam Purcell got hired on to be Mississippi State's HC, he took multiple Louisville benchwarmers with him, and they're now part of the Bulldogs' rotation. and that's even all at the P5 level.
I stand my ground on the blind draw. Your comment about punishing "better" teams is one of my pet peeves. You are saying that a South Carolina or Indiana deserved special treatment when it comes to the tournament. Their regular season got them into the tournament. I am opposed to any team being rewarded or punished. Why should a Texas Southern be punished when they walked in the front door. And Stanford get rewarded with a one seed when the selection committee snuck them in the back door. Take pressure off the selection committee. The Kentucky State Tournament, the original "Sweet Sixteen", has always had a blind draw. And it is always a great tournament. (Though Sacred Heart could win 5 in a row. They've won 3 and ZaKiyah Johnson has two more years. Of course, ESPN is the biggest culprit in promoting the P5, they have the most invested. But when any national media talks about college basketball, they talk about UConn, South Carolina, Stanford etc. From my perspective as a fan of a non P5, I think the near monopoly has to be broken. On the court WBB is a meritocracy. Off the court it is a corrupt oligarchy.
The reason Kentucky does a blind draw is that they have 16 regional champions. In district play, almost all districts use seeding, as does every state to some extent or another. (In Ohio, I believe, the top seed gets to pick its first-round opponent.)
To your point, if Iowa finished first in the B1G and wins the tournament, are they walking in with the same credentials as a team they beat three times and was team no. 64? It would seem painfully unfair for Iowa and South Carolina to play in the first round, while UCLA and three other P5 at-larges played in one group, and one would get to the Sweet 16.
It is a vicious circle in the national media. ESPN doesn't care at all about women's basketball -- its only interest is selling ads, which are driven by ratings. Ratings are determined by viewers, and what viewers want drives programming. Of course, programming drives viewer interest.
The question would be whether even a highly promoted mid-major would draw more ratings than UConn or Stanford or the big names. And how much money would it cost ESPN while they did their best to change the paradigm?
It's hard to argue with either "corrupt" or "oligarchy." The NCAA is the very definition of the first, and the emerging superconferences are the very definition of the second.