Should we reduce the 64 team brackets?
- Thread starter WivitBear
- Start date
IMO
Keep it 64.
If you win your league u deserve to be in the dance.
The change I would make is to move all the games to neutral sites like the boys. The fact that the top seeds all play at home for the 1st 2 rounds certainly adds to the lopsided wins.
Keep it 64.
If you win your league u deserve to be in the dance.
The change I would make is to move all the games to neutral sites like the boys. The fact that the top seeds all play at home for the 1st 2 rounds certainly adds to the lopsided wins.
Todays game was a rout. do youn think there were more viewers than last year when the underdog made it to the finals. Gone are the days of Steph Currie or Loyolla of Chicago on the men's side. This year , 4 number ones ion the men's side and all number 1's and 2's on the women's side. It is a joke.
The thing with the women's game is that there has rarely been much depth competition-wise.
It's quite a bit deeper now; I remember when virtually all the 5-stars went to any of Tennessee, UConn, Stanford, some years U$C, leaving very, very few top players for any of the other schools. One could look at the rankings in November and lock in those top 3 schools, and whomever is the hot one of the others... And probably predict the Final 4 right then, 3 months ahead of when the brackets come out... And get at least three of the picks on the money.
There are lots more girls playing now, coaching and training at the high-school level is much better, but there are still not that many difference-makers... Yet. But they have a long way to go.
Eventually, we'll start seeing double-digit seeds play the top ones tough, just not yet.
No reason to shrink the bracket, let the game grow into it.
Now, the home-court thing... I could see that going away in a few years.
It's quite a bit deeper now; I remember when virtually all the 5-stars went to any of Tennessee, UConn, Stanford, some years U$C, leaving very, very few top players for any of the other schools. One could look at the rankings in November and lock in those top 3 schools, and whomever is the hot one of the others... And probably predict the Final 4 right then, 3 months ahead of when the brackets come out... And get at least three of the picks on the money.
There are lots more girls playing now, coaching and training at the high-school level is much better, but there are still not that many difference-makers... Yet. But they have a long way to go.
Eventually, we'll start seeing double-digit seeds play the top ones tough, just not yet.
No reason to shrink the bracket, let the game grow into it.
Now, the home-court thing... I could see that going away in a few years.
The home court rule is simply about attendance and money. They've tried to play at neutral sites, and it hasn't worked. Even the men struggle with the early round neutral sites.
NIL, as pointed out, will make the rich get richer, so this kind of imbalance is baked into the system. And the talent pool is a lot shallower on the women's side, so Cinderellas are stuck sweeping up the ashes.
It's the same on the men's side -- it's hard to see how St. Mary's can continue to compete in the new order, for example. The money just isn't there.
NIL, as pointed out, will make the rich get richer, so this kind of imbalance is baked into the system. And the talent pool is a lot shallower on the women's side, so Cinderellas are stuck sweeping up the ashes.
It's the same on the men's side -- it's hard to see how St. Mary's can continue to compete in the new order, for example. The money just isn't there.
The top 4 seeds played in the men's final 4. All 4 have decent fan bases and travel well. Both games were excellent. Cinderellas aren't as fun for the money. We want to see great games
There was a note in the post game press around Geno's preseason outlook for UConn, and how they had lost a closed pre-season scrimmage by a point. The team they lost to was Columbia! Now I imagine that if those teams played in the tourney, the Lions probably don't stay within 30, but Columbia certainly deserved to be in the tournament this year (they proved it by knocking off Washington). Teams like that make the early rounds interesting. I do wish there were less chalk in the women's game, but I'm afraid that with NIL $ and a wide open transfer portal, the clock is already striking midnight for Cinderellas.
Of course, but I'm talking about in a few years after NIL has fully taken hold and the top 10-12 teams in the men and the top 2 in the women get practically ALL the 5-star recruits. And I'm talking about the early rounds. We could see things go back the way they were 30 years ago, when top-4 seeds just manhandled the bottom 4, no Cinderella suspense at all.
And it'd be way worse in the women's bracket... I could see first-round scores like 90-25 again, like 30 years ago. That's not fun...
But yeah, the cream rising to the top in the Final 4 would be good... Especially when the way there is paved with creampuffs.
I believe that obscure never to be heard from again player from Davidson spelled his name "Curry".
Can't compare the depth of talent and likelihood of upsets between the men's and women's brackets. This year was simply an anomaly. In the past four years, the men have had an 8, a 9 and two 11 seeds make it to the Final Four while the woman have had no seed worse than a 3. Two different worlds.
Was thinking of Stephs wife in the kitchen with her restaurants. Why have a pool if no one will win.
