Every year about this time ESPN performs a great broadcasting service that very few actually acknowledge. The family of networks shows each and every Women’s NCAA Tournament game, often times with their bigger commentators and analysts courtside. The network details the bracket, holds a selection show, employs a Bracketologist dedicated to the women’s side, and runs a nationwide women’s NCAA bracket challenge, with corresponding prizes. Granted, the women’s games don’t conflict with those on the men’s side for television viewers, but ESPN deserves serious credit for such an effort. But, very few actually watch. I’m here to explain why.
Being the sports junkie that I am, the last few nights in a hotel have been spent clued into ESPN. Without the men’s tournament going, the only sporting event I can find on limited Holiday Inn TV channels is the women’s tournament. So I’ve watched some and have come away with some observations.
It’s very easy to say the women players aren’t as athletic as the men. While men on average possess more upper body strength and might be jacked out of their minds, athleticism in an organized team sport can only be determined in comparison to the competition. I can tell you, having watched this, that many of the women playing basketball are extremely athletic, albeit in a very different sense than their male counterparts. Perhaps the athleticism is less visually appealing, but look at women like Candace Parker, Chamique Holdsclaw, Diana Taurasi, or Brittney Griner. Powerful, solid athletic talent all around, just different than what we are used to.
But before long we come to the serious backdrop to women’s college basketball: the lack of competition and parity. Be honest with yourself, as a sports fan you want competition. Very few unbiased fans like blowouts. Closer games make for more fun and a better atmosphere. So what if the athletes be women or men? Anyone who watched the Women’s World Cup this past summer saw plenty of exciting games filled with high drama and suspense. Does it help that the American team did well? Absolutely, but there was an American Rugby team also in the World Cup this past summer, but no one took notice since the games were never close.
Exceedingly low parity truly dooms women’s college basketball. An enthusiast will point out that only once has the Final Four featured all four number one seeds. A very true statement, but don’t be fooled. What they won’t tell you is each year has included a number one seed in the Final Four (two years the men have seen no number one seeds in the same span) and nine 1 vs. 1 matchups for the title. For the men’s tourney, there have been six such title games since 1982. The lowest seed to win a Women’s tournament: number three. Compare that to the lowest men’s seed (number 8) over the same span, and the point should be made.
But, I understand those numbers might not tell anything and, further, how can you gauge parity in such a large postseason as the NCAA tournament, right? So, let’s analyze how many regional finals since 1982 featured a 1 vs. 2 matchup. For the men’s tourney, there have been 40 such regional finals since 1982. For women: 54 meetings. What does that mean? Read it as when the tournament starts a region has a 30% higher chance to feature the two seeds in the Elite Eight. Makes for a less exciting time filling your bracket out, which means you’re less likely to watch.
Also, I find the Men’s Tournament to be at its height with the most madness. Everyone wants to be the one to pick the upset, the Cinderella. But here, yet again, the women’s game pales in comparison to the men’s tourney. Of 120 total Elite Eight berths, only 20 women’s teams seeded below fourth have made it that far. 54 men’s teams have achieved the same feat. What’s worse, the Cinderella women’s teams don’t win past that stage. Only 6 such bottom dwellers reached the Final Four, compared to 19 men’s teams. Of those 19 teams, 8 made the final, with three winning it all. (It’s amazing what one can do with Wikipedia, a notebook, and a pen).
I think I’ve proven the point. The Women’s NCAA Tournament has no real depth to it and never has compared to the men’s postseason. For that reason, very few people, myself included, will likely ever watch it religiously like we do the Big Dance.
The real question should be why there is such a lack of parity. In 30 years, only 14 different schools have won the Women’s title, creating a trickle-down recruiting effect. Top players on high school women’s teams will likely only look at ten or so elite programs. In addition, with the comatose state of the WNBA, many of these women choose a college they can win with for four years. You won’t see a team like USC with O.J. Mayo or even a Mississippi State with Renardo Sidney. Those players care more about being the best players on their team for one year to be noticed by scouts. Female players likely have no such motivation, meaning they will concentrate their talent on a few specific teams. I don’t contend that Duke, UNC, Michigan State, Kansas, etc. also draw many top recruits, but the talent in men’s college basketball remains dispersed, giving more teams a chance come playoff time. 46 different men’s teams have made the Final Four since 1982, with only 36 on the women’s side.
This year epitomizes the difficulty of the women’s tournament to make an impact. For the second time ever, all four top seeds advanced, taking away a lot of the intrigue that we have come to expect from a playoff structure that is so hectic. Is it unfair to expect the men’s level of depth to translate to the women’s tournament? Perhaps. But, when have you ever watched any sporting event just ‘to be fair’? We tune in for March Madness, but very little of that can be found in the Women’s NCAA Tournament.
Bit #1: NFL Rule Changes
Today the NFL competition committee approved two significant rule changes. First, overtimes in the regular season will now mirror those in the postseason, meaning to win on your first possession the team must score a touchdown. A field goal gives the ball back to the other side and they go sudden death from there. While this is a step in the right direction, I believe strongly that the NFL would benefit from the un-timed college system, just start with the ball at your own 20 yard line.
The other big change does not jive well with me. Each turnover will now be confirmed up in the booth, not requiring a coach’s challenge. While I understand the need to get everything right, the NFL should be careful about not going too far with instant replay. For one, all scoring plays are automatically confirmed upstairs already, so I think the new rule will add more time to the games, though we get rid of the “possible turnover-commercial break-challenge-another commercial-final ruling” sequence that everybody hates. But, more importantly, sports should not be wholly based on technology and referees should not consistently be verified against the camera. Hence, baseball will never add replay to review base out or safe calls, since the game revolves very much around the integrity and humanity of referees. In addition, challenges add a fantastic strategic aspect to the game, so I would rather see replay used less rather than more.
Bit #2: Awful Caps showing
To those of you who sent me texts during the game last night, thanks a lot. The Caps lost 5-1 to the Buffalo Sabres, knocking Washington out of the final playoff spot in the East. As I continue to say, the issue has always been goaltending. Vokoun could not stay healthy regrettably, and neither Neuvirth nor Braden Holtby can put together three straight quality starts. I hope the Caps don’t get into the playoffs just to prove the team needs to focus almost exclusively on defense and goaltending over the offseason.
Bit #3: Laker drama grows tedious
I know stories might be lacking for all sports media outlets sometimes, but I am weary of the Lakers stories. Coach Mike Brown benched Kobe Bryant in the 2nd half a few nights ago for poor play, mainly revolving around his shot selection. Brown benched center and rising star Andrew Bynum late in the game last night for not playing defense and shooting a very ill-advised three pointer. Many people want to ask why the best players are on the bench, but I give Brown credit. If he doesn’t show such firmness with All-Stars, how can he coach the less talented players well without being consistent across the board?
Bit #4: The Slough of Despond begins
Some of you may remember my inaugural post welcoming you all. I admitted my baseball knowledge and interest to be smaller than for other sports. The truth is, the summer represents one of the worst sports times for me because baseball is the only sport on television. The season began this morning in Japan, so be prepared for a little less excitement from me between the end of the NBA and the beginning of the NFL.
Bit #5: March 28, 1992 – Laettner’s Big Shot
You’ve all seen this play. The regional final between Duke and Kentucky featured one of the best buzzer beating shots ever. Grant Hill inbounded the ball to Laettner on the opposite free throw line. Laettner dribbled (actually freezes his defender), turned and shot. The rest is history, as Duke went on to beat Michigan in the championship game to win it all. While Laettner never panned out in the NBA, he was one of the greatest college players of all time, who in 1992 carried a Tebow-esque mystique, so much so he made the U.S. Olympic Dream team in 1992, filled with pros like Jordan, Barkley, Magic, and Malone. I also like this play for a personal reason: in a scrapbook at home is a picture of my dad holding my brothers, just days old. The TV behind him shows the Kentucky-Duke game, with the current score being illegible. Gives further reminder of sports as a cultural phenomenon that you can tie to important events throughout your life and those of your loved ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment