(03-30-2021 08:03 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I just watched and can easily see how the call could have gone either way. It was close, probably more so a foul than not.

I can buy that. But as Geno says, you have to look at the game. A bucket in the 2nd quarter counts as much as a bucket with 5 seconds left. In the end, both teams had 15 fouls called on them and Baylor actually shot four more free throws. So pretty fair refereeing, to me.

On TV, it sure looked like a foul before the buzzer.

I can't say the refs wanted to favor UConn. But it will remain one of those calls/no-call at the close of a game that will remain controversial.

(03-30-2021 07:17 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  To me the bigger issue all along was the NCAA setting up that ridiculous regional to begin with and making some of the other regionals so much easier in comparison (especially the NC State region). Baylor should have been the 1 seed in the NC State and NC State a 2 seed somewhere, and then that Baylor-UConn game would have been in the Final Four where it belonged.

I'll be fair, I didn't do the women's tournament bracketology before this tournament (I actually have done it before although I didn't spend anywhere near as much time on it as I do on the men's tournament). The NCAA released NET Data but it didn't have Quad data:

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball...t-rankings

Based on NET, Baylor should have been a #1 seed instead of NC State and Texas A&M should have been a #3 seed while UCLA should have been a #2.

If you go by the AP/coaches, Baylor was justified as a #2 seed (although the AP/coaches normally isn't considered an official NCAA Selection Committee criteria it does show the minds of people in women's basketball). If you go by those, Texas A&M should have been a #1 instead of South Carolina.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/rankings

If you look at records and losses...

UConn (at Arkansas)
Stanford (at Colorado, UCLA)
NC State (at Virginia Tech, at North Carolina)
Texas A&M (at LSU, vs Georgia in SEC Tournament)
Baylor (at Arkansas, Iowa State)
South Carolina (NC State, at Connecticut, at Tennessee, at Texas A&M)
Maryland (vs. Missouri State at Fort Myers, at Ohio State)
Louisville (NC State, at Florida State, vs. NC State in ACC Tournament)

Notice that South Carolina and Louisville both lost at home to NC State so NC State has two road wins over top teams as well as a neutral site win over them in the ACC Championship. Those wins, an ACC Tournament championship and the fact that they have no home losses to me makes them justified of a #1 seed. Maryland also has no home losses and a Big Ten title but has no "good" wins like NC State does.

South Carolina has four losses but three of them are to UConn (one loss), NC State (two losses), and Texas A&M (two losses). Baylor has arguably the worst loss in this group, a home loss to Iowa State.

A&M is not a conference tournament champion but "won" the SEC regular season title (A&M 13-1, SC 14-2). A&M won the head to head but it was at A&M. Louisville by percentage was the ACC's #1 seed but NCState won the head to head in the regular season and won the ACCT so they no doubt was the better team in the ACC. The other six won their conference tournaments.

I can see arguments for Baylor as a #1 or a #2.

Russell Wilson's sister plays for Stanford. Pretty big age difference as Russell's 32.

Three #1 seeds are in the Final Four with the "Cinderella" #3 seed Arizona, playing in its first ever Final Four.

I guess I can concede the debate between NC State or Baylor as the last #1 seed is a tough one.

Going into the Final Four, here's how the larger conferences have done in the tournament (I hope I have these numbers correct)

Pac-10 -- 12-4 (2 Final Four teams)
SEC -- 10-6 (1 Final Four)
Big 12 -- 9-5
Big 10 -- 10-7
ACC -- 9-8

So the two conferences with the most bids had the worst win-loss percentage (although honestly the Big 10 had a few teams play above their seeds. Maryland's loss to Texas was the shocker out of that conference).

Texas didn't score in the 4th quarter of their loss tonight to South Carolina. I wonder if that's ever happened in the NCAA tournament, let alone in an Elite Eight game.

I just watched the video again and don't feel the "non-foul call" was necessarily the wrong call by the officials. To be fair, I can see how a Baylor fan would argue it was a foul. There was contact. But it seems the two UConn women blocked the ball first.

It was a very questionable call but I'm not sure it was a bad call.

Tell me again, who underestimated South Carolina?

(03-30-2021 11:43 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I just watched the video again and don't feel the "non-foul call" was necessarily the wrong call by the officials. To be fair, I can see how a Baylor fan would argue it was a foul. There was contact. But it seems the two UConn women blocked the ball first.

It was a very questionable call but I'm not sure it was a bad call.

I agree. I'm really surprised at how Baylor easily won the "propaganda battle" over that no-call, in that the media immediately focused on the no-call as the decisive moment in the game and about unanimously has agreed that Baylor got hosed. Neither are apparent to me, it's a lot more questionable to that. But that no-call has basically been the entire story of the game in the eyes of the media. It was a great game and that's all that's been talked about.

Not that winning this propaganda battle means anything at all, because the bottom line is UConn is in another Final Four and Baylor is already back home. But still.

TV Ratings: https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2021/03...ten-years/

The good news is ratings are up.

The bad news:
"The strong numbers came despite direct competition from the men’s Elite Eight on CBS. The competing Oregon State-Houston game averaged 5.92 million. In previous years, the women’s Elite Eight avoided direct competition with the men’s games."

Arguably the most marketable women's basketball team gets 1/3 of the viewing audience (1.70M for UConn/Baylor) of the men's tournament (and this is with a bottom feeder Pac-12 team and a G5 team playing).

(03-31-2021 10:01 AM)schmolik Wrote:  TV Ratings: https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2021/03...ten-years/

The good news is ratings are up.

The bad news:
"The strong numbers came despite direct competition from the men’s Elite Eight on CBS. The competing Oregon State-Houston game averaged 5.92 million. In previous years, the women’s Elite Eight avoided direct competition with the men’s games."

Arguably the most marketable women's basketball team gets 1/3 of the viewing audience (1.70M for UConn/Baylor) of the men's tournament (and this is with a bottom feeder Pac-12 team and a G5 team playing).

I wonder how they do the ratings when people switch?

For example, I started watching the Houston - OSU game and had not intention of watching women's hoops. Then when Houston went out to a big lead and it was apparent they were going to win, which was late in the first half for me, I noticed the Baylor - UConn game and realizing that was Mulkey vs Geno, switched over to that and stayed with it to the end. So which game would get "credit" for what I viewed?

(03-31-2021 10:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 10:01 AM)schmolik Wrote:  TV Ratings: https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2021/03...ten-years/

The good news is ratings are up.

The bad news:
"The strong numbers came despite direct competition from the men’s Elite Eight on CBS. The competing Oregon State-Houston game averaged 5.92 million. In previous years, the women’s Elite Eight avoided direct competition with the men’s games."

Arguably the most marketable women's basketball team gets 1/3 of the viewing audience (1.70M for UConn/Baylor) of the men's tournament (and this is with a bottom feeder Pac-12 team and a G5 team playing).

I wonder how they do the ratings when people switch?

For example, I started watching the Houston - OSU game and had not intention of watching women's hoops. Then when Houston went out to a big lead and it was apparent they were going to win, which was late in the first half for me, I noticed the Baylor - UConn game and realizing that was Mulkey vs Geno, switched over to that and stayed with it to the end. So which game would get "credit" for what I viewed?

think it's measured in 15 minute increments and the final rating is the average of all of those.

Award season kicks off.

First freshman to ever win the AP Women's National Player of the Year:
https://www.theuconnblog.com/2021/3/31/2...f-the-year

(03-31-2021 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 11:43 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I just watched the video again and don't feel the "non-foul call" was necessarily the wrong call by the officials. To be fair, I can see how a Baylor fan would argue it was a foul. There was contact. But it seems the two UConn women blocked the ball first.

It was a very questionable call but I'm not sure it was a bad call.

I agree. I'm really surprised at how Baylor easily won the "propaganda battle" over that no-call, in that the media immediately focused on the no-call as the decisive moment in the game and about unanimously has agreed that Baylor got hosed. Neither are apparent to me, it's a lot more questionable to that. But that no-call has basically been the entire story of the game in the eyes of the media. It was a great game and that's all that's been talked about.

Not that winning this propaganda battle means anything at all, because the bottom line is UConn is in another Final Four and Baylor is already back home. But still.

Yep. Good points.

At the end of game, if the defender blocks the ball first and then there is contact — but not sufficient time for the offense to "regroup" to get another shot — the officials often don't call a foul for that contact.

Greg Oden's block on the Tennessee player in 2007 (NCAA tourney) at the end of the game (though with not as much contact as the UConn block) is kind of an example.

Again, if I were a Baylor fan, I would probably be displeased. But I can see how the officials would not call this one.

A tough call either way.

definitely a far different argument than we normally hear from the tournament- too big of margins of victory.

Love love love that NCAA WBB is having more & more parity each year.

(03-31-2021 03:16 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Love love love that NCAA WBB is having more & more parity each year.

No home court advantage helps in that regard.

It really is time for the NCAA to go to full neutral site games for the entire tournament.

Double the number of above #4 seeds advanced this year as opposed to 2019

(03-31-2021 04:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 03:16 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Love love love that NCAA WBB is having more & more parity each year.

No home court advantage helps in that regard.

It really is time for the NCAA to go to full neutral site games for the entire tournament.

That costs money. I was listening to ESPN radio over the weekend, and two talking mouths were discussing the "women's weight room scandal". One of them mentioned that the men's tournament earns something like $950 million and has a $28 million budget, while the women's tournament earns around $15 million and has a $14 million budget. They already are spending just about everything they can given the revenues generated.

Despite our occasional interest in a women's game, and the 2 million or so who tune in to the women's national title game, there just isn't much money in the sport.

(03-31-2021 07:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 04:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 03:16 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Love love love that NCAA WBB is having more & more parity each year.

No home court advantage helps in that regard.

It really is time for the NCAA to go to full neutral site games for the entire tournament.

That costs money. I was listening to ESPN radio over the weekend, and two talking mouths were discussing the "women's weight room scandal". One of them mentioned that the men's tournament earns something like $950 million and has a $28 million budget, while the women's tournament earns around $15 million and has a $14 million budget. They already are spending just about everything they can given the revenues generated.

Despite our occasional interest in a women's game, and the 2 million or so who tune in to the women's national title game, there just isn't much money in the sport.

Exactly, the cost for a city to bid for the first and second rounds will not justify the economic result. FCS teams often don't bid for games because they rarely break even.

What the Women's tournament "earns" is somewhat nebulous since neither ESPN, which broadcasts nearly all other NCAA championships nor the NCAA wish to breakdown those championships by viewership, which would assign an actual dollar figure to specific sport (WBB, Men's Hockey, Volleyball, Gymnastics, M Soccer or W Soccer).

(03-31-2021 07:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 04:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 03:16 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Love love love that NCAA WBB is having more & more parity each year.

No home court advantage helps in that regard.

It really is time for the NCAA to go to full neutral site games for the entire tournament.

That costs money. I was listening to ESPN radio over the weekend, and two talking mouths were discussing the "women's weight room scandal". One of them mentioned that the men's tournament earns something like $950 million and has a $28 million budget, while the women's tournament earns around $15 million and has a $14 million budget. They already are spending just about everything they can given the revenues generated.

Despite our occasional interest in a women's game, and the 2 million or so who tune in to the women's national title game, there just isn't much money in the sport.

Women's ratings are way up, men's are down. The NCAA needs to push for more money for the women's tourney.

And, the more competitive the tournaments are, the better the interest and ratings.

(03-31-2021 08:29 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 07:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 04:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 03:16 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Love love love that NCAA WBB is having more & more parity each year.

No home court advantage helps in that regard.

It really is time for the NCAA to go to full neutral site games for the entire tournament.

That costs money. I was listening to ESPN radio over the weekend, and two talking mouths were discussing the "women's weight room scandal". One of them mentioned that the men's tournament earns something like $950 million and has a $28 million budget, while the women's tournament earns around $15 million and has a $14 million budget. They already are spending just about everything they can given the revenues generated.

Despite our occasional interest in a women's game, and the 2 million or so who tune in to the women's national title game, there just isn't much money in the sport.

Exactly, the cost for a city to bid for the first and second rounds will not justify the economic result. FCS teams often don't bid for games because they rarely break even.

What the Women's tournament "earns" is somewhat nebulous since neither ESPN, which broadcasts nearly all other NCAA championships nor the NCAA wish to breakdown those championships by viewership, which would assign an actual dollar figure to specific sport (WBB, Men's Hockey, Volleyball, Gymnastics, M Soccer or W Soccer).

There are more bids for the FCS playoff games than sites.