Welcome to The Holy Land of Hoops

Any new member would have to add significant brand-building value to the league, Ackerman said, and geography, too, is another consideration.

Unfortunately for our A10 friends, this means no Dayton, VCU, or the Bonnies. No Gonzaga either. Pretty obvious it's uconn or stay pat.

kayako wrote:

Any new member would have to add significant brand-building value to the league, Ackerman said, and geography, too, is another consideration.

Unfortunately for our A10 friends, this means no Dayton, VCU, or the Bonnies. No Gonzaga either. Pretty obvious it's uconn or stay pat.

I never respected her prior to you naming her commish. Her views on expansion are not the first thing I think she has completely backwards.

Her idea to make women's basketball better, because there's never any upsets, was to SHRINK the field. As if talented players would pick a more diverse group of schools if less schools got to hang NCAA banners.

The real culprit is that while WAY too many mediocre, 6th to now 9th place teams from big football schools are let into the MEN'S tourney at the expense of mid-majors who won a lot; the WOMEN'S tournament has ALWAYS had a more severe problem with it. One year, Toledo went 27-3 and didn't get an at-large, and Kansas got in at 16-14. Which surprised the Kansas head coach, who went shopping instead of watching the Selection Show.

ecasadoSBU wrote:Definitely a better move for everyone involved.

We dont need them in the Big East.

BYU/Gonzaga would be a nice addition to the MWC

Of course getting GU is not a “need”. But it sure would be awesome to have them, and it would make the BE an even more high profile conference with a stronger position for future TV revenues.

JPSchmack wrote:I never respected her prior to you naming her commish. Her views on expansion are not the first thing I think she has completely backwards.

Her idea to make women's basketball better, because there's never any upsets, was to SHRINK the field. As if talented players would pick a more diverse group of schools if less schools got to hang NCAA banners.

The real culprit is that while WAY too many mediocre, 6th to now 9th place teams from big football schools are let into the MEN'S tourney at the expense of mid-majors who won a lot; the WOMEN'S tournament has ALWAYS had a more server problem with it. One year, Toledo went 27-3 and didn't get an at-large, and Kansas got in at 16-14. Which surprised the Kansas head coach, who went shopping instead of watching the Selection Show.

Are you sure that it was her call to shrink the WNBA? As for her comments in the article, I'm sure she's speaking in behalf of the presidents & ADs of member schools.

NCAAW is a joke. It stops being sports when uconn goes on a 50-0 run without breaking a sweat. Unless I'm mistaken, they can't reduce the field because Title IX. bummer

It was her suggestion to shrink the NCAA Women's basketball tournament, because the top seeds win all the time.

It was part of a "white paper" for the NCAA, like a think tank memo. She had all kinds of other things, too. Like marketing. She pointed out how everyone but the elite programs in women's hoops (all eight of them), is terrible at marketing women's basketball, and THAT'S why attendance is bad.

Which I found laughable, and totally related to the NCAA bid thing. When you don't give an at-large to a team that finished 27-3, you're telling everyone "Your regular season doesn't matter. Only your conference tournament matters." So why should anyone buy a ticket to a regular season game? The NCAA just said it was meaningless.

Wouldn't it make more sense to treat women's basketball like the extreme "spread the wealth" philosophy of bids? Try giving the benefit of the doubt to teams that win 26+ games instead of 19-13 teams for a while... and see what happens. See if there's more upsets in the tournament. See how many fans at small schools desperate for men's basketball success and not getting it, get behind a winning women's team then. It's not like there's MONEY at stake, like on the men's side. I understand the cartel doing what they do on the men's side. But there's zero dollars on the line.

The other reason to spread the bids around... the more teams that have NCAA access, the more recruits will pick different schools. Kids might decide to be like Steph Curry at Davidson instead of being the 7th best player on UConn.

UConn must be feeling right at home at the AAC Tournament in Orlando. There can't possibly be more than 1,000 people there today.

Almost makes me feel sorry for the AAC, almost. The freaking Summit had better crowds than that.

That is what you get with a conference that has no identity and no geographic sense. Sure Omaha is an outlier in the BE, but we know NYC is the heart of the conference and NYC is an actual destination that makes sense. Fits the culture and is actually fairly easy to get to for all fan bases.

There is no destination for the AAC that makes sense geographically or culturally that could create a conference tournament worth anything.

JPSchmack wrote:

kayako wrote:
Unfortunately for our A10 friends, this means no Dayton, VCU, or the Bonnies. No Gonzaga either. Pretty obvious it's uconn or stay pat.

I never respected her prior to you naming her commish. Her views on expansion are not the first thing I think she has completely backwards.

Conference commissioners are not in the habit of giving their personal views to the media. Her job is to speak for “the conference”, i.e. the consensus opinion of the president’s of the member institutions. Those may or may not correspond to her personal views, but regardless, her personal opinions are irrelevant.

kayako wrote:

Any new member would have to add significant brand-building value to the league, Ackerman said, and geography, too, is another consideration.

Unfortunately for our A10 friends, this means no Dayton, VCU, or the Bonnies. No Gonzaga either. Pretty obvious it's uconn or stay pat.

Not sure at all I agree- listen, Flyer fans are largely pessimistic (with a capitol P) on receiving a BE invite- so this is not sour grapes or pining away hoping to be asked. That said I think "significant brand-building" could also imply reinforcing the private, Catholic (or other faith based) school brand which the BE is strongly associated with. I think many non-BE schools reinforce this brand. I can objectively advocate the BE choosing the best school they feel serves the league, but I can sincerely say if I were the leader I'd insist on private school, faith based & within a given geography.

Now putting my UD hat on- my sense is that either UD or SLU if selected would have virtually all basketball people acknowledging the selection was very good, appropriate and true to the league's profile & brand. Neither school would set back the league one bit and I'd argue both would give it additional richness from a fan base, school mission & peer perspective. Bringing in a disparate school profile (I can acknowledge the UCONN exception having appeal by the east coast schools voiced here) does nothing but confuse the brand you yourselves value- as evidence by the name of this website.