First off, we want to thank everybody -- there were a lot of you -- who offered suggestions about avoiding static-electric shock when you get out of your car. They came from as far away as Germany, which shows this obviously is a issue of global importance.
Here's some of the advice: touch your key to metal on the vehicle before you get out ... keep your hand on the edge of the door (or metal part) when you get out ... rub a dryer sheet on the upholstery ... spray "Static Guard'' on seats ... buy a keychain "charge device'' ... get a thingamajig called a "grounding strap'' at an auto-parts store and bolt it to vehicle ... move to warmer climate with less static electricity ... drive naked.
| NCAA Tournament history |
|---|
| The NCAA took over running it in 1982. That year, it had 32 teams, went to 36 in '83 and then back to 32 the next two seasons. It was 40 from 1986-88, then 48 from 1989-93. During that time, virtually all early-round games were played on the home court of the higher seed, unless there was a scheduling conflict and that school wasn't able to be a host. There was also a bizarre experiment in 1993, when the committee announced only the top 16 of the 48 seeds. The bracket expanded to 64 teams in 1994. That season, there were 32 sites for the first round and 16 for the second -- with the higher seeds as host unless, again, there was a scheduling conflict. In 1995 came the "subregional'' system, where the top four seeds in each region hosted three other teams. Meaning there were 16 early-round sites, and the hosts were the 16 top seeds (minus scheduling conflicts). This system stayed for eight years; the big complaint was that it was too predictable because the top 16 had such an advantage. But at least they had to earn it, plus it meant there was close-to equality across seeding lines. The No. 1's had similar paths, and so forth. You didn't have things like two No. 1's playing the early rounds at home and two playing on the road, as is the case this year under pre-determination. The teams with the most legitimate gripes under that former system were the No. 5 seeds and some No. 6's, because they were so close to the No. 4's competitively but didn't have that hosting advantage. Still, there was logic to it all -- as opposed to having randomly awarded homecourt advantage based on bids, not results. Under the bid process, schools have to guarantee the money. So if they don't meet ticket expectations, that's their problem. But there were some schools that bid for this season -- and would have been good draws -- but were not awarded sites. Pre-determined sites made things easier to plan for television and cut some costs. Obviously it's not the first time that TV had a big effect on the structure/practices of a sport. (Some of us will forever mourn the death of daytime World Series games.) Nor is it the first time it happened specifically in women's basketball. Remember the 9 a.m. tipoff time for the first semifinal of the 1992 Women's Final Four in Los Angeles? That was forced because of the CBS-televised back-to-back, Saturday-Sunday schedule -- where Saturday's games had to be "out of the way'' before the men started their semifinals. |
One nice fellow referred to the touching-the-key-to-the-car method as an "old science trick,'' which explains why I was in the dark. I could always fill almost my whole pie in "Trivial Pursuit'' in a decent amount of time ... except the green piece ... and as I whiffed over and over on the science questions, my sister would say, "How can you be alive and not know any of these things?''
And, alas, someone delightfully made the connection between my complaining about static electricity and pre-determined sites ... and suggested electro-shock therapy for the committee. (They would not want me controlling the voltage on that.)
Anyway, you might be saying, "Are you writing about pre-determined sites AGAIN?'' and yes, I am once more. I'll get to matchups and interesting personal stories and that stuff all throughout the tournament. But the event's set-up is a vital issue that needs to be a front-burner topic.
Why? I've written about it at other times in the year, including in the summer of 2000 when several non-neutral regional sites were awarded and pre-determination was still being debated -- and no one (me included) had totally thought through how bad that system could be.
People are paying a lot more attention this time of year.
ESPN got its highest ratings ever for the women's selection show. Every season, the sport gets brand-new fans. They don't know what went on in the past or how things were set up.
Thus, one person wrote me and suggested that the tournament committee consider rewarding the teams for regular-season results and giving them home-court advantage based on seed.
Wow! How about that idea?
The sarcasm isn't directed at the newbie (welcome to all of you new fans) but toward the NCAA decision-makers who abandoned that policy of top-16 hosting in favor of the pre-determined sites, which Oklahoma coach Sherri Coale summed up nicely as "a mess waiting for a place to happen.''
Or several places, as the case may be.
Stanford coach Tara VanDerveer, like Coale, is taking her team to Tempe, Ariz., and talked about some of the difficulties there. Including the fact that baseball spring training has most hotel rooms booked and, according to VanDerveer, teams are staying at places they normally wouldn't.
Asked what she thought about Stanford-Oklahoma-Missouri-Marist playing at Arizona State -- which didn't make the NCAA field -- Coale said, "I don't expect there to be a lot of electricity or much atmosphere. I like the fact we're going somewhere warm, but I don't think it's going to be very warm in the building.''
How many people who have followed these teams all season (or for many seasons) -- the folks who REALLY care about these games -- have any chance to be there? How does Arizona State's program or women's basketball in general benefit from these games being played there?
"Who is this tournament for and what is it about?'' VanDerveer said. "Shouldn't it be for the athletes who are playing? It's really hard to understand what road we're going down.''
And yet, despite having so much intelligent dialogue to add to this whole problem, Coale and VanDerveer also then said the same thing seemingly all coaches get around to saying when they're discussing these issues. They bail out.
Everybody's too busy to worry about it now -- they've got to get their teams ready to play, and they can't go in with a mindset of negativity toward the system. Plus, let's be frank: They have to worry about ticking off the committee.
Then, after the tournament, the coaches get caught up in the recruiting cycle and vacations and camps and ... the problems that scream out on Selection Sunday move to a back burner until the next year when we face the same things all over again. Next season, it's eight teams at eight sites, and I fear there's a lot that hasn't necessarily been thought out with that as well.
Coale said, "As coaches, we spoke loudly against (pre-determined sites). But they do what they do, and you've got to be able to handle it. I've never gotten too wrapped up in seeding and placement. You'd better be good enough to beat anybody anyway.''
And VanDerveer said, "I don't spend time worrying about it, or thinking about it much. ... Maybe it would be worth it to take a step back.''
Gee ... you think? If coaches are saying, "Oh, well, it stinks but I can't worry about it'' ... who the heck IS going to worry about it?
To me, this would be like pilots saying, "I can't be concerned about quality-control in the manufacturing of planes. I just fly 'em and hope they don't fall apart in the air on me.''
Message to coaches: If you are at the top level -- or aspire to be -- in this sport, your career is judged on the NCAA Tournament. Some of you know a lot more about your sport than anybody else does. Can't enough of you who are influential, financially secure and have proven yourselves to be concerned about more than just your own program please band together and force people to listen to you?
In the past two years, we've heard everyone from Pat Summitt to Jody Conradt to Geno Auriemma to Marsha Sharp talk about the problems with pre-determined sites and their overall worries about the tournament. Last season, the committee sent a few "hush-up'' messages to some coaches. And the committee will be quick to say the "majority'' of coaches voted in favor of pre-determination. I would say that's the "majority'' that thought they had no prayer of ever getting a top-16 seed, so they decided the opportunity to "buy'' the home-court advantage was a good alternative.
And let's get down even further to brass tacks. Of the 10-member Division I women's basketball committee, not one member is currently at a school that has ever competed in the Women's Final Four. Three are at schools that haven't ever played in the women's NCAA Tournament. Another is at a school that competed in it once.
I'm sure they're hard-working and they care and they want the best for women's basketball. However, it's reasonable to question if they have a good idea what that is or how to get there.
The committee, ESPN, anybody else in a decision-making capacity and the coaches all need to realize we are at a crossroads.
I wish the NCAA would be more pro-active and aggressive in "recruiting'' or encouraging areas to bid for neutral-site early-round games. And maybe those should be awarded on two- or three-year contracts instead of one year.
Women's basketball is NOT men's basketball and doesn't have to follow the same paths. It probably shouldn't. Maybe keeping subregionals in place for a few years would let them build some local fan base for the sport in general.
The system is changing yet again. There's still time to try to ensure we don't have a multitude of problems that come to fruition next Selection Sunday.
Mechelle Voepel is a regular contributor to ESPN.com's women's basketball coverage. She can be reached at mvoepel@kcstar.com.1. ESPN.com:OTL: Old College Try
2. ESPN.com:Forde: Forde Minutes
3. ESPN.com:Simmons: Super Bowl retro diary
More...
