USA Today's Aunt Bea: Combine the two NCAA basketball tournaments

Rosie just grounded someone and has no idea who or why

 

And what does it say that the NIT is on ESPN right now and the women's tournament relegated to the Deuce? Maybe Brennan's thinking that the poor crowds of most of the women's games (from the TV view today) combined with some poor crowds at men's games (looking at Thursday and Friday's first-round games), that you might get a combined packed house if you played them half-court.

 

What does it mean that upon reading this thread, I thought we were talking men's and NIT?

 

Ya think Shalala would be a little more concerned about getting her Miami football program in order?

 

No. No, they aren't. To suggest so is disingenuous.

There are plenty of women's sports I'll watch -- tennis, golf, many Olympic events (particularly skiing) -- but to even pretend female basketball players are as athletic as their male counterparts is asinine.

I've never understood why people believe women's basketball must be as popular as men's. People will watch what they like. If they enjoy the women's game, it's on TV and they can watch. If they prefer the men's game, that's OK. It should be allowed.

That said, I don't think it's a terrible idea to try having the women's FF on the Friday and Sunday. I've never been to a city hosting either FF, so I don't know the logistics, but there's nothing wrong with giving it a shot.

Old_tony is right that many newspapers would not send extra reporters to cover the women's FF. However, those same papers certainly wouldn't send reporters to a separate city. At least some of the reporters covering the men's FF might do some work on the women's games (and I'd bet some newspapers would look at it as getting more bang for their buck).

So the NCAA would get all the papers that would normally staff the women's games, and they might even get a few extra to give their tournament more coverage. The papers who choose not to cover it (for lack of reader interest, reporter laziness, etc.) don't lose anything by the women's tourney being there.

I don't see any downside here, outside of making sure each host city is capable of handling the crowds for both (and again, as someone has not attended either, I'm not sure if that's viable or not -- I'm guessing, though, that if cities can handle the Super Bowl, with 90,000+ fans at the game and even more just hanging out, they can handle college hoops).

 

This is exactly why I rarely even read a column with Brennan's byline any more. I've seen her do some excellent work, but she is far too tied up in writing the same damn thing over and over again.

It's a bad idea for all the reasons posted above. The women's game isn't as popular as the men's game and it never will be. It can get better and it doesn't get the respect it deserves, but I think a large part of the appeal of basketball is the explosion and athleticism of the athletes. In those areas, the women simply can't match the men.

 

Why play around the edge of the issue like this? We just need a law that requires people to watch women's basketball.

 

Isn't Donna Shalala part of the Gannett board? She ought to be the poster gal for everything that is wrong with newspaper management and understanding what it means to work in the media. Good post, Tony.

 

Wwill that law require everybody who fills out a men's NCAA bracket to fill out a women's bracket as well?

 

CB's fine on women's figure skating. She knows the sport cold, and millions of women care about the sport, passionately. Of course, she writes about it too much, in terms of its legitimate share of the day-to-day, but it's up to Gannett if they want to reward her for this overcoverage of a niche interest.

This is a far purer form of dead-horse beating. You can throw the best damn party you can, but if the broad populace stays away in droves . . . well, the jury's in. This isn't a self-indulgence for folks who can bear the cost, like yachting. Women's basketball is currently subsidized to an absurd fiscal extent, for a bye-and-bye that isn't coming. Godot won't be arriving, sorry.

This isn't a sexist issue. I've never been outside the Americas, but I LOVE GOOD
soccer. GOOD soccer . . . . the Brazilians, when they're good. Bad soccer's unwatchable.

The parallel is wholly legitimate.

 

But...but...they try just as hard as the boys!

 

Seems like a bad idea in general, even beyond principle.

The women's game has grown a niche for themselves and continues to grow it, even if it may seem painfully incremental. At least they were on ESPN2 last night. Were 1st and 2nd round games even televised a decade ago? Certainly, their brethren in the NHL can't boast of ESPN coverage.

The athletes are getting better, the exposure is growing. Let the women's game continue to evolve naturally and on its own, and don't dwarf it in the shadow of big brother.