Time to reduce the number of women’s ncaa basketball scholarships to 13. Reduce it from 15 to spread the talent. UConn is in its 12th straight final four, it’s always the same teams. If they want to increase interest in the women’s tournament, you need different teams with a realistic chance to make the final four and play for the title.
Reduce women’s b-ball scholarships to 13
- Thread starter dekhawk
- Start date
I'm having a difficult time disagreeing with anything you said there.
i doubt if any of the f4 teams use even 13 of their scholarships, much less all 15.
uconn only has 10 on their entire roster.
And they just got a verbal from the #1 player in 2021.She wants to make a difference....If she really wanted to do that she would have chosen a team not in the top 4 in America...
You are spot on. There is very little elite talent in women's bball and it is usually shared among the top 4-6 teams. Those teams seldom change. Iowa and ISU both had one this year, but the traditional teams get 2 to 5 of them every year.
a saw an ESPN headline that UConn just got an oral commit from the #1 ranked player
The number of scholarships isn't the issue. I'd guess top women's teams and top men's teams actually recruit very similarly. The difference is that top players in women's basketball stay for 4 years. The coaches get to develop their top players, and those players have tons of experience by the time they're juniors and seniors.
Imagine what the Duke men would look like if if Zion and RJ Barrett were still on the team the next three seasons and became really good jump shooters. Then add two or three top players each season. The Iowa men would get blown out every time they played them. That's what women's basketball is like right now. No idea how you change it.
Imagine what the Duke men would look like if if Zion and RJ Barrett were still on the team the next three seasons and became really good jump shooters. Then add two or three top players each season. The Iowa men would get blown out every time they played them. That's what women's basketball is like right now. No idea how you change it.
Where are you seeing or getting the info that the top 4 teams are not using their schollys. I think they are using all to keep the top players rolling into their programs and staying while they wait their turn to play. If you reduce it, they have to decide if they want to go to a different school to get the scholly. which causes parity in the sport and thats a good thing.
all you have to do is go to each schools internet site...I did one for you (Notre Dame) they have 14 players...3 are walk-ons...they have 11 scholarship players. Rarely do the lady blue-bloods get anywhere near the 15. You are not going to sell or attract top ranked high school recruits when you have a dozen or so already on the roster...thus the reason 'many' women programs' do not use the entire 15.
I would have no problem lowering it to 13...not sure what title 19 laws come into play.
2 mens scholarships would have to be cut if the school is currently even on their #s.
I wonder if adding two to another sport (like rowing) would work...it doesn't matter. As said...most P5 programs are not at 15. I believe Iowa has 13. I agree with BraydonRoberts...women stay in school...blue-bloods don't need to re-recruit as often as the men do.
suggesting a rule change after losing... be it elections or basketball, not a good look.
using the team's sites.
as bob said ND is at 11 scholarships.
uconn is at 10.
oregon is at 10.
baylor roster is at 12.
I’ve suggested it for years. Add 2 more scholarships to the rowing or volleyball team.
It has been discussed before.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/time-change-womens-basketball
Duke wouldn't get those top players every year in that scenario. They're would be guys like Jason Tatum and Wendel Carter already on their roster. That talent would trickle down to other schools. Probably not directly to Iowa, but maybe those guys go to schools like Ohio State and then we get guys like Carton (just as an example).
As had been explained in the thread, if the elite programs have 2 less scholarships, those players they would normally get drop down to the Iowa’s or similar schools. This improves the Iowa’s chances. The same reason football scholarships were reduced from 100 to 85. It stopped Ohio state , Michigan , the football elites from stockpiling talent. That talent went elsewhere and improved parity.
you think uconn will use 8 scholarships instead of 10?
notre dame will use 9 instead of 11?
Just like men's ball is all about the guard play, the opposite is true in women's ball, it's all about the post players. Usually the underdogs have no chance because a 6'7 woman can simply dominate in the post. Even if they cover entry passes, double off the ball, etc, she will still get a ton of offensive rebounds.
The rules just need to be adjusted to allow the guards to be more influential in the game. Move the 3 point line back in, make the lane the former FIBA trapezoid. Perhaps even move the shot clock back to 40 seconds, which allows underdog teams to stall the game out and lower possessions.
The rules just need to be adjusted to allow the guards to be more influential in the game. Move the 3 point line back in, make the lane the former FIBA trapezoid. Perhaps even move the shot clock back to 40 seconds, which allows underdog teams to stall the game out and lower possessions.
the women blue-bloods are not stocking their rosters with 15 top ranked players...Notre Dame has 11, UCONN has 10, Baylor has 12....again...the elite programs are NOT using the 15 now. Lowering to 13 will have zero impact.
Baylor had been using 15 scholarship players but released a few before the season then let a player go for violating rules, and one left to complete studies, one has transfered. So i would assume that most of the top schools have similar things happening to not be at 15 scholarships. Thats the point, if you reduce it, then they cannot stock pile quality players on the bench each year. If you only have 13 on scholarship and you lose a few to things like rule violations or them leaving then it evens the playing field for all. If they can just pile up top talent and keep them in reserve it hurts smaller schools who may get that bench player and she maybe a starter for them.
I’m not privy to these schools recruiting strategy. Perhaps they are banking some for a better class next year. They might need to change that strategy if they have 2 less. As has been posted , women stay for 4 to 5 years.
This theory has worked in other sports. If you’re content with the same 6 / 7 schools making up the final four each year then don’t change a thing. And wonder why women’s basketball is not that popular.
what might be the names of those they released? I could be wrong....I believe they have signed (highly ranked) but one recruit for next year with a potential 10 returning players.
Explain how I buried my head ? You nor I know these schools scholarship strategy. As posted , maybe they lost some due to grades , attitude, etc. but they have a stockpile that it doesn’t hurt them like it does other schools with less talent.
Obviously you know more about this then everybody else. Read this article
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/time-change-womens-basketball
thank you for a link to a 6 year old article. my wife played d1 basketball and coached at that level for a # of years so I am quite understanding of how teams utilize their scholarships. very few use all 15 because kids dont want to sit on the bench and coaches know this. coaches also know that their players have a greater risk of serious injury (see tania davis) and therefore may need to stay 5 years instead of 4 so they save spots for those instances. uconn currently has 10 on their roster and as of now has signed just one in this class. this claim that the elites are stockpiling talent by utilizing all 15 scholarships is not based on reality.
Your claim that the elites are not stockpiling is based on your opinion. You nor I know the elites scholarship situation or strategy . My idea is a theory that has worked in other sports.
Women blue-bloods have a lot of talent (no argument) there...but they have not been using the '15'...and this has been going on...here is a good article for you.
https://www.knoxnews.com/story/spor...l-should-use-scholarships-lose-them/98445764/
this was in 2017 & it appears the 2019 rosters are no different.
...The skill level will vary from one team to the next in the SEC women’s basketball tournament this week. But the 14 teams will have one thing in common: a short bench.
Just check the SEC rosters of the 14 teams competing in the tournament, which will begin Wednesday in Greenville, S.C. You are more apt to find players who dunk regularly than you are a team with its full allotment of 15-scholarship players.
its not based on my opinion. its based on facts when you look at the # of scholarships team use on a yearly basis.
ok then give 2 to softball..they struggle with partial scholarships as is...my only part in this debate...many women basketball programs are not using the 15...then pass a couple on to another sport so a young lady has a chance to go to school..on scholarship..
and what is worse..every scholarship less than 15 is hurting a young persons' chance to go to school on scholarship...granted it trickles down but at some point the trickle runs out. I would love to know how many D1 schools there are & what the total scholarship distribution is. I'll bet it doesn't come close to 15 per...
The women blue-bloods are not only winning with less than 15..they are saving scholarship $ in the meantime...lets use college athletics what is 'should be' intended for..rewarding scholarships for athletic ability to go to school. IF basketball isn't using the 15 (which they are not)...then pass it on to another sport.
looks like they had released Alexia Morris at the beginning of the year. had five 5 star recruits coming in, showing 13 on their roster now. Natalie Chou transfered from Baylor.
I bet they would. Using UConn WBB as an example, they only sign top players. True they might sign fewer of them, but they're still only signing 5 stars.
That leads to some trickle down of talent. Middleish Big Ten WBB schools do sign more Top 100 talent than their MBB counterparts. But the difference between of team full of Top 5-10 talent and Top 50-100 talent is still very apparent. Most of Iowa's starting lineup last night was Top 100, as an example. Only Megan and maybe Kathleen would've cracked Baylor's rotation.
