 |
|
| Thursday, August 1 Updated: August 22, 11:08 PM ET An offseason of oddities By Mechelle Voepel Special to ESPN.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
Last college basketball season went pretty much as expected: Connecticut was the wire-to-wire No. 1, the Big 12 got its first Final Four team, Tennessee made its 10,027th Final Four, the members of the Class of 2004 established themselves with outstanding sophomore seasons.
So, there was nothing too weird about 2001-2002. And then came the offseason. Which, so far, has been weird-o-rama. Since the Huskies were crowned at the Alamodome:
The rumor mill out of Springfield, Mo., got louder in speculation that SMS brass have said some non-complimentary things about Burnett to other schools. Sure, Burnett probably did herself no favors by resigning abruptly and complaining about the support at SMS -- although she had some good grounds to do so. But it's always difficult to sort out all the elements of these squabbles. However, here's what's easy: Look at Burnett's track record for victories, NCAA success and dramatic attendance increase in her time at SMS. If that isn't enough to make her a hotly pursued property, you wonder what the heck athletic directors are really looking for. Think someone in the men's college game with Burnett's resume would be unemployed right now? Noooooooooo.
OK, that's just the coaching carousel. There has been other stuff:
"It hit me pretty hard,'' Carey said last week about leaving hoops, an unintentionally ironic choice of words. "Basketball is just an amazing feeling, not something you can explain or put into words. It's kind of the love of my life. I couldn't let it go. Once my memory came back, I wanted to play again.'' OK, Jamie, that gives us just a slight pause, but continue. "I've been symptom-free for a little over a year now. That's sort of when I was looking toward playing again. I think I became comfortable when I myself believed I was fine.'' Her parents are behind her, and former coach Tara VanDerveer is, too, Carey said. Carey acknowledged she probably wouldn't put herself in position to take charges, but she will still play very hard. Texas athletics team doctor Mark Chassey said he was so confident in Carey's recovery that even if she played in a high-collision sport, such as football or hockey, he would have cleared her to play.
I guess there must be people who think this is a good idea. But as one coach said, "I'm can't recall one person at the coaches' meeting at the Final Four who wanted it.'' The D-I women's basketball committee would tell you differently, of course. The only thing I've been able to theorize since the whole pre-determined idea came up two years ago is that there must be support from coaches who don't see any way they'll ever be one of the top 16 seeds. So this system could be their only chance to host. This season's sites, though, include many of the regular hosts and no school that one might think would never be able to make it in under the old system. The sites are at Cincinnati, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Kansas State, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico, N.C. State, Oklahoma, Old Dominion, Oregon, Penn State, Purdue, Stanford, Tennessee and Texas Tech. Women's basketball committee chair Maryalyce Jeremiah said, "We believe the sites selected will provide a solid foundation for the success of first and second rounds while expanding opportunities for the championship to expand to growing areas for women's basketball.'' But wait -- didn't letting teams battle through the regular season to EARN one of the top 16 seeds already do that? Did anyone notice, for example, what EARNING home NCAA sites did for attendance at Big 12 schools since the league began? The league has led the nation in attendance the last three years, including topping 1 million fans last season. The argument is that schools will have a year to "sell'' their first- and second-round games. But what sells better than having the home team in the house? If that hasn't already "sold'' dramatically at a school (see Georgia), will extra months to promote it make much difference? But my expectation of an attendance non-gain isn't anywhere near the biggest gripe I have with this system: It isn't any closer to completely neutral sites, which supposedly is the ultimate goal. For example, Duke might be the overall No. 1 next season, yet would have to go on the road for the first two rounds while other teams seeded the same and lower get to stay home. Texas might win the Big 12 title, yet it's for sure going to travel for the early rounds. Isn't this new system bound to confuse and taint seeding? Hasn't the committee had enough explaining and justifying to do in the past? Now they want to add on this layer of difficulty to the process? Sure, there were gripes under the old system when teams who thought they deserved to host didn't get to. But the idea of teams earning that opportunity through regular-season results seems a lot more fair than just putting the host sites up for bid. Mechelle Voepel of the Kansas City Star is a regular contributor to ESPN.com. She can be reached at mvoepel@kcstar.com. |
| ||||||||||||||
