Go Green
PhD Student
Posts: 1146
Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
|
03-09-18 02:50 PM - Post#251563
In response to dtannenwald
<<More important, though, was the fact that the men’s teams did not want a tournament. “We just got the door slammed on us,†said Delaney-Smith. “No tournament, no tournament, no tournament, because only the women wanted it. The men didn’t.â€>>
That may have been true way back when.
But in more recent times, nobody has been a more vocal opponent of a tournament than Courtney Banghart.
<<Princeton’s Banghart questioned playing the event at the Palestra, Penn’s home court. To her, this institutionalizes a Quaker home-court advantage that exacerbates the risk that the league does not send its best team to the NCAA tournament. She also argues that this points to a bigger question as the league tries to balance different priorities (national exposure, competitive balance, equity, the student-athlete experience, and marketing). If the league is going to risk a championship upset that might send a weaker team to the NCAA tournament, what gains is it seeking in return?>>
Someone should give Banghart the links to this Board and the Voy Board. This question has been answered countless times over the years.... If you don't know the answers to this question, you either are being intentionally obtuse or just have not been paying ANY attention. If you disagree with the rationales for a tournament, fine. But please stop insulting everyone by asking what the benefits of having a tournament are.
In any event, great article! I suspect that if the league ever does convert to PL tournament format and have the games at the higher-court's seeds, it will be because the women don't want to continue to have the event in one venue for the reasons expressed in the article.
Edited by Go Green on 03-09-18 03:12 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
