2022 Women’s World Cup awarded to Australia; number of participants reduced to 12. Why? Here is how to grow the game and make the event more competitive.

By ALAN WALLS

Welcome to the fourth edition of The International Basketball Opinion, the world’s newest and only blog specifically dedicated to international basketball current events and news.

Last week FIBA announced Australia as the host country for the 2022 Women’s World Cup. Australia edged out Russia for the right to host “FIBA’s women’s flagship event.”

Stated FIBA President Hamane Niang to FIBA.basketball: "We look forward to the biggest women's event in basketball taking place in Sydney and also the 12-month qualification period that will take place to be among the 12 teams playing in Australia."

Wait, what? 12 teams? But the 2018 Women’s WC had 16 teams. A four-team reduction? Why? How can this be when on the men’s side teams were increased at the 2019 World Cup from 24 to 32? Keep reading, I will give you my take below.

Anyways, congratulations to Australia… yet I cannot say the same to the game of women’s basketball, the players nor the fans.

First, as I did in a previous post about the 2019 MWC, let’s examine the 2018 WWC results and see what the ideal number of teams should be.

Was the 2018 WWC really a competition of 16 teams where all 16 had a legitimate chance to finish on the podium? Or was it just a competition between four to six teams with real chances to medal, while the other 10 to 12 teams were just there to fill out the tournament?

To do this we need to examine the competitive level of the WWC by determining how many games were “blowouts,” how many were “competitive” and how many were “ultra-competitive.” At this level, I define a blowout as a game with a final score differential of 15+ points, competitive games with differentials of six to 14 points and ultra-competitive games as those won by five or fewer points as well any that go into overtime, regardless of the final score.

In the first round of the competition there were a total of 24 group games played.

Blowouts: 11 – 46%

Competitive: 8 – 33 %

Ultra-competitive: 5 – 21%

Of the 11 blowout games, eight (1/3 of all games) were major blowouts with point differentials of at least 25 points.

In the second-round, or medal-round, games there were an additional 12 games played among the top 12 teams. The percentage of blowouts jumped to 67% with only one game being ultra-competitive (a quarterfinal game).

Blowouts: 8 – 67%

Competitive: 3 – 25 %

Ultra-competitive: 1 – 8%

In the four semifinals and 3^rd/finals games not one of them was ultra-competitive. Even the USA-Australia final, the top two ranked teams in the world, was unfortunately a 17-point blowout that was only close during the first half – eight-point US lead at halftime – but ballooned to a 23-point US advantage after the third quarter.

Blowouts: 2 – 50%

Competitive: 2 – 50%

Ultra-competitive: 0 – 0%

For the entire tournament there were a total of 36 first and medal round games. Only 6, or 17%, were ultra-competitive. 53% of the games were blowouts, compared to only 39% of the 2019 MWC first- and medal-round games.

Blowouts: 19 – 53%

Competitive: 11 – 30%

Ultra-competitive: 6 – 17%

What does this breakdown tell us?

16 teams are too much for a truly competitive tournament based on the current format. There just aren’t many “top-level” teams in the world, at least not currently. As mentioned above, for the 2022 WWC the number of teams has been reduced to 12, though that is still too many under the current format. As the data above shows, 67% of the games among the final 12 teams were blowouts.

In the current format, the best number for the WWC would be eight teams. Two groups of four with the top two finishers in each group advancing to the semifinals. With lesser games, the final could even be a best-of-three final series. How about the best two teams in the world going toe-to-toe for two or three games?!

Yet, how can FIBA grow the women’s game by reducing the number of teams in the WWC?

What is the real reason for the reduction in teams?

FIBA will say it is due to the increased qualifying opportunities through the expanded qualification process on the regional levels. I don’t buy that as on the men’s side the qualification process has expanded similarly AND the number of teams in the MWC increased in the latest edition, now at 36!

I think it is for financial reasons. For FIBA to save money, or better yet, not lose money on a 16-team, or more, tournament. If this is true, at the WC level saving money should not be a priority, grown the women’s game should be.

With a change in format, I believe it is possible to have a much more competitive tournament with the same 16 teams, and even 24.

Here is how. 16 teams. Please understand, all teams, from the onset, will have a legitimate competitive opportunity to advance and compete for medals.

The top eight ranked teams in the latest FIBA rankings are placed in two equal groups of four. Groups A and B. A weighted draw can be conducted to form the equal groups.

The other eight teams are placed in two equal groups via the same process. Groups C and D.

I guarantee these first round games will be MUCH more competitive as all teams will be playing similarly competitive teams.

The 1^st and 2^nd places in groups A and B advance to the medal-rounds as the first four teams of the quarterfinals.

The 3^rd and 4^th place teams in A and B then play the 1^st and 2^nd place teams of C and D with the winners gaining the other four spots in the quarterfinals. Four games. All other teams rest on this day.

The four losers of the quarterfinals “play-in games” join the bottom two teams from C and D for the remainder of the tournament to play for places 9-16.

Rest day for all. The 2018 WWC also has two straight rest days, three in total.

From here it is two simple eight-team tournaments with quarterfinals, semifinals and finals/3^rd place games for the top eight teams (places 1-8) and bottom eight teams (places 9-16). Again, no matter what group each team is initially placed in, all teams have a chance to finish on the podium, and even win it all.

All teams will play either 6 or 7 games, just as in the 2018 WWC over the same nine days. If the first-round rest day is eliminated, the tournament could be held over eight days.

24 teams? Easy. Similar format as 16 teams. This could, and should, also be applied to a 24- or 32-team MWC.

24 teams = six groups of four.

Group A and B = top eight ranked teams in two equal groups.

Groups C and D = next eight ranked teams in two equal groups.

Groups E and F = final eight ranked teams in two equal groups.

Again, a very competitive first-round in all groups! No more having to wait until the second week of the tournament in order to have hotly contested games.

The top two places in groups A and B advance to the medal rounds as the first four teams of the medal quarterfinals.

Day 4: The 3^rd and 4^th place teams in A and B then play the 1^st place teams of C, D, E and F for the other four spots in the quarterfinals. Four games. The four winners advance to the medal quarterfinals.

The four losers will play in the second level (you could call it the Silver level and the top eight the Gold level) eight-team quarterfinals, along with the 2^nd place of Group C (C2) and D2, plus the two winners below.

Additionally, on the same day, C3 and D3 play E2 and F2, respectively. The winners play in the second level (or Silver) eight-team quarterfinals along with the six teams from above.

The two losers will compete in the bottom eight-team (or Bronze) quarterfinals, joined by C4, D4, E3, E4, F3 and F4.

All other teams rest on this day.

Day 5: Second rest day for all teams.

Day 6-8: From here it is three simple eight-team (quarterfinals, semifinals and finals) tournaments for the top eight teams to determine places 1-8, middle eight teams play for places 9-16 and the bottom eight teams play for 17-24. Each team plays three games here.

Confused? You shouldn’t be… if you know basketball and how to organize tournaments.

Again, no matter what group each team is initially placed in, all teams have a chance to finish on the podium, and even win it all. Also, all teams will play the same 6 or 7 games over the same eight days. Obviously, with an additional one or two rest days, the tournament can be extended.

I guarantee that applying this format to a 16-team or 24-team Women’s World Cup will dramatically increase the amount of competitive and ultra-competitive games, I believe to at least 60% of all games, while at the same time still providing all teams a shot at winning gold, silver or bronze medals.

This is a win-win-win-win-win-win for FIBA, the organizers, sponsors/advertisers, coaches, players and, most importantly, the fans!

-------------------

This format can also be applied to the regional championships where the gap between the haves and the have-nots is even larger.

Let’s use the 2019 Women’s AmeriCup as an example. 10 teams were divided into two even groups of five. The top two teams from each group advanced to the medal semifinals. The remaining teams played it out for places 5-10.

First let’s examine the competitiveness of the tournament based on how it played out.

In the first-round of the competition there were a total of 20 group games played.

Blowouts: 15 – 75%

Competitive: 2 – 10 %

Ultra-competitive: 3 – 15%

15 blowouts and only five combined competitive and ultra-competitive games!

In the second-round, or medal-round, games there were an additional 6 games played by all teams battling for the final positions, including the semifinals and finals.

Blowouts: 3 – 50%

Competitive: 2 – 33 %

Ultra-competitive: 1 – 17%

Separating out just the two semifinals and the 1^st/3^rd place games, only one was competitive while the other three were blowouts, including the 67-46 final won by the US over Canada.

26 games were played in total. Only 4, or 15%, were ultra-competitive. A staggering 70% of the games were blowouts compared to 53% for the 2018 WWC.  This proves how much larger the cap is on the regional level, at least in the Americas.

Blowouts: 18 – 70%

Competitive: 4 – 15%

Ultra-competitive: 4 – 15%

So how do you run a more competitive tournament with the same 10 teams? Easy. Same as above. Follow me below.

Form two groups of five, but instead of making two equal groups, Group A will consist of the top five ranked teams in the region of the 10 that have qualified for the championships. Group B contains the other five teams. You can still do a draw for the placement within the groups to determine the daily matchups. Per the rankings prior to the event, the groups would have been:

Group A: USA, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Puerto Rico

Group B: Cuba, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Paraguay

Each team plays the same four first-round games. For sure, all games will be much more competitive with this division of groups. A1 (Group A first place) and A2 directly advance to the medal-round semifinals.

Day 6: Semifinal play-in games. A3 plays B2 and A4 plays B1 with the winners advancing as the other two teams in the semifinals. They will compete with A1 and A2 for places 1-4.

Rest day for the other six teams.

Day 7: B4 and B5 play one additional game to define places 9 and 10 and then return home the following day. Additional rest day for all other teams.

Days 8 & 9: Semifinals and 1^st/3^rd place games for the top four teams. The two losers of the semifinal play-in games along with A5 and B3 play a “consolation” four-team tournament for two additional games each to determine places 5-8.

Each team plays 5 or 6 games. Nine days total, just one more than the other format. The only downside is, as with the previous scenarios, that there will be some repeat matchups. However, when the priority is competitiveness, that is a positive by-product of similarly matched teams in all rounds of the tournament.