Voepel also has a more in-depth article dealing with the site selection problem.

A couple days ago, I needled Mechelle a little bit for just complaining without offering some suggestions of what we can do to fix the problem. In her new version, she has thrown out some good ideas.

Mechelle and others have been arguing that the old system -- where the higher seeds got home court -- was better. This is one place where I part company.

In my view, any home court advandage -- whether given to the higher or lower seed -- is unfair. The Dance is a one-and-done affair. You only get one game against a team to see who's better. If you really just want to see who's better, you gotta play on a neutral floor.

Voepel and others are right that the old system was "more fair" in that the higher seed earned home court by having a better regular season.

That's true... but it was also more boring. From a fan's perspective, it wasn't very fun to have the possibility of upsets bleached out of the tournament. This year, the unfair lower seed home courts will no doubt create some exciting games and good stories.

The current system is less fair and more anarchic than the old system... but as Mike Lopresti said in the USA Today, the women's game could use a little more anarchy.

That all said, everyone agrees that the current system is still suboptimal. When the committee switches formats again after this year, they need to make it better. If they go to 8 sites, they need to make those sites neutral -- or at least more neutral.

I suspect the underlying problem is money. The NCAA wants to fill seats. The easy thing is to send the tournament to Lubbock or Hartford or The Pit. But it might be better to take the risk of truly neutral sites. There will be some busts and some empty seats in some places, but in the long run, it'd be better for the game.

Mechelle is definitely right about one thing -- coaches need to speak up and demand something better. Fans and journalists need to do the same.