| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66912
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
mzonefan
Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 4878
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Back to top |
 Posted: 01/22/15 6:50 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
| If Michigan would even be in the mix to host, they would have the same conflict for the Big 10 gymnastics championship meet.
|
|
Happycappie25
Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 4174
Location: QUEENS!!!!
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/15 7:31 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Tell creme that...hes got michigan surrogate hosting for Louisville. ...here's my take on this...Arizona state is less an issue as they likely would be on a 4 line so you procedural them down to 5 and be done with it...Louisville is trickier....the issue i got is you make a deal bout not wanting higher seeds on a lower seeds court then have it anyway....i dont know why instead the ncaa wouldnt look into other arenas in the area (for asu whats the suns schedule that weekend for example) or even be creative (for Louisville what about talking to ky bput doing a quad at memorial since both would have a home team they likely would have good draw) the higher at lower seed thing just makes me wonder why we went back to begin with
_________________
"Leave it to the NCAA women's basketball committee to turn a glass slipper into glass ceiling" Graham Hays
|
|
IM in OC
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 999
Location: Orange County, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/15 9:48 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Could ASU host the games at Grand Canyon University in Phoenix?
It holds 7,000 and I doubt you would get more than that for the weekend games.
I have been there and it is nice, and fairly new, opening in 2011.
http://www.gcuarena.com/about/
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/15 10:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
It's not automatic for a top seed to host. They have to bid to do so and meet a list of requirements relating to facility and hotel. if a school has already booked its arena for something else, be it another NCAA event, concert, roller derby, or a boat show, that's not the NCAA'S problem.
Louisville made a choice to bid to host the mens tournament knowing perfectly well that if it won it would be unable to host the womens. ASU likely never thought it would be a potential women's basketball host site when it scheduled the PAC gymnastics tournament.
Heck, if a smaller city had a convention scheduled they might not be able to meet the room guarantee requirements through no fault of the school even if the arena was vacant. Or a school might decide for financial reasons it was worthwhile to accept another event that is available rather than wait and see if it can be a womens tournament host and risk having the facility stand vacant.
And what's the minimum size requirement? Would a school like DePaul, Georgetown or SJU have to bid using the Allstate or Verizon or MSG rather than the on-campus gym? They don't control those and would need the cooperation of the owner. If GW were to earn a top 16 seed this year, can they host? The Smith Center holds 5000.
Schools had to submit bids by last Friday, which is likely why news of these conflicts is coming out now. There's a 100 page manual of requirements. Among them is that there must be "exclusive access" for the women's tournament beginning at 9 am the day before the first practice day (March 17 I believe) so obviously trying to host both mens and womens doesn't work. And considering all the setup, logistics, signage, TV and other requirements spelled out in detail, that's not surprising. Suffice it to say it's not as simple as saying "top 16 host". More like "top 16 get a preference" in the site selection.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/15 12:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Suffice it to say it's not as simple as saying "top 16 host". More like "top 16 get a preference" in the site selection. |
Sadly, this is right.
Leave it to the NCAA to come up with a system that possibly is even worse than what we had before.
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/15 12:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Suffice it to say it's not as simple as saying "top 16 host". More like "top 16 get a preference" in the site selection. |
Sadly, this is right.
Leave it to the NCAA to come up with a system that possibly is even worse than what we had before. |
I don't see how this is the NCAA's fault. They are giving the top 16 schools an opportunity to host the women's basketball tournament at their facilities. If the school chooses to host another event, how is that the NCAA's fault?
|
|
scfastpitch
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 616
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/15 1:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Suffice it to say it's not as simple as saying "top 16 host". More like "top 16 get a preference" in the site selection. |
Sadly, this is right.
Leave it to the NCAA to come up with a system that possibly is even worse than what we had before. |
I don't see how this is the NCAA's fault. They are giving the top 16 schools an opportunity to host the women's basketball tournament at their facilities. If the school chooses to host another event, how is that the NCAA's fault? |
It's not . It's the choice of the people who run the arena . I'm more than willing to blame the NCAA for their screw-ups , but this isn't one of them .
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/15 1:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Suffice it to say it's not as simple as saying "top 16 host". More like "top 16 get a preference" in the site selection. |
Sadly, this is right.
Leave it to the NCAA to come up with a system that possibly is even worse than what we had before. |
I don't see how this is the NCAA's fault. They are giving the top 16 schools an opportunity to host the women's basketball tournament at their facilities. If the school chooses to host another event, how is that the NCAA's fault? |
Going back to the stone age, they didn't require bids in advance, but simply sent the games to the homes of the top 4 seeds unless there was a conflict. There wasn't certainty about where the games would be, obviously, but there were relatively few cases of conflicts.
In the last several years, they've had teams bid in advance (usually a couple of years out, but certainly at least a year), which gave them some time to plan ahead before they bid and created certainty about where the games would be.
This year, they're requiring bids - which they might not accept - so you have a combination of a lack of certainty and the likelihood that top 4 teams won't be hosting. The conflicts actually are almost a minor point from my perspective.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/15 1:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Suffice it to say it's not as simple as saying "top 16 host". More like "top 16 get a preference" in the site selection. |
Sadly, this is right.
Leave it to the NCAA to come up with a system that possibly is even worse than what we had before. |
I don't see how this is the NCAA's fault. They are giving the top 16 schools an opportunity to host the women's basketball tournament at their facilities. If the school chooses to host another event, how is that the NCAA's fault? |
Going back to the stone age, they didn't require bids in advance, but simply sent the games to the homes of the top 4 seeds unless there was a conflict. There wasn't certainty about where the games would be, obviously, but there were relatively few cases of conflicts.
In the last several years, they've had teams bid in advance (usually a couple of years out, but certainly at least a year), which gave them some time to plan ahead before they bid and created certainty about where the games would be.
This year, they're requiring bids - which they might not accept - so you have a combination of a lack of certainty and the likelihood that top 4 teams won't be hosting. The conflicts actually are almost a minor point from my perspective. |
That criticism is premised on an expectation that they are going to reject bids that meet the requirements that were submitted by teams seeded in the top 16. I don't know why you assume that will happen. I don't think these are competitive bids. They are submissions showing that you have an appropriate facility, that you commit to providing the necessary hotel rooms and other logistic support, that you accept the limits on alcohol sales, signage, etc., have the necessary support for TV and media, and agree to the responsibilities for ticket sales. You've always had to sign up for all these requirements, although they've gotten more complex with the TV coverage and media requirements. The manual sets forth what the NCAA supplies and pays for, and what the bidder has to provide and pay for.
I'll be surprised if the NCAA rejects a bid from a top 16 team that meets the requirements. If it does, then they can be criticized for it.
But right now all we have is teams that couldn't submit bids last Friday because their facility was not available. And only from two places that we know of, one of which likely won't end up as a top 16 anyhow. And the other which chose to tie up its facility for the men's tournament. Which is the exact same issue as in the "stone age". The criticism seems highly premature.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66912
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/15 1:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| But right now all we have is teams that couldn't submit bids last Friday because their facility was not available. And only from two places that we know of, one of which likely won't end up as a top 16 anyhow. |
We know of three so far: Arizona State, Louisville, and Michigan
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/15 1:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| But right now all we have is teams that couldn't submit bids last Friday because their facility was not available. And only from two places that we know of, one of which likely won't end up as a top 16 anyhow. |
We know of three so far: Arizona State, Louisville, and Michigan |
So two that aren't going to be top 16s anyhow.
One likely conflict.
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/15 2:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| But right now all we have is teams that couldn't submit bids last Friday because their facility was not available. And only from two places that we know of, one of which likely won't end up as a top 16 anyhow. |
We know of three so far: Arizona State, Louisville, and Michigan |
So two that aren't going to be top 16s anyhow.
One likely conflict. |
It will be interesting to see if Louisville will be a conflict. They are just now getting into the tough part of their schedule. Next 4 games:
1/22 - @ #17 FSU
1/25 - vs Miami (15-4, 5-1) wins over Notre Dame, LSU, Virginia
1/29 - vs #23 Syracuse
2/2 - @ #15 Duke
also:
2/15 - #12 UNC
2/23 - @ #6 Notre Dame
Lose 4 or more of those games and they may not be a top 16 seed.
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8947
Back to top |
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/15 4:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
Going back to the stone age, they didn't require bids in advance, but simply sent the games to the homes of the top 4 seeds unless there was a conflict. There wasn't certainty about where the games would be, obviously, but there were relatively few cases of conflicts.
In the last several years, they've had teams bid in advance (usually a couple of years out, but certainly at least a year), which gave them some time to plan ahead before they bid and created certainty about where the games would be.
This year, they're requiring bids - which they might not accept - so you have a combination of a lack of certainty and the likelihood that top 4 teams won't be hosting. The conflicts actually are almost a minor point from my perspective. |
That criticism is premised on an expectation that they are going to reject bids that meet the requirements that were submitted by teams seeded in the top 16. I don't know why you assume that will happen. I don't think these are competitive bids. They are submissions showing that you have an appropriate facility, that you commit to providing the necessary hotel rooms and other logistic support, that you accept the limits on alcohol sales, signage, etc., have the necessary support for TV and media, and agree to the responsibilities for ticket sales. You've always had to sign up for all these requirements, although they've gotten more complex with the TV coverage and media requirements. The manual sets forth what the NCAA supplies and pays for, and what the bidder has to provide and pay for.
I'll be surprised if the NCAA rejects a bid from a top 16 team that meets the requirements. If it does, then they can be criticized for it.
But right now all we have is teams that couldn't submit bids last Friday because their facility was not available. And only from two places that we know of, one of which likely won't end up as a top 16 anyhow. And the other which chose to tie up its facility for the men's tournament. Which is the exact same issue as in the "stone age". The criticism seems highly premature. |
There's a lot we don't know about what the NCAA will do, so my comments are not premised on the assumption that the NCAA will pick the highest bids. Personally, I won't be surprised if some of the bidders tried to fudge the requirements to see if they can get by; the NCAA might react to that in a variety of ways. As I said in my original comment, this leaves open the possibility of the worst of both worlds.
My real concern is that UConn, Tennessee, Baylor and a few other schools that know they're getting top-4 seeds are perennial hosts because they're willing to devote the resources to bid every year and that other schools that are not as certain of their top-4 status end up playing on lower seeds' home courts on a regular basis. That may make for more upsets at that level and more exciting early rounds, but it's not really good for the development of the sport.
Regardless, we'll see what happens when the host sites are announced, and we may have to wait a couple of years to see if schools work to avoid conflicts that would prevent them from hosting in the future.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/15 5:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I think perhaps you're looking at the term "bid" in the old sense of who offered to guarantee the most money.
Looking at this year's application, that doesn't appear to be the case. It looks to me like a "bid" is nothing more than a presentation showing that you can meet the facility/hotel/logistics requirements and are willing to agree to the other obligations. I don't think this is a competition. Maybe they should have called it an "application" or "commitment" instead of a "bid."
My understanding is that if you agree and meet the requirements, and you're seeded in the top 16, you get to host.
If you don't have a facility, can't provide hotels, or won't agree to the terms, you won't, which isn't any different than it was in the old days.
If Louisville loses out on hosting, it's a result of its own choice in choosing to host the men's tournament instead. I'm really not understanding why that's a cause for concern about the NCAA's process. The NCAA can't force anyone to make their facility available. If they choose not to, that's their problem.
And there may be places that simply don't have a large enough arena or don't have the capability of supporting live television broadcast (which is a big part of the application). That's not really the NCAA's problem either. If Rider ever earned a top 16 seed, I don't know if you can expect the NCAA to hold the tournament in its 1900 seat Alumni Gymnasium.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/15 6:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that the NCAA would be weighing which bids would make the most money, but there are real costs to hosting, and some schools that end up with top 4 seeds may not have chosen to bid because of the costs or, as I said, some schools may have tried to fudge a bit to see if they could get by.
|
|
mzonefan
Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 4878
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Back to top |
|
|
|
)