RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

2017 NCAA Tournament Attendance Numbers
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lynxmania



Joined: 18 Feb 2011
Posts: 10697
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/17 7:02 pm    ::: 2017 NCAA Tournament Attendance Numbers Reply Reply with quote

2017 NCAA Tournament Attendance
1st and 2nd Rounds

Bridgeport Regional
Storrs, Connecticut
Round 1
UConn vs. Albany - 5,670
Syracuse vs. Iowa State - 5,670

Round 2
UConn vs. Syracuse - 8,274

Los Angeles, California
Round 1
UCLA vs. Boise State - 2,256
Texas A&M vs. Penn - 2,256

Round 2
UCLA vs. Texas A&M - 2,077

College Park, Maryland
Round 1
Maryland vs. Bucknell - 3,511
West Virginia vs. Elon - 3,511

Round 2
Maryland vs. West Virginia - 6,129

Durham, North Carolina
Round 1
Duke vs. Hampton - 2,328
Temple vs. Oregon -

Round 2
Duke vs. Oregon - 1,620

Oklahoma City Regional
Waco, Texas
Round 1
Baylor vs. Texas Southern - 4,169
LSU vs. California - 4,169

Round 2
Baylor vs. California - 3,910

Louisville, Kentucky
Round 1
Louisville vs. Chattanooga - 5,441
Tennessee vs. Dayton - 5,441

Round 2
Louisville vs. Tennessee - 5,698

Seattle, Washington
Round 1
Washington vs. Montana State - 8,059
Oklahoma vs. Gonzaga - 8,059

Round 2
Washington vs. Oklahoma - 7,579

Starkville, Mississippi
Round 1
Mississippi State vs. Troy - 5,572
DePaul vs. Northern Iowa -

Round 2
Mississippi State vs. DePaul - 6,035

Lexington Regional
South Bend, Indiana
Round 1
Notre Dame vs. Robert Morris - 5,685
Green Bay vs. Purdue -

Round 2
Notre Dame vs. Purdue - 5,422

Lexington, Kentucky
Round 1
Kentucky vs. Belmont - 3,497
Ohio State vs. Western Kentucky - 3,557

Round 2
Kentucky vs. Ohio State - 2,644

Austin, Texas
Round 1
Texas vs. Central Arkansas - 2,908
NC State vs. Auburn -

Round 2
Texas vs. NC State - 3,476

Manhatten, Kansas
Round 1
Stanford vs. New Mexico State - 4,005
Kansas State vs. Drake - 4,005

Round 2
Stanford vs. Kansas State - 3,969

Stockton Regional
Columbia, South Carolina
Round 1
South Carolina vs. UNC Asheville -
Arizona State vs. Michigan State - 8,215

Round 2
South Carolina vs. Arizona State - 8,276

Coral Gables, Florida
Round 1
Miami vs. Florida Gulf Coast - 2,232
Marquette vs. Quinnipiac - 2,009

Round 2
Miami vs. Quinnipiac - 1,972

Tallahassee, Florida
Round 1
Florida State vs. Western Illinois - 4,147
Missouri vs. South Florida -

Round 2
Florida State vs. Missouri - 4,084

Corvallis, Oregon
Round 1
Oregon State vs. Long Beach State -
Creighton vs. Toledo - 4,692

Round 2
Oregon State vs. Creighton - 5,660


Reported Attendance Numbers came from box scores linked from the school's athletic websites:
*Some schools repeated the attendance for both games
*Some schools didn't report for the second game. I would assume they fall in the repeat attendance category.
*Two sites reported difference attendances for the games in Round One: Lexington and Corral Gables


lynxmania



Joined: 18 Feb 2011
Posts: 10697
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/17 7:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight

Bridgeport Regional
Sweet Sixteen
UConn vs. UCLA - 8,830
Maryland vs. Oregon -

Elite Eight
UConn vs. Oregon - 8,978

Oklahoma City Regional
Sweet Sixteen
Baylor vs. Louisville - 3,499
Mississippi State vs. Washington -

Elite Eight
Baylor vs. Mississippi State -3,128

Lexington Regional
Sweet Sixteen
Notre Dame vs. Ohio State - 3,148
Stanford vs. Texas - 3,163

Elite Eight
Notre Dame vs. Stanford - 2,527

Stockton Regional
Sweet Sixteen
South Carolina vs. Quinnipiac -
Oregon State vs. Florida State - 4,500

Elite Eight
South Carolina vs. Florida State - 3,134

Reported Attendance Numbers came from box scores linked from the school's athletic websites




Last edited by lynxmania on 03/29/17 7:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/29/17 6:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Women's basketball regional attendance at 20-year low

http://hosted.stats.com/wcbk/story.asp?i=20170329180558886910708

Quote:
The numbers aren't all bad. The attendance at the first two rounds of the NCAAs was the third highest in the last 10 years. The Final Four and championship game in Dallas are virtually sold out for the first time since 2014. Moving the Final Four to a Friday-Sunday format this year for the first time since 2002 helped that.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
Marquette Fan



Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 3543



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/29/17 9:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Women's basketball regional attendance at 20-year low

http://hosted.stats.com/wcbk/story.asp?i=20170329180558886910708

Quote:
The numbers aren't all bad. The attendance at the first two rounds of the NCAAs was the third highest in the last 10 years. The Final Four and championship game in Dallas are virtually sold out for the first time since 2014. Moving the Final Four to a Friday-Sunday format this year for the first time since 2002 helped that.


I guess I have been living under a rock Smile - this is the first time I realized it was Fri-Sun instead of Sun-Tue this year.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 10:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Women's basketball regional attendance at 20-year low

http://hosted.stats.com/wcbk/story.asp?i=20170329180558886910708

Quote:
The numbers aren't all bad. The attendance at the first two rounds of the NCAAs was the third highest in the last 10 years. The Final Four and championship game in Dallas are virtually sold out for the first time since 2014. Moving the Final Four to a Friday-Sunday format this year for the first time since 2002 helped that.


Attendance in the first two rounds was increased by having host sites.

I don't see any solution to the regional issue. It's expensive to travel on short notice, and no one knows who will advance.

I do think, though, they should play in smaller arenas to save money and improve the atmosphere.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
zune69



Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 8180



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 11:25 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

1.Reduce non-conference schedule by 5 games.

2.Reduce the field from 64 to 48 teams.

3.Top 16 teams get 1st rd byes.

4.Go to a best out of 3 tournament format(1-1-1).Higher seed gets 2 home games,lower seed gets 1.

5.Final four gets played on a neutral site.

Attendance & ratings would go up.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 12:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

zune69 wrote:
1.Reduce non-conference schedule by 5 games.

2.Reduce the field from 64 to 48 teams.

3.Top 16 teams get 1st rd byes.

4.Go to a best out of 3 tournament format(1-1-1).Higher seed gets 2 home games,lower seed gets 1.

5.Final four gets played on a neutral site.

Attendance & ratings would go up.


Makes sense. The five fewer games saves everyone money, and home sites generate income for regionals.

Of course, the women would have to accept that their tournament won't be the same as the men's, and that's unlikely to happen. If it was the case, women would not have conference tournaments, which lose millions each year.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 12:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Aren't the TV ratings up?

If so, I think the obsession with live attendance is misplaced.

Every sport is suffering live attendance issues. When every single game is televised as they are now, the motivation to travel 100 or 1000 miles for a regional on short notice is significantly reduced.

Maybe everyone should just stop worrying about it, focus on improving the game, and on increasing the size of the viewing audience.

It certainly isn't worth undermining the integrity of the tournament by giving a few select schools a huge competitive advantage. I hope they listen to the coaches. How anyone could think selling a few more tickets is more important than protecting the competitive fairness of the game's preimier event completely escapes me.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 12:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

zune69 wrote:
1.Reduce non-conference schedule by 5 games.

2.Reduce the field from 64 to 48 teams.

3.Top 16 teams get 1st rd byes.

4.Go to a best out of 3 tournament format(1-1-1).Higher seed gets 2 home games,lower seed gets 1.

5.Final four gets played on a neutral site.

Attendance & ratings would go up.


Attendance and ratings might be better, but not by enough to overcome the greater cost. This format features much more travel, more games (at least 94, possibly as many as 141, compared to the current 63), and would take longer (at least six weeks compared to the current three).



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
zune69



Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 8180



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 1:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
If it was the case, women would not have conference tournaments, which lose millions each year.


Hadn't cross my mind.This would definitely be a problem.

pilight wrote:

Attendance and ratings might be better, but not by enough to overcome the greater cost. This format features much more travel, more games (at least 94, possibly as many as 141, compared to the current 63), and would take longer (at least six weeks compared to the current three).


5 less non conference games would offset the cost of additional tournament games,and save 2-3 weeks on the schedule.

ArtBest23 wrote:
How anyone could think selling a few more tickets is more important than protecting the competitive fairness of the game's preimier event completely escapes me.


I wouldn't call getting two home games during a 1 game elimination tournament competitive fairness.

1.Opposing team star players getting in foul trouble because the refs have a bias in favor of the home team.

2.Officials letting the home team player get away with excessive contact.

3.Home teams getting the close calls in late game situations.

The Long Beach st/Oregon st and Texas/NC state games left a bad taste in my mouth.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 1:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

zune69 wrote:
pilight wrote:

Attendance and ratings might be better, but not by enough to overcome the greater cost. This format features much more travel, more games (at least 94, possibly as many as 141, compared to the current 63), and would take longer (at least six weeks compared to the current three).


5 less non conference games would offset the cost of additional tournament games,and save 2-3 weeks on the schedule.


It's not the NCAA that pays for non-conference games, but they're the ones being saddled with the extra cost of the tournament.

There's also the matter of double punishing the mid-major conference teams. Not only are you eliminating their automatic tournament bids, you're also shortening their season. You're essentially saying this sport is only for the major conferences, everyone else can take a hike.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 1:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

zune69 wrote:

I wouldn't call getting two home games during a 1 game elimination tournament competitive fairness.


It's two critical rounds - sweet sixteen and elite eight - where the competition gets a lot closer and upsets are realistic, and giving four teams home court advantage is an enormous advantage. Same reason they abandoned the "buy yourself a regional" approach. Same reason the coaches still oppose it:

"Coaches are strongly against reverting to campus sites.

“Neutral-site regionals are something our coaches believe in because of competitive equity,” said Danielle Donehew, executive director of the Women’s Basketball Coaches Association. “They don’t want to play on someone else’s home court.”


zune69



Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 8180



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 1:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:

It's two critical rounds - sweet sixteen and elite eight - where the competition gets a lot closer and upsets are realistic


Explain that to Long beach state and N.C, state.Both teams got hosed by the officials.




Last edited by zune69 on 03/30/17 1:31 pm; edited 2 times in total
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 1:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:

There's also the matter of double punishing the mid-major conference teams. Not only are you eliminating their automatic tournament bids, you're also shortening their season. You're essentially saying this sport is only for the major conferences, everyone else can take a hike.


Not really. Guaranteed that any reduction in the number of teams would come completely out of the at-large pool or it's a complete non-starter. Not one conference champion slot would be eliminated. Which means it would be almost entirely P5, A10, BE and AAC slots that would disappear.

And that would also mean even more mismatches as the tournament would be left with only the very top big schools and a whole lot of overmatched conference champions, with most of the middle tier eliminated.

Who really wants to see best two out of three of 2nd or 3rd place ACC or PAC team vs the Southland and Big Sky champions?


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 1:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
pilight wrote:

There's also the matter of double punishing the mid-major conference teams. Not only are you eliminating their automatic tournament bids, you're also shortening their season. You're essentially saying this sport is only for the major conferences, everyone else can take a hike.


Not really. Guaranteed that any reduction in the number of teams would come completely out of the at-large pool or it's a complete non-starter. Not one conference champion slot would be eliminated. Which means it would be almost entirely P5, A10, BE and AAC slots that would disappear.


As a realistic proposal, the whole idea is a non-starter. I assumed zune meant eliminating auto-bids as the way to cut the tournament back to 48 teams.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 1:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

zune69 wrote:


5 less non conference games would offset the cost of additional tournament games,and save 2-3 weeks on the schedule.


What about the 300 teams not playing in the tournament? I doubt if they are interested in shortening their seasons.

There are 349 Div I schools sponsoring WBB. Eliminating 5 games each means 872 fewer games played. That's a lot of ticket and concession sales for the home teams in those games.


elsie



Joined: 08 Apr 2016
Posts: 271



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 1:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

yep, take away those pesky non conference games and all the mid majors are just out of luck.....no way to show their game and no way to improve their chances at getting to the tourney....


SpaceJunkie



Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 4241
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 2:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
pilight wrote:

There's also the matter of double punishing the mid-major conference teams. Not only are you eliminating their automatic tournament bids, you're also shortening their season. You're essentially saying this sport is only for the major conferences, everyone else can take a hike.


Not really. Guaranteed that any reduction in the number of teams would come completely out of the at-large pool or it's a complete non-starter. Not one conference champion slot would be eliminated. Which means it would be almost entirely P5, A10, BE and AAC slots that would disappear.


As a realistic proposal, the whole idea is a non-starter. I assumed zune meant eliminating auto-bids as the way to cut the tournament back to 48 teams.


I, for one, am not offended, like some, that Oregon was in the NCAA Tournament this year, since they wouldn't have made it if there were only 16 (or 20) at-large teams.




Last edited by SpaceJunkie on 03/30/17 2:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
zune69



Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 8180



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 2:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:

As a realistic proposal, the whole idea is a non-starter. I assumed zune meant eliminating auto-bids as the way to cut the tournament back to 48 teams.


Expand the tournament to 96 teams....But that would cause a scheduling problem.

ArtBest23 wrote:

What about the 300 teams not playing in the tournament? I doubt if they are interested in shortening their seasons.

There are 349 Div I schools sponsoring WBB. Eliminating 5 games each means 872 fewer games played. That's a lot of ticket and concession sales for the home teams in those games.


So then i guess we're stuck with the same flawed system.....


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 3:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

geezusmerryandjosef

We seem to understand that WCB is different from MCB, but for some reason there is consternation because neutral regional sites don't draw.

WHO CARES?

Don't allow any team to play a regional within so many miles of campus and be done with it. Some Regionals may draw 3000. Deal with it.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
readyAIMfire53



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 7355
Location: Durham, NC


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 3:21 pm    ::: Re: 2017 NCAA Tournament Attendance Numbers Reply Reply with quote

Congrats to Duke for "winning" the least attendance award. Anyone interested in developing interest in wcbb should want a coaching change at Duke.

lynxmania wrote:
2017 NCAA Tournament Attendance
1st and 2nd Rounds

Bridgeport Regional
Storrs, Connecticut
Round 1
UConn vs. Albany - 5,670
Syracuse vs. Iowa State - 5,670

Round 2
UConn vs. Syracuse - 8,274

Los Angeles, California
Round 1
UCLA vs. Boise State - 2,256
Texas A&M vs. Penn - 2,256

Round 2
UCLA vs. Texas A&M - 2,077

College Park, Maryland
Round 1
Maryland vs. Bucknell - 3,511
West Virginia vs. Elon - 3,511

Round 2
Maryland vs. West Virginia - 6,129

[b]Durham, North Carolina
Round 1
Duke vs. Hampton - 2,328
Temple vs. Oregon [/b]-

Round 2
Duke vs. Oregon - 1,620

Oklahoma City Regional
Waco, Texas
Round 1
Baylor vs. Texas Southern - 4,169
LSU vs. California - 4,169

Round 2
Baylor vs. California - 3,910

Louisville, Kentucky
Round 1
Louisville vs. Chattanooga - 5,441
Tennessee vs. Dayton - 5,441

Round 2
Louisville vs. Tennessee - 5,698

Seattle, Washington
Round 1
Washington vs. Montana State - 8,059
Oklahoma vs. Gonzaga - 8,059

Round 2
Washington vs. Oklahoma - 7,579

Starkville, Mississippi
Round 1
Mississippi State vs. Troy - 5,572
DePaul vs. Northern Iowa -

Round 2
Mississippi State vs. DePaul - 6,035

Lexington Regional
South Bend, Indiana
Round 1
Notre Dame vs. Robert Morris - 5,685
Green Bay vs. Purdue -

Round 2
Notre Dame vs. Purdue - 5,422

Lexington, Kentucky
Round 1
Kentucky vs. Belmont - 3,497
Ohio State vs. Western Kentucky - 3,557

Round 2
Kentucky vs. Ohio State - 2,644

Austin, Texas
Round 1
Texas vs. Central Arkansas - 2,908
NC State vs. Auburn -

Round 2
Texas vs. NC State - 3,476

Manhatten, Kansas
Round 1
Stanford vs. New Mexico State - 4,005
Kansas State vs. Drake - 4,005

Round 2
Stanford vs. Kansas State - 3,969

Stockton Regional
Columbia, South Carolina
Round 1
South Carolina vs. UNC Asheville -
Arizona State vs. Michigan State - 8,215

Round 2
South Carolina vs. Arizona State - 8,276

Coral Gables, Florida
Round 1
Miami vs. Florida Gulf Coast - 2,232
Marquette vs. Quinnipiac - 2,009

Round 2
Miami vs. Quinnipiac - 1,972

Tallahassee, Florida
Round 1
Florida State vs. Western Illinois - 4,147
Missouri vs. South Florida -

Round 2
Florida State vs. Missouri - 4,084

Corvallis, Oregon
Round 1
Oregon State vs. Long Beach State -
Creighton vs. Toledo - 4,692

Round 2
Oregon State vs. Creighton - 5,660


Reported Attendance Numbers came from box scores linked from the school's athletic websites:
*Some schools repeated the attendance for both games
*Some schools didn't report for the second game. I would assume they fall in the repeat attendance category.
*Two sites reported difference attendances for the games in Round One: Lexington and Corral Gables



_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.

~rAf
summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7746
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 3:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:

There's also the matter of double punishing the mid-major conference teams. Not only are you eliminating their automatic tournament bids, you're also shortening their season. You're essentially saying this sport is only for the major conferences, everyone else can take a hike.


This is a whole other subject that's become near and dear to my heart since I moved up here and became a JMU fan. The mid-majors definitely get screwed. I know we had pretty mixed feelings about losing our conference tourney and not getting a bid to the NCAA, but we knew we'd get one to the WNIT, and the consolation prize was not only getting to play 3 additional games, but beating UVA on our home court (and that was doubly sweet, because we know how much UVA teams and fans just *hate* to come up here!) We could have been getting our lunch eaten in the first round by some P5 team, having gotten hosed by SelComm like we did last year....like Elon did. I found the WNIT preferable, frankly.

However, it did make me think that they could conceivably have something like they do for football, where they have the FBS and FCS schools...or whatever that other division is. I know FCS because JMU won that whole thing this year. But I'm sure that idea would go over like the proverbial lead balloon. Rolling Eyes



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
elsie



Joined: 08 Apr 2016
Posts: 271



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/31/17 2:17 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

please...lets stop diminishing this sport by suggesting we have a "greater" league and a "lesser" league...ala FBS/FCS....

you know what?....people ENJOY watching the "lesser" schools IMO and many have good fan bases....

and their reward?....getting bunched together as if they're not worthy...


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/31/17 6:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

We could also stop pretending that attendance, or lack thereof, has anything to with the level of competition being exhibited.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7746
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/31/17 12:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
We could also stop pretending that attendance, or lack thereof, has anything to with the level of competition being exhibited.


HEAR, HEAR!



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin