RebKell's Junkie Boards

[Stephen Shirley]

I thought I'd just get a head start on this discussion.

We know that some of the opening round games are going to be sparsely attended. And we've talked in previous Marches (how do you spell the plural of March) about what can be done to improve attendance.

Let me just say that the idea of the highest seeds getting auto host duties is bushleague and deprives regions from getting to host. So let's not go back to that idea. But busting the tournament into 16 opening round sites seems to me to dilute the product across too broad a spectrum.

I didn't pay attention to host sites years ago because I either couldn't travel anyway or knew that the team I followed at the time (UT-K) was assured of playing close to home and filling an arena. But now that I follow the Middle TN Lady Raiders so passionately, I've begun to notice the issue a lot more.

My question is when did the tournament decide to go to 16 host sites? Wouldn't it be easier to fill 8 opening site arenas each with fans from 8 schools? If you didn't hold strictly to the S-curve seeding (which they don't anyway), you could get better regional draws which would ensure larger crowds.

[beknighted]

Here's the sordid history:

From the start of the 64-team tournament to 2001, they used the home floors of the 1-4 seeds for the first two rounds. Every once in a while, a 1-4 seed couldn't host, and so they'd go to the home court of one of the other teams in the pod.

From 2001 to 2004, the NCAA used 16 predetermined sites. It worked pretty much the way it does today. The goal, according to the NCAA, was to start working towards neutral sites for the women, just like for the men.

From 2005 to 2008, as part of the effort to move to neutral sites, the NCAA used 8 predetermined site. Some of them were more or less intentionally not home courts of likely teams (e.g., Trenton, Bridgeport), but not many were really neutral. The NCAA was not that happy with attendance, although I have to say that it looked pretty good when they sent the right teams to the right places - Trenton did very well, and bid for another subregional in 2009 (which it subsequently withdrew from doing when the NCAA changed again).

Starting last year, the NCAA went back to 16 predetermined sites.

I have to say that, from my perspective, the 16 predetermined sites is the worst of all possible worlds. There's a very high chance that a higher- seeded team will play on a lower-seeded team's home court and you often have six or seven sites where the attendance is low because the home team isn't playing. I think it's going to be worse this year than usual because of all the Pac-10 sites that are without their host teams. Rutgers, for instance, usually travels fairly well, but it's clear from the RU board that a lot of the people who you'd expect to go just aren't going to make the trip cross-country. Luckily for the NCAA, that probably won't affect attendance much because that's the one western site where the home team is playing, but the same problem is going to play out, to much greater effect, at the other western sites.

If it were up to me, I'd go back to the 8 predetermined sites. It was a good compromise. Heck, I think you could go to 8 neutral sites if you picked them carefully. Make sure one is near UConn, one is near Tennessee, one is in the heart of the Big XII, etc., and I think attendance could be pretty good.

[pilight]

I still like the eight highest seeds that win their conference hosting. This year we'd be in Connecticut, Stanford, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Duke, Ohio State, Xavier, and Gonzaga. I think the crowds would be great.

If we're locked into 16, take the top 16 that reached their conference tournament final. That would add West Virginia, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Temple, Iowa, UCLA, James Madison, and NC State at hosts. That presents more logistical problems, as three #1s and five #8/9s would be host sites.

_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home

[pilight]

As a side note, I'm watching Florida vs BYU men right now. There appear to be plenty of good seats available.

_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home

[FS02]

As a base for comparison, here's what the first round attendance looked like last year:

Site: College Park, Md. (Comcast Center) Attendance: 10847
Site: Gampel Pavilion (Storrs, Conn.) Attendance: 8548
Site: Notre Dame, Ind. (Joyce Center) Attendance: 6395
Site: Carver-Hawkeye Arena - Iowa City, IA Attendance: 5615
Site: Nationwide Arena - Columbus, Ohio Attendance: 5249
Site: East Lansing, Mich. (Breslin Center) Attendance: 4348
Site: E.A. Diddle Arena, Bowling Green, Ky. Attendance: 3907
Site: Louis Brown Ath. Ctr., Piscataway, NJ Attendance: 3883
Site: Cox Arena at Aztec Bowl (San Diego, CA) Attendance: 3651
Site: Baton Rouge, La. (Maravich Center) Attendance: 3610
Site: The Pit/Albuquerque, NM Attendance: 3111
Site: Seattle, WA (Bank of America Arena) Attendance: 2853
Site: Lubbock, Texas (United Spirit Arena Attendance: 2748
Site: Arena at Gwinnett Center - Duluth, Ga. Attendance: 2704
Site: Chattanooga, Tenn. (The McKenzie Arena) Attendance: 2424
Site: Los Angeles, Calif. (Galen Center) Attendance: 1292

_________________
@dtmears2

[dtsnms]

Y'all can't blame us Yankees this time! We've got ZERO GAMES in New England!

[PUmatty]

[pilight]

[beknighted]

[suemar]

If I remember from years back the NCAA sites were determinded quite a while ago. I know ODU gets the tourneyment every other year since Ive been going. This will be my third tourneyment. In the past we saw 2 games Saturday, 2 Sunday and then Tuesday. This year we see 2 games
Sunday and 1 Tuesday.

However, with UConn playing Southern game 1 that will not be much of a game. the real mathup should be Temple/JMU game.

_________________
The Beat Goes On...
LifeTour 1952 -

[JumpMan23]

[ClayK]

If you have to play at home sites to guarantee some kind of attendance, which is precisely where the women's game is, then to me it makes sense to reward the good teams rather than the rich teams. In other words, let's have the teams that play basketball well get the home court, not the ones that write big checks years in advance.

All that discussion about predetermining sites so marketing departments could sell more tickets, etc., was just a smokescreen for the NCAA maximizing its income by throwing the risk on the bidding schools. Attendance is dependent on a) home teams, and b) the quality of the home teams. Marketing has only a minimal influence on attendance.

So 16 sites, with the top 16 seeds hosting, makes the most sense to me. That also adds some serious drama to the season, as getting one of those top four seeds becomes critical. As it is, the top 16 teams know whether they'll host or not before the season starts, so there's no sense of urgency.

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā

[pilight]

These ads about tix for San Antonio are unusual. Ordinarily the F4 is sold out long in advance.

_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home