| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
 Posted: 03/22/17 1:13 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Phil wrote: |
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| There should definitely be some tickets withheld and set aside for visiting teams and if they aren't sold by a set date, then they are released for purchase by anyone. Just another way in the which the NCAA clearly doesn't really care about anything but the almighty dollar. |
That sounds like a simple and obvious solution but even that approach has some negative consequences which I can attest to from personal experience.
A few years ago, there was a regional in Rhode Island. I signed up for tickets the day they became available and my seat was four rows down from the very last row.
I noticed a friend sitting in the lower bowl, so I inquired to find out how they had acquired such good tickets wondering if perhaps they were a large donor. They explained that they had been in Boston for meeting and were driving home and it wasn't far of the way so they stop by and walked up to the ticket booth and bought tickets. Apparently, some tickets had been reserved and were released late.
Can you give me a rational explanation why I should have a terrible seat when someone walking up to the arena on the spur of the moment gets a good seat? |
So...those tickets were "reserved" and then released later? My first question would be reserved by whom? Why didn't they use them? Was this public knowledge that any tickets that were returned would be available for purchase? I'm sure it was listed somewhere on their website as that is common practice at any facility I have ever been to.
When I was coaching, we always had a certain number of tickets held for our staff & players. That list, depending on the game, was either due the day before or the day of the game. If we didn't use the full allotment, there were tickets released back into the pool for the public. When we were in the NCAA's, I know our school always had access to at least 250 tickets as a school, outside of the team allotment. I have no idea why it would only be 100 now.
You can always get better seats from a ticket scalper, off stubhub, etc so all sorts of people could have had better seats than you that they purchased after you bought your crappy ones.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 1:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Even if tickets can be bought online, would you rather sit in the midst of a whole bunch of Husky fans, or in a section of like minded fanatics who can cheer and boo together?
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7845
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 1:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| Phil wrote: |
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| There should definitely be some tickets withheld and set aside for visiting teams and if they aren't sold by a set date, then they are released for purchase by anyone. Just another way in the which the NCAA clearly doesn't really care about anything but the almighty dollar. |
That sounds like a simple and obvious solution but even that approach has some negative consequences which I can attest to from personal experience.
A few years ago, there was a regional in Rhode Island. I signed up for tickets the day they became available and my seat was four rows down from the very last row.
I noticed a friend sitting in the lower bowl, so I inquired to find out how they had acquired such good tickets wondering if perhaps they were a large donor. They explained that they had been in Boston for meeting and were driving home and it wasn't far of the way so they stop by and walked up to the ticket booth and bought tickets. Apparently, some tickets had been reserved and were released late.
Can you give me a rational explanation why I should have a terrible seat when someone walking up to the arena on the spur of the moment gets a good seat? |
So...those tickets were "reserved" and then released later? My first question would be reserved by whom? Why didn't they use them? Was this public knowledge that any tickets that were returned would be available for purchase? I'm sure it was listed somewhere on their website as that is common practice at any facility I have ever been to.
When I was coaching, we always had a certain number of tickets held for our staff & players. That list, depending on the game, was either due the day before or the day of the game. If we didn't use the full allotment, there were tickets released back into the pool for the public. When we were in the NCAA's, I know our school always had access to at least 250 tickets as a school, outside of the team allotment. I have no idea why it would only be 100 now.
You can always get better seats from a ticket scalper, off stubhub, etc so all sorts of people could have had better seats than you that they purchased after you bought your crappy ones. |
This is how it's done at the JMU Convo Center for postseason games. Regular season ticket holders get first crack at their seats for each postseason game. If they don't buy tickets by the day before, then those seats are "released" to someone else who's bought a reserved seat but doesn't have a regular season ticket, or doesn't have a regular reserved seat. (I didn't like what was left when I got my season tickets, so we went general admission for the season, but we've gone reserved for the postseason because of so many games being on weeknights.)
_________________
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
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 2:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| Phil wrote: |
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| There should definitely be some tickets withheld and set aside for visiting teams and if they aren't sold by a set date, then they are released for purchase by anyone. Just another way in the which the NCAA clearly doesn't really care about anything but the almighty dollar. |
That sounds like a simple and obvious solution but even that approach has some negative consequences which I can attest to from personal experience.
A few years ago, there was a regional in Rhode Island. I signed up for tickets the day they became available and my seat was four rows down from the very last row.
I noticed a friend sitting in the lower bowl, so I inquired to find out how they had acquired such good tickets wondering if perhaps they were a large donor. They explained that they had been in Boston for meeting and were driving home and it wasn't far of the way so they stop by and walked up to the ticket booth and bought tickets. Apparently, some tickets had been reserved and were released late.
Can you give me a rational explanation why I should have a terrible seat when someone walking up to the arena on the spur of the moment gets a good seat? |
So...those tickets were "reserved" and then released later? My first question would be reserved by whom? Why didn't they use them? Was this public knowledge that any tickets that were returned would be available for purchase? I'm sure it was listed somewhere on their website as that is common practice at any facility I have ever been to.
When I was coaching, we always had a certain number of tickets held for our staff & players. That list, depending on the game, was either due the day before or the day of the game. If we didn't use the full allotment, there were tickets released back into the pool for the public. When we were in the NCAA's, I know our school always had access to at least 250 tickets as a school, outside of the team allotment. I have no idea why it would only be 100 now.
You can always get better seats from a ticket scalper, off stubhub, etc so all sorts of people could have had better seats than you that they purchased after you bought your crappy ones. |
I have no problem with people getting better seats if they're willing to pay more through scalpers or Stubhub.
I'm a dyed in the wool capitalist, and not even sure that I could justify reserving any seats.
However, I wasn't asking why someone who might've paid more got a better seat, I was asking why it is fair that I bought early and someone who walked up the day of the game and paid face value got a much better seat. In what way is this fair?
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 2:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Phil wrote: |
I have no problem with people getting better seats if they're willing to pay more through scalpers or Stubhub.
I'm a dyed in the wool capitalist, and not even sure that I could justify reserving any seats.
However, I wasn't asking why someone who might've paid more got a better seat, I was asking why it is fair that I bought early and someone who walked up the day of the game and paid face value got a much better seat. In what way is this fair? |
Every year that I go to the Indianapolis 500 (with the exception of last year) or the Brickyard, I will pay either face value or less for tickets in one of the Penthouses right to a scalper standing outside the front gate. When it gets close to opening ceremonies & the green flag dropping, they would rather get $100 for that ticket instead of the $150 face value. I have to take the risk that I can get a seat in the area I want while you don't have to...you have the guaranteed seat.
In regards to your personal situation, if the seats were as good as you say they were, they were most likely tickets that one of the teams turned back in as part of their allotment. Those tickets are then put up for sale by the home team/facility. Again, that person walking up to the ticket window has no idea if tickets will be available or not...you had no such worry and were able to just head on, grab a hot dog and a soda and head to your seat.
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 2:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Phil wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
FWIW, I was able to figure out NE meant Northeast, not NE.  |
Good for you, but I've never heard PH as an abbreviation for Philadelphia.
Purple Heart, yes.
PistonHeads, yes
Picohenry, yes
Philippines, yes
Polynesian Airlines, yes
Parker-Hannifin, yes
Philadelphia, no |
Yeah, I've never seen Philly as PH, but, using my (apparently) supernatural powers of deduction, I figured it out.
Btw, you must have, somewhere along the way, seen NE used to indicate Northeast. You remember Hilton Kaderli, I presume? 
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 4:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| Phil wrote: |
I have no problem with people getting better seats if they're willing to pay more through scalpers or Stubhub.
I'm a dyed in the wool capitalist, and not even sure that I could justify reserving any seats.
However, I wasn't asking why someone who might've paid more got a better seat, I was asking why it is fair that I bought early and someone who walked up the day of the game and paid face value got a much better seat. In what way is this fair? |
Every year that I go to the Indianapolis 500 (with the exception of last year) or the Brickyard, I will pay either face value or less for tickets in one of the Penthouses right to a scalper standing outside the front gate. When it gets close to opening ceremonies & the green flag dropping, they would rather get $100 for that ticket instead of the $150 face value. I have to take the risk that I can get a seat in the area I want while you don't have to...you have the guaranteed seat.
In regards to your personal situation, if the seats were as good as you say they were, they were most likely tickets that one of the teams turned back in as part of their allotment. Those tickets are then put up for sale by the home team/facility. Again, that person walking up to the ticket window has no idea if tickets will be available or not...you had no such worry and were able to just head on, grab a hot dog and a soda and head to your seat. |
Scalping isn't relevant to my point.
I was trying, obviously unsuccessfully, to make one narrow point.
You proposed that more tickets should be held back and sold later. I'm trying to point out that this isn't a "magic bullet" solution that solves all problems; it creates the problem that people who are diligent and order early are disadvantaged relative to those who procrastinate.
I wondered if you thought that was fair. I haven't managed to get a straight answer but it sounds like you think the answer is yes.
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 4:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Phil wrote: |
Scalping isn't relevant to my point.
I was trying, obviously unsuccessfully, to make one narrow point.
You proposed that more tickets should be held back and sold later. I'm trying to point out that this isn't a "magic bullet" solution that solves all problems; it creates the problem that people who are diligent and order early are disadvantaged relative to those who procrastinate.
I wondered if you thought that was fair. I haven't managed to get a straight answer but it sounds like you think the answer is yes. |
So, a fan that doesn't even know if their team will make it or if they will be able to travel for a game until a few days before is "procrastinating"?
God, you're whiny aren't you?
That game to which you are referring...was that and NCAA Tournament game? Was it the first night when there are 2 games or the second night when there is just one? If it was the 2nd night, those tickets could very easily have been ones given up by the losing teams as well.
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 4:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| Phil wrote: |
Scalping isn't relevant to my point.
I was trying, obviously unsuccessfully, to make one narrow point.
You proposed that more tickets should be held back and sold later. I'm trying to point out that this isn't a "magic bullet" solution that solves all problems; it creates the problem that people who are diligent and order early are disadvantaged relative to those who procrastinate.
I wondered if you thought that was fair. I haven't managed to get a straight answer but it sounds like you think the answer is yes. |
So, a fan that doesn't even know if their team will make it or if they will be able to travel for a game until a few days before is "procrastinating"?
God, you're whiny aren't you?
That game to which you are referring...was that and NCAA Tournament game? Was it the first night when there are 2 games or the second night when there is just one? If it was the 2nd night, those tickets could very easily have been ones given up by the losing teams as well. |
Huh?
You and I aren't communicating. So I'll stop trying.
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 4:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Phil wrote: |
Huh?
You and I aren't communicating. So I'll stop trying. |
That seems to happen between you and others on here as well.
Good idea.
Have a good day.
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 6:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Phil wrote: |
| Maryland is the third best team in the country, according to the Massey Ratings... |
...and yet they got put in the #9 slot (the 3-seed in the top team's region).
UCLA is the 10th best team in the country, according to the Massey Ratings, and yet they got put in the #16 slot (the 4-seed in the top team's region). What message was the committee attempting to send to the Bruins?
|
|
MBR_CT33
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 19
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 7:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
[quote="b1207"]I'm sure the other two schools are in the same boat as MD (although one would presume their demand for tickets would be far less due to geography). [i]The simple fact is that UCONN gets to play a home schedule all the way to the final four. Not that they need the advantage, but it is an advantage to them none the less. I would prefer to see the eastern regional moved around to other cities - NY, PH, Bstn are all in the NE the last I checked.[/i][/quote]
Below are Regionals sites since 2006. Surprising Bridgeport will host 2 years straight.
Year Regionals
2017 Bridgeport, Lexington, Oklahoma City, Stockton
2016 Bridgeport, Lexington, Dallas, Sioux Falls
2015 Albany, Greensboro, Oklahoma City, Spokane
2014 Notre Dame, Louisville, Lincoln, Stanford
2013 Bridgeport, Norfolk, Oklahoma City, Spokane
2012 Kingston (RI), Raleigh, Des Moines, Fresno
2011 Philadelphia, Dayton, Dallas, Spokane
2010 Dayton, Memphis, Kansas City, Sacramento
2009 Trenton, Raleigh, Oklahoma City, Berkeley
2008 Greensboro, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Spokane
2007 Greensboro, Dayton, Dallas, Fresno
2006 Bridgeport, Cleveland, San Antonio, Albuquerque
The 2014 year was the "Experimental Fiasco", Regionals were played at the schools.
Regionals selected 3 or more times, since 2006;
Oklahoma City (5)
Bridgeport (4)
Spokane (4)
Dallas (3)
Dayton (3)
Greensboro (3)
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 7:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| Phil wrote: |
| Maryland is the third best team in the country, according to the Massey Ratings... |
...and yet they got put in the #9 slot (the 3-seed in the top team's region).
UCLA is the 10th best team in the country, according to the Massey Ratings, and yet they got put in the #16 slot (the 4-seed in the top team's region). What message was the committee attempting to send to the Bruins? |
You may recall I listed the Massey Rating, the Coaches poll and the AP, all of which are in agreement. 3,3,and 4 suggest a one seed. The committee has stated they can move one seeding line for locational issues, but this looks more like two lines, so the seeding was definitely well below that level, and no one disputes that the selection committee was sending a message.
Massey has UCLA tenth, but the Coaches poll has them 14th, and the AP 15th. 10, 14, and 15 suggest a 4 seed, unless someone thinks that Massey deserves extra weight, and if anything, it gets less consideration (if any). I think the committee ought to place more weight on measures like Massey, but it appears they ended up a 4 rather than a 3, so closer to the poll rankings than the Strength ranking. I don't see any sign they were sending a message to UCLA. While I haven't seen exactly what numbers they were looking at, it seems quite plausible they concluded UCLA deserved a 4 seed, which they received. Do you disagree?
UCLA had a great SOS, so if they wanted to send a message that SOS was important, they could have reinforced it by making UCLA a 3. But there are a lot of decisions, so it is really hard to tease much of an inference from that choice. It sounded fine to me.
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 7:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Why is it surprising that Bridgeport hosted 2 years straight?
Greensboro hosted two years straight in 2007 and 2008
Oklahoma City hosted two years straight in 2008 and 2009
Dayton hosted two years straight in 2010 and 2011
Lexington hosted two years straight in 2016 and 2017
Bridgeport hosted two years straight in 2016 and 2017
Sounds like a continuation of a theme to entertain multi-year bids.
|
|
MBR_CT33
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 19
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 7:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Surprising that this year and last were hosted in Bridgeport. In one respect, I was expecting to see Bridgeport hosting 3 or 4 years in a row, the way some people talk regarding UConn "always" get's to play in CT.
|
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18031
Location: Queens
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 7:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
It does not seem rational or reasonable to only reserve for participating schools, regardless of what institutions they are, 100 seats each in an 8000 seat arena.
If another Eastern Seaboard team had been in Maryland's shoes- if, say, Duke had not f'd it up, or if one of the Philadelphia schools were involved, or if Quinnipiac were the 12 in this region instead of in Stockton- I think we'd see similar complaints.
_________________
Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 8:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Phil wrote: |
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| Phil wrote: |
| Maryland is the third best team in the country, according to the Massey Ratings... |
...and yet they got put in the #9 slot (the 3-seed in the top team's region).
UCLA is the 10th best team in the country, according to the Massey Ratings, and yet they got put in the #16 slot (the 4-seed in the top team's region). What message was the committee attempting to send to the Bruins? |
You may recall I listed the Massey Rating, the Coaches poll and the AP, all of which are in agreement. 3,3,and 4 suggest a one seed. The committee has stated they can move one seeding line for locational issues, but this looks more like two lines, so the seeding was definitely well below that level, and no one disputes that the selection committee was sending a message.
Massey has UCLA tenth, but the Coaches poll has them 14th, and the AP 15th. 10, 14, and 15 suggest a 4 seed, unless someone thinks that Massey deserves extra weight, and if anything, it gets less consideration (if any). I think the committee ought to place more weight on measures like Massey, but it appears they ended up a 4 rather than a 3, so closer to the poll rankings than the Strength ranking. I don't see any sign they were sending a message to UCLA. While I haven't seen exactly what numbers they were looking at, it seems quite plausible they concluded UCLA deserved a 4 seed, which they received. Do you disagree?
UCLA had a great SOS, so if they wanted to send a message that SOS was important, they could have reinforced it by making UCLA a 3. But there are a lot of decisions, so it is really hard to tease much of an inference from that choice. It sounded fine to me. |
I don't think Pat was quibbling with the 4 seed so much as the fact that they wouldn't in any of the rankings be considered the worst 4 seed. And his point was that you would expect the worst 4 seed to be in UConn's bracket. The problem, as he also points out, is that there are 4 P12 team with seeds 4 or higher. Therefore one of them gets to be feasted on by UConn. He's just unhappy that it happens to be UCLA that got the short straw.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 8:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Queenie wrote: |
It does not seem rational or reasonable to only reserve for participating schools, regardless of what institutions they are, 100 seats each in an 8000 seat arena.
If another Eastern Seaboard team had been in Maryland's shoes- if, say, Duke had not f'd it up, or if one of the Philadelphia schools were involved, or if Quinnipiac were the 12 in this region instead of in Stockton- I think we'd see similar complaints. |
agree. It's ridiculous and outrageous.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
SpaceJunkie
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 4241
Location: Minnesota
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 8:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| Phil wrote: |
| Maryland is the third best team in the country, according to the Massey Ratings... |
...and yet they got put in the #9 slot (the 3-seed in the top team's region).
UCLA is the 10th best team in the country, according to the Massey Ratings, and yet they got put in the #16 slot (the 4-seed in the top team's region). What message was the committee attempting to send to the Bruins? |
They were following the "Each of the first four teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded on the first four lines." rule.
I believe the top 4-seeds were all placed by S-Curve. Oregon St (#6 overall) got put with South Carolina (#3 overall) and Stanford (#7 overall) got put with Notre Dame (#2 overall). Washington was probably ranked #12 overall, making them the lowest #3 seed, so they went with the lowest #1 seed, Baylor. And by shear luck, even though UCLA was almost certainly one of the top #4 seeds (Miami had to have been the worst), they had to be put with UConn since all the PAC-12 teams ahead of them we placed in the other regions.
Last edited by SpaceJunkie on 03/22/17 9:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
CourtsideTix
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 4565
Location: Washington, DC
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 8:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Queenie wrote: |
It does not seem rational or reasonable to only reserve for participating schools, regardless of what institutions they are, 100 seats each in an 8000 seat arena.
If another Eastern Seaboard team had been in Maryland's shoes- if, say, Duke had not f'd it up, or if one of the Philadelphia schools were involved, or if Quinnipiac were the 12 in this region instead of in Stockton- I think we'd see similar complaints. |
Exactly. This isn't about Maryland, or UConn, or any other specific school, it's about the NCAA's outrageously low allocation of only 100 seats each to whatever schools wound up in Bridgeport. Ridiculous. Shame on the NCAA.
|
|
SpaceJunkie
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 4241
Location: Minnesota
Back to top |
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 8:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
I don't think Pat was quibbling with the 4 seed so much as the fact that they wouldn't in any of the rankings be considered the worst 4 seed. And his point was that you would expect the worst 4 seed to be in UConn's bracket. The problem, as he also points out, is that there are 4 P12 team with seeds 4 or higher. Therefore one of them gets to be feasted on by UConn. He's just unhappy that it happens to be UCLA that got the short straw. |
I understand why a UCLA fan would be unhappy, but I thought it was well-known that the committee doesn't rigorously follow the S-curve. I've written before that the committee could help remove this misunderstanding by stopping their own references to it. While they might look at it as a first pass, they have emphasized for years that geography is more important (I saw someone refer to this as the g-curve.) Obviously, geography doesn't explain why UCLA is in the east, but it may play a role in other seeds.
I no longer pay attention to the s-curve results - I think they allocate teams to seeds, then consider how to place them. That may or may not match an S-curve allocation, but to the extend it does, I think that is more coincidence than intention.
I think it is obvious why Kentucky was not sent to Bridgeport (plus the fact that they have been in the UConn bracket many times).
Louisville may have been deliberate to hope for a Baylor Louisville repeat (although I expect them to deny it).
Miami isn't so obvious to me. Why couldn't they be in Bridgeport and leave UCLA west? Although they obviously had a slew of good Pac-12 teams to allocate, and maybe it wouldn't work out?
I've defended the committee in the past, but this one has me perplexed. Why did Oregon State get the west region over Stanford?
But let's turn this around. If UCLA isn't in Bridgeport, where are they and who goes to Bridgeport. Does that meet all the seeding rules?
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/17 8:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| SpaceJunkie wrote: |
They were following the "Each of the first four teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded on the first four lines." rule.
I believe the top 4-seeds were all placed by S-Curve. Oregon St (#6 overall) got put with Notre Dame (#3 overall) and Stanford (#7 overall) got put with Notre Dame (#2 overall). Washington was probably ranked #12 overall, making them the lowest #3 seed, so they went with the lowest #1 seed, Baylor. And by shear luck, even though UCLA was almost certainly one of the top #4 seeds (Miami had to have been the worst), they had to be put with UConn since all the PAC-12 teams ahead of them we placed in the other regions. |
That sounds quite plausible. Once the first three Pac-12 teams were allocated according to the rules, there was only one spot left for UCLA. I was trying to figure out why Miami couldn't be in Bridgeport, but that was the wrong question. I should have asked whether UCLA could be in the same region as Oregon State and the answer is no.
|
|
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3516
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/17 9:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| CourtsideTix wrote: |
| Queenie wrote: |
It does not seem rational or reasonable to only reserve for participating schools, regardless of what institutions they are, 100 seats each in an 8000 seat arena.
If another Eastern Seaboard team had been in Maryland's shoes- if, say, Duke had not f'd it up, or if one of the Philadelphia schools were involved, or if Quinnipiac were the 12 in this region instead of in Stockton- I think we'd see similar complaints. |
Exactly. This isn't about Maryland, or UConn, or any other specific school, it's about the NCAA's outrageously low allocation of only 100 seats each to whatever schools wound up in Bridgeport. Ridiculous. Shame on the NCAA. |
Exactly indeed. Allot 1000 tickets to each school, and the excess are first-come, first served. Any unsold allotted tickets can be put back into the excess pool 3-4 days before the games. I understand the rationale for wanting to fill seats, but excluding a team's fans is not beneficial to WCBB in the long run.
|
|
b1207
Joined: 01 Sep 2015
Posts: 64
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/17 10:32 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| FrozenLVFan wrote: |
| CourtsideTix wrote: |
| Queenie wrote: |
It does not seem rational or reasonable to only reserve for participating schools, regardless of what institutions they are, 100 seats each in an 8000 seat arena.
If another Eastern Seaboard team had been in Maryland's shoes- if, say, Duke had not f'd it up, or if one of the Philadelphia schools were involved, or if Quinnipiac were the 12 in this region instead of in Stockton- I think we'd see similar complaints. |
Exactly. This isn't about Maryland, or UConn, or any other specific school, it's about the NCAA's outrageously low allocation of only 100 seats each to whatever schools wound up in Bridgeport. Ridiculous. Shame on the NCAA. |
Exactly indeed. Allot 1000 tickets to each school, and the excess are first-come, first served. Any unsold allotted tickets can be put back into the excess pool 3-4 days before the games. I understand the rationale for wanting to fill seats, but excluding a team's fans is not beneficial to WCBB in the long run. |
Agree completely. Games at this point should not be a home game for one team or another.
|
|
|
|
