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

Sold-out Connecticut regional leaves ‘furious’ Maryland
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
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
Carol Anne



Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 1739
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/17 10:37 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The last paras and comments of SBN article concern UConn's playing in Bridgeport, just 65 miles from Storrs. Totally unfair, IMO. Teams traveling 349 or fewer miles take the bus. UConn should walk.

http://www.sbnation.com/2017/3/22/15022442/uconn-huskies-tickets-ncaa-tournament-womens-basketball-maryland


linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5408



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/17 11:49 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.


I fail to see how a sold-out arena can be "unbeneficial" for wcbb in any way.
Unfair? Maybe. But but the prospect of having huge numbers of unsold tickets in the interest of fairness seems counterproductive. Some of these teams have trouble getting 1000 to a home game. 100 tickets does seem way too low though. I would guess that venues have been stuck with unsold tickets in the past to only reserve 100 tickets per team.

There's a problem in how to distribute NCAA tickets that only go on sale 3 or 4 days before the game. E-tickets seem to be too "new-fangled" for the NCAA. The venues in which I bought tickets would not allow "will-call" pick-up nor do they have an electronic ticket system with regards to the NCAA regionals. The last couple of times I bought regional tickets they went on sale in November and yet weren't mailed out till late February.

When UConn was in Albany a couple of years ago the Texas contingent had an entire lower section behind the Texas bench which entailed about 300+ seats. Some were empty. Since tickets for Bridgeport are still available today I'm wondering if the complaints from Maryland are due to their being unable to provide premium seats for their VIP's, not average Maryland fans.


linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5408



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/17 12:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Carol Anne wrote:
The last paras and comments of SBN article concern UConn's playing in Bridgeport, just 65 miles from Storrs. Totally unfair, IMO. Teams traveling 349 or fewer miles take the bus. UConn should walk.

http://www.sbnation.com/2017/3/22/15022442/uconn-huskies-tickets-ncaa-tournament-womens-basketball-maryland


So lets make a rule that no team may play within 1000 miles of their campus? Try finding 4 venues that would be willing to hold regionals that will maybe fill half their seats because that's what you would get? And try to add that rule to the now-endless list of "policies & procedures".

I still like the idea of playing the S16 in Las Vegas or any other "neutral" city that can accommodate 16 teams and their fans. But LV would offend those who don't want the "wholesome" image of wcbb tarnished. Rolling Eyes


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/17 1:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
Carol Anne wrote:
The last paras and comments of SBN article concern UConn's playing in Bridgeport, just 65 miles from Storrs. Totally unfair, IMO. Teams traveling 349 or fewer miles take the bus. UConn should walk.

http://www.sbnation.com/2017/3/22/15022442/uconn-huskies-tickets-ncaa-tournament-womens-basketball-maryland


So lets make a rule that no team may play within 1000 miles of their campus?


No, but "nobody can play within 100 miles of their campus" or in any arena in which they scheduled a "home" game within the past three years, would be a huge improvement in the integrity of the tournament.

Who cares about how many tickets they sell? Nobody worries about it for any but three or four of the 89 championships sponsored by the NCAA. WBB should be lumped in with women's lacrosse and field hockey and water polo instead of MBB and men's hockey and the college world series as a "we're here for the competition and the athletes, not for revenue" sport, because as long as people aren't interested in buying tickets without a personal stake in the outcome, then that's where it belongs.

That a still basically tiny number of UConn fans with nothing bigger to cheer for are willing to buy tickets for UConn WBB games 85 miles from home doesn't alter that WCBB is not, and will not be anytime soon, a "revenue" sport, so stop pretending that it is and worry about the integrity of the competition rather than trying to make it something it's not.

BTW did anyone here see Ohio St. upset #1 ranked Denver in men's lacrosss last weekend on TV? It was comical seeing about 200 Ohio St. fans watch their team play in the 104,000 seat Horsehoe. If you ever thought it was a problem playing WBB in front of 900 fans in a 15,000 arena, you ain't seen nothing 'till you've seen a Big 10 lacrosse "crowd" in a Big 10 football stadium. It was a great game and an amazing performance by Ohio St. The absence of a full house didn't alter that one bit. Nor, obviously, did the absence of a full house affect the enthusiasm or the level of play of the Ohio St players.


Durantula



Joined: 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 5221



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/17 4:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

What if Quinnipiac was in Bridgeport instead of Oregon? Imagine what a cluster that would be. We talk about growing the game, imagine a team from CT who has never been this far, then their fans jump on the bandwagon and want to attend this game in droves but they can't get tickets. It just doesn't seem right.

All of the teams should have an opportunity to buy tickets. Reserve some tickets and then release them to the general public a little late. I don't know the amount, 250 per team, 500 per team, 1,000 per team.

UConn got 100 like everyone else but when they needed more they got 500. None of the other schools get that same opportunity, so it is a UConn advantage.

Also this arena is very small compared to the OKC and Lexington regionals. If the NCAA is all about money, why not play in a bigger arena where you can get more fans in?


linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5408



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/17 5:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
linkster wrote:
Carol Anne wrote:
The last paras and comments of SBN article concern UConn's playing in Bridgeport, just 65 miles from Storrs. Totally unfair, IMO. Teams traveling 349 or fewer miles take the bus. UConn should walk.

http://www.sbnation.com/2017/3/22/15022442/uconn-huskies-tickets-ncaa-tournament-womens-basketball-maryland


So lets make a rule that no team may play within 1000 miles of their campus?


No, but "nobody can play within 100 miles of their campus" or in any arena in which they scheduled a "home" game within the past three years, would be a huge improvement in the integrity of the tournament.

Who cares about how many tickets they sell? Nobody worries about it for any but three or four of the 89 championships sponsored by the NCAA. WBB should be lumped in with women's lacrosse and field hockey and water polo instead of MBB and men's hockey and the college world series as a , not for revenue" sport, because as long as people aren't interested in buying tickets without a personal stake in the outcome, then that's where it belongs.

That a still basically tiny number of UConn fans with nothing bigger to cheer for are willing to buy tickets for UConn WBB games 85 miles from home doesn't alter that WCBB is not, and will not be anytime soon, a "revenue" sport, so stop pretending that it is and worry about the integrity of the competition rather than trying to make it something it's not.

BTW did anyone here see Ohio St. upset #1 ranked Denver in men's lacrosss last weekend on TV? It was comical seeing about 200 Ohio St. fans watch their team play in the 104,000 seat Horsehoe. If you ever thought it was a problem playing WBB in front of 900 fans in a 15,000 arena, you ain't seen nothing 'till you've seen a Big 10 lacrosse "crowd" in a Big 10 football stadium. It was a great game and an amazing performance by Ohio St. The absence of a full house didn't alter that one bit. Nor, obviously, did the absence of a full house affect the enthusiasm or the level of play of the Ohio St players.


Why 100 miles. How did you arrive at that number other than it would exclude Bridgeport and Providence? And what constitutes a "home game"? I'm sure you will define that for UConn as no Bridgeport and no Mohegan Sun. But how about the arenas around LA and SF? Would Cal be a "home arena" for Stanford if they played a game there within 3 years? I'm sure it's within 100 miles of Palo Alto. And why limit it to the regionals? Lets move 1st and 2nd round games to neutral sites. After all, South Benders fill up N Dames arena. Isn't that patently unfair?

You and some others seem to think that there is a long line of arenas dying to host the regionals. There isn't. This isn't the final four. Unless the games are near a school that supports wcbb no one cares. And most good sized arenas don't want to lock up their sites for an entire weekend when there's a good chance it won't even be half full. The ACC tournament final drew 3,600 fans. That's reality when the game is played away from an ACC school.

And as long as we are instituting a "we're here for the competition and the athletes" policy Art, why not institute revenue sharing in men's football? Let's put all the NCAA TV $$$ in one pot and divide it up among the D1 schools? How does that sit with you? I'll bet not too well.

The point is that if there is an obvious team that will be the top seed their fans can figure out where they would play and would buy up the tickets. WCBB may be a losing revenue sport but to lump it in with women's lacrosse, field hockey and water polo is just as ridiculous as lumping it in with MBB. UConn's women's team has a $1 miilion TV deal with SNY. Sure, it isn't 1/3 of the expenses of the team but show me a lacrosse team, male or female that generates $1 from TV. Frankly I don't think it enhances the image of wcbb one bit when TV has to keep their cameras on the court to avoid showing the empty seats at 90% of the wcbb games in the country.

I can't remember one Notre Dame fan crying out when South Bend was a regional site a few years ago. Nope. UConn refused to take advantage, citing it's obvious unfairness and went to Lincoln Neb. But not the Irish. They had no qualms. All I heard from their fans was that as long as it was allowed they were going to take advantage. Screw everyone else. Now, suddenly, they see the light and want UConn somewhere far from Storrs "for the good of the game". Yeah, those Irish are all for fairness and sportmanship and have no interest in revenue. LOL That's rich.


patsweetpat



Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2305
Location: Culver City, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/17 5:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
BTW did anyone here see Ohio St. upset #1 ranked Denver in men's lacrosss last weekend on TV?


No. And no-one elsewhere did either.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/17 8:46 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

patsweetpat wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
BTW did anyone here see Ohio St. upset #1 ranked Denver in men's lacrosss last weekend on TV?


No. And no-one elsewhere did either.


Actually 52,000 people did, which is a decent number for ESPNU. Lots and lots of WBB games drew smaller audiences than that.

I'd be curious how many viewers UCLA draws on the PAC Network.


patsweetpat



Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2305
Location: Culver City, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/17 3:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
patsweetpat wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
BTW did anyone here see Ohio St. upset #1 ranked Denver in men's lacrosss last weekend on TV?


No. And no-one elsewhere did either.


Actually 52,000 people did, which is a decent number for ESPNU. Lots and lots of WBB games drew smaller audiences than that.

I'd be curious how many viewers UCLA draws on the PAC Network.


I don't know. Who cares? I sure don't.


elsie



Joined: 08 Apr 2016
Posts: 271



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 1:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

and do people really think that the NCAA wants to grow the womens bb following?....I think not....if they wanted to have the sport grow, they would give all qualifying teams an equal chance to get a reasonable number of tickets...


Carol Anne



Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 1739
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 7:21 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

elsie wrote:
and do people really think that the NCAA wants to grow the womens bb following?....I think not....if they wanted to have the sport grow, they would give all qualifying teams an equal chance to get a reasonable number of tickets...

Doug Feinberg makes it clear that the NCAA and the WBCA are not on the same page about changes, such as holding regionals away from schools (as in Las Vegas). How do fans get heard on this?

http://www.southbendtribune.com/sports/college/basketball/college-basketball-women-s-regional-attendance-at--year-low/article_48451d31-310a-5ea7-bd3f-4b281e16d864.html


FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3510



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 10:01 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

IMHO, when placing teams in the four regions, the SelCom needs to focus less on spreading out teams from the same conference, and more on getting teams into their own geographic region, then promote the tournament as regional rivalry. In many cases, attendance fell off with each successive round in each region, possibly because "local/regional" teams lost and their fans disappeared. I think the committee gives too much credit to average fans wanting to see the "best games" and not enough to fans wanting to see "their" teams. Sending teams to their own regions geographically would cut down on travel costs for both fans and teams. Then make a site or two in each region semi-permanent for the S16/E8.


pilight



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


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 10:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

One sure way to improve attendance would be to stop having regionals in California. None of the Cali teams draw well for home games. Hawaii and Toledo have better home attendance than any WCBB team in California. Why would anyone expect fans from there to go see other teams?



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



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 10:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
One sure way to improve attendance would be to stop having regionals in California. None of the Cali teams draw well for home games. Hawaii and Toledo have better home attendance than any WCBB team in California. Why would anyone expect fans from there to go see other teams?


Good point. There was a time Stanford and Washington drew well, but no more. Maybe Oregon has a shot down the road ...

Regionals in Las Vegas make the most sense to me ...



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 1:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
IMHO, when placing teams in the four regions, the SelCom needs to focus less on spreading out teams from the same conference, and more on getting teams into their own geographic region, then promote the tournament as regional rivalry. In many cases, attendance fell off with each successive round in each region, possibly because "local/regional" teams lost and their fans disappeared. I think the committee gives too much credit to average fans wanting to see the "best games" and not enough to fans wanting to see "their" teams. Sending teams to their own regions geographically would cut down on travel costs for both fans and teams. Then make a site or two in each region semi-permanent for the S16/E8.


It doesn't work from a competition standpoint. That's why they stopped having "geographic regionals" for the men about forty years ago.

Fans can see "their team" twenty times or more each year. This is supposed to be about the competition, about determining a national champion. Not about selling a few tickets.


FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3510



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 4:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
FrozenLVFan wrote:
IMHO, when placing teams in the four regions, the SelCom needs to focus less on spreading out teams from the same conference, and more on getting teams into their own geographic region, then promote the tournament as regional rivalry. In many cases, attendance fell off with each successive round in each region, possibly because "local/regional" teams lost and their fans disappeared. I think the committee gives too much credit to average fans wanting to see the "best games" and not enough to fans wanting to see "their" teams. Sending teams to their own regions geographically would cut down on travel costs for both fans and teams. Then make a site or two in each region semi-permanent for the S16/E8.


It doesn't work from a competition standpoint. That's why they stopped having "geographic regionals" for the men about forty years ago.

Fans can see "their team" twenty times or more each year. This is supposed to be about the competition, about determining a national champion. Not about selling a few tickets.


I understand that point of view, but if the tournament is supposed to be about just the competition, then make it so. Eliminate the wishful-thinking automatic bids because no team lower than a 3-seed has ever won the NC, no team lower than a 9-seed has ever made it to the FF, and no 14-15-16 seed has ever made it to the S16. And hold all the games on a neutral court. Right now the tourney is in a middle ground where it's half about keeping the schools and fans happy, and half about the competition.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 5:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
FrozenLVFan wrote:
IMHO, when placing teams in the four regions, the SelCom needs to focus less on spreading out teams from the same conference, and more on getting teams into their own geographic region, then promote the tournament as regional rivalry. In many cases, attendance fell off with each successive round in each region, possibly because "local/regional" teams lost and their fans disappeared. I think the committee gives too much credit to average fans wanting to see the "best games" and not enough to fans wanting to see "their" teams. Sending teams to their own regions geographically would cut down on travel costs for both fans and teams. Then make a site or two in each region semi-permanent for the S16/E8.


It doesn't work from a competition standpoint. That's why they stopped having "geographic regionals" for the men about forty years ago.

Fans can see "their team" twenty times or more each year. This is supposed to be about the competition, about determining a national champion. Not about selling a few tickets.


I understand that point of view, but if the tournament is supposed to be about just the competition, then make it so. Eliminate the wishful-thinking automatic bids because no team lower than a 3-seed has ever won the NC, no team lower than a 9-seed has ever made it to the FF, and no 14-15-16 seed has ever made it to the S16. And hold all the games on a neutral court. Right now the tourney is in a middle ground where it's half about keeping the schools and fans happy, and half about the competition.


I'd be fine with all neutral courts, but the reality is that except for Stanford-like situations this year, the only matchups that aren't neutral court are the mismatched ones, where it probably doesn't much matter, ( or those would be the only ones if they'd get rid of the loophole regionals like Bridgeport and Lexington). Maybe they should play the first 32 games only at the home courts of the #1 seeds. Then it would matter less, and even more games would be neutral sites.

I don't see how auto bids present any problem to the competition as long as every team with a realistic chance of winning gets into the tournament, which they do. I don't know what eliminating them would accomplish.


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 Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
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