The Regionals arent Regional

[Tonyc]

Gotta wonder why theyre called regionals. I miss going local to see my Huskies. Im sure alot of folks at Sacred Heart were hoping SHU wouldve been in Gampel. I know many arenas dont draw and the NCAA loses money. We know UConn is a huge draw, as is Tenn SC and Indiana. There are others too. Why not hold the Regionals where fans will show up. Why send SHU to Cali and not someplace closer so their fans could attend. There was alot of chatter about UConn being in CT for the regionals. Well their fans show up and pack the house. Some say it wasnt fear last season. Well IMO it wasnt fair for UConn to have to play imo the tuffest teams in a row. You dont hear anything about SC playing in SC this year. Was all the chatter last year about UCOnn playing in CT to get us ready for 2 sites this season. What about the fans in the middle of the country who cant go to games and watch their teams in person? Next year the regionals are in Albany. Most likely UConn will be there and they most likely wont have enough seats for the fans who want to attend.

Just something to throw around and discuss. I

 

[Bald Husky]

The two regional sites is stupid. I think in 2025 a Texas city is the most eastern regional site for that tournament. How unfair is that for the eastern parts of the country, and how lucky is it that any school in the western part of the country will be close by, even if they are in the east regional. If they continue this scenario, the Eastern region should at least be east of the Mississippi River, making the commute for the East teams just as easy for those teams as well as the teams in the West. I think this has been one of the worst decisions the NCAA has made, and if the NCAA wants to remain relevant, they should get their act together and return to the 4 regional sites.

 

[luminosity]

I think having local host sites for the top seeds is bush league and I hope they can get rid of it sooner rather than later. Tournaments like this should be done on neutral arenas where no one has home court advantage. It gives the higher seeds way too much of an advantage and helps to take away what's mad about March Madness, especially as the talentbase grows in women's CBB.

They should absolutely return to the 4 regional sites. If they HAVE to consolidate the first two rounds, they should do those at smaller arenas that are neutral to the teams that are playing there rather than give the highest seeds two home court games.

 

[visitingcock]

Gotta wonder why theyre called regionals. I miss going local to see my Huskies. Im sure alot of folks at Sacred Heart were hoping SHU wouldve been inas is Tenn SC and Indiana. There are others too. Why not hold the Regionals where fans will show up. Why send SHU to Cali and not someplace closer so their fans could attend. There was alot of chatter about UConn being in CT for the regionals. Well their fans show up and pack the house. Some say it wasnt fear last season. Well IMO it wasnt fair for UConn to have to play imo the tuffest teams in a row. You dont hear anything about SC playing in SC this year. Was all the chatter last year about UCOnn playing in CT to get us ready for 2 sites this season. What about the fans in the middle of the country who cant go to games and watch their teams in person? Next year the regionals are in Albany. Most likely UConn will be there and they most likely wont have enough seats for the fans who want to attend.

Just something to throw around and discuss. I

Well, you don't hear much about SC "hosting" in Greenville this year because it is the first time the state of SC has hosted. Bridgeport/Albany have hosted numerous times - as they should because UConn fans WILL SHOW UP. To me, that's what matters. As long as ticket distribution is fair.

Like others, I would prefer the old 4 region format with some changes structure.

BTW, Greenville is a neutral ACC/SEC city. At this time, there are probably more Clemson fans than Gamecocks in Greenville. It's also close to and almost equidistantly located between the two conferences' major media centers, Charlotte and Atlanta. It should be frequently looked at as a regional site

 

[BRS24]

I think having local host sites for the top seeds is bush league and I hope they can get rid of it sooner rather than later. Tournaments like this should be done on neutral arenas where no one has home court advantage. It gives the higher seeds way too much of an advantage and helps to take away what's mad about March Madness, especially as the talentbase grows in women's CBB.

They should absolutely return to the 4 regional sites. If they HAVE to consolidate the first two rounds, they should do those at smaller arenas that are neutral to the teams that are playing there rather than give the highest seeds two home court games.

It's all about the $$$$$ and the draw of teams. If the WBB tourney uses the men's format of "neutral" first round sites, the only way for the NCAA to make money is to intentionally place the top seeds near the fanbase.

 

[Inthepaint]

I think the whole shebang should take place at one neutral site, like 2 years ago in San Antonio.
I realize it was done in order to deal with a very unique circumstance ( COVID).
Aside from some boneheaded decisions made by clueless NCAA dweebs, they managed to pull it off.
Eliminate all the additional travel and the expense and distraction that come with it.
Everybody travels once to Atlanta, Cincinnati, Las Vegas, San Diego, Boston, or whatever.
Need a travel hub with hotel space and multiple basketball venues.
Of course this might seem “ unfair” to folks who want to see their favorite teams at home, but as long as it applies equally across the country…

 

[Magy Cannon]

I like the two regional sites. However, neither should be at a coastal state. Cities with major airline hubs away from the country's margins would be ideal. Atlanta, Dallas, Minneapolis, Chicago, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Detroit - all have a lot of non stop flights from smaller cities.

 

[sun]

I think that the NCAA is trying grow the women's game to make their tourney more appealing to the TV networks so they'll pay a lot more money for the TV rights.
Then the NCAA will be able to split a lot money among the WBB conferences.
The NCAA never be able to generate as much money from fan attendance alone as they can from national TV coverage.
That way advertisers will primarily pay the tourney costs and the future revenue sharing money.

The more appealing & less costly that it can be made for the networks the better.
Any inconvenience to the teams & the fans is secondary when compared to the additional money that the schools will receive.
Since the women's BB conferences have not been profitable for such a long time, the NCAA needs to try to make up for it.
The WBB conferences haven't been getting awarded any money directly, but only through the men's tourney participants.

The women's game will grow if more fans can watch on TV, which shouldn't affect fan bases from going to see the games if they really want to go.
The additional national interest that will be created over time with more TV coverage should be able to draw more fans from all over the country who will want to go.
Game attendance figures among schools seems to be very inconsistent depending on the individual school with some decreasing while others increase.
That's not even a reliable way to generate income.
The NCAA needed to come up with a better plan to increase attendance all around the country which can only happen if the women's game grows bigger.
That would also help to support & be in line with the WNBA's plan to expand in the next 2-4 years.
As it is schools already need to recruit overseas to find enough quality players to fill the Division 1 ranks,
The NCAA clearly needs to continue to grow the women's game here in the US.

 

[Jds]

I like the two regional sites. However, neither should be at a coastal state. Cities with major airline hubs away from the country's margins would be ideal. Atlanta, Dallas, Minneapolis, Chicago, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Detroit - all have a lot of non stop flights from smaller cities

Gotta wonder why theyre called regionals. I miss going local to see my Huskies. Im sure alot of folks at Sacred Heart were hoping SHU wouldve been in Gampel. I know many arenas dont draw and the NCAA loses money. We know UConn is a huge draw, as is Tenn SC and Indiana. There are others too. Why not hold the Regionals where fans will show up. Why send SHU to Cali and not someplace closer so their fans could attend. There was alot of chatter about UConn being in CT for the regionals. Well their fans show up and pack the house. Some say it wasnt fear last season. Well IMO it wasnt fair for UConn to have to play imo the tuffest teams in a row. You dont hear anything about SC playing in SC this year. Was all the chatter last year about UCOnn playing in CT to get us ready for 2 sites this season. What about the fans in the middle of the country who cant go to games and watch their teams in person? Next year the regionals are in Albany. Most likely UConn will be there and they most likely wont have enough seats for the fans who want to attend.

Just something to throw around and discuss. I

The reason for 2 sites was to have neutral sites. In which case SC should have been shipped out west. I don’t think it’s possible to have neutral sites and fill the arena. The only beneficiaries of 2 sites is ESPN because they only need to be on 2 sites not 4. Same for the NCAA. And the host city benefits.

 

[BBallF]

I am sure this decision is primarily based on money. The current plan is and always will be inherently unfair to many teams and their fans because of the very nature of attempting to have 2 sites to cover the entire country. I thought we were trying to move in the direction of gender equality. Signaling that there has to be a consolidation raises the question as to why. March Madness is the sport's greatest product. Making it only a television event as in 2021 is a big mistake which will become very evident if they show images of the crowds during the games. My guess is that you won't see empty seats because they will restrict those views.

 

[visitingcock]

I like the two regional sites. However, neither should be at a coastal state. Cities with major airline hubs away from the country's margins would be ideal. Atlanta, Dallas, Minneapolis, Chicago, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Detroit - all have a lot of non stop flights from smaller cities.

Atlanta is in a coastal state.
Dallas is in a coastal state
Philadelphia is in a coastal state

If you count the Great Lakes states as coastal, that eliminates about every city you mention except Phoenix.

Let's face it, the VAST majority of American live in "coastal states." Indeed about 40% live in coastal COUNTIES!

 

[oldude]

On another thread we talked about the 2014 Regionals which were held on campus at Stanford, ND, Louisville & Nebraska. The attendance was great. The winners of each region were Stanford, ND, MD (beat Louisville in the regional final) & UConn. The success of the home teams at 3 of 4 regions lead to legitimate concerns about fairness. As a result, the on campus regionals for WBB were dropped.

 

[visitingcock]

Fairness? Here's "fair."

Four regional held at the home court of tt the four schools that had the highest average PAID attendance per home game during the year.

What could be more fair? Everybody has the same chance at the begining of the year. If your fans don't support your team, you gotta hit the road.

 

[CL82]

Fairness? Here's "fair."

Four regional held at the home court of tt the four schools that had the highest average PAID attendance per home game during the year.

What could be more fair? Everybody has the same chance at the begining of the year. If your fans don't support your team, you gotta hit the road.

That is an interesting thought. It would penalize schools who discount their tickets to get higher attendance as SC has done though. Personally, I think that was a good move to grow the fan base and it makes for a better game day experience for the team.

From the perspective of making the games look good on TV, I guess we should make everything home games of the higher seed until the final four. That probably maximize his attendance.

 

[BBallF]

On another thread we talked about the 2014 Regionals which were held on campus at Stanford, ND, Louisville & Nebraska. The attendance was great. The winners of each region were Stanford, ND, MD (beat Louisville in the regional final) & UConn. The success of the home teams at 3 of 4 regions lead to legitimate concerns about fairness. As a result, the on campus regionals for WBB were dropped.

So their answer to the fairness issue is to have a regional within a short distance from the #1 ranked defending Champions? If that were UCONN people would be screaming like they did last year. I don't think it has to do with equity at all. I think it has to do with attendance and paying for the arena.

 

[Patty Bailey]

. I don't think it has to do with equity at all. I think it has to do with attendance and paying for the arena.

It also has to do with which arenas bid to have the regionals there. Bridgeport always bid because they knew it would be a sellout and they would make a ton of cash over those two days.

 

[HuskyNan]

Didn’t we have two threads on this already?

Atlanta is in a coastal state.
Dallas is in a coastal state
Philadelphia is in a coastal state

If you count the Great Lakes states as coastal, that eliminates about every city you mention except Phoenix.

Let's face it, the VAST majority of American live in "coastal states." Indeed about 40% live in coastal COUNTIES!

Pennsylvania is on a coast? Did New Jersey fall into the ocean?

 

[bballnut90]

Well, you don't hear much about SC "hosting" in Greenville this year because it is the first time the state of SC has hosted. Bridgeport/Albany have hosted numerous times - as they should because UConn fans WILL SHOW UP. To me, that's what matters. As long as ticket distribution is fair.

Like others, I would prefer the old 4 region format with some changes structure.

BTW, Greenville is a neutral ACC/SEC city. At this time, there are probably more Clemson fans than Gamecocks in Greenville. It's also close to and almost equidistantly located between the two conferences' major media centers, Charlotte and Atlanta. It should be frequently looked at as a regional site

The main reason people complained about UCONN hosting last year was that they were a 2 seed. NC State had a better regular season and earned the top seed, yet they had to play on the road at the #2 seed which provided a major obstacle get to the Final Four. Most years UCONN plays within 1-2 hours of home and has a home atmosphere, but people seldom complained since they're often the 1 seed. I believe this is the first time ever South Carolina has played regionals in their home state.

I too prefer the 4 regional format. Stockpiling in 2 cities doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Curious to see what attendance figures look like in Seattle this year. I also prefer neutral sites vs UCONN having a home atmosphere most regionals but I get the draw for having a regional nearby to get fans in seats. If they go that route though, I think the same benefit should be extended to SC/Tennessee in that a regional should be within 2-3 hours of those programs, as they've consistently shown they get butts in seats too. Or keep one in Iowa/Chicago area with Iowa/Notre Dame right there.

 

[MSGRET]

Can someone please explain to me why there are 3 #1 seeds and 3 #2 seeds playing today, while UConn and Indiana play tomorrow?

Greenville Regional 1 - South Carolina and Maryland

Greenville Regional 2 - Utah

Seattle Regional 3 - Virginia Tech

Seattle Regional 4 - Stanford and Iowa

Tomorrow

Greenville Regional 2 - Indiana

Seattle Regional 4 - UConn

This is not right where both Indiana and UConn play a day later then their possible opponents. They should have the teams that might play against each other in the Elite Eight playing on the same days so that everyone has the same number of days off between the second round and the Sweet Sixteen.

 

[BBallF]

Can someone please explain to me why there are 3 #1 seeds and 3 #2 seeds playing today, while UConn and Indiana play tomorrow?

Greenville Regional 1 - South Carolina and Maryland

Greenville Regional 2 - Utah

Seattle Regional 3 - Virginia Tech

Seattle Regional 4 - Stanford and Iowa

Tomorrow

Greenville Regional 2 - Indiana

Seattle Regional 4 - UConn

This is not right where both Indiana and UConn play a day later then their possible opponents. They should have the teams that might play against each other in the Elite Eight playing on the same days so that everyone has the same number of days off between the second round and the Sweet Sixteen.

Same thing last year. Winds up giving you one less day to rest before the Final Four game. I'm sure that it was purely coincidental.

 

[Tonyc]

How bout playing the first 2 rounds at the site of the upper seed. The next 2 games at the site of the higher seed then the FF. It comes down to money and teams that dont draw will cost the NCAA money. You should not have to run the tourney at a loss and knowing some places dont draw is silly to how and event there. It all comes down to making money and I understand that but it also comes down to the fans who support their team to be able to see their team. Sending Sacred Heart to Cali imo is silly. Send them to UConn. The same thing with other 14/15 seeds. Keep them close to home. Their fans know they will most likely lose and just want to see them play.

 

[TheGOAT23]

Didn’t we have two threads on this already?

Pennsylvania is on a coast? Did New Jersey fall into the ocean?

Visitingcock says that Lake Erie provides a coast for the state of Pennsylvania.

 

[visitingcock]

Visitingcock says that Lake Erie provides a coast for the state of Pennsylvania.

Sorry, PHILADELPHIA IS one of the largest ports in the US - but is on the Delaware river - not the ocean. Oops

 

[sun]

How bout playing the first 2 rounds at the site of the upper seed. The next 2 games at the site of the higher seed then the FF. It comes down to money and teams that dont draw will cost the NCAA money. You should not have to run the tourney at a loss and knowing some places dont draw is silly to how and event there. It all comes down to making money and I understand that but it also comes down to the fans who support their team to be able to see their team. Sending Sacred Heart to Cali imo is silly. Send them to UConn. The same thing with other 14/15 seeds. Keep them close to home. Their fans know they will most likely lose and just want to see them play.

Women athletes have already complained that their BB championship budget is only 1/2 that of men which results in the marginalization of women's sports.
Female students want the NCAA to increase the women's budget, not decrease it.
They also want more games televised, less over-lap with the men's games and lower ticket prices.
They want to generate more money from TV rights to promote equality with the men and to get the attention that WCBB deserves
The women's March Madness needs to be run the same as the men's March Madness with more TV marketing, not cheaper just to save money & to lower the quality of the tourney.

"Last year, the Women’s March Madness Final Four was the most-watched Final Four weekend since 2012 for the women’s tournament, with 3.46 million viewers. In addition, the 2022 Women’s March Madness Finals was the most-watched finals for women’s college basketball since 2004, with 4.85 million viewers on the ESPN networks."

Women winning in front of no one: Students say female NCAA athletes 'underappreciated' - The State News

There has long been discourse surrounding how female collegiate athletes are treated compared to their male counterparts. Some students believe there is still a long way to go to make the NCAA more equitable for women.

statenews.com

 

[oldude]

Sorry, PHILADELPHIA IS one of the largest ports in the US

That’s a bit of a stretch. Philadelphia is the 23rd largest US port by tonnage, right behind two inland river ports: St Louis & Huntington, WV.