Neutral sites. Isn’t it time that happened? | The Boneyard

Neutral sites. Isn’t it time that happened?

Unless there's a deep fan base for neutral sites, not sure this will happen in the near future. There are a number of fan bases that travel well, however a vast majority don't. The women's game is a completely different animal than the men's, IMO.
 
uconnhuskies.com

UConn to host NCAA Women's Basketball First and Second Rounds in 2005 - University of Connecticut Athletics

STORRS, Conn. (July 8, 2004) The University of Connecticut will host the first and second rounds of the 2005 NCAA Womens Basketball Tour...
uconnhuskies.com uconnhuskies.com

They experimented with predetermined sites from 2005 to 2008. There are some details in the attached, but I don’t remember where the rest of the sites were. It wasn’t exactly neutral, but it wasn’t home games either. I don’t think that that was successful, and at some point they returned to the top 16 seeds hosting.
 
Puppy Love said:
uconnhuskies.com

UConn to host NCAA Women's Basketball First and Second Rounds in 2005 - University of Connecticut Athletics

STORRS, Conn. (July 8, 2004) The University of Connecticut will host the first and second rounds of the 2005 NCAA Womens Basketball Tour...
uconnhuskies.com uconnhuskies.com

They experimented with predetermined sites from 2005 to 2008. There are some details in the attached, but I don’t remember where the rest of the sites were. It wasn’t exactly neutral, but it wasn’t home games either. I don’t think that that was successful, and at some point they returned to the top 16 seeds hosting.
Expand ...
Some were blatant road games for higher seeds. I remember Tennessee being the #1 seed but having to play at Pittsburgh in the 2nd round one year.

I prefer the top 4 seeds hosting. Gives extra incentive for teams to finish strong and reach the top 16. Also helps improve attendance and makes the games more exciting to have a raucous crowd there IMO. Women’s basketball isn’t in a spot yet to have 16 neutral subregionals and expect big attendance numbers. Hopefully one day.
 
JungleLobo said:
With the women’s game gains in popularity, isn’t it time to stop having the higher seeds get 2 home games to start the tourney?
Expand ...
Nope. Interest in increasing but nothing like the men's game. You would get stadiums 1/4 full across the nation.

Did you see the attendance in Storrs after UConn in the first round? So disappointing that at least 90% of the people left - not bothering to stay to watch to see who our next opponent would be. Imagine if it were 4 teams in Connecticut that weren't named UConn?
 
.-.
JungleLobo said:
With the women’s game gains in popularity, isn’t it time to stop having the higher seeds get 2 home games to start the tourney?
Expand ...
No, women's game still needs the big crowds home games bring. The game is starting to draw real attention, money and love. Don't change a thing for noe. Plus UCONN playing at home is great for Connecticut economy and fans.
 
I am fine with the first two rounds being hosted by the top 16 seeds. A good performance over the entire season ought to be rewarded. Plus, while the women's game has certainly advanced, I don't think the fanbase is where it needs to be to have all neutral sites. One change I would make is to have an objective, published formula by which the top 16 are picked, instead of the selection being a beauty contest being decided by a bunch of people behind closed doors. If the exact ranking calculations were published and available to all, there would be no surprises and teams could see exactly what they would have to do to get one of those coveted spots. I admit that would make things much like one of those computer generated ranking websites (i.e., KenPom), but humans would still have input in determining the weights of various metrics. The age of AI is upon us, teach the computer well and then let it do its thing.
 
JungleLobo said:
With the women’s game gains in popularity, isn’t it time to stop having the higher seeds get 2 home games to start the tourney?
Expand ...
No. Top seeds should be rewarded for their selections especially with the real possibility of being shipped across the country for their next two games. And their fans should be rewarded.
 
.-.
I like the top 16 hosting.

I like four regions for the round of 16. I can't believe they kept Spokane in the mix after last year. Geno indicated UConn would be staying in Idaho because of a lack of hotel rooms. I really really hope that was hyperbole and that no teams are sent to Idaho.
 
Stagnant said:
It is far more important to fix the regionals. This Birmingham and Spokane thing is not it.
Expand ...
Wait until next year. Regionals are Fort Worth, TX and Sacramento, CA, with the Final Four in Phoenix,AZ. The ACC, Big East, Big Ten (well, not USC & UCLA), Big 12, and SEC region are saying "what now"?

1742834095585.jpeg
 
To add on, in 2027 we have Philly and Vegas as regionals, and Columbus, OH for the finals:

1742834435118.jpeg


The last two region format (for now) is 2028, with Portland OR and Washington DC with teh regionals, culminating with Indy for the finals, similar to 2027 with a line right through the US:

1742834535652.jpeg
 
Instead of editing my two posts above about the locations of future regionals and final fours, I'd LOVE to ask the NCAA marketing or research committees the reasons behind the locations, especially 2026, because, um, travel?
 
.-.
Given the small share of D1 basketball programs west of the rockies, it is a bad idea to have the western regional so frequently located west of the rockies when there are only two regionals. It makes some sense when tehre are 4 regionals--but it should also be more often in California and not Spokane which is so difficult to travel to.


map of D1
 
Ok, attendance is sort of my forte and I will say that "location, location, location" is still the main problem that the knuckleheads at the NCAA seem to misunderstand and is why they took the easy way out by going to a two-site location. Heck, even with that option, they still force bad locations down our throats like this year of Spokane and Birmingham. Spokane has been picked 5 times previous to this year and in 10 sessions, they have averaged 6,365 fans. That is NOT GOOD. This is Birmingham's first time so it will be interesting to see how they do. Given how poor Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Lexington and Chicago have done in the past, I am not optimistic. The good news is we are in a new paradigm of the sport with attendance still increasing but until you get above 10,000 on the neutral courts consistently (even the Conference tournaments can't average more than 10k), stick with the current format. Heck, even under this format, some schools did abysmal and could not sell out their small venues (Looking at you Duke, Kentucky, and Baylor).

Also keep in mind all the other sports except Men's basketball, have the first rounds and more on Campus of the better teams. Feel good about the overall attendance increasing but it is not on par with the men's game by a long shot.
 
BRS24 said:
Wait until next year. Regionals are Fort Worth, TX and Sacramento, CA, with the Final Four in Phoenix,AZ. The ACC, Big East, Big Ten (well, not USC & UCLA), Big 12, and SEC region are saying "what now"?

View attachment 108117
Expand ...
IIRC the abundance of locations in the northwest stems from Oregon/Oregon State emerging as potential powers in the 2017-2020 era, and now we're seeing the result of that. Oregon State isn't a P4 program and Oregon has tumbled greatly from where they were 5 years ago.

That said, this year the locations are awful for fans. Neither location has an abundance of flights options or major cities nearby aside from Atlanta which is 2hr away from Birmingham, and Atlanta is not a women's basketball hotbed.

Next year isn't bad IMO. Bay Area should draw reasonably well with the Valkyries there plus USC/UCLA and their growing fan bases. Fort Worth is easy to get to and not a far distance for most Big 12/SEC programs and a short flight for ACC teams.

There should be more regionals placed in the midwest though where attendance is often strong. love to the midwest would make sense considering how well Big Ten area programs draw, as well
 
BRS24 said:
Instead of editing my two posts above about the locations of future regionals and final fours, I'd LOVE to ask the NCAA marketing or research committees the reasons behind the locations, especially 2026, because, um, travel?
Expand ...

I think 2026 makes decent sense. Sacramento is relatively easy to fly in and out of, is close to the Bay, and will also draw USC/UCLA fans. Fort Worth is also incredibly easy to fly in/out, is a short flight for most SEC/ACC/Big 12 programs and is driving distance from Texas/Oklahoma/Baylor. Location of the Final Four is largely irrelevant since it sells out every year and will sell out easily next year in Phoenix, even if it means non-USC/UCLA fans have to travel further to watch their team.
 
I watched several games this weekend and enjoyed the excitement provided by the big home crowds with all the trimmings. Great environment for WBB, and a reward for the best programs. Let's think about the players and their fans, too. For many, these last home games are their final time together on that court.
 
Glenn said:
Given the small share of D1 basketball programs west of the rockies, it is a bad idea to have the western regional so frequently located west of the rockies when there are only two regionals. It makes some sense when tehre are 4 regionals--but it should also be more often in California and not Spokane which is so difficult to travel to.


map of D1
Expand ...

Even when there were 4 regionals west of the rockies got a very disproportionate share of sites. It has WAY fewer than 25% of the schools and 25% of major schools.

CA is probably difficult because of expense. The arenas in SF and LA are probably busy year round and only want to host things that generate big $$$. And there's the cost of team hotel rooms, not to mention what it would cost for non-local fans to stay. Medium-sized cities are much more cost effective, hence places like Fresno and Birmingham.
 
.-.
Fort Worth and Sacramento are way better sites than Birmingham and Spokane. At least there are airports and hotels around the area with those sites.
 
Stagnant said:
Fort Worth and Sacramento are way better sites than Birmingham and Spokane. At least there are airports and hotels around the area with those sites.
Expand ...
Sacramento is slightly better than Spokane but still won’t have any teams within 400 miles.

And unlike Ft worth, a large chuck of the south, southeast, and Midwest are within 500 miles of Birmingham.
 
If schools don't want to host, ya can't make'em.
Or can you? That would require the NCAA make a huge investment.
 
JungleLobo said:
With the women’s game gains in popularity, isn’t it time to stop having the higher seeds get 2 home games to start the tourney?
Expand ...
I don't think it is as popular as you think. Looking around the different venues this weekend I saw a lot of empty seats at games that featured number 1 seeds. I think for the womens game you still have a handful of teams people will travel to watch and a bunch that people would just stay home and watch on tv.
 
With how chalky most years are (including 2025) perhaps having the tournament have 16 teams to begin with would mitigate the travel costs and just going through the motions to eliminate 52 teams.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,506
Messages
4,579,310
Members
10,489
Latest member
Djw06001


Top Bottom