One thing needs to change

[JustinesGuy]

I feel like it's extremely unfair that the first two rounds are on campus home Games in the women's tournament. I really think they need to regionalize the early rounds as they do in the men's tournament.

There has been talk that this year has been mostly chalk through the first two games. How can there be an upset when these favored teams are on campus? It's really not fair and not in the spirit of the tournament. I completely think the better seeds should be rewarded but for uconn to be playing in gamble for two games then Bridgeport through the elite 8 is a bit much. Maybe there would be more excitement of an underdog doing the unthinkable if the tournament sites were a bit more fair.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Sonny44]

This one is only worth 1 cent. It's not the committees' job to produce upsets, rather just the opposite.

 

[Kaizen]

Agree. Next year they should send UConn to Hawaii to play the first 2 rounds, as a reward for the rank #1 in the final polls.

 

[JudgeSCR]

I feel like it's extremely unfair that the first two rounds are on campus home Games in the women's tournament. I really think they need to regionalize the early rounds as they do in the men's tournament.

There has been talk that this year has been mostly chalk through the first two games. How can there be an upset when these favored teams are on campus? It's really not fair and not in the spirit of the tournament. I completely think the better seeds should be rewarded but for uconn to be playing in gamble for two games then Bridgeport through the elite 8 is a bit much. Maybe there would be more excitement of an underdog doing the unthinkable if the tournament sites were a bit more fair.

Just my 2 cents.

Except that if you go to neutral sights you have teams playing in empty stadiums. When you get past the top 10 teams in attendance most of WCBB teams play to virtually empty stadiums on their home court and have few fans that travel to neutral sites. Syracuse averaged less than 1,500 for their home games. So imagine what that means for any team playing in the Carrier Dome not named Syracuse (or UCONN).

Empty stadiums are not good for ESPN, not good for the casual fan watching on TV, not good for the players and not good for the game. Cheering crowds create a sense of excitement at the stadium and on TV. Neutral sites would create squeaking sneakers on empty gym floors. Unless of course you are the UConn traveling circus, then you can play anywhere and people will show.

I see your 2 cents and raise another 2.

 

[Geew1992]

I feel like it's extremely unfair that the first two rounds are on campus home Games in the women's tournament. I really think they need to regionalize the early rounds as they do in the men's tournament.

There has been talk that this year has been mostly chalk through the first two games. How can there be an upset when these favored teams are on campus? It's really not fair and not in the spirit of the tournament. I completely think the better seeds should be rewarded but for uconn to be playing in gamble for two games then Bridgeport through the elite 8 is a bit much. Maybe there would be more excitement of an underdog doing the unthinkable if the tournament sites were a bit more fair.

Just my 2 cents.

Understandable, but there wouldn't be anyone in the sits.

 

[TerpWomenFan]

I like the neutral sites idea but it is not financial rewarding to the NCAA. Unfortunately women basketball games are not attended very well (with the exceptions of UConn, Tennessee, South Carolina and maybe a couple of others). The NCAA will get more revenue the way it is set up now.

 

[UConnNick]

They've tried that before. You end up with arenas where you can hear crickets chirping.

Even with home teams involved, some of these games draw small crowds. It's far worse with regional sites. It also marginalizes the regular season results. You've got 16 chances to be a host team on the first weekend. Teams that can't make the top 4 seed lines have nobody to blame but themselves if they didn't get it done during the regular season.

 

[JustinesGuy]

Agree. Next year they should send UConn to Hawaii to play the first 2 rounds, as a reward for the rank #1 in the final polls.

No need to take things to the extreme's. I totally think the 1 and 2 seeds should play in there home state. I feel that putting these premium teams in there on campus arena is a huge advantage and most of them can sleep walk though the sweet 16. Granted a 1 or 2 seed can still lose especially if you add injury into the mix like ND or Duke or even throwing a scare like a SC into the mix...

 

[JustinesGuy]

Except that if you go to neutral sights you have teams playing in empty stadiums. When you get past the top 10 teams in attendance most of WCBB teams play to virtually empty stadiums on their home court and have few fans that travel to neutral sites. Syracuse averaged less than 1,500 for their home games. So imagine what that means for any team playing in the Carrier Dome not named Syracuse (or UCONN).

Empty stadiums are not good for ESPN, not good for the casual fan watching on TV, not good for the players and not good for the game. Cheering crowds create a sense of excitement at the stadium and on TV. Neutral sites would create squeaking sneakers on empty gym floors. Unless of course you are the UConn traveling circus, then you can play anywhere and people will show.

I see your 2 cents and raise another 2.

I hear your point and that is really a shame. Loyal fans should have no problem traveling to see there team in there home state..

 

[StephStorrs]

One has to ask this question: if the games are played at neutral sites, who's going to go? It's unfortunate that only a few select teams are able to draw a crowd, and we are extremely lucky as UConn fans to have an arena that sounds and looks the way it does when it's packed with students and fans. But that's the way the cookie crumbles, and women's basketball games are simply not well attended enough across the board to justify regional games before the Sweet 16. If more teams were drawing larger crowds, I could potentially see it, but that's not the case. Regional games before the Sweet 16 would mean predominantly empty arenas with an average of maybe two or three thousand fans per game (depending on the location and teams in said regional, of course), and when that camera pans out for an arena wide shot, it's going to look ugly. It's not a good look for the game, it's not a good look for ESPN, and frankly, it'd just be depressing to watch.

And as a side note, I've always considered the home games to be a really nice reward for the 1-4 seeds. Clearly they've done something right all season to get the seed they've gotten, and are thus rewarded for it by hosting the first two games. It's a win-win, in my opinion. There's fans in the seats, and it's a nice reward to the teams that have earned it.

 

[huskeynut]

Well I disagree.

UConn went through the season undefeated. That included beat several top ranked teams. Their reward is playing before a packed house at Gampel. They won those 2 games now they get to play in Bridgeport.

WCBB tried the nuetral sites before and it was an attendance disaster. A lot of empty seats.

You want to play you first two games at home, be good enough for a top 4 seed in one of the regions. Its that simple.

I also assume you are against ND, MD, Louisville, Baylor, Miami and others playing on their home courts because its an unfair advantage.

Do I detect the "UConn is bad for WCBB" creeping in?

 

[StephStorrs]

I hear your point and that is really a shame. Loyal fans should have no problem traveling to see there team in there home state..

I get what you're saying, but for the sake of it, let's throw out some hypotheticals. Say I'm a Baylor fan living in Waco. For some ungodly reason, Baylor's first games are being played in El Paso. That's a 9 hour car ride, and that's not including any traffic I might run into.

Not every state is as small as Connecticut, and not every drive is as manageable as Hartford to Bridgeport. It's unfortunate, but that's something to think about. Keeping the games at home ensures that the loyal fans will be there, because the distance isn't any different than usual.

 

[HoopsFan21]

I think he may see it as unfair that UConn basically gets to stay home until the Final Four, but that's just a coincidence for this season, and given that there aren't that many suitable regional sites they can use in the northeast, it's going to happen from time to time if Bridgeport continues to be in the rotation. But, what about the final four games that are held in places close to top teams like Dallas or Indy or Columbus which would be de facto home games for Baylor, ND, and OSU should they get that far?

 

[JustinesGuy]

One has to ask this question: if the games are played at neutral sites, who's going to go? It's unfortunate that only a few select teams are able to draw a crowd, and we are extremely lucky as UConn fans to have an arena that sounds and looks the way it does when it's packed with students and fans. But that's the way the cookie crumbles, and women's basketball games are simply not well attended enough across the board to justify regional games before the Sweet 16. If more teams were drawing larger crowds, I could potentially see it, but that's not the case. Regional games before the Sweet 16 would mean predominantly empty arenas with an average of maybe two or three thousand fans per game (depending on the location and teams in said regional, of course), and when that camera pans out for an arena wide shot, it's going to look ugly. It's not a good look for the game, it's not a good look for ESPN, and frankly, it'd just be depressing to watch.

And as a side note, I've always considered the home games to be a really nice reward for the 1-4 seeds. Clearly they've done something right all season to get the seed they've gotten, and are thus rewarded for it by hosting the first two games. It's a win-win, in my opinion. There's fans in the seats, and it's a nice reward to the teams that have earned it.

Thank u for your well written response.
I think I have a better understanding of the situation now.

 

[Tonyc]

If Im running things I put the top draws as home games. That would mean UConn SC definitely hosting. You need to make money and WCBB needs money to run their tournaments. Playing at sites which dont draw large numbers is silly if you want to make money to run the tournament. Hey UConn will draw almost anywhere. In CT you can raise the prices for tickets and get it and make money. The East Regional next season is Albany about 4 + hours from Bridgeport. Lets see what happens. If UConn is there they will draw...but will they make money? We will see

 

[JustinesGuy]

Well I disagree.

UConn went through the season undefeated. That included beat several top ranked teams. Their reward is playing before a packed house at Gampel. They won those 2 games now they get to play in Bridgeport.

WCBB tried the nuetral sites before and it was an attendance disaster. A lot of empty seats.

You want to play you first two games at home, be good enough for a top 4 seed in one of the regions. Its that simple.

I also assume you are against ND, MD, Louisville, Baylor, Miami and others playing on their home courts because its an unfair advantage.

Do I detect the "UConn is bad for WCBB" creeping in?

Oh god no. Uconn is everything good for college basketball. I meant all the top seeds.
I'm just saying playing in Bridgeport, or like MSG is rewarding enough.

 

[JustinesGuy]

I get what you're saying, but for the sake of it, let's throw out some hypotheticals. Say I'm a Baylor fan living in Waco. For some ungodly reason, Baylor's first games are being played in El Paso. That's a 9 hour car ride, and that's not including any traffic I might run into.

Not every state is as small as Connecticut, and not every drive is as manageable as Hartford to Bridgeport. It's unfortunate, but that's something to think about. Keeping the games at home ensures that the loyal fans will be there, because the distance isn't any different than usual.

Again. Thank u. Very good point.

 

[HoopsFan21]

Does the NCAA make any money from the women's tourney or is it subsidized by the men's? I thought it was a net money loser?

 

[Bajan Best]

I feel like it's extremely unfair that the first two rounds are on campus home Games in the women's tournament. I really think they need to regionalize the early rounds as they do in the men's tournament.

There has been talk that this year has been mostly chalk through the first two games. How can there be an upset when these favored teams are on campus? It's really not fair and not in the spirit of the tournament. I completely think the better seeds should be rewarded but for uconn to be playing in gamble for two games then Bridgeport through the elite 8 is a bit much. Maybe there would be more excitement of an underdog doing the unthinkable if the tournament sites were a bit more fair.

Just my 2 cents.

Several folks on here have answered your question as to why it is, and it has mostly to do with filling the seats and earning that revenue, unfortunately right now there is no quick way around that..

I would like to add one more caveat, In addition or separate to allowing the Higher seed to play on campus as a reward for their excellent play throughout the season, I believe the finals should be played in the State of the Higher seed as well, why reward some other state with the revenue earned at the finals if they don't have a representative playing in the finals, let one of the two teams playing earn that revenue.. Just a thought

 

[Vowelguy]

Round 1 attendance = 4500 per site

 

[JordyG]

Well I disagree.

UConn went through the season undefeated. That included beat several top ranked teams. Their reward is playing before a packed house at Gampel. They won those 2 games now they get to play in Bridgeport.

WCBB tried the nuetral sites before and it was an attendance disaster. A lot of empty seats.

You want to play you first two games at home, be good enough for a top 4 seed in one of the regions. Its that simple.

I also assume you are against ND, MD, Louisville, Baylor, Miami and others playing on their home courts because its an unfair advantage.

Do I detect the "UConn is bad for WCBB" creeping in?

That last line I think was a bit shrill and unnecessary. That wasn't at all my take on what was either said or meant. It seemed an honest question which was given straight and accurate answers. We UConn fans need to be less sensitive and a bit more open and magnanimous since UConn defines WCBB and we fans are the luckiest BB fans on earth.

 

[j66kicker]

Does the NCAA make any money from the women's tourney or is it subsidized by the men's? I thought it was a net money loser?

You are correct. Money loser subsidized by the NCAA, which earns over 90% of all its revenue from the men's tournament. (Football revenue goes to the schools, not the NCAA. 81% of the NCAA's revenue is from CBS and Turner for TV rights to the men's tournament and another 11% is from tournament ticket sales including the women.)

 

[JordyG]

And might I add that NE sports fans are the luckiest sports fans on earth.

 

[rbny1]

As others have mentioned, it's largely a matter of attendance and economics. But I would note that three of this year's 16 top-seeded teams lost in round one or two on their home court to a lower-seeded team. So home court is an advantage but not a completely dominant advantage. I think the current system works fine for women's BB.

 

[OldAlum]

Yeah, I was kind of wishing the lowest seeds could do a play-in game just to reduce the mismatches of 1-16 games. But then I realized the difficulty of getting attendance at these games even at home. So probably wont happen.