Regional Sites to be Announced @ 2pm

[ASweet3781]

UCONN should never have "objected". You deal with the rules as they are. If UCONN didn't want to end up in Palo Alto or wherever in the 3rd and 4th rounds, they should have put their bid in. Honestly I don't see where it matters one way or the other. If you have 1 seeds of UCONN, Duke, ND and say Stanford, it's pretty easy to see where they'd all be sent... and what bracket they'd be in.

It makes no sense to me that any UCONN fans would be outraged, or even upset at this. UCONN didn't put a bid in. So the committee chose the best sites they could based on who made bids.

If ND is not a 1 seed, and UConn is playing in front of 11,000 screaming ND fans in the toughest game of the tournament with refs sending McBride and Loyd to the line 20 times each, will you still think it makes no sense? You can still be ticked off at this NCAA move and be disappointed that UConn didn't bid.

We think we have the best team this year right? Well something as unusual and funky as playing an Elite 8 game in a place like South Bend against ND is the sorta perfect storm of bad luck thing that can ruin a potentially great season unexpectedly. You know weird stuff like Dolson being karate chopped in the neck and yet being called for a foul which leads to Geno getting T'ed up. That sorta stuff. Hopefully it doesn't happen and we are shucking corn in Nebraska.

 

[Phil]

UCONN should never have "objected". You deal with the rules as they are. If UCONN didn't want to end up in Palo Alto or wherever in the 3rd and 4th rounds, they should have put their bid in. Honestly I don't see where it matters one way or the other. If you have 1 seeds of UCONN, Duke, ND and say Stanford, it's pretty easy to see where they'd all be sent... and what bracket they'd be in.

It makes no sense to me that any UCONN fans would be outraged, or even upset at this. UCONN didn't put a bid in. So the committee chose the best sites they could based on who made bids.

You are making two separate points.

I think there are time that when objects to a decision, one should then refuse to take advantage of the policy, while there are other situations where your objection to a decision should be followed up with a refusal to accept the benefits of the decision. The second decision does not also have to follow form the position about the first.

In this specific case, I happen to think the NCAA decision to abandon predetermined sites and let the top seeds host the first two rounds was sound (as an aside, I think I have a better approach, but the committee doesn't yet agree with me). However, I disagree with the NCAA that the Regionals should be hosted by teams in the tournament.

I don't see this as a principled vote. I understand and respect those who chose to vote in favor of this change. But I'm on the side of those opposed, and therefore I commend UConn for standing in opposition to the policy.

Once the policy is enacted, one can choose to accept the decision, and make the best option for your individual school, which might mean UConn should bid, or you can decide that your view on opposition is sufficiently strong that you choose not to bid for a regional, even at a potential cost to your own school.

This is a tougher call, but I respect UConn for having the courage of its convictions to refuse to enter a bid. But again, this isn't really a case of principles, it is a case of different views on how best to improve the sport. If some school objected to the decision, and followed it up with a bid, I wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy. It might well be the appropriate action.

 

[Phil]

Thought experiment. If UConn had bid, and won, by definition, someone else would have lost their bid.

Who?

Stanford seems least likely to be the one, out, Nebraska seems the most likely. Is it that simple, or are there other views?

 

[UConnCat]

UCONN should never have "objected". You deal with the rules as they are. If UCONN didn't want to end up in Palo Alto or wherever in the 3rd and 4th rounds, they should have put their bid in. Honestly I don't see where it matters one way or the other. If you have 1 seeds of UCONN, Duke, ND and say Stanford, it's pretty easy to see where they'd all be sent... and what bracket they'd be in.

It makes no sense to me that any UCONN fans would be outraged, or even upset at this. UCONN didn't put a bid in. So the committee chose the best sites they could based on who made bids.

So, who exactly can object to this plan in your opinion? If fans of teams who chose not to submit a bid (whether on principle or for some other reason) aren't permitted, then it must only be the fans of teams that submitted a plan but then weren't selected. A little hypocritical, no? Your position makes little sense to me. The Committee's plan is terrible and no fans are precluded from saying so, least of all fans of teams that chose to stick by their objections.

 

[UCONNfan1]

Well then I guess I should have said it seems to me some folks on this board have their angst misplaced. You all should be annoyed at UCONN for not putting in the bid in the first place. To complain about the sites that were chosen when UCONN was never in the mix in the first place is, as Phil pointed out, 2 separate things. Sure UCONN stood by its' collective moral ground, but this is the result.

I agree that it certainly would be unfortunate for UCONN, as a 1 seed, to potentially face ND as a 2 seed in South Bend. And it would be unfair, but it's happened many times in the past - in fact, PSU was the 1 seed and UCONN the 2 seed when the teams faced off several years back in the NCAA's on UCONN's home court.

If UCONN had thrown their hat into the ring in the first place, then one of the regionals would have been in Hartford, or Bridgeport, or wherever is close to Connecticut. They didn't, and the committee chose from the options they had.

So my point is fans' anger or frustration seems misplaced. Obviously I'm in the minority. No biggie. I'm more familiar with the men's side anyway where they routinely send UCONN to the west coast bracket, or Duke to the mid west, etc etc. But then again you don't have teams generally playing on the home court of lower seeded opponents.

 

[UcMiami]

As soon as this plan was announced the obvious teams to bid on regional sites were team that had a chance of getting to the final four so I always knew that the regional sites were going to be problematic for the 6+ other teams with legitimate aspirations to FF status. I do find the geography sort of interesting as we have 3 central locations and one west coast with no really eastern or southern site. Beyond that ... tough luck this year for the other teams not hosting. I think Uconn is good enough to win on any court and maybe they have to prove that.
It is not a lot worse than the times higher seeds had to play Uconn in Bridgeport and or Hartford - seem to remember Duke and PSU maybe complaining about that in years past when we were a 2 seed.

I do think the idea floated about fixed regional sites is a good one, but folks will complain about those locations when they are selected as well. Especially if they are close to one of the perennial powerhouse teams.

And just an aside - any of the top ten teams in the country over the last ten years are going to have a home winning % of 80 or better - between weak OOCs and generally winning their conferences they just don't lose many home games so there is no surprise there. More meaningful would be home record against teams ranked in the top 5 nationally and that would be much closer to 50% for most.

 

[Fightin Choke]

I can understand the disappointment, UConn fans, but wasn't Bridgeport a regional site last year? And wasn't Storrs the subregional? UConn made the FF last season never having traveled more than 80 miles from campus. Would Maryland or Kentucky fans have considered Bridgeport even close to neutral? Notre Dame played their first 2 tournament games in Iowa City and their next 2 in Norfolk, Virginia, and they were a higher tournament seed than UConn last season. So the former method was also flawed, and it left the arenas empty. Clearly this new method is also flawed, but at least butts will be in the seats to witness the regionals.

And in the worse case scenario, you know Geno will use this as motivation.

 

[Jackalope]

Sheesh, I am surprised that Tennessee's bid wasn't accepted. You know they must have put one in. It would be an easy 21,678 sellout if dollars are all they are interested in. Maples only seats about 7,200. Nebraska's arena also only seats 13,600.

 

[UConnCat]

I can understand the disappointment, UConn fans, but wasn't Bridgeport a regional site last year? And wasn't Storrs the subregional? UConn made the FF last season never having traveled more than 80 miles from campus. Would Maryland or Kentucky fans have considered Bridgeport even close to neutral? Notre Dame played their first 2 tournament games in Iowa City and their next 2 in Norfolk, Virginia, and they were a higher tournament seed than UConn last season. So the former method was also flawed, and it left the arenas empty. Clearly this new method is also flawed, but at least butts will be in the seats to witness the regionals.

And in the worse case scenario, you know Geno will use this as motivation.

There's a big difference between the first 2 rounds of the tournament when the games are not competitive for many teams and the regional finals when a trip to the FF is on the line. There's also a big difference between a neutral site that's within driving distance for certain teams and their fans and an on-campus facility that is a team's home court. Bridgeport is not the same as Gampel just as Greensboro is not the same as Cameron or Carmichael just like Banker's Life in Indianapolis is not the same as the Joyce Center.

Most say this is a one-year plan. If that's the case, then why not just go with one more year of the old plan and avoid the inevitable negativity that's going to surround the tournament come March? Defending this plan with the old butts in the seats argument is not the way to grow the game.

 

[UConnCat]

Sheesh, I am surprised that Tennessee's bid wasn't accepted. You know they must have put one in. It would be an easy 21,678 sellout if dollars are all they are interested in. Maples only seats about 7,200. Nebraska's arena also only seats 13,600.

Do we know whether Knoxville submitted a bid to host a regional? It will host the first 2 rounds. Maybe there's a limit to how far the committee is willing to go and the thought of allowing Tenn to host the S16, E8 and then play in a Final Four in Nashville was too much.

I'd like to know which schools bid to host a regional. I read somewhere that 2o schools submitted bids. No east coast schools? The ACC was awarded 1/2 of the regionals. Jumped ahead one year on this.

 

[Alydar]

Thought experiment. If UConn had bid, and won, by definition, someone else would have lost their bid.

Who?

Stanford seems least likely to be the one, out, Nebraska seems the most likely. Is it that simple, or are there other views?

I'm not sure but think regionals are hosted by a conference, or at least that's how it was last year. I can't remember a conference having 3 regopnals. That's why Bridgeport replaced Trenton, Fairfield was MAAC conference. And I'm not sure the XL could outbid the YUM Center. So it's likely UConn wouldn't have won a site even if they bid.

 

[EricLA]

Meh. Play anyone anyplace anytime. This team is that good.

 

[Icebear]

I can understand the disappointment, UConn fans, but wasn't Bridgeport a regional site last year? And wasn't Storrs the subregional? UConn made the FF last season never having traveled more than 80 miles from campus. Would Maryland or Kentucky fans have considered Bridgeport even close to neutral? Notre Dame played their first 2 tournament games in Iowa City and their next 2 in Norfolk, Virginia, and they were a higher tournament seed than UConn last season. So the former method was also flawed, and it left the arenas empty. Clearly this new method is also flawed, but at least butts will be in the seats to witness the regionals.

And in the worse case scenario, you know Geno will use this as motivation.

Bridgeport became a regional site to bail out the NCAA because of the situation at Rutgers involving NJ rules on sports gaming.

 

[Icebear]

Meh. Play anyone anyplace anytime. This team is that good.

Yes if there is a year to need to play through this then this is the year.

 

[diggerfoot]

Who has more right to be unhappy.

A number 1 seed, say TN, or Duke, who has to play on the home court of Stanford or Louisville or ND,

or a #2 seed, who thinks they have a shot at knocking off a #1 seed, but not if theyat #1 seed is palying at home?

I would add another possibility, whichever of the hosts that end up getting UConn in their bracket, rendering being a host this particular year useless.

 

[Blakeon18]

Prediction: Geno will gladly use this as motivation to challenge the kids....and in the end it will help not hurt the team.
UConn/LadyVol...maybe others....have played all 4 games leading up to the final four on the home court. Fair? Of course not.
We have benefited from home court a lot over the years....as have many other elite teams. In 2014 our regional site will make it a bit tougher this time round. We'll be fine.

 

[Tonyc]

Reading these posts and seeing different views makes me wonder if having a team like UConn go to Lincoln would be good for WCBB. They should be a huge draw, the only question that remains to be seen is will they. It might help WCBB having UConn show up in places where they haven't been before like Lincoln. UConn doesn't need to be in Palo Alto or ND or LVille they've already been there. To increase the popularity of WCBB I would think sending UConn to NE would be great.

Geno made a decision and suggestion that UConn not host. He is a leader and leaders lead by example. Im sure some other coaches will follow. Others wont because they need the advantage of playing at home. UConn doesn't this season or next. The one thing this UConn team can do is to get out there at other sites and be the draw that could increase attendance and interest in WCBB. This may be a good move. Yes it may hurt the pockets of the NCAA but it just might in the long run be better for WCBB.

 

[Phil]

I can understand the disappointment, UConn fans, but wasn't Bridgeport a regional site last year? And wasn't Storrs the subregional? UConn made the FF last season never having traveled more than 80 miles from campus. Would Maryland or Kentucky fans have considered Bridgeport even close to neutral? Notre Dame played their first 2 tournament games in Iowa City and their next 2 in Norfolk, Virginia, and they were a higher tournament seed than UConn last season. So the former method was also flawed, and it left the arenas empty. Clearly this new method is also flawed, but at least butts will be in the seats to witness the regionals.

And in the worse case scenario, you know Geno will use this as motivation.

You may or may not remember that Bridgeport was a fortuitous accident. Newark Trenton applied for and was awarded the Regional, then New Jersey decided to allow betting in a way prohibited by the NCAA, so the NCAA pulled the bid. With not much time left, they had to scramble to find a replacement site, and Bridgeport stepped up. It doesn't change the fact that UConn had an attractive path, but had NJ not been complete idiots, it wouldn't have happened.

edit, oops, missed that there was a 3rd page, so didn't see that Icebear beat me to it.

 

[Phil]

For anyone interested in seeing a map of the locations, I've updated the maps at

2014 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament

 

[UcMiami]

For anyone interested in seeing a map of the locations, I've updated the maps at

2014 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament

Thanks - nice graphics. All those central teams could have very short road trips - with TN and Louisville and ND able to get to the final four traveling around 200 miles total for their three sites.

 

[UConnCat]

Mechelle Voepel's column:

http://espn.go.com/womens-college-b...asketball-ncaa-regionals-remain-neutral-sites

My view on the NCAA women's tournament: Having the top 16 seeds host the early rounds -- which previously was the format for several years -- makes sense. But the regionals should be on neutral sites. Close to a school is OK. But on a school's home court? I'd like to think we should be past that, although I know attendance at regionals can be disappointing at times.

"I think hosting a regional is in complete opposition to preserving the integrity of the game," McGraw said that day. "I think you can buy your way into the Final Four."

LOL. ND rises above principle once again.

Mechelle also talks about UConn hosting first 4 rounds at Gampel back in 1995 and the close win over Virginia in the E8 game. Does UConn win that game on a neutral court?

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Not sure I understand your points. Are you suggesting the fans on this board are only outraged because UConn didn't bid and won't be hosting regional? If not, what difference does it make that fans chose to express their unhappiness with this plan when it's announced. Honestly, I don't know that fans realized or focused on what the NCAA intended to do w/r/t regional sites in the 2014 tournament until it became a reality today.

The NCAA should not sacrifice competitive fairness just for the optics of more fans in arenas, even if it's a stop-gap plan. That won't matter much to teams who believe they have a shot at the FF and are forced to play a S16 or E8 game on another team's home floor.

To your second point, they have and will continue to this year with first round pre-determined sites. It would make little difference to UConn (or the other top programs), but to good not great programs like Rutgers was some of the years and many other teams, playing on an opponents home floor is the kiss of death, or can be. I will be delighted if the NCAA goes back to the top 16 seeds hosting, they earned it.

The on-going obsession with geography determining match-ups in lieu of the s curve, while generally less egregious, was also a sacrifice of competitive fairness.

To your first point, while it is inherently unfair in exactly the same way, and Geno is correct on the point, the truth is that the poster was correct who pointed out UConn benefited from playing locally (and Rutgers playing in Trenton, which we did one time for the regionals, and it helped). The real change in S16/E8 was a move to off-campus arenas, I think, as opposed to anything else, and it didn't really work. We thought we took a step forward and we ended up taking one back at the sacrifice of fairness, for revenue. AS LONG AS it is not the permanent policy going forward, I don't see the complaining about the policy, I don't have any problem with complaining about where you might be sent.

PS - to those clarifying the Trenton situation, Rutgers was not directly involved (MAAC / Rider were supposed to be the hosts) and actually the betting law has never gone into effect.

 

[Phil]

PS - to those clarifying the Trenton situation, Rutgers was not directly involved (MAAC / Rider were supposed to be the hosts) and actually the betting law has never gone into effect.

True but potentially misleading. The law had been passed. The NCAA changed the sites, there were others beside the women's regional affected. The state reversed their decision, but too late.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

True but potentially misleading. The law had been passed. The NCAA changed the sites, there were others beside the women's regional affected. The state reversed their decision, but too late.

I felt like someone had implied the betting law was in place and implemented, maybe I misread it. Not being in NJ, I didn't know it was actually repealed, I just knew it ultimately wasn't implemented. I didn't know NJ was eligible again. And yes, one of the other NCAA sites pulled was actually RU hosting in another sport. Whatever the state / law ultimate end, I can pretty much guarantee it is unrelated to NCAA issues.

 

[UConnCat]

The Guru weighs in:

http://womhoops.blogspot.com/

However, at the regional level of the next Big Dance in March-April, when the talk has been finding ways to promote media coverage and create a fine arena atmosphere, the Northeast has been left out in the cold more than weatherwise.

It is only the second time in the 33-year history of the tournament -- the other being in 1989 -- that the state of Kentucky becomes the Eastern most locale. In the other instance Western Kentucky was a host in Bowling Green when the Hilltoppers were a national power.

It is known that Springfield, Mass., had a bid, which would have been a fine and convenient place for teams, like the powerhouse down the road, fans and media to get to from the East at low cost rates.

There are other years in which a pure Northeast locale was not in the regional mix, but in those instances the Eastern most sites were either at Dayton in Ohio, or in North Carolina at either Greensboro or Raleigh, or once in South Carolina with the Gamecocks hosting in Columbia.

Because one does not know yet of any changes in principles and procedures in building the tournament -- it's not as easy even for the Guru these days to chat with people to get background of deliberations -- Connecticut does not have a total slam diunk to obtaining what would be record-breaking title number nine.