Regional Sites to be Announced @ 2pm | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Regional Sites to be Announced @ 2pm

Status
Not open for further replies.
Phil said:
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?
Expand ...


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.
 
Fightin Choke said:
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.
Expand ...

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

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.
 
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.
 
.-.
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.
 
Fightin Choke said:
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.
Expand ...


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.
 
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?
 
UConnCat said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
.-.
KnightBridgeAZ said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
Phil said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
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.
 
So folks do not believe geography will be a factor in regional placement? As a Louisville fan I would rather play anyone other than UCONN in the regionals. I was supposing that should ND get a #1 seed, UCONN would end up in Louisville, per geography. That, as someone mentioned, renders hosting the regionals moot. (I love my team, however, uconn is the far and away favorite IMHO to win it all. I don't want to run in to you all until the end, if we have to meet again.)
I have already been wishing ND ill will this season, to keep them out of a #1 seed. Would be nice to think geography will not factor in, thus keeping you all out of Louisville, and reducing my ill will towards the Irish.
 
jennyo70 said:
So folks do not believe geography will be a factor in regional placement? As a Louisville fan I would rather play anyone other than UCONN in the regionals. I was supposing that should ND get a #1 seed, UCONN would end up in Louisville, per geography. That, as someone mentioned, renders hosting the regionals moot. (I love my team, however, uconn is the far and away favorite IMHO to win it all. I don't want to run in to you all until the end, if we have to meet again.)
I have already been wishing ND ill will this season, to keep them out of a #1 seed. Would be nice to think geography will not factor in, thus keeping you all out of Louisville, and reducing my ill will towards the Irish.
Expand ...

It's not clear how much of a role geography will play in assigning top seeds to regions. Geography didn't seem to matter when the committee selected it's 4 sites with Kentucky being the eastern most regional for the first time in 25 years. Selection Monday should be interesting. Until then, let the games begin.
 
Phil said:
You may or may not remember that Bridgeport was a fortuitous accident. Newark applied for and was awarded the Regional, then New Jersey deiced 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.
Expand ...
. Think it was Trenton not Newark that lost the games
 
.-.
UConnCat said:
The Guru weighs in:



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.
Expand ...

Actually Auburn is slightly further east, but it doesn't negate the point.
 
UConnCat said:
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?
Expand ...
What exactly is the bolded quote supposed to mean? Why didn't you include the paragraph that followed where she said she understood Muffet's decision to bid even though she voted against the change in the first place. It's like voting against using guns to settle arguments, but losing the vote, so guns are allowed. Why would you then show up to the gunfight with a knife? Principle? Seems foolish. Muffet doesn't have the juggernaught that Geno has this year. She voted against teams hosting regionals, but then since she lost the vote, why shouldn't ND bid? If ND didn't bid, they would have no one but themselves to blame if they were then assigned to the regional in Springfield (47 miles from Storrs), Durham, Louisville, Lincoln, or Knoxville.
 
Fightin Choke said:
What exactly is the bolded quote supposed to mean? Why didn't you include the paragraph that followed where she said she understood Muffet's decision to bid even though she voted against the change in the first place. It's like voting against using guns to settle arguments, but losing the vote, so guns are allowed. Why would you then show up to the gunfight with a knife? Principle? Seems foolish. Muffet doesn't have the juggernaught that Geno has this year. She voted against teams hosting regionals, but then since she lost the vote, why shouldn't ND bid? If ND didn't bid, they would have no one but themselves to blame if they were then assigned to the regional in Springfield (47 miles from Storrs), Durham, Louisville, Lincoln, or Knoxville.
Expand ...

It didn't exactly play out as you've stated. The deadline for submitting bids to host was Sept 18, a week before the NCAA Summitt where Muffet stated her very strong objection to the plan. So rather than playing by the rules as they are, ND pretty much hedged its bets as there was little chance the Selection Committee was going to change the plan for 2014.

I thought the words Muffet's used in stating her opposition to regional hosts were the strongest I've read to date and sounded very principled. I just thought it was more than a little ironic that she objected to teams being able to buy their way in to the Final Four knowing her university was in the process of doing just that.

BTW, the poor us "we're not a juggernaut this year" sounds pretty lame coming from a team that has made 3 consecutive and defeated UConn 6 of the last 7 (or whatever it is) and returns 3 elite players. Seriously?
 
I have to chuckle a bit at all of the people saying neutral sites don't work. Bridgeport and Spokane put on great shows last year and enjoyed very good attendance.
 
pap49cba said:
I have to chuckle a bit at all of the people saying neutral sites don't work. Bridgeport and Spokane put on great shows last year and enjoyed very good attendance.
Expand ...

I'm not sure that anywhere but Bridgewater was really what the NCAA wanted. 5 of the 8 sessions were around 6000 folks. The first session in Oklahoma had the highest attendance (just over 9000) and the 2 Bridgeport games were sellouts (8500).

Bridgeport was convenient to UConn folks, which drove that attendance. Similarly, the proximity of Oklahoma drove that regional's first game. The games with no nearby home team, if they indeed did a "great job", could have done so much better if a local team was there. Or so the theory goes.
 
.-.
I really like the idea of the NCAA choosing 5 'neutral' locations and giving them a five year contract to host regionals and FF on a rotating basis and see if they can actually build an audience. Springfield or Bridgeport would be great in the NE but I think if you chose those sort of mid-sized cities without a lot of entertainment competition and really tried to build local business and community support and gave them the time to do it you might create a seriously good result.
 
Anyplace I can get to on Southwest Airlines is ok with me.
 
Icebear said:
How many Boneyarders can you house?
Expand ...
Southwest is good to Indy. I'll host anyone that wants to host me for a AAC tourney sometime :)

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2
 
bruinbball said:
Southwest is good to Indy. I'll host anyone that wants to host me for a AAC tourney sometime :)

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2
Expand ...
Remember bears don't mind denning up under beds or in closets.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,479
Messages
4,577,215
Members
10,488
Latest member
husky62


Top Bottom