Tourney logistics two regionals and other issues | The Boneyard

Tourney logistics two regionals and other issues

Phil

Phil

Stats Geek
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
4,784
Reaction Score
7,196
In the UNC Postgame Thread thread, several people including myself commented on logistics of the tournament.

I see the Geno is expressing himself forcefully, so I thought it is worth its own thread.

One of the questions asked was whether the two regional set up could be changed. I responded to that comment, which I will repeat here but I'll add links to Geno's comment
 
.-.
They first tried two regionals in 2023. I have trepidation about how many would show up in Seattle, but the attendance numbers were great if I recall correctly.

In retrospect, that was the year Iowa was the overall runner-up and rabid Caitlin Clark fans helped fill the arena.

I haven't looked at all the attendance numbers I don't think this year is doing anywhere near as well.
 
I seem to recall people complaining about hotel accommodations at the Spokane regional. I think one of the teams had to go to Idaho to get hotel rooms.
 
Phil said:
They first tried two regionals in 2023. I have trepidation about how many would show up in Seattle, but the attendance numbers were great if I recall correctly.

In retrospect, that was the year Iowa was the overall runner-up and rabid Caitlin Clark fans helped fill the arena.

I haven't looked at all the attendance numbers I don't think this year is doing anywhere near as well.
Expand ...
Attendance has looked awful in games I’ve see which is a big disappointment for a sport that has had so much growth over the last few years. I thought women’s basketball had more staying power to fill regional locations but apparently not.

The one benefit of 2 regionals is it (in theory) helps keep games more neutral, though exceptions to that certainly exist.
 
bballnut90 said:
The one benefit of 2 regionals is it (in theory) helps keep games more neutral, though exceptions to that certainly exist.
Expand ...
The question of neutrality has been argued for as long as I’ve been watching women’s basketball. I don’t understand why people get upset about the idea home court advantage for teams that are seeded higher. No one complains when major league baseball gives home field advantage in the playoffs and World Series to teams that finished the highest. The NFL playoffs have higher seed home field advantage in a one and done situation. Women’s basketball is not yet to the point where games will sell out in a neutral location. The regionals need to be where the fans are. I don’t think that the fans are in Houston Texas.
 
bballnut90 said:
Attendance has looked awful in games I’ve see which is a big disappointment for a sport that has had so much growth over the last few years. I thought women’s basketball had more staying power to fill regional locations but apparently not.

The one benefit of 2 regionals is it (in theory) helps keep games more neutral, though exceptions to that certainly exist.
Expand ...


Another challenge could be how the tickets are priced. When you factor in the proximity of the regional compared to where some team fan bases are as well, it doesn't help.
 
Puppy Love said:
The question of neutrality has been argued for as long as I’ve been watching women’s basketball. I don’t understand why people get upset about the idea home court advantage for teams that are seeded higher. No one complains when major league baseball gives home field advantage in the playoffs and World Series to teams that finished the highest. The NFL playoffs have higher seed home field advantage in a one and done situation. Women’s basketball is not yet to the point where games will sell out in a neutral location. The regionals need to be where the fans are. I don’t think that the fans are in Houston Texas.
Expand ...

I don't have a problem with the higher seeds getting home court advantage, but the 4 regional set up often creates scenarios where the #2 or #3 seeds wind up getting home court advantage.

Here are examples I found over the last 20-ish years:
-2022 #2 seed UCONN had home court advantage and advanced to the Final Four
-2019 #2 seed UCONN had home court advantage and advanced to the Final Four
-2019 #2 seed Oregon effectively had a home regional and advanced to the Final Four
-2014 #2 Stanford hosting a regional, they advanced to the Final Four
-2014 #3 Louisville getting a home regional, they lost by a bucket to get to the Final Four
-2010 #2 Ohio State got a home regional, they didn't advance to the Final Four
-2009 #2 Stanford got a home regional, they advanced to the Final Four
-2019 #2 seed UCONN had home court advantage and lost in OT to get to the Final Four
-2004 #2 seed UCONN had home court advantage and advanced to the Final Four


I'm sure there are others I'm missing, but 6/9 times the underseeded team playing at home advanced out of their regional over a 1 seed.
2 of the other 3 times where they didn't advance, the host team came within a basket of the Final Four.

These results wouldn't happen on a neutral court and unfairly screw over #1 seeds, who likely would advanced if the game been played on a neutral court or if the #1 seed received hosting privileges.

Since switching to the 2 regional set up, this scenario hasn't happened in 4 NCAA tournaments.
 
.-.
bballnut90 said:
I don't have a problem with the higher seeds getting home court advantage, but the 4 regional set up often creates scenarios where the #2 or #3 seeds wind up getting home court advantage.

Here are examples I found over the last 20-ish years:
-2022 #2 seed UCONN had home court advantage and advanced to the Final Four
-2019 #2 seed UCONN had home court advantage and advanced to the Final Four
-2019 #2 seed Oregon effectively had a home regional and advanced to the Final Four
-2014 #2 Stanford hosting a regional, they advanced to the Final Four
-2014 #3 Louisville getting a home regional, they lost by a bucket to get to the Final Four
-2010 #2 Ohio State got a home regional, they didn't advance to the Final Four
-2009 #2 Stanford got a home regional, they advanced to the Final Four
-2019 #2 seed UCONN had home court advantage and lost in OT to get to the Final Four
-2004 #2 seed UCONN had home court advantage and advanced to the Final Four


I'm sure there are others I'm missing, but 6/9 times the underseeded team playing at home advanced out of their regional over a 1 seed.
2 of the other 3 times where they didn't advance, the host team came within a basket of the Final Four.

These results wouldn't happen on a neutral court and unfairly screw over #1 seeds, who likely would advanced if the game been played on a neutral court or if the #1 seed received hosting privileges.

Since switching to the 2 regional set up, this scenario hasn't happened in 4 NCAA tournaments.
Expand ...
I am a strong proponent of going back to the four-regional system, and I would argue that regionals should not be scheduled on any tournament team's home court, regardless of seed. But I think we have to be more precise (or more consistent) about how we define "home-court advantage."

In your list above, for instance, you give UConn home-court advantage on three different courts: Hartford (which is fair since that is a court where they play about half of their home games), Bridgeport, and Albany. But you don't count NC State or South Carolina getting to play in Greensboro as a home-court advantage when the distance between Raleigh and Greensboro is the same as it is between Storrs and Bridgeport, and that between Columbia and Greensboro is the same as it is between Storrs and Albany. I know it was considered a scandal when UConn got to play State in Bridgeport in 2022, but, in 2019, State, a 3-seed, got to play Iowa, a 2-seed, and SC, a 4-seed, got to play Baylor, a 1-seed, in Greensboro, and I don't remember hearing the same outcry. (Iowa and Baylor both won decisively, although State and SC had the same home-court advantage that UConn has had in Bridgeport and Albany.)
 
Jonathan14 said:
I am a strong proponent of going back to the four-regional system, and I would argue that regionals should not be scheduled on any tournament team's home court, regardless of seed. But I think we have to be more precise (or more consistent) about how we define "home-court advantage."

In your list above, for instance, you give UConn home-court advantage on three different courts: Hartford (which is fair since that is a court where they play about half of their home games), Bridgeport, and Albany. But you don't count NC State or South Carolina getting to play in Greensboro as a home-court advantage when the distance between Raleigh and Greensboro is the same as it is between Storrs and Bridgeport, and that between Columbia and Greensboro is the same as it is between Storrs and Albany. I know it was considered a scandal when UConn got to play State in Bridgeport in 2022, but, in 2019, State, a 3-seed, got to play Iowa, a 2-seed, and SC, a 4-seed, got to play Baylor, a 1-seed, in Greensboro, and I don't remember hearing the same outcry. (Iowa and Baylor both won decisively, although State and SC had the same home-court advantage that UConn has had in Bridgeport and Albany.)
Expand ...
Those are valid points. I overlooked NC State's set up from 2019. I only considered teams seeded 1-3, since there's usually a quality drop off beyond that, as teams seeded 4th and below rarely make the Final weekend. Even if you add in NC State, it's 6/10 times the underseeded home team advanced out of the regional. Even if you add in the 4 seeds, the number of times the home team advances out of their regional is disproportionately high compared to regionals where the court is in a neutral setting or in the favor of the 1 seed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,034
Messages
4,550,445
Members
10,429
Latest member
Books&Ball


Top Bottom