WBB NCAA Regional Attendance Drops

[Phil]

DnS - I look forward to it.

 

[Paul1969]

There just aren't enough WCBB fans to make the Regionals Neutral. I think folks would rather travel to Las Vegas for the west Regional who has a brand new arena then to Stockton> Seriously, Stockton?

 

[SCGamecock]

Five hour drive from ND to Lexington, Four hours from Waco to OKC....apparently too far for all but the most hardcore fans

SC fans would've made that trip to Lexington in droves. NCAA committee forgets that we go there often to play Kentucky in football.. that's not a long trip to us.

I'm not mad at all, we made it to the Final Four and I think we had an easier path than Notre Dame, but this was a missed opportunity by them. Oh well...

 

[SCGamecock]

I'm sure it could have been 4,000 Gamecocks fans alone in Lexington or 2,000 in OKC. Our fans travel very well and the Committee always makes a fuss about keeping ND and Baylor close to home instead of flying but complains when the attendance number are down. I really hope in the near future a city like Atlanta, Jacksonville, or Greensboro bids so the gamecock faithful can see their team play. How do you not reward a team that leads the nation in attendance and send them 3000 miles from home??? If the Gamecocks aren't in Lexington next year I will lose my mind!!! There should be no way the comittee send us to Spokane after this year and Sioux Falls.

We're going to Spokane next year if we make that far. I've already accepted it.

 

[Plebe]

I think the Las Vegas idea is terrible.
First of all, who wants to watch 8 wcbb games? Yes, most of the people on this board, but we are the minority. How many fans watch both games at the regionals?
And then there's the distance factor. The west has few fans. How many people are going to fly all the way out there?

I don't think anyone anticipates that the same spectators (except for us nerdy diehards) would watch all 12 games of the Sweet 16 plus Elite 8. What it would do is create a certain economy of scale by necessitating rental of only one venue for all 12 games, as opposed to four separate venues.

Another linchpin of Antonelli's pitch for Vegas is based on reaching the elusive male 18-35 demographic, which anyone in sports marketing can tell you is the holy grail.

 

[Vowelguy]

Another linchpin of Antonelli's pitch for Vegas is based on reaching the elusive male 18-35 demographic, which anyone in sports marketing can tell you is the holy grail.

Let's see ...

18-35 year old men in Las Vegas are going to choose to spend their time in Sin City watching women's basketball.

Good luck with that.

 

[SCspur]

About the Southeast. Myrtle Beach doesnt have a arena.... Charleston isnt a particulary easy city to get to.. Charlotte doesnt make any sense unless you are gonna have the regional at UNC-Charlotte's campus arena... which seats 9,100. Cant see them bidding for a Women's regional at the Spectrum Center when they already have NBA basketball..... the CIAA tourney... and on occasion... 1st and second round of the Men's NCAAs and ACC tourney. Which city in the southeast has supported women's basketball the best? Lets see..... you have a city that has a arena which held the biggest women's conference tournament for 17 years straight.... and has hosted WCBB regionals in 1999, 2007, 2008, and 2015. It trademarked the moniker Tournament Town.... Hint.... its not Charlotte or Raleigh

MB does in fact have an arena in its conventional center. It's where the Beach Ball classic is held and it seats up to 6,500 people, which is much better then the HTC center. I was shocked when the ACC announced it would be held there instead of the Conventional center.

 

[UcMiami]

I don't think anyone anticipates that the same spectators (except for us nerdy diehards) would watch all 12 games of the Sweet 16 plus Elite 8. What it would do is create a certain economy of scale by necessitating rental of only one venue for all 12 games, as opposed to four separate venues.

Another linchpin of Antonelli's pitch for Vegas is based on reaching the elusive male 18-35 demographic, which anyone in sports marketing can tell you is the holy grail.

The real demographic that no one wants to mention for all sports is not any age group or gender, but has everything to do with Vegas - the gambler. That is where the money is and that is where the impetus for stats and information and broadcasting live and live score apps comes from. Getting a foothold in Vegas and exposing gamblers to live 'action' right under their noses is not a bad idea - you think the money interests in Vegas will jump on board yet another sports book option? Oh yes. Money going down live on which player scores the first basket, over/under points scored in a quarter, a half, third quarter, etc. (cool that the women split the game into four segments!) Who calls the first time out and when, fouls, three pointers, you name it. And the addicts sitting in the stands passing $100 bills back and forth as each new bet gets won or lost!

There is a reason the NFL started promoting 'Jimmy the Greek' so many years ago, and look at the explosion in their business that caused. Fantasy - you can just hear the cash register ring up a whole new source of profits and new fanatics that have to have all the latest data and analysis fed to them 24 hours a day. Injury list reporting by every team after every practice - nothing to do with competition on the field and everything to do with gambling interests. Ball deflation - Goodell screwed up, because the next year they didn't start publishing the half time and end of game inflation numbers as well as the field temperature and humidity and rate of precipitation - think of the book that could have been made on those numbers, and the physics geeks providing running analysis and predictions! definitely a lost marketing and money grabbing moment!

Debbie is no dummy!

 

[Vowelguy]

I don't think anyone anticipates that the same spectators (except for us nerdy diehards) would watch all 12 games of the Sweet 16 plus Elite 8. What it would do is create a certain economy of scale by necessitating rental of only one venue for all 12 games, as opposed to four separate venues.

Ok, but then what about doing it in a more central location? The West is just not a good spot.

 

[Carnac]

The real demographic that no one wants to mention for all sports is not any age group or gender, but has everything to do with Vegas - the gambler. That is where the money is and that is where the impetus for stats and information and broadcasting live and live score apps comes from. Getting a foothold in Vegas and exposing gamblers to live 'action' right under their noses is not a bad idea - you think the money interests in Vegas will jump on board yet another sports book option? Oh yes. Money going down live on which player scores the first basket, over/under points scored in a quarter, a half, third quarter, etc. (cool that the women split the game into four segments!) Who calls the first time out and when, fouls, three pointers, you name it. And the addicts sitting in the stands passing $100 bills back and forth as each new bet gets won or lost!

There is a reason the NFL started promoting 'Jimmy the Greek' so many years ago, and look at the explosion in their business that caused. Fantasy - you can just hear the cash register ring up a whole new source of profits and new fanatics that have to have all the latest data and analysis fed to them 24 hours a day. Injury list reporting by every team after every practice - nothing to do with competition on the field and everything to do with gambling interests. Ball deflation - Goodell screwed up, because the next year they didn't start publishing the half time and end of game inflation numbers as well as the field temperature and humidity and rate of precipitation - think of the book that could have been made on those numbers, and the physics geeks providing running analysis and predictions! definitely a lost marketing and money grabbing moment!

Debbie is no dummy!

You and Plebe make great points that I failed to mention. Some here think the Las Vegas idea wouldn't work. I think it depends on your perspective. It would not look appealing if I lived in the east, but if I lived in the western region of the country, it would look completely different. I would also ask those that don't like this idea (which is NOT mine, it Antonelli's) to suggest a viable option they think would work, given the dynamics already in place regarding fan travel, and interest in watching teams play other than their own.


One item I did not mention in my narrative was looking at this from the NCAA's perspective, and not the fan's point of view. If the NCAA can fill an arena of 12,000 seats to 85-90% capacity, they're putting butts in the seats. That's the bottom line. The question is this: Do you think they care where those butts come from? The west coast region, the south, the midwest or the east, or a combination from all over. If they can get 10,000 people in a 12,000 seat arena, they couldn't care less where those folks came from.
We are looking at this from our point of view, not theirs. They've already shown that they are going to do what they want to, whether the schools or fans like it or not.

My narrative mentioned two possibilities. The Vegas thing was an answer, not THE answer. Since the NCAA has not really pursued that option, they probably don't think it's a good idea either, but for different reasons. We'll never know for sure unless or until they try it. If anyone has what they think would be a viable option to solve this dilemma, I'd sure like to hear it.

 

[CBear01]

IMO the NCAA needs to place the regionals in spots where they can have attendance soar and which makes it good for them and good for the game. This, then, will have to be hotbeds for women's basketball, and like Geno mentioned to the press those places exist and there are places where they dont. The northeast is a hotbed. The northeast will always attract attention whether being played in Albany, anywhere in CT, even Boston would be a great site. Next year we are in Albany and my guess is we will sell out again. Without any problem.

They cannot concern themselves with what people and coaches might think is "fair." Heck, they are already awarding first and second rounds to home gyms. Play hard, play smart, and win some games and boost attendance and don't complain.

Spokane is a hotbed they should permentanyly host until otherwise. Same with either Bridgeport or virtually anywhere within 100 miles of CT (and that can include Philly to Maine essentially). Texas is hot too. TEXAS, not OK or KY.

Enough with the fairness points. Get butts in seats and make some money and grow the game.

Sorry for rant, I've been off coffee for 2 weeks now (it helps you cannot find a Dunkin Donuts anywhere in Los Angeles)

 

[Vowelguy]

I think it depends on your perspective. It would not look appealing if I lived in the east, but if I lived in the western region of the country, it would look completely different.

I'm not biased against the west, per se. It's the fact that the West regionals have been the lowest attended of the 4 regionals year in and year out.

The vast majority of D1 schools, P5 schools, and WCBB fans are in the eastern portion of the country. So excuse me if don't think it's a smart idea to put games a 4+ hour plane around away from most of the fan base.

 

[CBear01]

I'm not biased against the west, per se. It's the fact that the West regionals have been the lowest attended of the 4 regionals year in and year out.

The vast majority of D1 schools, P5 schools, and WCBB fans are in the eastern portion of the country. So excuse me if don't think it's a smart idea to put games a 4+ hour plane around away from most of the fan base.

Stockton just doesn't make sense. Not even close to anyone (save Stanford and they were sent away!) But a regional in the west makes total sense. Just look at the Pac 12. How many teams did they have going deep? Quite a few...

I personally think Spokane is the prime location in the west. I'd be ok with a permanent spot there for the next few seasons. Of course all Pac 12 teams can't play there but I'm sure it will be ok as they are a hotbed of the women's game

 

[UcMiami]

Couple of points:
1. Las Vegas (and Nevada) like New Jersey are both not viable options today because of the NCAA iron clad rule that any state that allows gambling on college sport cannot host NCAA sponsored events. You have to change that rule before you can use either state. That takes a vote of the NCAA membership (D1 or total i don't know) and there are enough religious schools in both D1 and overall that getting approval for such a change might be problematic - the old BE could not have its tournament at the Mohegan Sun because of the catholic schools vetoing a Casino hosting the event even though the Casino was putting in the most attractive bid.

2. I like Doug's idea (see the Dish'n and Swish'n pod cast thread) of doing super regions - one in Vegas (if you can change the rule) and one in the East - he said Bridgeport but wherever. You see how the Vegas site works with eight teams before you commit to all sixteen, and you keep an East West set-up so reduce some travel.

3. Geno had some interesting comments in the presser - the NCAA doesn't care about the in person attendance they want viewers, and the indication is the start times for games - they don't improve attendance, they improve viewership, and they certainly don't improve the student athlete 'experience'. It is why ESPN is probably pushing for a return to Sunday/Tuesday for the FF not for attendance but again viewership by removing the competition for the broadcasts. Interesting perspective.

 

[j66kicker]

I would favor "the higher seed hosts" in every game until the FF. You earn home court with your seed. Beat a higher seed and take over their seed. Great incentive for regular season and conference tournament play, to get seeded higher.

But it would require seeding by formula, to take the accusations of committee politics and incompetence out of it. And then coaches would adjust their regular season OOC scheduling to try to outsmart the formula. Regardless, I think home courts would help attendance.

 

[Vowelguy]

But a regional in the west makes total sense.

I disagree. The West gets overrepresented and underperforms.

I personally think Spokane is the prime location in the west. I'd be ok with a permanent spot there for the next few seasons. Of course all Pac 12 teams can't play there but I'm sure it will be ok as they are a hotbed of the women's game

Spokane did well when Gonzaga made the regionals. Take out Gonzaga and Washington, and I doubt they'd get more than 4000. And probably much less.

 

[CBear01]

I disagree. The West gets overrepresented and underperforms.

Yet we aren't talking about their performance in the tournament we are talking about getting behinds in seats. And there are a lot of fans out there.

Look, it's not easy for the committee to please every fan of every team. Can't happen. But some teams travel better than others. This is a fact. And some places are great venues for women's basketball. With the exposure the PAC 12 gets it just makes sense for a regional somewhere on the west coast. Someone mentioned Arizona, I can see that being a nice choice as well. However IMO a more northern site in Washington (never Stockton, CA again, please) would be great. A destination perhaps...Spokane worked great this way bc, for all intents and purposes, it's a real city with things to do outside of the game. People want to flock there.

There really is no correct answer here. It's an ongoing problem that continues the need to be reassessed. 4 sites only. And a country spanning 3500+ miles east to west doesn't help the cause.

Trust me, I considered going to Stockton this year as I've recently moved to LA. However, flying out there was not only unreasonable but I had no incentive to do so. And I am a big fan of the game, not just UCONN. Bet your bottom dollar if it was in SF or Spokane or any major city I would have been there in a New York minute

Someone also said Florida would be a great choice for the south, and I completely agree. I mean, who wouldn't want to travel to Florida?? I bet if UCONN was in a south region and it was in Florida we'd fill up the arena in the same fashion as if it was Bridgeport. And I bet even if UCONN wasn't in the region fans would still want to go to a place like that. Idk, it's too hard a dilemma to please everyone.

With the smart people at the NCAA and the money that comes in year after year there is no excuse for them not being able to fix this problem

 

[Vowelguy]

Yet we aren't talking about their performance in the tournament

Neither of my comments related to the teams in the tournament.

The West is overrepresented in getting a regional in that there aren't enough teams out west to justify a regional every year. I've done the calculation before and will do it again later when I have more time.

And they underperform in terms of attendance.

 

[CBear01]

The West is overrepresented in getting a regional in that there aren't enough teams out west to justify a regional every year.

AP Top 25
RK TEAM RECORD PTS
6 Stanford 28-5 649
8 Oregon State 29-4 593
12 Washington 27-5 473
15 UCLA 23-8 365

And this is just the TOP 15 teams, just sayin

And I apologize as I thought when you used "underperformed" you were referring to the team, not the attendence. I understand your point.

But come on... 4 teams in top 15 in final poll and there aren't enough teams and support out west? I just can't see it

In retrospect, where are the top teams in the east to garner a Bridgeport regional? UCONN and Syracuse? They put it there to fill seats. They can figure out the same for other regionals, they have to. The growth of the game depends on it

 

[triaddukefan]

SOOO much to comment on:

• "...Myrtle Beach doesnt have a arena..." - The ACC Women's Basketball Tournament was held there this year, at Coastal Carolina in Conway, which is a nice jog from the beach.
• "Charlotte doesnt make any sense unless you are gonna have the regional at UNC-Charlotte's campus arena... which seats 9,100" - and how many regional sites would have celebrated to sell 9,100 to the entire regional, much less a single game? South Carolina fans would pack the place; it's a little over an hour's drive from campus. It is also closer to ACC country, which (if you'd note the above bullet) was OK with a location a few hours southeast from The Triangle.
• As for Tournament Town, you have to stay off campus, and I am not familiar with an arena there that would be considered as such. BUT if there is one, they should be bidding for it.

Well the arena in Conway only seats about 3,300.... Im sure thats below the minimum seating requirement for the NCAA's regional. Though I had forgot about the Convention Center in Myrtle Beach. Even so Myrtle Beach isn't...the easiest place to get to.

Other than hosting the 1996 Final Four.... Charlotte probably views the WCBB regional as small potatoes and wouldnt bid.

Tournament Town aka Greensboro ...... hopefully the NCAA puts NC back in the cycle... and its possible that our city has put in a bid to host another WCBB regional in the near future.

 

[southie]

Maybe someone needs to define what "grow the sport" means.

Does it mean wanting the arena seats more than half-filled so it looks good to the people watching on TV? Does it "grow the sport" to always have a regional within one or two driving hours from UConn's campus? It's great that UConn fans support their team so much; hats off to you for that. But, how does that help "grow the sport" in other parts of the country if one regional is always gift-wrapped to UConn fans? Four consecutive years of regionals in Albany and Bridgeport tells me the NCAA wants the ticket revenue above all else. Do these cities even bid on regionals if there isn't a 90% chance that UConn will be a participating school there?

Does it mean spreading the regionals around annually so fans in/near different cities around the country get to attend in person and experience these games first hand? That will not guarantee high ticket sales. But, if you only give a city one year to "prove" the nearby fans will support the regional, are you really giving them a fair chance? Perhaps this is why they give Lexington three consecutive years to host. It didn't work. And, I don't care how many times it is stated that it is a "neutral" site because UK women play their games in the Coliseum and not in Rupp Arena, I won't buy it. Rupp Arena is the school's main basketball arena. I will never understand the NCAA's logic in this decision.

So, the current format isn't necessarily about being "fair" to all programs and their fans. I see mixed signals with what the NCAA is trying to accomplish based on their regional host site choices. Maybe once they are honest with themselves about their priorities, they will figure out some better solutions.

This past December, the women's volleyball regionals were hosted by the highest remaining seeds remaining in each region; for many years before that, it was pre-determined on-campus hosts. The arenas in Lincoln, Austin, Minneapolis, and Madison were packed. It looked amazing on TV. Seeing all the fans in the stands, and the excitement. 3 of 4 host schools advanced to the Final Four. TV ratings were at an all time high, I believe. But, I still don't understand how that "grows the sport". That was the purpose of this decision. So, perhaps "grow the sport" means getting fans across the country to watch ESPN's network of channels.

 

[Phil]

I just had a brief chat with Doug Bruno about his proposal to have two 8 team Super-Regionals. I'd still opt for one 8 team super regional, and two traditional regionals, but if they decide to have two super-regionals, one of which is in Bridgeport, I'm not going to fight it

 

[DefenseBB]

About the Southeast. Myrtle Beach doesnt have a arena.... Charleston isnt a particulary easy city to get to.. Charlotte doesnt make any sense unless you are gonna have the regional at UNC-Charlotte's campus arena... which seats 9,100. Cant see them bidding for a Women's regional at the Spectrum Center when they already have NBA basketball..... the CIAA tourney... and on occasion... 1st and second round of the Men's NCAAs and ACC tourney. Which city in the southeast has supported women's basketball the best? Lets see..... you have a city that has a arena which held the biggest women's conference tournament for 17 years straight.... and has hosted WCBB regionals in 1999, 2007, 2008, and 2015. It trademarked the moniker Tournament Town.... Hint.... its not Charlotte or Raleigh

Well UNC Charlotte is the size of Bridgeport so if they can sell out it's better than the 3,200 they got this year and better Than the 6,100 Baylor drew in Dallas during Elite Eight last year.

 

[DefenseBB]

Let's see ...

18-35 year old men in Las Vegas are going to choose to spend their time in Sin City watching women's basketball.

Good luck with that.

More 45-75 year old guys with their wives....

 

[Drew]

About the Southeast. Myrtle Beach doesnt have a arena.... Charleston isnt a particulary easy city to get to.. Charlotte doesnt make any sense unless you are gonna have the regional at UNC-Charlotte's campus arena... which seats 9,100. Cant see them bidding for a Women's regional at the Spectrum Center when they already have NBA basketball..... the CIAA tourney... and on occasion... 1st and second round of the Men's NCAAs and ACC tourney. Which city in the southeast has supported women's basketball the best? Lets see..... you have a city that has a arena which held the biggest women's conference tournament for 17 years straight.... and has hosted WCBB regionals in 1999, 2007, 2008, and 2015. It trademarked the moniker Tournament Town.... Hint.... its not Charlotte or Raleigh

you could host it at Bojangles Coliseum in Charlotte with a seating capacity of 8600 and it would be much more accessible to/from uptown than UNCC

 

[triaddukefan]

you could host it at Bojangles Coliseum in Charlotte with a seating capacity of 8600 and it would be much more accessible to/from uptown than UNCC

1) Bojangles is good enough for the Checkers... but is it good/nice enough to hold a regional?

2) Why have it in Charlotte anyway? They havent show any interest in having a regional.... unlike Greensboro or Raleigh.

 

[Drew]

1) Bojangles is good enough for the Checkers... but is it good/nice enough to hold a regional?

2) Why have it in Charlotte anyway? They havent show any interest in having a regional.... unlike Greensboro or Raleigh.

Was just responding to your comment re-UNCC as the location. If Charlotte were to bid Bojangles would make more sense is all.