Who Should Host Tournament Games?

[Wbbfan1]

FullCourt - Link

I agree the Top 16 teams should host the first two rounds of the tournament in an effort to increase attendance. It also eliminates in the first two rounds lower seeded teams hosting games.

While I agree that having the Top 4 seeds host the Regionals would increase attendance, I'm not sure if that wouldn't give these teams too much of a competitive advantage. I say first try for two to five years having the same regional neutral sites and give those cities an effort to build attendance. I would further stipulate that if a team scheduled 5/6 games at an off campus site, then that site would not be eligible to host a regional. So the XL Center would not be eligible, but Bridgeport would be. For the NorthEast, I would probably prefer Philly over Bridgeport for the fans of the other schools that would be attending.

 

[Icebear]

I think three or more games at a site should make designated a home court.

 

[EricLA]

I think they oughta look at the top 8 at the start of each year and guestimate who the 1-2 seeds will be (since a majority of the time, they make it to the regional finals). Then select 4 sites to host those games and coordinate it in December or January. That would certainly give places like Hartford, or Rhode Island, time to coordinate the games. They should try for equidistant sites. For example, if UCONN and Maryland are 1-2 seeds, put them on the same side of the bracket and put the regional final in Jersey or something - a place close enough where fans from the bigger schools can get there relatively easily.

It would be harder when you have schools like Stanford in there, and i get the whole argument of home court advantage, but let's be honest. WCBB does not draw like MCBB. So the best thing they can do is put regionals in host cities like Louisville, Tennessee, UCONN, and even places like Iowa who have big draws and possibly would be interested in attending a game even if ISU or Iowa is not playing. Even Baylor, Purdue, Michigan State, and ND had pretty solid attendance.

 

[UcMiami]

One problem is arena availability and timing - a lot of schools play in multi-purpose venues that might or might not be available on short notice - not insurmountable, but part of the issue with all of this is the short period between seeding and first game, which also leaves not time for any type of marketing push.
I do think the idea of fixed regional locations is a good one allowing a venue to build an audience rather than starting over each year.

 

[Phil]

I think three or more games at a site should make designated a home court.

I'd set the mark at 4, which might sound like a picky distinction, but UConn is regaulary hostign that threee game tournament, At one time I thought that torunament would be the Bridgeport option. Appears not to be the case, but I could imagine inth e furture Bridgeport biddign for it and trying to make it a proper event. It would be unfortunately if hiosting that event would mean designating Bridgeport as a home site.

 

[Icebear]

I'd set the mark at 4, which might sound like a picky distinction, but UConn is regaulary hostign that threee game tournament, At one time I thought that torunament would be the Bridgeport option. Appears not to be the case, but I could imagine inth e furture Bridgeport biddign for it and trying to make it a proper event. It would be unfortunately if hiosting that event would mean designating Bridgeport as a home site.

3 or 4 is fine. I think a half dozen is too high.

 

[Phil]

I agree that six is too many to say it is not a home site

 

[slug25]

Simple solution: let an in-season tournament count as a single game.

 

[rjp172]

If it's about attendance in the first 2 rounds then award the top 16 schools in attendance from the previous year. Let the schools build the tickets into their season packages for additional cost. The list of schools top 16 in attendance generally qualify to the tourney. You'd have lower seeded teams hosting in some instances, but the games would be attended and that's what the NCAA is telling us they value most with their G curve taking precedence over the S curve.

 

[Wbbfan1]

If the NCAA went to a Top 16 hosting format, a lower seeded team would not host. They would probably go to a straight S Curve to seed teams. Another possibility is a Combination S and G curve seeding process. Teams would be seeded by S curve but when placing teams in their regions do it by Geography. For example the four seeded teams ranked 5th in the brackets would be sent to the closest site of the teams ranked 4th in the bracket. It wouldn't be perfect but it would save some dollars.

If it's about attendance in the first 2 rounds then award the top 16 schools in attendance from the previous year. Let the schools build the tickets into their season packages for additional cost. The list of schools top 16 in attendance generally qualify to the tourney. You'd have lower seeded teams hosting in some instances, but the games would be attended and that's what the NCAA is telling us they value most with their G curve taking precedence over the S curve.

 

[Phil]

Simple solution: let an in-season tournament count as a single game.

Good point, as that is the rule for some tournaments. Although that may just apply to winners play, losers go home tournaments, I don't recall whether it applies to Round Robin.