|
|
Post by bulkey on Mar 19, 2024 12:31:39 GMT -5
Dan Connolly's free letter, so I'm quoting extensively
“I hope this is the last year of this nonsense with two regionals. It makes absolutely no sense for anybody. The game of women's basketball has never been better, never been stronger, never been more popular with people watching. So you limit how many places you can watch it,” he said. “Now you go to Albany or you go to Portland and everybody in the rest of the country goes, ‘What about us?’ So I think it's the dumbest thing ever.”
Despite the complaint, Auriemma wasn’t upset about UConn getting sent all the way to Portland, even though Albany would’ve been a short drive from Storrs.
“You have to earn the right to play close to home and we certainly know how that feels because we've done it so many times,” he said. “That's part of having a great regular season.”
Unfortunately for Geno, the two-regional format will continue for two more seasons after this one: In 2025, Birmingham, AL and Spokane, WA will host while in 2026, it’s Fort Worth, TX and Sacramento, CA.
....
Despite all the talk about the regional site, UConn has to get there first. While that may seem like a foregone conclusion considering the Huskies have made the last 29 Sweet Sixteens, they should be challenged in the second round.
They’ll either face 6-seed Syracuse, featuring Dyaisha Fair — one of the top guards in the nation and the type of player that UConn’s defense has struggled to contain this season — or an 11-seed, either Auburn or Arizona, depending on who wins the play-in game. While the latter may not seem too feisty, three 11-seeds have reached the Sweet Sixteen in the past five seasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by chicagogg on Mar 19, 2024 13:14:27 GMT -5
Interesting to note that the Men's Tournament is still as it was - 4 regions, 4 sites. Not two.
|
|
|
|
Post by UConnChapette on Mar 19, 2024 14:29:48 GMT -5
I think the two regional sites, each with two "sub" regionals (  ) is a really dumb idea too. I'm with Geno here. |
|
|
|
Post by mulliganspa on Mar 19, 2024 14:49:28 GMT -5
I’m with Geno too. There’s got to be a way to spread things out but not to the point where teams get home games.
|
|
|
|
Post by meyers7 on Mar 19, 2024 15:13:37 GMT -5
Interesting to note that the Men's Tournament is still as it was - 4 regions, 4 sites. Not two. Well they have "neutral sites" for first weekends also. You ok with the women giving up the 2 home games also? |
|
|
|
Post by linkster on Mar 19, 2024 15:47:06 GMT -5
The issue is economic. The attendance at many of the past regionals was spotty. By bringing in 8 teams instead of 4 a lot of arenas can participate and bid.
For all the attention to the regionals there is almost nothing said about the high % of FF's in Dallas, San Antonia or Tampa. Or the Pacific Northwest.
I'm a cynic so I'd add that the NCAA wants good relations with congress so if a congressman from a district trying for a regional calls the NCAA chief to plug his arena the NCAA listens.
It's not about screwing UConn.
|
|
|
|
Post by magic on Mar 19, 2024 16:54:18 GMT -5
Hate to say it, but I think the women's committee , or who ever is making these decisions are just plain out thinking themselves , instead of just keeping it simple and letting the games speak for themselves. Just like the bracketing. Some things just don't make sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by knightsbridgeaz on Mar 19, 2024 22:18:54 GMT -5
I'm not sure it doesn't make sense in some ways. There is an economy of scale in hosting 2 regionals at one site. There is also folks who are going to attend both sides, so it may serve to increase attendance as women's regional attendance has always been a bit spotty. Getting better, but only good when a team was in their home region, with UConn being the best at drawing a crowd (and that motivating places like Albany and Bridgeport to bid in the first place).
Another suggestion has been to hold the whole business in Las Vegas, which is a far worse idea (although use of Las Vegas more wouldn't be a bad idea, it is easy to get to and plenty to occupy fans).
If I had to criticize the 2 Regional Site effort, it is the sites chosen, which have seemed odd, rather than the concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by swash on Mar 20, 2024 4:33:53 GMT -5
I'm not sure it doesn't make sense in some ways. There is an economy of scale in hosting 2 regionals at one site. There is also folks who are going to attend both sides, so it may serve to increase attendance as women's regional attendance has always been a bit spotty. Getting better, but only good when a team was in their home region, with UConn being the best at drawing a crowd (and that motivating places like Albany and Bridgeport to bid in the first place). Another suggestion has been to hold the whole business in Las Vegas, which is a far worse idea (although use of Las Vegas more wouldn't be a bad idea, it is easy to get to and plenty to occupy fans). If I had to criticize the 2 Regional Site effort, it is the sites chosen, which have seemed odd, rather than the concept. Two sites is going to be a penalty this year, because there won't be enough time or rooms to meet the demand in Albany... it would be even worse if UConn were there. BTW... they really didn't put Portland in their home region? If they become a Cinderella miracle and make the second weekend, they deserve the local bump. |
|
|
|
Post by semper on Mar 20, 2024 7:09:00 GMT -5
Why would they make the women's different from the men's? Why not make four regionals and put them near major transportational hubs. So one near LA, one near Chicago, one near Dallas and one near NYC? Then they would fill up as people could get there easily and economically.
|
|
|
|
Post by chicagogg on Mar 20, 2024 7:43:31 GMT -5
Interesting to note that the Men's Tournament is still as it was - 4 regions, 4 sites. Not two. Well they have "neutral sites" for first weekends also. You ok with the women giving up the 2 home games also? NO, the point I was making, or trying to, is that AFTER the two home games, the Men's Tournament is still in four geographic regions which then go on to the Final Four. The Women only get TWO geographic locations and they double up (as in 2 in Portland 2 in Albany). At least one of these - Albany - is not particularly easily accessible for many fans of the schools participating in that region. I was wondering why the men don't have the same location restrictions. |
|
|
|
Post by meyers7 on Mar 20, 2024 7:54:20 GMT -5
Well they have "neutral sites" for first weekends also. You ok with the women giving up the 2 home games also? NO, the point I was making, or trying to, is that AFTER the two home games, the Men's Tournament is still in four geographic regions which then go on to the Final Four. The Women only get TWO geographic locations and they double up (as in 2 in Portland 2 in Albany). At least one of these - Albany - is not particularly easily accessible for many fans of the schools participating in that region. I was wondering why the men don't have the same location restrictions. I'm telling you, the men don't have 2 home games like the women have the first weekend. They have "neutral" sites. You seem to want the women to be just like the men.....but only on the 2nd weekend. So again, are you ok with the women giving up their 2 home games so they can be like the men? |
|
|
|
Post by semper on Mar 20, 2024 8:13:06 GMT -5
If ours are in the Garden, NYC....are they really "neutral"?
|
|
|
|
Post by grrrrr on Mar 20, 2024 9:00:19 GMT -5
2 regionals instead of 4 is stupid. Why should the top seeds and their fans from the Midwest or South have to travel to the East or West Coast? Lower seeds, that's the way it goes to keep the brackets balanced but not the best teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by meyers7 on Mar 20, 2024 10:19:52 GMT -5
If ours are in the Garden, NYC....are they really "neutral"? Hence my "quotation marks". |
|
|
|
Post by huskyharper on Mar 22, 2024 17:08:50 GMT -5
leave the home games as they are, the seeds earned that right. but I say go back to 4 regionals. 2 is just not nice to fans and also really tough on a LOT of teams. But NO ONE listens to me, and I haven't the foggiest idea why...  |
|
) is a really dumb idea too. I'm with Geno here. 
