|
|
Post by doggydaddy on Mar 20, 2024 21:50:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on Mar 20, 2024 21:58:59 GMT -5
masterful, Phil. I can't wait for part 2!
|
|
|
|
Post by yetanotherwilliams on Mar 21, 2024 1:59:25 GMT -5
"While I am in agreement with the author that home court advantage contributes to the number of upsets,"
Maybe I'm misreading this, but ...
Isn't it fair to say that, by definition, the home court advantage in the NCAA tournament almost always accrues to the better team, at least in the eyes of the seeding committee. I don't see how it could contribute to the number of upsets. If, perish forbid, UConn were to lose in the first or second round, I certainly wouldn't attribute such an upset to UConn's home court advantage. The upset would occur DESPITE the home court advantage, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by swash on Mar 21, 2024 4:47:56 GMT -5
"While I am in agreement with the author that home court advantage contributes to the number of upsets," Maybe I'm misreading this, but ... Isn't it fair to say that, by definition, the home court advantage in the NCAA tournament almost always accrues to the better team, at least in the eyes of the seeding committee. I don't see how it could contribute to the number of upsets. If, perish forbid, UConn were to lose in the first or second round, I certainly wouldn't attribute such an upset to UConn's home court advantage. The upset would occur DESPITE the home court advantage, no? The link to the article is broken for me, but it's clearly litterbox filler. The pro sports all offer home competition to the higher ranked teams. Teams with bigger fanbases get on TV more. Stars get more endorsements. The tallest players are more likely to play center and forward. These things are also true ... and so what? |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 21, 2024 8:42:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 21, 2024 8:47:31 GMT -5
"While I am in agreement with the author that home court advantage contributes to the number of upsets," Maybe I'm misreading this, but ... Isn't it fair to say that, by definition, the home court advantage in the NCAA tournament almost always accrues to the better team, at least in the eyes of the seeding committee. I don't see how it could contribute to the number of upsets. If, perish forbid, UConn were to lose in the first or second round, I certainly wouldn't attribute such an upset to UConn's home court advantage. The upset would occur DESPITE the home court advantage, no? The argument is that home-court advantage reduces the number of upsets. The author points to the men's tournament with lots of upsets (no home-court advantage) and the women's tournament with fewer upsets (home-court advantage), and suggests that the difference in the number of upsets is attributable to the home-court advantage. There is some impact – I haven't calculated it but it's relatively small — the main difference in the number of upsets has to do with the relative parities in men versus women |
|
|
|
Post by swash on Mar 21, 2024 9:48:32 GMT -5
This worked. The author tips ignorance immediately ... " This year’s Gamecocks, who are undefeated, and last year’s title-game participants—Caitlin Clark’s Hawkeyes and Angel Reese’s Tigers—are virtual locks to host during the tournament’s first weekend again." That's the rules, Einstein. This statement is akin to, "Players who shoot from beyond the arc are "virtual locks" to be awarded three points." Brilliant, no? The bottom of the article is all about what revenues and expenses go to/from the NCAA. So selling out at Gampel would benefit the NCAA and not UConn ... financially. This is very interesting ... I thought it was a percentage for the NCAA at those arenas. This was news to me ... I would be very interested in learning more about that end. I have heard occasional announcers talking about hosting as "lucrative". Were they confused? Have contract parameters changed? Does this guy have his facts correct? Reading this, it would seem that some program at some time would have at least hinted at declining to host. I have never heard anything like that. The later venues ... would clearly have to fall under different rules, else they'd struggle to find arenas to play those neutral games. Of course the 800lb gorilla is TV money. That is clearly an NCAA contract. I know that the men and women have different compensation models, but both do pass some of that benefit along to the schools who participate |
|
|
|
Post by grrrrr on Mar 21, 2024 11:33:39 GMT -5
Thanks guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 21, 2024 12:12:29 GMT -5
I did find the discussion of the revenues and expenses and how much the NCAA is in control interesting. I definitely would have a more positive reaction to the author if that's all they discussed although I have to wonder whether I would've read the article if it hadn't started out with the nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by linkster on Mar 21, 2024 17:39:35 GMT -5
Despite how valid the argument the economics of having the 1st 2 rounds at neutral sites makes it irrelevant. Where are teams going to play? And what arena wants games in which both teams are at least 400 miles away? 3/4 of the games would be played with crowds under 1000. The men do what they do because those neutral games are cost effective. And near sellouts.
|
|
