LA, Good Host for Final Four?

[OhMandy]

Whether the site is Staples Center or The Pond in Anaheim, what do people think of LA as the host of the WBB Final Four?

If people are going to use the lack of attendance at LA area schools, I would come back with, Boston, Philly, St. Louis and San Antonio also have D-1 schools and they don't draw any fans.

[Gator]

Whether the site is Staples Center or The Pond in Anaheim, what do people think of LA as the host of the WBB Final Four?
I don't know if I am at all typical but I have made a POINT of avoiding LA in my travels all of my life. I've had to change planes there once and had to go to a conference a bit south of LA and used the Orange Co airport that time. Otherwise I have managed to stay far away from the traffic and expense of LA and would hope I am able to uphold that honorable tradition.

[ChipperF1]

Los Angeles for a Final Four? It probably wouldn't be any better or any worse than anywhere else. Either way, it would do as well in terms of ticket sales as a lot of final fours of recent vintage because the tickets are pretty much sold well in advance of event. The NCAA isn't really looking so much at getting a rash of local sales, thus what given Division I schools draw is a non sequitur.

On the upside, it would be a fun place to have it. Southern California sun, things to do between the games, etc. For myself it would be a fun trip. I have a lot of friends and relatives stretched from San Diego to Santa Barbara. I'd have a great ol' time in Tinseltown.

As far as the places that D-1 schools that "don't draw"? Having been to game in Boston and Philadelphia involving both BCS-sized and smaller schools, I can tell you they draw pretty well. It just depends on the measuring stick one would used. Obviously, I don't expect Temple to have a Texas Tech at USA-sized crowd, but then again very few schools do. However they are good for 3,000 a game and that is a far sight better than as recent as three years ago. The same goes for Boston College, and Rutgers, and Villanova (Big 5 games always rock pretty good, even with 2,500 people)...and in a smaller sense Harvard, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, UHartford, etc.

Attendance nationwide for the sport is growing and I see it continuing to do so. :)

[Matt Coatney]

Chipper

Los Angeles hosted the Women's Final Four in 1992. My SMS Lady Bears had to play Paul Sanderford's Western Kentucky Lady Toppers at 9 a.m. to accomodate CBS's coverage to play at noon eastern. It was horrible. No one can tell me it didn't affect the game. How horrible is it to play a National SemiFinal at 9 a.m.?

It was at the LA Sports Arena, which isn't exactly a "new" venue. I can't see the Final Four going back to L.A. anytime soon.

[ChipperF1]

Matt,

It was 1992, and the decision to bow to CBS was an Overland Park decision, not necessarily an L.A. decision. That is why the NCAA went to a Friday-Sunday schedule in future years. If I remember right. The teams had a semifinal one day and the two winners had to turn around and play a championship a next day. Not the best set up to be sure. But consider in Division II for example, you have national quarterfinal on day one, national semifinal on day two and national final on day three. So there's no perfect solution.

Sherman, set the way forward machine for 2005. First off, if it is in Los Angeles, it will not be at the fleabag Sports Arena. The Final Four will be Staples or at the Pond. The ticket sales ensure that, because you will fill them. Also, the schedule is already set. You won't have a 9 am national semifinal (even though for a national championship shot, I'd play 6 am if they told me to.). The game will be set with the first tip around 6:06 local and the set tip 45 minutes after the end, maybe about 8:48 local. That would be a late night for us folks back east, but money talks and you know what walks. If Los Angeles wants this attraction and put up a competitive bid for it, do you really think the NCAA and ESPN will say no to the second largest television market in America?

I'm not saying L.A. would be the best place for it by a long shot. I'd prefer a San Antonio, an Indianapolis, a Dallas, or a San Jose. Areas that seem to embrace amateur sport. But basing a judgement on factors pre-1995 discounts the growth and the attention the sport is getting. Most the nation really didn't care in 1992. The coverage wasn't a great. The ratings weren't measurable.

Fast forward to now. The Womens Final Four has a solid second-tier spot on the sporting calendar. There's more butts in seats and TV's turned to it than ever, and this genie isn't heading back to the bottle anytime soon.

Matthew, someday you may be making a return trip to Los Angeles for a Final Four (personally, I'd favor a New York NCAA Women's Final Four at Madison Square Garden). If you do, I know three things.

1. You'll won't have to slup out of the rack at 5:30 am to get to the arena by maybe 7 for a 9 am tipoff
2. It won't be in Watts or Compton. It'll be played at a nice spot.
3. I'll be a very happy man in attendance, because of you are there with a Seinheiser microphone-headset courtside, that means Nebraska's playing. :)

Happy trails, Mattmeister. I'll see you courtside sometime this season. :)

[vickie1ok]

I would be ok with LA. Yeh, traffic is bad but there is a lot to do there. Southwest flies into LA so fares are pretty decent and there are a lot of options for airports and hotels. And lots of good restaurants. Be okay with me especially if my Sooners were there!

[Scamp]

I attended the 1987 and 1988 Final Fours in Tacoma, Washington (just south of Seattle). One of those championship games was played on an Easter Sunday and began before noon Pacific Time, all to accomodate CBS. I'd worry that ESPN would press for fan- and team-unfriendly start times in L.A.

But...if 2005 was the "Road to Indy," perhaps 2014 could be "El Camino a Los Angeles." USC would host the Final Four. ESPN would hire Cheryl Miller as the face of the NCAA tournament, thirty years after USC's second national championship. Lots of Americans still remember Miller. Miller would do interviews during the college season with players past and present. (Oh, how I'd love to see Cheryl Miller and KMR go at it once again, on the court or in the studio--or both!) :cool:

[ChipperF1]

"I'd worry that ESPN would press for fan- and team-unfriendly start times in L.A.

ESPN can only do what Indianapolis will let them do. But considering the realities of the schedule and the set up, I doubt you'll see a Noon tipoff, and actually is a Noon pacific tip on a Sunday so bad?

C'mon, how many weekend tilts have noon starts in college basketball? I would bet at least 2/3rd?

The biggest issue pre-1995 was idea of having national semifinal that night, followed by national championship game on a 12 hour turnaround the next day. That was the real issue, and now its taken care of.

The key thing to remember is ultimately, the NCAA makes the final decision on the start times, not the television networks.

If nothing else, this thread shows how far this attraction has come. Twenty years ago, its was just a matter of getting air time. ;)

[Scamp]

ESPN can only do what Indianapolis will let them do. ...The key thing to remember is ultimately, the NCAA makes the final decision on the start times, not the television networks.


Just curious: do we know that the NCAA now calls the shots on game times? After all, CBS did that, back in the old days.

[ChipperF1]

The NCAA always did, however the ceded to the demands of CBS in a effort to get airtime. The NCAA originally set the schedule to accomodate national broadcasts. Thus you had the back-to-back days thing.

When ESPN took over, they followed what the WBCA had campaigned for. A gap in between game days with a Sunday championship. Ultimately NCAA made the final call.

The current Sunday-Tuesday set up wasn't an ESPN idea, it was an NCAA idea, just like the current woebegotten tournament set up. I'll say it again, those choices are not made in Bristol, Connecticut, they are made in Indianapolis, Indiana. Some of the ideas are good, some aren't so good.

But those days are long past. The Womens Basketball Final Four is one the NCAAs premiere championships, and its getting its rightful place in order. There is more growth ahead, but overall I like where the game sitting and its getting bigger with each year.

Subjects like this bring out one of my pet peeves about womens basketball fans. So many fans bemoan the progress of the game and in some ways discount it ("Just like you discount how much better Nebraska is, you dope!" Shaddup, you meathead ACL you! WHO KEEPS LETTING THAT TENDON IN HERE?" I'm a LIGAMENT you twerp! whatever!)

ESPN annouces more games, its still not enough. All 63 games of the tournament on the TV, but what about the start times?
Then there is the "why can't this team draw more" issue. Followed by the "why does the officiating suck" issue. And my personal favorite the "They draw so well because there's nothing else to do there issue"

Sometimes I think that if women basketball fans were at the Miracle of Loaves and Fishes, they would say:

"Yo Jesus, where's the butter and the tartar sauce? And you call yourself a Holy Man!"

Are we going to draw Mens Final Four ratings numbers? I doubt it. Are we going to draw NFL/NASCAR-type ratings? You can forget about that.

But this whole deal is lightyears away from where we where in 1993 or 1992 or 1987....OR all the way back to 1972....or farther.

Imagine if some player from Wayland Baptist or Immaculata circa 1972 could see the 2005 Final Four. They'd think they were in heaven...and they wouldn't be too far off. :)

[Scamp]

Chipper, thanks for the clarification. ESPN toots its horn so loudly that it's hard for me to tell who is in charge when the NCAA tournament comes around.

[ChipperF1]

"ESPN toots its horn so loudly.

And ESPN has every right to do so. They've shown more of this sport to the people that any other national network, and they where the only network who put the money up to carry the tournament AND do it the way the NCAA wanted when the contract came up two years ago. They have made a committment to the sport through 2012, and no one else was willing to do it.

Now is ESPN perfect? Are you kidding? They can do more. But the depends on the fans. That means you, and not just for ESPN....That goes for everybody in the media.

This morning I fired off an e-mail to the sports editor of my hometown paper, because I didn't get a story on NU basketball's media day. Turns out Row6 was dead right. That isn't good. And I also want them to correct that little matter of two solid Division I teams having to share beat writer. That's a little ridiculous for the state's frontline newspaper. How can you get ESPN to stay on board, if the locals don't? Think Globally, Act Locally.

[OhMandy]

Did you people forget that San Jose hosted the Final Four in 99 and there wasn't any worry or talk about the game times? And in case you didn't know, San Jose and LA both in the same time zone.

[YCN]

Did you people forget that San Jose hosted the Final Four in 99 and there wasn't any worry or talk about the game times? And in case you didn't know, San Jose and LA both in the same time zone.
I know for a fact that's just not true. From personal observation, I'm sure that LA is on La-La time, not Pacific.

And believe me, there's a difference. :eek:

[Bball Girl]

I still remember going to the Final 4 in KC (before I saw the world through Tech colored glasses) and getting teary eyed with hearing and seeing 18,000+ fans rise to their feet for 4 WBB Teams. Get Coach Sharp talking about the days when you could hear the ball bouncing during Tech games compared to now when you can't hear yourself think and they first time they sold out the Colliseum and it will give you goose bumps!

If Tech can do it and KSU and LA Tech and SMS and other places...then anyone can do it.

We don't appreciate how far we've come! Sometimes we look at the negatives instead of looking at the positives...we're (as fans) still slinking around the edges, still having to almost apologize for loving WBB. A cousin of mine..an intelligent high school teacher with a 20 something daughter has commented to me more than once that WBB is a "ugly game". After trying to explain and "defend" why I love it...I finally told him "then don't watch it"...we don't need fans like you. Result...last year he admitted that he watched a few games and started asking me some questions about teams and players...etc.

On the other hand I have a macho uncle who loves all sports including WBB and support the local HS girls just like he does the boys...he sees no difference.

Chipper makes some excellent points....we do gripe about all that we don't have and forget how far we've come and all that we do have.

[OhMandy]

Chipper makes some excellent points....we do gripe about all that we don't have and forget how far we've come and all that we do have.


But we as fans should continue to gripe until WBB gets the respect and attention it deserves. Sure WBB has come a long way. But there is still a LONG way to go. We as fans can never be satisfied until WBB gets the respect, attention and coverage it deserves.

[ChipperF1]

"We as fans can never be satisfied until WBB gets the respect, attention and coverage it deserves.

But here is the question of the hour: What kind of respect, attention and coverage does the sport deserve? Such sentiments get thrown around a great deal.When we say such things, what are we saying and what are we seeking?

Everybody ring in on this one. :)

[sybarite]

1. The women won the Olympics. The men, with all of their "in your face slam dunks", lost.

2. The women represent over half the nation.

3. Some of us grew up in areas that were settled within the last hundred years. The backbone of that one hundred and sixty acres was the woman.

4. Rosa Parks died tonight. It is time that the American woman got off the back of the bus.

I am a man.

[OhMandy]

But here is the question of the hour: What kind of respect, attention and coverage does the sport deserve? Such sentiments get thrown around a great deal.When we say such things, what are we saying and what are we seeking?

Everybody ring in on this one. :)

Print media: SI gives about 3-4 times the coverage of the men's tourney than the women's. Having equal coverage would be a start.

TV: ESPN almost never has the scores or highlights of WBB games DURING the REGULAR season. Not even a match up of Top 10 teams. UConn and Tenn aren't the only teams that matter in WBB. So SportsCenter showing highlights and giving coverage to WBB DURING the season would be nice to see.

[Gator]

But here is the question of the hour: What kind of respect, attention and coverage does the sport deserve? Such sentiments get thrown around a great deal.When we say such things, what are we saying and what are we seeking?
It deserves (from the stand point of the folks who have to sell ads to stay on the air or in the news stands) what its fans support. That is a bit of a viscous cycle. I imagine that the Lubbock news folks would be in SERIOUS trouble if they gave short shrift to Marsha's program. If a team has 500 to 3000 fans showing up on a regular basis, a relatively small percentage of those folks are going to be activist bugging the news media for more info. Sometimes you get lucky and have someone like Voepel on your staff who is great to read and actually creates her own fan base in addition to feeding the fans of local WBB. Bottom line: more fannies in the seats equals better coverage.

[swok34]

Bottom line: more fannies in the seats equals better coverage.

and even that takes some time.......there was an article about the OU women's basketball team a few years ago. And it talks specificially about the team being down on the floor warming up for a game and looking up in the stands and wondering...............where are our fans? That was either the year that OU went to the Final Four or the year prior :( Now, the fannies weren't in the seats, but the media was doing a fair job.........I actually think that the media was about halfway responsible for OU selling out their 1st and 2nd rounds that year.

swing forward to last year: more fannies in seats, less media, fewer wins than the team I mentioned.

[DblT81]

Indeed. The chicken/egg thing. :( More fans = more media coverage but it takes more media coverage to get more fans.

When Coach Knight came to Lubbock, the DMN sent a reporter to be resident in Lubbock for awhile. While he was there, he might as well cover women's basketball, what else is there to do in Lubbock... ;) ;) He gave the sport good coverage, writing articles not only about the Lady Raiders but other wcbb teams. Unfortunately, Brian Davis was too good. He was transferred back to Dallas and promoted to writing about college football.

When Davis wrote about the women's game, I could tell he respected it. he liked the game. Now the DMN coverage consists of reporters who are required to occasionally write about the game because that is their assignment. They are writing articles on women's basketball because their job is to cover a University, not because they care about the sport of women's basketball. (I'm not sure that makes sense to anyone else but me. :confused: )

Lubbock media understands (Patrick Gonzales of the Avalanche Journal is outstanding) but sometimes even those who understand can't do much about it. Robert Giovannetti is the publisher of a sports magazine, hosts a radio talk show, and is the owner of a website all based on Texas Tech sports. He loves them all, including the Lady Raiders. He gives equal coverage in his magazine to both Sharp and Knight's team. But on his website, the Lady Raiders are never mentioned because the target audience on the subscription part of the website doesn't follow the LRs, and in fact, more likely than not, the members of that site show animosity toward the LR program for stealing some of the spotlight from their favorite he-man sports.

Giovannetti is a businessman trying to make a living. In the mag, he personally writes the articles about the LRs. I assume it is because the other sportswriters who also work on his website have no interest in doing so. He knows how popular the women's team is in Lubbock and among Tech alumni. He writes those articles not only becasue it is good for his magazine but because he is a fan of the game too. He and I have had conversations about how he would love for the website to have great coverage of the LRs but he knows right now that would be a difficult thing with the lack of a writer who has interest to devote the time to adequate coverage.

What does wcbb deserve? It deserves media who like the women's game. It deserves fans who love the game. That is frankly a small number right now. It is growing slowly. Hopefully more writers like Voepel will come along who are good and who help build fan support. Demanding that ESPN anchors cover wcbb when they care nothing about it isn't going to do it. I miss Brian Davis.

[OhMandy]

Indeed. The chicken/egg thing. :( More fans = more media coverage but it takes more media coverage to get more fans.

When Coach Knight came to Lubbock, the DMN sent a reporter to be resident in Lubbock for awhile. While he was there, he might as well cover women's basketball, what else is there to do in Lubbock... ;) ;) He gave the sport good coverage, writing articles not only about the Lady Raiders but other wcbb teams. Unfortunately, Brian Davis was too good. He was transferred back to Dallas and promoted to writing about college football.

When Davis wrote about the women's game, I could tell he respected it. he liked the game. Now the DMN coverage consists of reporters who are required to occasionally write about the game because that is their assignment. They are writing articles on women's basketball because their job is to cover a University, not because they care about the sport of women's basketball. (I'm not sure that makes sense to anyone else but me. :confused: )

Demanding that ESPN anchors cover wcbb when they care nothing about it isn't going to do it. I miss Brian Davis.

That's one problem with local newspapers, they will usually hire somebody fresh out of college to cover women's basketball. If that person shows he or she has talent, they will get promoted to a "better beat" such as college football or a pro team.


If you don't think getting WBB coverage on ESPN isn't going to do it, you need to do more research. Some small little hometown newspaper doesn't mean anything. You need a major national TV program (SPORTSCENTER) to provide coverage of wbb and that will increase the attention and respect that WBB deserves.

[DblT81]

The Dallas Morning News is hardly a "local newspaper". Brian Davis wasn't fresh out of college. Afterall, the DMN wanted someone who could cover (and interview) Bob Knight. You don't send a shrinking violet or and budding pink carnation for such a demanding task. He was a legimate sports reporter. A good one too. And did a fine job of covering women's basketball for a newspaper that has one of the largest circulations in the nation.

The "local newspaper", the Lubbock AJ assigns the top guy, the sports editor, to cover the LRs.

My point is these guys covered the sport very well because, like Voepel, they liked the sport.

My comment regarding ESPN is in the same line. No doubt that regular coverage on Sportscenter would eventually build more fans. When I said such demands are not going to do "it", I don't mean the coverage won't help but that the coverage won't happen. More coverage isn't ever going to happen until there are enough sports reporters/anchors at ESPN who personally like the sport. Build it one fan at a time. They have to experience it and get over their biases just like Bballgirl's former heckler.

[OhMandy]

The Dallas Morning News is hardly a "local newspaper". Brian Davis wasn't fresh out of college. Afterall, the DMN wanted someone who could cover (and interview) Bob Knight. You don't send a shrinking violet or and budding pink carnation for such a demanding task. He was a legimate sports reporter. A good one too. And did a fine job of covering women's basketball for a newspaper that has one of the largest circulations in the nation.

The "local newspaper", the Lubbock AJ assigns the top guy, the sports editor, to cover the LRs.

Yeah people think of the Dallas Morning News on the same lines as the NY Times. It's a fishwrap with worthless columnists like "Tom" Cowlishaw.

[ChipperF1]

Before we discuss attention and coverage, I want to discuss respect.

Respect to me is administrative and institutional support for the sport, and all sports on the campus. That respect entails giving the teams the best training, medical and academic support necessary to make the team a success on the field competition and away from it.

Respect to me is a sports information department who puts forth the effort to market the sport to the community. It involves getting the programs and a game notes right. It involves keeping current fans in the seats and getting news ones involved.

Fans won't care for a program that the school doesn't care for.

Respect to me is fans who love the sport as much as they love their individual team. At one level, it involves going to the games and cheering loud. It never hurts to extend that to joining booster club perhaps. Part of this respect involves doing your part to bring new people into the tent, or getting the local media who may be lax in coverage to get on board a good story, or give that beat writer, tv reporter, or broadcast team your appreciation and your criticism sometimes.

Notice I say the local media. How can you get ESPN on board, if the local newspapers and television stations aren't? One of the biggest fallacies is that to get the big push, you have to be validated far-off super conglomerate. If you are waiting for that day of delieverance, you'll be waiting a long time. In many ways, the national media follows the herd. We find where the buzz is and go to the honey, especially when the buzz is too big to ignore. Womens Basketball has pockets where that buzz is plenty loud, and sure enough we go to it. Perhaps the locales aren't sexy or cosmopolitan, but a filled United Spirit Arena will bring the SNG trucks and the HD stacked tractor-trailors. The main reason? You have a following that born of a good product and it draw people to it. Add plenty more areas that have these ingredients and sure enough, the national media comes running.

Does it happen as big as we want it? Not necessarily, in fact we still have a long way to go. But part of the reason we have come as far as we have is because of fans across the country who've caught the excitement and its spreading. And I think It'll continue a steady spread.

For my business, respect will entail part of what DBlT said. Media people who enjoy the sport don't hurt. To have Mechelle Voepels, Pat Gonzalezes around can only help, but it will also involve executive producers, game producers, line producers and editors who are willing to say, "This is a key event, game, story, and I want it covered well."

Fans who keep pushing at all levels can help make this happen.

For myself, I don't ever see Womens College Basketball reaching the mens level of attention and coverage, more for the cold hard fact about our society at this time in history. But, I do see a lot of steady growth, and even as we push to advance forward lets celebrate and enjoy how far we've come and use it as fuel to push on.

[OhMandy]

The SID's function is not the "market" the program. They are there to provide information to the media. Yes they should get the info in the program correct.

I would say hiring a full time marketing person for the WBB team is another sign of respect.

BTW your first question had more to do with the media and coverage of WBB than what each school does or doesn't do.

[BearLady]

I miss Brian Davis.

You can have him back any day! He's highly biased and that clearly shows in his writing. Give us Rachel Cohen or Chip Brown any day when it comes to reporting on various college sports.

As for Oh Mandy!, no, I don't think the DMN is the equivalent of the NYTimes. Some of their columnists (not including B Davis) do a great job. But their coverage is lacking in many respects. Though I live in the area, if I really want to get good coverage, I have to check M Voepel's columns from the K C Star.

BTW, in his article this past week-end, he used the term "awfully close" to describe an action. I couldn't help but ask myself how many other journalists would use the adjective "awfully" to describe something. "Awfully" is fine for everyday conversation. For professional writing, surely there's a more appropriate word available. "Very" quickly comes to mind. "Awfully" shows lack of vocabulary and bias.

[ChipperF1]

"They are there to provide information to the media. Yes they should get the info in the program correct.

The folks in sports information, depending on the school also...

-- Create advertisements for outlets.
-- The plan public appearances for the teams, coaches.
-- Act as advance people on those appearances
-- They plan and create many of the circulars etc that ticketholder get in the mail (season ticket apps, etc.)
-- In recent years, they've become a valued part of the marketing arm or work with them, because they are the people who work with the team and media concurrently.

And how do I know this? Because I've been on both sides of it. ;)

As for the question itself, I don't think I limited it to coverage. Of course, that is subject to individual interpretation. My beliefs on the issue go beyond the media sphere, because I think one has to look at it beyond that sphere.

As far as individual writers and broadcasters go, I like Pat Gonzalez, Mechelle Voepel and Lori Riley. I'm glad they are covering the sport. :)

[OhMandy]

The folks in sports information, depending on the school also...

-- Create advertisements for outlets.
-- The plan public appearances for the teams, coaches.
-- Act as advance people on those appearances
-- They plan and create many of the circulars etc that ticketholder get in the mail (season ticket apps, etc.)
-- In recent years, they've become a valued part of the marketing arm or work with them, because they are the people who work with the team and media concurrently.

And how do I know this? Because I've been on both sides of it. ;)


Maybe the schools you worked at didn't have a marketing department but I know it's the ticket office and the marketing people who plan and create the ticket mailings. The SID are of limited use.

[swok34]

In recent years, they've become a valued part of the marketing arm or work with them, because they are the people who work with the team and media concurrently.

This is the way it is at OU......I think the ticket office is independent though, chipper.(here at OU). The SID at OU develops the media guide, the internet writeups of the team, speaks to media wishing interviews with coaches and players.....so the statement above describes the OU SID to a tee.

Now, I'm not that familiar with how OU handles it, but just my observations and what my ears have heard over the past 7 or 8 years. The Women's Basketball SID is ALWAYS at the game.