If HoopScoopers ran the NC2A tourney ...

[walkaway]

what would be different? (and how would TV coverage be better?)

[MsProudSooner]

No games in cities that didn't care about the tournament, like Denver.

Neutral sites are OK, but let all the higher seeds play within driving distance of their fans.

Be smarter about where you televise the games. ESPN has multiple channels, so show 3 games at once on different channels. Or, create some sort of Pay Per View system that's not outrageously expensive and allows people to se the games they want.

[Jimi]

The announcers would focus on the games.

Games would be prioritized by conference preferences so that B-12 people could see B-12 games and SEC fans SEC games etc.

Scott Yarbough would have more time for his family. :p

We would go back to earning home court advantage. (stick that in your pod)

Selection Monday would be a one time historic event. There is precious little enough time to set up and schedule WNIT events and sell tickets without cutting it back another day.

The TV productions would not appeal as much to casual fans and they would be a harder sale to advertisers. Believe it or not we are not typical fans and ESPN knows more about the broadcast business than we do.

Now back to my regularly scheduled gripping.

[BearLady]

Better pbp teams for tv!

no whiparound coverage. As MsProudSooner noted, have a way so fans can choose what games they want to watch.

[swok34]

I agree with earning the home court advantage. I really think the NCAA would do better to get regionals off home courts before they went after the first and second rounds.

TV: hmmmmm, I hate blow outs, except if it's my team doing the blowoutting.

ESPN and their Full Court Package: Purchase the half season session for $75 bucks (starting in January) or purchase 4 days of women's coverage for $75 bucks. :confused:
Why not sell the four days of the women for $50 and promote it as such?

I was going to buy the Full Court Package today for the day until I realized that the $14.95 per day actually meant $14.95 per channel = $59.80 for one day. You can purchase the day online for $14.95 and see all the games...

does ESPN actually sit down and figure these things out?

[BeBe]

We have a sold-out final four and have had for a number of years.

The next step should be the regionals at neutral sites ... and that means true neutral sites... not UConn at Bridgeport and the like.... and work on getting those games to approach sell outs.

Until such time as regionals are attended at greater than maybe 70% of capacity, neutral and pseudo-neutral sites should not be used for the first two rounds.

To be equitable, we should return to the system of the first 2 rounds would be played on the home courts of the top 16 seeded teams (or the top 8 if this 'pod' system were to be continued). That way we would not have the crazt mix-up like we have this year.

And, although there is a deeper talent pool and more parity, the upsets we are seeing are in the 5 - 8 seeds, not in those top seeds, so that should not be affected. Perhaps this would be an argument in favor of the pods .. that way only the 1 and 2 seeds are on home courts...teams that would not be upset in rounds one and two even on neutral courts.

[tx4OU]

No team gets to host on their home court.

Arenas selected based on women's basketball popularity and not size of city.(I'd rather have a region in Muskogee, OK for first round games and sell out 8,000 seats for every single game including the 11 a.m. games; than compared to 1,500 in the Staples center in LA. or whatever was inside Denver's Pepsi Center.)

I would like to see first round places in mid-sized cities to generate a more grass-roots drawing of fans. I've been in marketing for several years and have learned it's better to create a demand rather than supply it and hope they show up and buy it.)

I also think you can still place teams in close proximity to its fan base, but learn where the fan bases are located. Even keeping teams within their conference regions: OU has a huge following in Dallas; Stanford & California — Oakland; Notre Dame — Chicago; Kentucky — Indianapolis; Missouri & Kansas — St. Louis or Kansas City, Arkansas, OU, OSU — Tulsa. These are just right off the top of my head and by no means a very thorough analysis. I'd just like to see mid-sized cities show what they can do with a first round site. The folks in these places don't have the same kind of entertainment competition for their pocketbooks and would more affordably take their entire family to the games. A lot of smaller cities are investing in their communities by passing bonds or whatever to build very nice sized arenas.

I'd also like to see ESPN send programming to conference regions where the respective conference team is playing like FOXSports does it's college football programming.

[wwi_flying_ace_17]

This summer when things are slow, we should do a thread on what cities should get to host games. I bet the places we come up with would have better attendance than a lot of places that have them now :D

[swok34]

You have to keep in mind that in order for a city to host, they have to have a set number of available hotels; I would assume parking has to be taken into consideration.

I know one year, when the Top 4 seeds were still hosting on their home courts, Mississippi won the right to host and had to decline because something in town had eaten up their hotel rooms.

I do like the idea of the top 1 and 2 seeds on home courts in pods so long as regionals get OFF home courts.

Isn't there some point that teams are not allowed to play on their own courts? Like Purdue, Vanderbilt and Depaul this year? I'm thinking for some reason that this is the last year that teams can play on a court where they play more than 3 games during the season.

[YCN]

No games in cities that didn't care about the tournament, like Denver.

Neutral sites are OK, but let all the higher seeds play within driving distance of their fans.

Be smarter about where you televise the games. ESPN has multiple channels, so show 3 games at once on different channels. Or, create some sort of Pay Per View system that's not outrageously expensive and allows people to se the games they want.The announced attendance in Denver was 3,701. That may be turnstile, because they were bar-coding your ticket.

If you think Denver's going to be the worst or one of the worst for attendance for first and second rounds, I think you are deluding youself. Denver's ticket prices were the second highest of the eight sites, only lower than Trenton. But Trenton can draw upon the NYC metro area for attendance, so the 10 bucks more they charged for all-session tickets was suitable for their market. But the price for Denver was too high. If you want to promote the game, you have to promote it. That means ticket prices match the market.

DePaul's site didn't even announce the attendance. I can only guess what that means. Vanderbilt's session, played on their home court, drew 4,047. That's for a tournament team on their home court, not a site where a Colorado hoped to be sending a team when they bid for a host site. The attendance for the other pod at Vanderbilt was 3,352, and Nashville isn't that far from Baton Rouge. So where were the LSU fans?

I haven't checked the other sites, but I bet most of them have attendance that that listed above.

The NCAA is clearly clueless about promotion, or else we wouldn't be seeing Notre Dame and Boston College in the Denver market right now, instead of the Missouri game. When I walked into the Pepsi Center yesterday, I was handed a fan survey to fill out that is clearly intended to gauge their target audience better. They didn't provide a cheap mini-pencil, a place to stand to fill out the survey, or any other incentive to me to expend my time for their benefit. I bet not 10% of the surveys were turned in. Great sample size.

I don't have the answer, but clearly the 8-team pod system of two pods doesn't do anything right now that the NCAA apparently thought it would do. Fan attendance has declined prior to this year for 2 years in a row, attendance is absymally bad except when there's a host team (when it's often just mediocre) at the early round sites, and the fairness concept is a joke, because there are still hosting teams on their home courts, even in the regionals.

In short, this experiment is a grand failure. If anyone wants to fix it and provide for neutral play at the same time, let me know. I'd love to hear the solution.

Regarding being able to see your team play, until NCAA women's basketball can outdraw the interest of poker and strongman contests, it might be better to put the early round games on some channel that could actually benefit from the exposure, rather than on ESPN2, which has outgrown our audience, and really doesn't care all that much, either.

Broadcast crews have to work regardless of whether or not ESPN broadcasts the games, so if ESPN doesn't need them, then they obviously can work elsewhere. And I'd be willing to see where four games a day were televised, one right after another, for 12 consecutive days before the Sweet 16, rather than have a hit or miss where there are 4 games being played simultaneously, and even in a market that obviously has more interest in another game that won't be shown, we get an out-of-market game that no one really cares about.

[YCN]

I don't see how 1 and 2 seeds could possibly handle the burden of hosting the first two rounds for a group of 8 teams. They'd have almost no time to prepare, and how would those teams be able to insure accommodations could be made for all people who might attend, including pep bands, cheerleading squads, administrators, fans, teams and support staff.

Believe me, just having 8 at Denver was a big deal. I watched the choregraphy closely, and there was a whole lot going on, and even more behind the scenes.

Many of those who were actually there might have noticed not less than 12 plainclothes security staff just off the court, three at each corner. And that's just the tip of the iceberg in this era of terrorist threats and crazy wackos willing to do anything for their 5 minutes of fame.

I will say that the Pepsi Center was absolutely spotless, and the event has been run with the utmost professionalism. It's been first class all the way. With the amount of money being spent versus the attendance, Colorado U is taking a financial bath on hosting this yeara.

I couldn't imagine what it would be like of someone like Southern Illinois ended up with a high seed that they weren't really expecting, and then in a matter of days, not years, had to bring 8 teams in.

[Gator]

...the Pepsi Center was absolutely spotless, and the event has been run with the utmost professionalism. It's been first class all the way. With the amount of money being spent versus the attendance, Colorado U is taking a financial bath on hosting this yearYa but .... what was the PR/advertising promotion for the event? If it was good, it should have resuslted in a better attendance, shouldn't it?

[Bball Girl]

Tech has hosted 1st & 2nd rounds MANY times and I don't think we've ever sold out. I may be wrong...but it amazed me that it wasn't sold out.

Coach Sharp said Tech was told Lubbock didn't have enough hotel rooms for the 8 team pod.

[brolewis]

Coach Sharp said Tech was told Lubbock didn't have enough hotel rooms for the 8 team pod.Baylor/Waco has the same problem.

[labcoatguy]

Remember, the first and second rounds of the tournament frequently occur during spring break.

[YCN]

Ya but .... what was the PR/advertising promotion for the event? If it was good, it should have resuslted in a better attendance, shouldn't it?Advertising costs significant money, especially if it's on TV. There was a little promotion, but not much. But you have to understand that CU is bleeding red ink right now, and they had no way of knowing whether or not their advertising would pay back the price.

If they had an all-session price of 36 dollars and a single session price of 15, they'd probably have sold twice as many tickets, and taken an impressive cut of concessions and merchandise sales as well.

They clearly don't understand their target market.

[Bball Girl]

I would NOT have games starting at 9:30 EST on the East Coast. I would not have games starting at 9:30 MST (next Saturday). I can't believe that they get more viewers with these weird schedule than if they just showed them normal times. They would sell more tickets if they didn't have games on Sunday, Monday, & Tuesday nights starting at 9:30 EST. They might get more viewers. What a concept.

The mens games ended at 5:00 p.m. tonight...why can't the women end at 9:00 p.m. instead of midnight.

[ChipperF1]

The biggest problem with the NCAA tournament comes down to the matter of where games are played.

I like like old system of teams earning the subregionals on home courts.
I have no problem with a team getting a regional on a home floor. You play half your games during a season away from home to begin with.

So The Chipper Solution? Lets take a page from the NAIA tournament.

4 Sites, 4 Regions, 4 games. 4 days.

East Regional at Dunkin Donuts Center Providence, Rhode Island
Midwest Regional at Alamodome San Antonio, Texas
Central Regional at Qwest Center Omaha, Nebraska
West Regional at The Pit Albuquerque, New Mexico

The four regional winners head to the Final Four in Boston next Sunday and Tuesday.

To me, you have the drama of back to back to back to back games. Its the ultimate challenge, and would actually have that day to day high school feel. It would make for compelling television for our broadcasting partner, plus it would return a greater degree of competitive integrity because you don't have to placate a bunch of teams who bid for home sites, at most you'd have to placate four and really if you chose to, you wouldn't have to at all.

Now about our broadcast partner. ESPN's wraparound system honestly, sucks. Keep it regional and switch as situations warrent. Don't give the fans in flyover country a game not of regional interest. DUH!

[DblT81]

4 Sites, 4 Regions, 4 games. 4 days.

The four regional winners head to the Final Four in Boston next Sunday and Tuesday.



And at the 4th game, to decide who goes to the final 4, the players would be exhausted, the coaches would have no voice, and the games would be lousy. :p

[ChipperF1]

"And at the 4th game, to decide who goes to the final 4, the players would be exhausted, the coaches would have no voice, and the games would be lousy.

If you are worried that the 4th game would suck that bad...

We'll do this...Wednesday-Thursday First two rounds

Rest day on Friday...

Saturday-Sunday....Regional Semifinal and Final.

Winner heads to Boston.

Would that be better? Lets face it, no matter what system they use, a good number fans will hate it.

If there is home sites, people will complain. If there are neutral sites, people won't come.

This system gives you the best of both complaints :)

As far as being "tired". A champion team would adapt and overcome.

[OhMandy]

I would start the women's NCAA a week after the men's NCAA starts. I would also move games to Thur-Sat and Fri-Sun formats. For me it's easier to get time off of work later in the week than earlier. We have a staff meeting every Mon and unless you're really sick, you don't miss it.

This would allow for better TV times and coverage.

Using this year as an example:

On Thu Mar 16 we had 16 men's games. Fri March 17, 16 games.

On Thu Mar 23 there will only be 4 men's games on TV. Fri Mar 24, only 4 games.

So if the women's tourney started on Thur Mar 23, there would be less men's games to compete with. Thus better times and better media coverage.

In LA they showed the USC-USF game around 7pm CA time. The game was over at 9pm CA time. MIDNIGHT east coast time. Why are games being shown late? Because ESPN doesn't want to compete against CBS's coverage of the men's tourney. So the women get terrible start times and days.

Starting the games a week later would give better times for the women's game. Thus more families with kids will be able to go to games.

[tx4OU]

Does the NCAA assist cities hosting regionals with marketing and advertising? Do they have a step-by-step manual that a hosting city can follow to be consistent across the board in promoting the games?

Are there efforts in involving a more grass-root approach such as involving high school girls basketball coaches within the state or surrounding cities (big or small) of the sites where H.S. coaches could attend clinics where the participating college head coaches could share their X and O philosophies? This doesn't have to be something elaborite anymore than what a coach may do at their summer basketball camps. Just trying to think of a way to get the local community (coaches and players) involved.

There may not be enough time to do something like this with travel and gameplanning. It would sure give local coaches more opportunities to meet college coaches that are in other areas of the country.

[AngelSong20]

So am I the only one that likes at least the concept of whiparound even if not always the execution? Yes, I think there is a bias toward some teams that I could do without if UConn for instance is beating the snot out of Podunk State. But since I'm not willing to pay the money to get every game (lol, don't think I could handle that many choices, simultaneous men's and women's games has been bad enough!!!) I do appreciate being able to see the interesting ones. I think I was more frustrated at having to watch the regional Texas men's games when there was a REALLY close other game finishing up! By the way, if you haven't been watching CBS, I think ESPN should take a page out of their book. I LOVE the line of live scores across the top of the screen!!!

I haven't been able to watch a lot of the women's games yet, so maybe ESPN is just really sucking, but the whiparound I've seen so far has been pretty good (granted, most of it was CBS). I pay money for the web broadcasts of my Lady Raiders, and I have the feeling that if I end up in some remote area of the country next year, I will probably pay the extra for full coverage just so I can watch them in the tourney. But I've gotta say, I'd rather see the good upsets in progress or the close ones rather than watch one Big 12 team blow out a weaker opponent. Like I said, the execution isn't perfect, but I do like the concept...

[Bball Girl]

I'll agree the concept of the whiparound is fine and for the most part I've enjoyed CBS' coverage.

I like seeing the close games.

But I recall when the Lady Raiders were blowing someone out, I wasn't happy when we whipped to another game.

[AngelSong20]

Bball girl, I think we are on the same wavelength or something this week. I've agreed with pretty much every post you've made.

I'm totally with you on the LRs, don't care if we're up by 100 points, I wanna see my Ladies. But I can pay for that privilege if it really matters to me, and I'm not sure practically how such a thing could be done other than protecting the home market as they have done. Now if certain teams are being favored over others for that reason, well that's a different story...

[swok34]

I think ESPN has done a fair job...it would be really difficult to determine who wants who. I'd kinda like to see Tulsa play, but for some reason, ESPN has decided to only show that to the Tulsa area and not Oklahoma City. I guess maybe they think it's Tulsa, Arkansas.

I know, it's tough going out here in flyover country. Even Courtney didn't even know that Oklahoma was an actual state.

I'm protected here in Oklahoma for Oklahoma....now why do they show Oklahoma to the whole state and not Tulsa :confused: but I they were a little bit late getting back from half time of the OU game and we missed the first minutes of the second half so ESPN could finish out Washington/Minnesota.

I didn't quite understand why they believed that we Oklahomans would be interested in a matchup between Vanderbilt and Louisville on Saturday nite...
but, that was the the only game I recall them hanging up on and sticking with rather than whipping us around to some other games...

I've seen some interesting players, like <s>Monmouth's</s> Dartmouth's #12, who let her out of the state of Texas? Right in Peggy's backyard there from College Station.

I thought ESPN did a much better job yesterday.

[Bball Girl]

Paying attention to "conference" regions could be tough. Our part of the world *does* include other conferences besides the Big 12 - gasp! The WAC, the Big 10 and the MWC. The SEC is pretty close. But they could do a better job of recognizing that Texas might like to see Baylor and Oklahoma might like to see Tulsa instead of UConn, Duke or Tennessee. If CBS can do it, then ESPN should be able to as well.

[AngelSong20]

Do we know for sure that they are going to show Duke, UConn, or TN? I guess I can see a couple different sides of this. For one thing, if Tulsa is down by quite a bit to a higher seed, unless I'm a Tulsa fan I'd probably be more interested in UConn was playing one that could result in an upset. Also, if there aren't really close games on, it seems to me that it might be better for the game to show some of the best teams. Like it or not, The ones you listed really are some of the best teams right now. All things considered, I gotta say that I would expect a TN game to show a greater display of athleticism and skill than a Tulsa game. Not trying to slam the other programs, because there is no question that there are good players everywhere, but I think someone else pointed out that UConn and TN kinda have earned their reps a bit. Just my thoughts on it...

By the way Bballgirl, I was thinking the same thing about geography (like Denver being a Big 12 city) but didn't know how to express it well. Maybe the assumption has to do with the power conferences?

[tx4OU]

I know that with the men's tournament, CBS relies on it's local affiliate stations in cities to help them determine what coverage they want to provide their viewers. Therefore most affiliates designate another local or conf. school when the home team isn't playing. In Dallas, we've gotten the Texas schools and Okla. None of them were up against each other though. Whenever they are, the local affiliate will chose. In past history, UT gets the nod the majority of the time.

With ESPN being cable, I'm not sure if they rely upon local cable companies for input. Chipper could add some insight here.

[Jimi]

Paying attention to "conference" regions could be tough. Our part of the world *does* include other conferences besides the Big 12 - gasp! The WAC, the Big 10 and the MWC. The SEC is pretty close. But they could do a better job of recognizing that Texas might like to see Baylor and Oklahoma might like to see Tulsa instead of UConn, Duke or Tennessee. If CBS can do it, then ESPN should be able to as well.
I take your point Bball Girl, however there are no SEC, MWC, WAC or B-11 schools in Nebraska or Kansas. We are pure you know. ;)

That is we are pure except for MVC connections like the Wichita State Shockers and Creighton Blue Jays. So just go with the B-12 first and MVC second for KanNeb. See its not so complicated. :)

Now for Iowa I admit there are misguided souls who support the B-11 U-WMNBN. They should be shown B-12 first, MVC second and B-11 if there is nothing else on. Oh I suppose now I have gone too far. :rolleyes:

The KCMO area is B-12 first and MVC second just like Kansas. Come on. We can work this out.

[Scamp]

I would pay for C-Span style coverage: everything my team does, from getting off the bus to the post-game press conference. All of it!