More thoughts on neutral sites: Helen celebrates the MVC's decision to move its '08 women's hoops tournament to St. Louis, which the MVC calls a neutral site.
Neutral sites have been topic A in February for the past several years. The NCAA advertised its last format change as a move toward neutral sites. Commentators and coaches-- especially coaches of higher seeds placed on lower seeds' home courts-- have been complaining, protesting and asking for years on behalf of entirely neutral sites-- and wondering how much such a move would hurt gate revenue.
Can conference tournaments show the way? Probably not. Everyone who's thought about it knows that truly neutral sites-- say, Duke vs. UConn in Albuquerque; Georgia vs. Maryland in Ames-- would provide the best, fairest test for both teams.
But conference tournament sites aren't neutral that way. The ACC tournament takes place in Greensboro, and this week it may draw 60,000 fans: it's a neutral site when NC State plays UNC, but probably not if the winner faces Maryland.
The Big Ten tournament takes place in Indianapolis, neutral (or nearly so) if Purdue plays Indiana, but not this week when Indiana plays Iowa. The Big XII's tourney in Oklahoma CIty-- whose ticket packages have sold out, by the way-- isn't neutral when Sooners play Longhorns, nor could it be.
These arenas are fairer than true home sites-- because the "home team" doesn't have familiar sightlines for three-point shooters, for example, and because both teams must travel to the game-- but they still give in-state competitor an advantage no coach and no athlete can erase.
And that's how it has to be, at least for now. Truly neutral sites are by definition sites so far from any of the potential competitors' regional fan bases that nobody's going to have a home-crowd advantage; such sites, in the women's tournament, unfortunately still have trouble filling their seats (unless it's the FInal Four). The current system tries to give such quasi-home sites to the higher seed, while keeping true home games for true hosts (even lower seeds) as long as the hosts make the tournament: it's an awkward compromise, but it may be the best the national tournament can do.
Neutral sites have been topic A in February for the past several years. The NCAA advertised its last format change as a move toward neutral sites. Commentators and coaches-- especially coaches of higher seeds placed on lower seeds' home courts-- have been complaining, protesting and asking for years on behalf of entirely neutral sites-- and wondering how much such a move would hurt gate revenue.
Can conference tournaments show the way? Probably not. Everyone who's thought about it knows that truly neutral sites-- say, Duke vs. UConn in Albuquerque; Georgia vs. Maryland in Ames-- would provide the best, fairest test for both teams.
But conference tournament sites aren't neutral that way. The ACC tournament takes place in Greensboro, and this week it may draw 60,000 fans: it's a neutral site when NC State plays UNC, but probably not if the winner faces Maryland.
The Big Ten tournament takes place in Indianapolis, neutral (or nearly so) if Purdue plays Indiana, but not this week when Indiana plays Iowa. The Big XII's tourney in Oklahoma CIty-- whose ticket packages have sold out, by the way-- isn't neutral when Sooners play Longhorns, nor could it be.
These arenas are fairer than true home sites-- because the "home team" doesn't have familiar sightlines for three-point shooters, for example, and because both teams must travel to the game-- but they still give in-state competitor an advantage no coach and no athlete can erase.
And that's how it has to be, at least for now. Truly neutral sites are by definition sites so far from any of the potential competitors' regional fan bases that nobody's going to have a home-crowd advantage; such sites, in the women's tournament, unfortunately still have trouble filling their seats (unless it's the FInal Four). The current system tries to give such quasi-home sites to the higher seed, while keeping true home games for true hosts (even lower seeds) as long as the hosts make the tournament: it's an awkward compromise, but it may be the best the national tournament can do.
posted by Jessie B at 2:02 AM
