March 16, 200818 yr So if you are the overall number one you should be given the following advantages: 1. Play the first two rounds literally 15 minutes from your campus 2. Get to play either of the two "worst" teams to amke the tournament. 3. ....At that, after the winning team has already had to play once then make a long trip to play you. 4. Play rounds 3-4 at a location that you usually play at least two games a year at, still within the same state and in the heart of your fan base 5. Once you make the Final 4, you are then matched up with the "weakest" 1 seed. All of this is because you "earn" the overall number one based on strictly opinions? C'mon! This isn't true. The regionals are on a rotating basis and they do try to place the number one seeds at a place as close to home as possible because they are the number one seed and like someone else mentioned earlier, they've earned the right to play as close to home as possible...that's the ONLY thing that is fair and the way it should be. I'm definitely not a UNC fan but if someone is the number one team in the country for most of the season, why shouldn't they be rewarded for playing great basketball?
March 16, 200818 yr So if you are the overall number one you should be given the following advantages: 1. Play the first two rounds literally 15 minutes from your campus 2. Get to play either of the two "worst" teams to amke the tournament. 3. ....At that, after the winning team has already had to play once then make a long trip to play you. 4. Play rounds 3-4 at a location that you usually play at least two games a year at, still within the same state and in the heart of your fan base 5. Once you make the Final 4, you are then matched up with the "weakest" 1 seed. All of this is because you "earn" the overall number one based on strictly opinions? C'mon! It is unfair but these rounds are for the ACC = Duke and UNC...most of the other first round and second round games move not one tourny that I have seen that these games have not been played at this location.
March 17, 200818 yr Author This isn't true. The regionals are on a rotating basis and they do try to place the number one seeds at a place as close to home as possible because they are the number one seed and like someone else mentioned earlier, they've earned the right to play as close to home as possible...that's the ONLY thing that is fair and the way it should be. I'm definitely not a UNC fan but if someone is the number one team in the country for most of the season, why shouldn't they be rewarded for playing great basketball? This year it was specifically stated that the 1 seeds were organized so as the #1 overall would play the #4 overall... that's why UNC will be playing Kansas. Had Texas won today they would be playing the Longhorns. There is a HUGE difference between playing those games in Charlotte (2hrs, 21 minutes) and playing those games in Richmond, VA (2 hrs, 48 minutes),,, roughly the same difference (about 20 miles). I would have NO issue of allowing Carolina to play 2 rounds within the state of North carolina and two hours in a locally accessible place, but when you get basically a home basketball game until the Final 4... that just doesn't seem fair to me.
March 17, 200818 yr Author I do. It makes the regular season more meaningful. I have no problem with the committee giving the advantage of the 1 through 4 teams the opportunity to play closer to home. So you think it should be the opposite, that they should have to go play nearer a lower seed???. Never said that... I just said I don't think they should be allowed to play 4 consecutive games within their own state lines. As I mentioned on a post before this, play in Richmond..it's further away from the 2 seed, but it certainly is outside of Tarheel Blue Country. Yes I will agree that having a large fan base at your game is an advantage, but in the end, the floor is 94 feet by 50 feet, the hoop is ten feet off the floor and its 5 on 5. If that's the case then it doesn't matter if teams are rewarded with closer games or not. The purpose of the NCAA Tourney is to determine the BEST team on an even playing field. Playing well in the regular season gives you the following automatically: 1. A birth in the tournament in case you don't win your Conference Tourney. 2. A higher seed, meaning match ups with teams deemed to be less qualified as others. In other words, a less resistant path to the Final 4. 3. The opportunity to play in a REGION closer to your University. So we should tilt the playing field even more to their advantage?
March 17, 200818 yr Never said that... I just said I don't think they should be allowed to play 4 consecutive games within their own state lines. As I mentioned on a post before this, play in Richmond..it's further away from the 2 seed, but it certainly is outside of Tarheel Blue Country. If that's the case then it doesn't matter if teams are rewarded with closer games or not. The purpose of the NCAA Tourney is to determine the BEST team on an even playing field. Playing well in the regular season gives you the following automatically: 1. A birth in the tournament in case you don't win your Conference Tourney. 2. A higher seed, meaning match ups with teams deemed to be less qualified as others. In other words, a less resistant path to the Final 4. 3. The opportunity to play in a REGION closer to your University. So we should tilt the playing field even more to their advantage? I guess I do not see the dramatic difference in playing in Raleigh vs. Richmond. UNC fans are going to be there in pretty close to the same numbers as they would in Raleigh. So if they have 2000 fewer fans willing to drive the 2 hours to Richmond vs. the 20 minutes to Raleigh that is going to make the advantage smaller... The playing field is as level as it needs to be. How much do you think playing in your home state is worth? You are acting like they are being spotted 10 points per game.
March 17, 200818 yr Georgia is a higher in seeding than KY and they get to play in the eastern part of the nation while KY goes out west, why is this?
March 17, 200818 yr Because not everyone can play close to home. Also, who will send more fans to California? UK or Georgia?
March 17, 200818 yr Author I guess I do not see the dramatic difference in playing in Raleigh vs. Richmond. UNC fans are going to be there in pretty close to the same numbers as they would in Raleigh. So if they have 2000 fewer fans willing to drive the 2 hours to Richmond vs. the 20 minutes to Raleigh that is going to make the advantage smaller... The playing field is as level as it needs to be. How much do you think playing in your home state is worth? You are acting like they are being spotted 10 points per game. Think about the University of Kentucky. The fanbase doesn't specifically come from Lexington, it is the ENTIRE state. If UK played a NCAA game in Louisville the fan base wouldn't all drive an hour to get there from Lexington... the fan base IS THERE. Charlotte has an extremely high population of UNC alumni and fans who all live within 20 minutes of the arena. In NCAA games the walk-up attendance makes up a fairly substantial portion of the total attendance. When your walk-up attendance is exclusively from one particular school, and that school already has a large fan following, it can and will play a difference. It may not make a 10 point difference, but it definately is enough to create enough momentum, or give an additional edge to make up a couple baskets over the course of a game. When you talk 1 vs. 2, those couple baskets may be the difference between winning and losing.
March 17, 200818 yr The problem I have is that there is a regional somewhere in Carolina every year...
March 17, 200818 yr The problem I have is that there is a regional somewhere in Carolina every year...If there are no other cities that are requesting to host first round or regional games (Louisville, for example, hasn't hosted the NCAA tournament since 1991) and the North Carolina venues want them, I have no problem with Greensboro, Winston-Salem, Raleigh, or Charlotte hosting games every year. However, if they are selecting them over other similar cities year in and year out, I would have a problem with this. Memphis hasn't hosted the NCAA since 2001 Knoxville has a 22,000 seat arena and hasn't hosted since 1999. This year is the first time since 1986 Houston has hosted the NCAAs. Why so long? I'd like to know what goes into selecting the sites and why the same ones are picked as frequently as they are.
March 17, 200818 yr That North Carolina gets to play the first two rounds in Raleigh, and the next two rounds in Charlotte? I don't mind giving them the opportunity to play the first two rounds at Raleigh, but Jesus.... this is like saying they can play at home until the Final 4! Had Duke won the ACC they would have moved up to a 1 seed and probably had the same gift. To put it in perspective, imagine if some of the better Kentucky teams could have played the first two rounds at Louisville and the next two at Cincinnatti. Its a joke, I would like to see where both UNC and Duke have played in the tourney over the last 5 or so years.
March 17, 200818 yr 2007 Duke was a #6 and played in Buffalo UNC was a #3 in Dayton Villanova was the overall #1 in Philly 2006 Duke was a #1 in Charlotte UNC was the overall #1 in Charlotte 2004 Duke was a #1 in Raliegh UNC was a #6 in Denver Kentucky was the overall #1 in Columbus 2003 Duke was a #3 in Salt Lake City UNC missed the tourney Texas was the overall #1 and sent to Birmingham instead of OK City 2002 Duke was a #1 in Greenville, SC UNC missed the tourney Maryland was the overall #1 in D.C. 2001 Duke was a #1 in Greensboro UNC was a #2 in New Orleans Illinois was the overall #1 in Dayton and not Kansas City 2000 Duke was a #1 in Winston-Salem UNC was a #8 in Birmingham Stanford was a #1 sent to Birmingham instead of Tucson 1999 Duke was a #1 in Charlotte UNC was a #3 in Seattle Auburn was a #1 in Indianpolis instead of New Orleans 1998 Duke was a #1 in Lexington (of all places) UNC was a #1 in Hartford There were no NC locations hosting first round games 1997 Duke was a #2 in Charlotte North Carolina was a #1 in Winston-Salem UCLA was a #2 and sent to Auburn Hills instead of Tucson or SL City South Carolina was a #2 sent to Pittsburgh instead of either NC location or Memphis 1996 Duke was a #8 in Indianapolis UNC was a #6 in Richmond Indiana was a #6 sent to Orlando instead of Indianapolis Iowa was a #6 sent to Tucson instead of Indy or Milwaukee Louisville was a #6 sent to Milwaukee instead of Indy 1995 Duke missed the tourney UNC was a #2 in Tallahassee Arkansas was a #2 and went to Austin instead of Memphis UMASS was a #2 in Albany UCONN was a #2 and went to SL City instead of Baltimore, Albany, or Dayton
March 17, 200818 yr This isn't true. The regionals are on a rotating basis and they do try to place the number one seeds at a place as close to home as possible because they are the number one seed and like someone else mentioned earlier, they've earned the right to play as close to home as possible...that's the ONLY thing that is fair and the way it should be. I'm definitely not a UNC fan but if someone is the number one team in the country for most of the season, why shouldn't they be rewarded for playing great basketball? UK was a #1 seed the year they lost to Marquette in the regional finals and had to play them at a location much closer to their fanbase than UK's. You just don't ever see UNC or Duke in the same situation when they are a #1.
March 17, 200818 yr 2007 Duke was a #1 and played in Greensboro UNC was a #3 in Dayton Villanova was the overall #1 in Philly 2006 Duke was a #1 in Charlotte UNC was the overall #1 in Charlotte 2004 Duke was a #1 in Raliegh UNC was a #6 in Denver Kentucky was the overall #1 in Columbus 2003 Duke was a #3 in Salt Lake City UNC missed the tourney Texas was the overall #1 and sent to Birmingham instead of OK City 2002 Duke was a #1 in Greenville, SC UNC missed the tourney Maryland was the overall #1 in D.C. 2001 Duke was a #1 in Greensboro UNC was a #2 in New Orleans Illinois was the overall #1 in Dayton and not Kansas City 2000 Duke was a #1 in Winston-Salem UNC was a #8 in Birmingham Stanford was a #1 sent to Birmingham instead of Tucson 1999 Duke was a #1 in Charlotte UNC was a #3 in Seattle Auburn was a #1 in Indianpolis instead of New Orleans 1998 Duke was a #1 in Lexington (of all places) UNC was a #1 in Hartford There were no NC locations hosting first round games 1997 Duke was a #2 in Charlotte North Carolina was a #1 in Winston-Salem UCLA was a #2 and sent to Auburn Hills instead of Tucson or SL City South Carolina was a #2 sent to Pittsburgh instead of either NC location or Memphis 1996 Duke was a #8 in Indianapolis UNC was a #6 in Richmond Indiana was a #6 sent to Orlando instead of Indianapolis Iowa was a #6 sent to Tucson instead of Indy or Milwaukee Louisville was a #6 sent to Milwaukee instead of Indy 1995 Duke missed the tourney UNC was a #2 in Tallahassee Arkansas was a #2 and went to Austin instead of Memphis UMASS was a #2 in Albany UCONN was a #2 and went to SL City instead of Baltimore, Albany, or Dayton You were right on Q with my post, thanks for the info, the above says enuff.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.