Home games in Tournament

[Hawqize]

I’m sure this has been discussed before, but . . . . . .

We lost to a better team, but is OK 30+ points better than us? No. Something has to change in the women’s tournament—teams playing at home gives teams an unfair advantage and if neutral sites are deemed the best way to determine the better teams in the men’s game, the women should be treated the same. I’d like to hear the official reason women’s teams are awarded home games.

 

[QChawks]

It’s all about money.

If they can get 8-10k fans guaranteed for 1st and 2nd round natural site games they would move them in a heartbeat.

 

[hawkeye_wx]

An announcer said they tried neutral sites for the women one year and they had empty arenas.

 

[Titanhawk2]

I’m sure this has been discussed before, but . . . . . .

We lost to a better team, but is OK 30+ points better than us? No. Something has to change in the women’s tournament—teams playing at home gives teams an unfair advantage and if neutral sites are deemed the best way to determine the better teams in the men’s game, the women should be treated the same. I’d like to hear the official reason women’s teams are awarded home games.

15 point beating on a neutral site wouldn't be any different. Hell their 3rd string was perfect from 3 I think

 

[jaxhawk06]

Now we complain when we have to go on the road for once

 

[mvhomerl]

Now we complain when we have to go on the road for once

Exactly.

 

[EagleHawk]

As mentioned above, attendance. Some of these teams can't fill their arena for a home game in the tournament, how many people do you think are going to travel more than an hour watch. Hell, for most years, UConn can make the final four without going more than an hour from campus. Host the first two rounds, then play the Sweet 16 in Hartford or Boston or somewhere else a quick drive from campus. The NCAA knows that they will put people in the seats so they are rewarded.

 

[toddhawkwi]

As much as Caitlin Clark changed and energized women's basketball, sadly it wasn't enough to make that suggestion viable. The top 16 teams hosting games is still probably the only way the first 2 rounds have full (or mostly full) gyms. Viewership this year is still higher than before Caitlin Clark but it is down quite a bit from last year.

 

[Kinnick 4 Prez]

My issue with having higher teams host two games is the blowouts that’s till occur.
From Monday: 34,34,34,30,17,37.
Men’s biggest blowout from the weekend was 23.
I get it women need to sell tix and that will only happen at home courts, but the competitiveness is lacking. Wonder if it showed in tv ratings.

 

[WSC72]

Where was this complaint last year?

 

[Beattheohiostate]

I’m sure this has been discussed before, but . . . . . .

We lost to a better team, but is OK 30+ points better than us? No. Something has to change in the women’s tournament—teams playing at home gives teams an unfair advantage and if neutral sites are deemed the best way to determine the better teams in the men’s game, the women should be treated the same. I’d like to hear the official reason women’s teams are awarded home games.

Lisa Bluder was asked about that very thing not long ago, and she said she absolutely thought the top teams should continue to host. She said it was a reward for success and, of course, it was good for attendance (money).

And I don't see neutral sites coming anytime soon, if ever. Attendance would be abysmal. Frankly, unless Iowa is playing or Caitlin is playing, I can't stand two seconds of women's basketball, college or pro. And if it hadn't been for CC, I wouldn't be watching Iowa or the Fever now.

BTW: The biggest improvement the women could make, IMHO, would be to find some way to officiate basketball in a fair, intelligent, unbiased manner. I don't think three volunteers from the crowd could do worse. I mean, how could they?

 

[Hawksbyamillion]

Lisa Bluder was asked about that very thing not long ago, and she said she absolutely thought the top teams should continue to host. She said it was a reward for success and, of course, it was good for attendance (money).

And I don't see neutral sites coming anytime soon, if ever. Attendance would be abysmal. Frankly, unless Iowa is playing or Caitlin is playing, I can't stand two seconds of women's basketball, college or pro. And if it hadn't been for CC, I wouldn't be watching Iowa or the Fever now.

BTW: The biggest improvement the women could make, IMHO, would be to find some way to officiate basketball in a fair, intelligent, unbiased manner. I don't think three volunteers from the crowd could do worse. I mean, how could they?

I hope with the advances in AI that we’ll get robots as officials one day.

 

[Cymonhawk]

Lisa Bluder was asked about that very thing not long ago, and she said she absolutely thought the top teams should continue to host. She said it was a reward for success and, of course, it was good for attendance (money).

And I don't see neutral sites coming anytime soon, if ever. Attendance would be abysmal. Frankly, unless Iowa is playing or Caitlin is playing, I can't stand two seconds of women's basketball, college or pro. And if it hadn't been for CC, I wouldn't be watching Iowa or the Fever now.

BTW: The biggest improvement the women could make, IMHO, would be to find some way to officiate basketball in a fair, intelligent, unbiased manner. I don't think three volunteers from the crowd could do worse. I mean, how could they?

Larry, Curly and Moe couldn't do worse. That flagrant foul on Hannah was criminal and It changed the game.

 

[CerroGordoHawk]

I completely disagree and I wish the first weekend of the men’s tournament was campus games. This is “college” sports after all.

 

[millah_22]

Nothing has to change with the women's tournament. This sounds like sour grapes.

 

[Titanhawk2]

My issue with having higher teams host two games is the blowouts that’s till occur.
From Monday: 34,34,34,30,17,37.
Men’s biggest blowout from the weekend was 23.
I get it women need to sell tix and that will only happen at home courts, but the competitiveness is lacking. Wonder if it showed in tv ratings.

Those blowouts would happen on the road as well. The talent gap between the top 12-15 and lower is still huge

 

[littlez]

Those blowouts would happen on the road as well. The talent gap between the top 12-15 and lower is still huge

It’s huge. It’s not until you get to the Elite 8 that games get truly competitive. There’s a few good ones in there, Maryland played great against SC but came up just short, but there is still a huge talent disparity. Michigan, Michigan State, Iowa were all absolutely blown out in the round of 32. Now they were the lower seed but the games were not competitive. Ohio State looked pretty bad for having a home game. Would have loved to have seen a healthy JuJu against UConn. Don’t think they have much chance now. Think UCLA and UConn are the 2 best teams. We will see what happens.