Jump to content

NCAA Tourney Thread


UAZip0510

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, NWAkron said:

 

A lot of similarities to Akron

 

Quote

Then he must generate enough interest on a mostly commuter campus in a large, metropolitan region where the preferred sports are pro, and in particular football.

Quote

Generating school spirit in the conventional sense on these campuses is difficult. The student body, which in UTA's case is more than 41,000, is varied. Oftentimes the students are adults with jobs, and sometimes with children. Going to a basketball game is a luxury.

 

Despite having a relatively new basketball arena, a larger student body, and larger metro area they still have the same issues as us in not being able to fill their basketball arena. Makes you question the logic when people say a new arena will fix Akron's attendance problems. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kreed5120 said:

 

A lot of similarities to Akron

 

 

Despite having a relatively new basketball arena, a larger student body, and larger metro area they still have the same issues as us in not being able to fill their basketball arena. Makes you question the logic when people say a new arena will fix Akron's attendance problems. 

The arena is not the issue.  A full and rocking JAR is an awesome environment for a game.  Groce and his volatility and emotion will really get things going when we are back on top again.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capacity-wise, the JAR is fine. It's just an bush-league facility.  Bad sight lines, and high school gym seating.

 

No loges. No beer sales. 

 

At $60 per season ticket, it's worth it as-is. But before I die it is my dream to sit in a revamped JAR, in a soft-cushion seat that angles towards mid-court, with a beer, watching the Zips.

 

I think I paid $200/seat this year? I'd pay $500/seat in the re-vamped arena.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

Anyone know why they don't sell beer in the JAR currently?

 

With how bad MAC refs are and how close in proximity some of the fans are to the court, it's probably to protect the zebras from getting an early shower. Bottlegate 2.0?:tomato:

Edited by Let'sGoZips94
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

Anyone know why they don't sell beer in the JAR currently?

 

Because I can't handle my alcohol.  :cheers:

 

I'd love to see a revamp of the JAR, ditching that awful track and the glass divider and improving some of the sight lines.  That being said, I'm lucky to see a court for $60 a season!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, zippy5 said:

I will go to my grave thinking the UTA game against us last year was the best basketball performance I've ever seen. I'm convinced they would have beaten anyone in the country that night.

I have a good friend who is communication director for Arlington, Texas.  He said they were ready to run a puff piece on Cross about him and his dream job.  They had to pull it.  He said the university president is a prick.  Take a note Board of Trustees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hilltopper said:

I've been told it's a logistics problem. No place in the JAR to support the infrastructure needed.

The men's and Women's Basketball Team Rooms would make great beer distribution points.  Both have mega screen Tv's so  you can watch Reghi while you get another brew.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, NWAkron said:

 

That's just brutal. So much for build it and they will come.

 

And how much truth is packed into this line?

"The NCAA tourney system is rigged against schools such as UTA, and nothing the school did by firing Cross changes anything about its situation."


 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Captain Kangaroo said:

 

Three thoughts...

 

1) The play-in games are a money-grab joke, especially the 11 seeds to squeeze every last dime possible out of the upper echelon level of schools. 

 

2) The field was expanded to 64 in 1985. How many teams have been added to the Division I level of competition since? That would be interesting to know.

 

3) These coaches need to realize it's all about quality of wins, not quantity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

 

Three thoughts...

 

1) The play-in games are a money-grab joke, especially the 11 seeds to squeeze every last dime possible out of the upper echelon level of schools. 

 

2) The field was expanded to 64 in 1985. How many teams have been added to the Division I level of competition since? That would be interesting to know.

 

3) These coaches need to realize it's all about quality of wins, not quantity. 

There isn't that many Div 1 basketball schools, somewhere around 350. Why not just let everyone in? Seed geographically and the first 2-3 rounds are played at the home of the higher seed. They pay out to the visiting team a set dollar amount ($say $100,000). Then reseed for the rest of the tourney which would resemble what we have today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Steve1982 said:

There isn't that many Div 1 basketball schools, somewhere around 350. Why not just let everyone in? Seed geographically and the first 2-3 rounds are played at the home of the higher seed. They pay out to the visiting team a set dollar amount ($say $100,000). Then reseed for the rest of the tourney which would resemble what we have today.

Because nobody wants to watch 4-28 Delaware State play Villanova. There is such a thing as watering down your product too much.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve1982 said:

There isn't that many Div 1 basketball schools, somewhere around 350. Why not just let everyone in? Seed geographically and the first 2-3 rounds are played at the home of the higher seed. They pay out to the visiting team a set dollar amount ($say $100,000). Then reseed for the rest of the tourney which would resemble what we have today.

 

There are 351 DI men's basketball teams to be exact, compared to 130 DI FBS football teams. I'd say that's a lot of DI men's basketball teams. My question was directed at the number of teams admitted to the DI ranks since 1985, the last time there was a significant tourney format change. There were 42(?) teams in 1984, but how many DI schools were there in total? 

 

Heck no they all shouldn't make the tournament. That would be the death of March Madness and college basketball as a whole. 

Edited by Let'sGoZips94
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sendy's proposal was to add 32, well, 28, to get to 96. It would add one extra round, which I'd definitely be okay with. You're still at under 1/3 of teams in the tourney, as opposed to over half of NCAAFB teams I think.. My opinion is that I think the public would view the first round the way they view the "first four," aka not really in the tournament yet. If there were 96 teams, I think you'd have to give 32 teams byes, and 64 would play to get into the round of 64. While I don't think I have anything against the idea, I don't think fans will really have that "we made the tourney" feel unless they get to that round of 64 game. Which is a whole lot of a better chance than mid-majors get now, so I'm for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, zippy5 said:

Sendy's proposal was to add 32, well, 28, to get to 96. It would add one extra round, which I'd definitely be okay with. You're still at under 1/3 of teams in the tourney, as opposed to over half of NCAAFB teams I think.. My opinion is that I think the public would view the first round the way they view the "first four," aka not really in the tournament yet. If there were 96 teams, I think you'd have to give 32 teams byes, and 64 would play to get into the round of 64. While I don't think I have anything against the idea, I don't think fans will really have that "we made the tourney" feel unless they get to that round of 64 game. Which is a whole lot of a better chance than mid-majors get now, so I'm for it.

 

Do you really think if the tournament was expanded, the committee/NCAA would push to give mid-majors more of a chance? Do you think they'd really make a change to benefit mid-majors? 

 

They literally added more play-in games for the 11-seed spot in order to dip into some bigger schools' pockets at least one last time for the season. There are ~.500 P5 schools making the tournament over 20+ win mid-majors. 

 

Expanding the tournament to 96 teams believing mid-majors would have a better chance to make it to the round of 64 is like people who don't trust the government, voting to grow the government and give it more power. The little guy would continue to get squeezed out.

Edited by Let'sGoZips94
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

 

Do you really think if the tournament was expanded, the committee/NCAA would push to give mid-majors more of a chance? Do you think they'd really make a change to benefit mid-majors? 

 

Even if 1 of the extra 32 teams was a mid-major, that would be a better chance. So count me in for a "yes"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...