MBB: Landmark Conference

[Bucket]

Bucket,  this is always going to happen when a host loses round 1.  I understand all the issues with neutral site hosting and the money lost.  I also understand that the idea of playing a road game in front of 2000 people (potentially) is a thrill for the student athlete.  But so is playing in front of 1-2k fans at a neutral site in salem, which you potentially take away.  I just have trouble wrapping my hands around the idea that, because of the ripple effect, a womens game in amherst could conceivably cost Cabrini a final four trip. 

Of course, the other answer would be to ditch the NCAA geographical diversity program and clump regions together irregardless of strength.  As bad as that might sound, is it really worse than a system where the No. 2 MA team hosts over the #1 NE team, while the #1 MA team travels to the #2 NE team?

I acknowledged that this is always going to happen when a host loses round 1. But to purposefully schedule games would be a mistake.

As I've stated before, I  understand Cabrini's disappointment. I really do. But Cabrini was never a clear cut favorite to host. It was always a toss up between Middlebury and Cabrini. It could have gone either way. It's not like last year when Midd had to travel to Rochester because of the 500-mile rule. And again, a reminder about what happened last year: Midd went to Rochester, won two games, and went on to Salem. Cabrini can do the same thing this weekend. Having to travel isn't going to "cost" them anything other than gas money and hotels.

If Midd was traveling to PA this weekend, I would feel bad for the Middlebury community, I would personally miss experiencing another electric moment in Pepin, but I would also know that the players, the team, would be fine. If they were to be considered the best team among the four, then they would go and win, regardless of where the games are played. And I'm sure the Cabrini team, if not its fans, will come up to Vermont with the same attitude.

[cold_case]

Bucket,  this is always going to happen when a host loses round 1.  I understand all the issues with neutral site hosting and the money lost.  I also understand that the idea of playing a road game in front of 2000 people (potentially) is a thrill for the student athlete.  But so is playing in front of 1-2k fans at a neutral site in salem, which you potentially take away.  I just have trouble wrapping my hands around the idea that, because of the ripple effect, a womens game in amherst could conceivably cost Cabrini a final four trip. 

Of course, the other answer would be to ditch the NCAA geographical diversity program and clump regions together irregardless of strength.  As bad as that might sound, is it really worse than a system where the No. 2 MA team hosts over the #1 NE team, while the #1 MA team travels to the #2 NE team?

I acknowledged that this is always going to happen when a host loses round 1. But to purposefully schedule games would be a mistake.

As I've stated before, I  understand Cabrini's disappointment. I really do. But Cabrini was never a clear cut favorite to host. It was always a toss up between Middlebury and Cabrini. It could have gone either way. It's not like last year when Midd had to travel to Rochester because of the 500-mile rule. And again, a reminder about what happened last year: Midd went to Rochester, won two games, and went on to Salem. Cabrini can do the same thing this weekend. Having to travel isn't going to "cost" them anything other than gas money and hotels.

If Midd was traveling to PA this weekend, I would feel bad for the Middlebury community, I would personally miss experiencing another electric moment in Pepin, but I would also know that the players, the team, would be fine. If they were to be considered the best team among the four, then they would go and win, regardless of where the games are played. And I'm sure the Cabrini team, if not its fans, will come up to Vermont with the same attitude.

Yeah, that's all. Just gas money and hotels, right, Mr. Rockefeller?
Unreal!
This is D-III, not UCLA, Kentucky, Duke, UNC or whomever.

[Reserved Seat]

cold_case, no bias on your part?

[Reserved Seat]

I'd love to see F&M, Cabrini, and/or Scranton in the Final Four to get our region more respect.

[NEPAFAN]

Can anyone tell me how they see Scranton and Middlebury matching up?


We know from Hoopsville that our own D-MAC thinks it is a nightmare matchup for the Royals.

[Pat Coleman]

Pat, I appreciate your acknowledgement of a bias towards F&M in the 1980's and '90's and of course the F&M partisans are going to agree.
I'm not directing anything towards you. What I'm saying is my lengthy post earlier about the sectional site would never have been posted if they moved the Amherst women to Saturday and Sunday afternoons.
But, when there is an abnormality, you can bet it will benefit F&M.
I know Amherst would not balk at moving games around since nothing would be different.
And that's the gist of my post regarding the court jesters that are the selection committees, especially in this region.
Maybe they want Glenny to win that ever-elusive national title.

Maybe they hope he'll retire if he does?

The NCAA isn't going to move games to Sunday. There are a handful of Division III schools who will not play on Sunday for religious reasons, so they avoid that like the plague for scheduling. That's now basically a last resort for weather purposes. Sectionals have been relocated many times in the past decade without F&M being involved, too. It just happens. It is not a conspiracy, guys.

[onetinsoldier]

Bucket,  this is always going to happen when a host loses round 1.  I understand all the issues with neutral site hosting and the money lost.  I also understand that the idea of playing a road game in front of 2000 people (potentially) is a thrill for the student athlete.  But so is playing in front of 1-2k fans at a neutral site in salem, which you potentially take away.  I just have trouble wrapping my hands around the idea that, because of the ripple effect, a womens game in amherst could conceivably cost Cabrini a final four trip. 

Of course, the other answer would be to ditch the NCAA geographical diversity program and clump regions together irregardless of strength.  As bad as that might sound, is it really worse than a system where the No. 2 MA team hosts over the #1 NE team, while the #1 MA team travels to the #2 NE team?

As I've stated before, I  understand Cabrini's disappointment. I really do. But Cabrini was never a clear cut favorite to host. It was always a toss up between Middlebury and Cabrini. It could have gone either way. It's not like last year when Midd had to travel to Rochester because of the 500-mile rule. And again, a reminder about what happened last year: Midd went to Rochester, won two games, and went on to Salem. Cabrini can do the same thing this weekend. Having to travel isn't going to "cost" them anything other than gas money and hotels.

If Midd was traveling to PA this weekend, I would feel bad for the Middlebury community, I would personally miss experiencing another electric moment in Pepin, but I would also know that the players, the team, would be fine. If they were to be considered the best team among the four, then they would go and win, regardless of where the games are played. And I'm sure the Cabrini team, if not its fans, will come up to Vermont with the same attitude.

I think the difference between 2011 and 2012 is that last year, there was no question who the better and more deserving team was between Middlebury and Rochester.  This year, its virtually a coin flip.  And as we see countless times in all levels of college basketball, sometimes homefield advantage is the deciding factor.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Bucket,  this is always going to happen when a host loses round 1.  I understand all the issues with neutral site hosting and the money lost.  I also understand that the idea of playing a road game in front of 2000 people (potentially) is a thrill for the student athlete.  But so is playing in front of 1-2k fans at a neutral site in salem, which you potentially take away.  I just have trouble wrapping my hands around the idea that, because of the ripple effect, a womens game in amherst could conceivably cost Cabrini a final four trip. 

Of course, the other answer would be to ditch the NCAA geographical diversity program and clump regions together irregardless of strength.  As bad as that might sound, is it really worse than a system where the No. 2 MA team hosts over the #1 NE team, while the #1 MA team travels to the #2 NE team?

As I've stated before, I  understand Cabrini's disappointment. I really do. But Cabrini was never a clear cut favorite to host. It was always a toss up between Middlebury and Cabrini. It could have gone either way. It's not like last year when Midd had to travel to Rochester because of the 500-mile rule. And again, a reminder about what happened last year: Midd went to Rochester, won two games, and went on to Salem. Cabrini can do the same thing this weekend. Having to travel isn't going to "cost" them anything other than gas money and hotels.

If Midd was traveling to PA this weekend, I would feel bad for the Middlebury community, I would personally miss experiencing another electric moment in Pepin, but I would also know that the players, the team, would be fine. If they were to be considered the best team among the four, then they would go and win, regardless of where the games are played. And I'm sure the Cabrini team, if not its fans, will come up to Vermont with the same attitude.

I think the difference between 2011 and 2012 is that last year, there was no question who the better and more deserving team was between Middlebury and Rochester.  This year, its virtually a coin flip.  And as we see countless times in all levels of college basketball, sometimes homefield advantage is the deciding factor.

It's not a coin flip - only by the metrics the NCAA uses to choose and rank teams.  I'm not sure the decision on hosting is limited to those factors.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Can anyone tell me how they see Scranton and Middlebury matching up?


We know from Hoopsville that our own D-MAC thinks it is a nightmare matchup for the Royals.

Middlebury is a nightmare matchup for anyone - just ask Amherst.  Midd plays killer defense and they're loaded with talent.  No one wants to play them.

[Bucket]

I'd love to see F&M, Cabrini, and/or Scranton in the Final Four to get our region more respect.

I'm not sure how the Mid-Atlantic is being disrespected, Reserved Seat. I certainly have plenty of respect for the three teams you mention and would not be surprised if any of those three advanced to Salem.

[ronk]

  The fans ought to be a consideration in a sectional hosting decision. They were definitely a factor in Scranton overcoming an 18-pt deficit with 8 mins remaining in the 1st round game. A segment wouldn't let the Royals lose without a fight; it spread to the rest of the fans and onto the players who were visibly affected. A bunch of 3s helped and the players took it from there, carrying over thru the 2nd round game, because the fans could make the 2-hour trek to Wayne, NJ from Scranton or the Philly suburbs.
  I agree with Dave McHugh that the NCAA preferred that the 2 sectionals would be in separate areas and, since Amherst couldn't host this year, it meant F&M and Middlebury, instead of Amherst and Cabrini, or geographically, Scranton and Staten Island.

[cold_case]

I agree with Dave McHugh that the NCAA preferred that the 2 sectionals would be in separate areas and, since Amherst couldn't host this year, it meant F&M and Middlebury, instead of Amherst and Cabrini, or geographically, Scranton and Staten Island.

Why? Was the selection committee fearful of the ratings suffering in the Midddle Atlantic Region market? 

[ronk]

 Where's Gordon going to be? Middlebury with Cabrini or F&M?

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Where's Gordon going to be? Middlebury with Cabrini or F&M?

If he has a choice, F&M.

[cold_case]

cold_case, no bias on your part?

Last I checked, this is the Landmark board which Scranton is a member of ...