Neutral site success also requires one other major step: A move from Our Girls' Syndrome, where fans are only interested in their team, to a much broader interest in the women's game. If that were to happen, then ticket-buyers would be interested in women's basketball as a whole and not just the team they follow. Sadly, the evidence for this is lacking, as in most conference tournaments, fans don't stick around to watch other games -- they watch their team and then leave.
If they do that in conference tournaments, where they presumably have some knowledge of and connection with other teams (even if they want a particular team to lose), what would happen when the teams in the next game are from 2,000 miles away?
I also understand that attendance at the men's neutral sites has been an issue. It costs a lot to travel on short notice, so attendance is heavily linked to local interest. (And "local interest" is somewhat linked to gambling and betting on games, which doesn't happen nearly as much for women as it does for men.)
I do think there's growing interest in the women's game, but I don't know that playing tournament games in front of crowds less than those at high school playoff games will foster that growth, or hamper it.
1. TV money keeps our sport going. Viewers - regardless of their team preference desire the affirmation that this game - and by extension the tournament really matters. Empty gyms send the opposite message. Huge nearly-vacant arenas are considerably worse. Networks meanwhile, are only going to pay if lots of people care ... and part of the way that they judge that is tickets sold and screaming butts in seats. This is why nearly every commercial break begins and ends with a "fan shot". Clips of those seven-year old kids in heart wrenching tears over the Kentucky men's loss are as enduring as the fall-away three that sealed their fate in OT. Fairness and upsets will be meaningless if engagement and passion aren't nurtured.
2. The NCAA tournament is at most seven games for any team and their fans. The ~30ish other games are mostly played at home arenas. This isn't accidental. To grow the sport, we need people to participate. Dawn has done wonders in her part of filling that home arena. Yes. Part of that is winning, but another part is taking steps to engage the fans, making players accessible, telling them that the team appreciates them coming out. Vic took MSST from a couple hundred parents and friends to a regularly full arena, and is building similar momentum in Texas now. Hometown crowds are critical for such advances.
3. This is really a question of degree. Should the entire tourney be neutral, or just the FF? The new play-in games are already neutral, because participants are by-definition not high enough seeds to earn a home date. Look at the data, first and second round upsets are on the rise already. All the talk about UCONN potentially playing the regional rounds in-state is interesting, but why do you suppose Bridgeport wins the bidding to be a host? Tinfoil hats aside, it is because they continually get fervent crowds that fill their seats, buy their hotdogs, and stay in nearby hotels. This is not lost on the NCAA, who are planning to revise the regional siting, but have planned Greensboro South Carolina as a "neutral" site in the coming years.
4. Are there really neutral sites at all? Every significant city in the country has an NCAA team (or a dozen) nearby. We're not going to pay to have the entire event take place in Europe. And if we pick a great location like the Bahamas, do you really think that the two sides will be equally represented in their attendance?
5. Finally, let's talk fairness. Is it fair to a team that proves itself all year to be placed on equal footing with the sub- .500 team who got hot in their conference tournament? Will we start having a round-robin of the one-seeds to keep the most balanced? Then the twos, and so on, essentially running the entire bracket in reverse. That would be the most fair, but it fundamentally changes the event - and probably not in a way that benefits the growth of the sport.
I would prefer neutral sites. Clay and other old-timers cite Our Girls Syndrome as a potential problem, and it might be for several years until people get used to the idea, but once they get used to it, they will show up. Tennessee, UConn, and Notre Dame fans, for instance, are notorious for showing up *wherever*. You can't naysay something until you keep it going. It has to be and established policy for awhile, not just one or two years.
I am an old-timer, possibly even older at this than Clay is. And I'm NOT from California. I live in Virginia now, but am from Tennessee via Wisconsin and a Lady Vols fan from the time Pat Summitt took over the team, which would put me at 1973. I am also a JMU fan, a Missouri State fan, and a kind of new Montana State fan. I've been impressed by how the Montana State fans show up wherever and travel to see their team; in fact, the Big Sky conference in general is kind of impressive that way, maybe because they're used to driving long distances anyway. The Summit conference is a bit the same way. So you have to look at other places that might even be a little remote, and (oh horrors!) at the non-P5s. I also live in a town with a couple of D-III schools, and let me tell you, their fans are CRAZY and will follow their teams around! Where I used to live, there is a D-II that has fans like that too.
Neutral site success also requires one other major step: A move from Our Girls' Syndrome, where fans are only interested in their team, to a much broader interest in the women's game. If that were to happen, then ticket-buyers would be interested in women's basketball as a whole and not just the team they follow. Sadly, the evidence for this is lacking, as in most conference tournaments, fans don't stick around to watch other games -- they watch their team and then leave.
If they do that in conference tournaments, where they presumably have some knowledge of and connection with other teams (even if they want a particular team to lose), what would happen when the teams in the next game are from 2,000 miles away?
I also understand that attendance at the men's neutral sites has been an issue. It costs a lot to travel on short notice, so attendance is heavily linked to local interest. (And "local interest" is somewhat linked to gambling and betting on games, which doesn't happen nearly as much for women as it does for men.)
I do think there's growing interest in the women's game, but I don't know that playing tournament games in front of crowds less than those at high school playoff games will foster that growth, or hamper it.
1. TV money keeps our sport going. Viewers - regardless of their team preference desire the affirmation that this game - and by extension the tournament really matters. Empty gyms send the opposite message. Huge nearly-vacant arenas are considerably worse. Networks meanwhile, are only going to pay if lots of people care ... and part of the way that they judge that is tickets sold and screaming butts in seats. This is why nearly every commercial break begins and ends with a "fan shot". Clips of those seven-year old kids in heart wrenching tears over the Kentucky men's loss are as enduring as the fall-away three that sealed their fate in OT. Fairness and upsets will be meaningless if engagement and passion aren't nurtured.
2. The NCAA tournament is at most seven games for any team and their fans. The ~30ish other games are mostly played at home arenas. This isn't accidental. To grow the sport, we need people to participate. Dawn has done wonders in her part of filling that home arena. Yes. Part of that is winning, but another part is taking steps to engage the fans, making players accessible, telling them that the team appreciates them coming out. Vic took MSST from a couple hundred parents and friends to a regularly full arena, and is building similar momentum in Texas now. Hometown crowds are critical for such advances.
3. This is really a question of degree. Should the entire tourney be neutral, or just the FF? The new play-in games are already neutral, because participants are by-definition not high enough seeds to earn a home date. Look at the data, first and second round upsets are on the rise already. All the talk about UCONN potentially playing the regional rounds in-state is interesting, but why do you suppose Bridgeport wins the bidding to be a host? Tinfoil hats aside, it is because they continually get fervent crowds that fill their seats, buy their hotdogs, and stay in nearby hotels. This is not lost on the NCAA, who are planning to revise the regional siting, but have planned Greensboro South Carolina as a "neutral" site in the coming years.
4. Are there really neutral sites at all? Every significant city in the country has an NCAA team (or a dozen) nearby. We're not going to pay to have the entire event take place in Europe. And if we pick a great location like the Bahamas, do you really think that the two sides will be equally represented in their attendance?
5. Finally, let's talk fairness. Is it fair to a team that proves itself all year to be placed on equal footing with the sub- .500 team who got hot in their conference tournament? Will we start having a round-robin of the one-seeds to keep the most balanced? Then the twos, and so on, essentially running the entire bracket in reverse. That would be the most fair, but it fundamentally changes the event - and probably not in a way that benefits the growth of the sport.
I would prefer neutral sites. Clay and other old-timers cite Our Girls Syndrome as a potential problem, and it might be for several years until people get used to the idea, but once they get used to it, they will show up. Tennessee, UConn, and Notre Dame fans, for instance, are notorious for showing up *wherever*. You can't naysay something until you keep it going. It has to be and established policy for awhile, not just one or two years.
I am an old-timer, possibly even older at this than Clay is. And I'm NOT from California. I live in Virginia now, but am from Tennessee via Wisconsin and a Lady Vols fan from the time Pat Summitt took over the team, which would put me at 1973. I am also a JMU fan, a Missouri State fan, and a kind of new Montana State fan. I've been impressed by how the Montana State fans show up wherever and travel to see their team; in fact, the Big Sky conference in general is kind of impressive that way, maybe because they're used to driving long distances anyway. The Summit conference is a bit the same way. So you have to look at other places that might even be a little remote, and (oh horrors!) at the non-P5s. I also live in a town with a couple of D-III schools, and let me tell you, their fans are CRAZY and will follow their teams around! Where I used to live, there is a D-II that has fans like that too.