CSNbbs

Shreveport? Jeepers!

A neutral site for a league like CUSA is a sure-fire way to kill attendance.

(06-12-2015 04:01 PM)hooverblazer Wrote: [ -> ]A neutral site for a league like CUSA is a sure-fire way to kill attendance.

So is splitting the men's and women's tournaments into different cities or different dates.

(06-12-2015 04:00 PM)KevMo4UAB Wrote: [ -> ]Shreveport? Jeepers!

There isn't anything wrong with Shreveport. There is more to do in Shreveport than Birmingham.

A neutral site is a horrible idea.

Neutral site isn't happening. No neutral site city is going to make an adequate bid, in large part because they known they aren't likely to recoup their investment.

Sure a "neutral" city can be said to be more fair. But there aren't many truly neutral sites. Biloxi? Pretty close to USM. Shreveport? Favors La Tech, obviously. Most places I have seen thrown out as "neutral sites" are going to be close to some fanbase which would obviously give their fans an easier drive and therefore more of a home-court advantage.

I don't know what the other bids have been last year or for the upcoming year, but I know CUSA isn't stupid. They wouldn't be awarding this to Birmingham if it wasn't in the best interest of the league financially.

(06-12-2015 04:42 PM)Blazer85 Wrote: [ -> ]Neutral site isn't happening. No neutral site city is going to make an adequate bid, in large part because they known they aren't likely to recoup their investment.

Sure a "neutral" city can be said to be more fair. But there aren't many truly neutral sites. Biloxi? Pretty close to USM. Shreveport? Favors La Tech, obviously. Most places I have seen thrown out as "neutral sites" are going to be close to some fanbase which would obviously give their fans an easier drive and therefore more of a home-court advantage.

I don't know what the other bids have been last year or for the upcoming year, but I know CUSA isn't stupid. They wouldn't be awarding this to Birmingham if it wasn't in the best interest of the league financially.

I still think enough complainers might get it pushed to New Orleans.

(06-12-2015 04:46 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]I still think enough complainers might get it pushed to New Orleans.

That's the one and only neutral-site location that might actually work.

Even still, I'd say that Birmingham or another C-USA-specific city (El Paso, Charlotte, etc) makes more sense. But NOLA could work.

(06-12-2015 04:46 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-12-2015 04:42 PM)Blazer85 Wrote: [ -> ]Neutral site isn't happening. No neutral site city is going to make an adequate bid, in large part because they known they aren't likely to recoup their investment.

Sure a "neutral" city can be said to be more fair. But there aren't many truly neutral sites. Biloxi? Pretty close to USM. Shreveport? Favors La Tech, obviously. Most places I have seen thrown out as "neutral sites" are going to be close to some fanbase which would obviously give their fans an easier drive and therefore more of a home-court advantage.

I don't know what the other bids have been last year or for the upcoming year, but I know CUSA isn't stupid. They wouldn't be awarding this to Birmingham if it wasn't in the best interest of the league financially.

I still think enough complainers might get it pushed to New Orleans.

Which, again, New Orleans is less than 2 hrs from Hattiesburg. Not that I'm against it ever being held there, but I wish people in the conference would quit pretending there is a legitimate neutral option. Just because it isn't played on your home floor or in your home city doesn't make it neutral.

And as I said, it's about money and bids. I don't think New Orleans would make a bid for the CUSA tournament. At least not with the same financial commitment as a city like Birmingham.

(06-12-2015 04:26 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-12-2015 04:00 PM)KevMo4UAB Wrote: [ -> ]Shreveport? Jeepers!

There isn't anything wrong with Shreveport. There is more to do in Shreveport than Birmingham.

This is the most absurd thing I've read in a very long time.

(06-12-2015 04:55 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-12-2015 04:46 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]I still think enough complainers might get it pushed to New Orleans.

That's the one and only neutral-site location that might actually work.

Even still, I'd say that Birmingham or another C-USA-specific city (El Paso, Charlotte, etc) makes more sense. But NOLA could work.

Sun Belt tournament is already played there.

(06-12-2015 04:24 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-12-2015 04:01 PM)hooverblazer Wrote: [ -> ]A neutral site for a league like CUSA is a sure-fire way to kill attendance.

So is splitting the men's and women's tournaments into different cities or different dates.

C-USA has done that before.

(06-12-2015 04:26 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-12-2015 04:00 PM)KevMo4UAB Wrote: [ -> ]Shreveport? Jeepers!

There isn't anything wrong with Shreveport. There is more to do in Shreveport than Birmingham.

Shreveport favors LA Tech and as pointed out the article it doesn't have the second adequate second facility, so it will never compete favorably Birmingham's BJCC and Bartow. Last I checked, which was some time ago, it wasn't easy to access by air. The only thing that Shreveport has is crappy casinos and a population that thinks they live in Texas. Not on my list of cities I would ever want visit again.

(06-12-2015 06:50 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-12-2015 04:26 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-12-2015 04:00 PM)KevMo4UAB Wrote: [ -> ]Shreveport? Jeepers!

There isn't anything wrong with Shreveport. There is more to do in Shreveport than Birmingham.

Shreveport favors LA Tech and as pointed out the article it doesn't have the second adequate second facility, so it will never compete favorably Birmingham's BJCC and Bartow. Last I checked, which was some time ago, it wasn't easy to access by air. The only thing that Shreveport has is crappy casinos and a population that thinks they live in Texas. Not on my list of cities I would ever want visit again.

And look at the respect its bowl game seems to get - "The Weed-Eater Bowl" is kind compared to some monikers. Like any city, if it has what you like, it is a good location.

what about memphis for neutral site ?

(06-12-2015 06:42 PM)BlazerGold09 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-12-2015 04:26 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-12-2015 04:00 PM)KevMo4UAB Wrote: [ -> ]Shreveport? Jeepers!

There isn't anything wrong with Shreveport. There is more to do in Shreveport than Birmingham.

This is the most absurd thing I've read in a very long time.

And why is that? Is it because you don't read a lot? I can name three things in Downtown Shreveport that trumps anything that Birmingham has: river boardwalk, riverboats, and gambling. Your turn.......

(06-12-2015 07:06 PM)UABFRENCHY Wrote: [ -> ]what about memphis for neutral site ?

Memphis is a nice central location with relatively short drives for some teams and good air accommodations for others. However, I would think University of Memphis would like to be hosting the American Conference Tournament at the same time in the Pyramid.

Like any neutral site city, Memphis would have to outbid cities like UAB/Birmingham to get the men's and women's tournaments. (In the end, it's all about money.) Like some other potential neutral sites, without the guarantee that "home" team will have a lot of fans in attendance, it will be hard for a couple of facilities in Memphis to make a large bid, unless the city itself contributes in order to bring in tourist dollars.

I think that the Memphis coach is indulging in some wishful thinking because he doesn't want to face UAB in Birmingham every year - the same way we didn't like have to take on Memphis in Memphis every year, but we'll see.

while i think a neutral site would hurt attendance, I'm not against it. i do think that splitting the men's and women's tournaments to different sites would KILL womens attendance

Yep. Many of the Topper fans stayed after Nick Norton destroyed their hopes with his legendary five second call (which goes the way of the dodo this season, by the way) and supported the ladies.