PROVIDENCE, R.I. – Commissioner John Marinatto has announced that, for the sixth consecutive year, all tickets to the BIG EAST Men’s Basketball Championship presented by American Eagle Outfitters at Madison Square Garden have been sold in advance. All ticket packages for the 2011 Championship have been purchased by the 16 member institutions, negating the need for a public sale at Madison Square Garden.

The 2011 Championship will take place March 8-12 and will once again include all 16 BIG EAST teams. It will be the 32nd edition of the BIG EAST Championship and it will be the 29th tournament held in Madison Square Garden, making it the longest-running Division I men’s basketball championship at one venue. The total attendance of the tournament surpassed the 3 million mark in 2009.

This year’s championship figures to one of the BIG EAST’s most compelling tournaments. The BIG EAST has seven teams ranked in the top 25 of this week’s national polls and has had as many as nine teams crack the top 25 during the course of the season.

With no public sale, fans who wish to repurchase tickets from other fans to the 2011 BIG EAST Championship may visit StubHub, the official fan-to-fan ticket marketplace of the BIG EAST Conference. The StubHub platform allows fans the opportunity to purchase and sell unused tickets in a safe, reliable environment.

No. You want a healthy demand for your product. It keeps upward pressure on prices.

When the Steelers were working on the design for Heinz Field, the owner of the Buffalo Bills questioned the Rooneys as to why they would stop at 65,500. He was building a stadium that held 72,000 and the Steelers could easily fill that. The Rooneys understood that when times are good you can do that. When time are not as good you end up with excess supply and the price goes down. Today the Steelers have a 20 year waiting list for tickets and command top dollar for their product. The Bills have empty seats that they can't sell. You might make less in the good times, but you cover yourself for the bad times. It is all about smart business.

The other factor you are neglecting is Madison Square Garden is part of the event. If you move it to another venue, it loses a bit of the history and wonder.

Nope, it's a PERFECT venue for basketball in all ways, size included.

The Garden is a great sports venue and having the tournament in the heart of NYC I am sure makes it a awesome event (it will be on my to-do list, if/when TCU ever at least gets decent at basketball). Plus it is not even that small at 19,000+ for basketball, there are definitely bigger basketball arenas but you really don't get anything substantially bigger without playing your tournament in a domed football stadium (which sucks).

(02-19-2011 10:17 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  The Garden is a great sports venue and having the tournament in the heart of NYC I am sure makes it a awesome event (it will be on my to-do list, if/when TCU ever at least gets decent at basketball). Plus it is not even that small at 19,000+ for basketball, there are definitely bigger basketball arenas but you really don't get anything substantially bigger without playing your tournament in a domed football stadium (which sucks).

Hey! Watch it Buddy!

Actually you will always be able to get tix specially for the early matches because the number of fans to pack MSG wont be there. Now if you are talking about semis and finals thats a different story. You better be a big booster at one of the schools or be ready to pay up. You could always try to get a Depaul, USF booster to buy the tickets thru their school and then buy it from them.

The schools still have their ticket allotments to sell. So it's not like there won't be any tickets available...

As a side note, does anyone hate the use of the word "championship" instead of "tournament" (several conferences now using this). To me, the regular season winner is the conference champion. The tournament is a separate event and shouldn't be thought of as anyone's "championship." Just one pet peeve of mine.

I always tought this is how ACC made thier money,
donor levels to buy tickets are skyhi

(02-19-2011 11:13 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  As a side note, does anyone hate the use of the word "championship" instead of "tournament" (several conferences now using this). To me, the regular season winner is the conference champion. The tournament is a separate event and shouldn't be thought of as anyone's "championship." Just one pet peeve of mine.

Since the winner of the conference tournament is the one the NCAA recognizes as the conference champion, earning the conference's automatic bid, I don't see any problem with the conference tournaments being called championship tournaments. If the NCAA didn't recognize the tournament winner as the champion, then I might see your point. But since they don't, your point makes no sense...

(02-19-2011 11:13 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  As a side note, does anyone hate the use of the word "championship" instead of "tournament" (several conferences now using this). To me, the regular season winner is the conference champion. The tournament is a separate event and shouldn't be thought of as anyone's "championship." Just one pet peeve of mine.

Maybe you have this perspective because you follow a Big 10 school, and in the Big 10, the tournament is a recent thing whereas historically the regular season champ has been the more prestigious title, regarded as your true champion?

It's the exact opposite in the Big East: Like the ACC, we regard our conference tournament winner as clearly more prestigious than the regular season winner, it's the bigger prize, and the tournament winner is thus considered to be the true Big East champion.

To a Big East team, the rank-order of desirable results for a season are:

1) National champ
2) Regional champ (Final 4)
3) Big East Tournament Champ
4) Big East regular season champ

(02-19-2011 10:25 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(02-19-2011 10:17 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  The Garden is a great sports venue and having the tournament in the heart of NYC I am sure makes it a awesome event (it will be on my to-do list, if/when TCU ever at least gets decent at basketball). Plus it is not even that small at 19,000+ for basketball, there are definitely bigger basketball arenas but you really don't get anything substantially bigger without playing your tournament in a domed football stadium (which sucks).

Hey! Watch it Buddy!

LOL, sorry....wasn't specifically talking about Syracuse.

I was thinking about my Final Four experience in St. Louis and my Sweet 16 and Elite 8 experience in Houston last year. It is still fun because it is the NCAA tournament, but generally the atmosphere and the # of good seats when playing in those big NFL stadiums is low.

(02-19-2011 11:24 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Since the winner of the conference tournament is the one the NCAA recognizes as the conference champion, earning the conference's automatic bid, I don't see any problem with the conference tournaments being called championship tournaments. If the NCAA didn't recognize the tournament winner as the champion, then I might see your point. But since they don't, your point makes no sense...

I'd argue there's a difference between who's the automatic to the tournament and who's the conference champion, but it's a fair point.

Quote:Maybe you have this perspective because you follow a Big 10 school, and in the Big 10, the tournament is a recent thing whereas historically the regular season champ has been the more prestigious title, regarded as your true champion?

It's the exact opposite in the Big East: Like the ACC, we regard our conference tournament winner as clearly more prestigious than the regular season winner, it's the bigger prize, and the tournament winner is thus considered to be the true Big East champion.

To a Big East team, the rank-order of desirable results for a season are:

1) National champ
2) Regional champ (Final 4)
3) Big East Tournament Champ
4) Big East regular season champ

You're probably right. Personally I didn't start following basketball until the tournament was established, but the history is still there and that is important to me.

To me I'd rank it as:
1. National Championship
2a. Conference champ (regular season)
2b. Final Four
4. Big Ten Tournament Champ

Final Four is more prestigious than being the conference champ, but I'd much rather win the Big Ten and lose in the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 (and probably even 2nd round) than lose the Big Ten and go to the Final 4.

(02-19-2011 12:28 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Final Four is more prestigious than being the conference champ, but I'd much rather win the Big Ten and lose in the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 (and probably even 2nd round) than lose the Big Ten and go to the Final 4.

Wow .. to me, as much as i value the Big East tournament title (and i value it very highly), it just can't compare to a Final 4. Those are pan-conference nets you're cutting there ...

I know I'm in a deep minority in that position. In the end though, I guess a lot goes to my thoughts on the regular season vs. postseason. If you win the regular season title, it always feels to me like you really, really earned it. One and done tournaments though, especially with so many teams, it feels more like equal parts skill and luck. In 1999 Ohio State made the Final Four (vacated now, but it still happened) and was 2nd in the Big Ten. Last year we lost in the Sweet 16, but won the Big Ten (tied, but it's still a title). I look at the results and I just can't say that 1999 was a better year just because Ohio State won their Sweet 16 (and then Elite 8) game.

(02-19-2011 02:03 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Last year we lost in the Sweet 16, but won the Big Ten (tied, but it's still a title). I look at the results and I just can't say that 1999 was a better year just because Ohio State won their Sweet 16 (and then Elite 8) game.

I get what you're saying: no doubt, a regular season with home-away for all teams (i.e., everyone plays the same conference schedule) produces the most reliable (i.e., fluke-free) champion. Playoffs (tournaments) are a substitute when that's not possible (as in the Big East, with our 18 teams).

Nevertheless, playoffs have their advantages - they test a team's ability to perform in the crunch, under pressure, and that's a test of a champion as well.

But, don't get me started about the Big 10 and its "tie = champ" stuff, especially in football, where it is downright ridiculous. How many football teams got to print out "Big 10 champ" t-shirts this past season, three or four? i forget ... That cheapens the concept, IMO.

Thankfully, with 12 teams, the Big 10 will now be able to produce a single football champ every year ...

I can see his point. I even agree, to a certain point. But overall, the farther you go in the NCAA tourney, the better your team played when it REALLY counted...

Quote:I can see his point. I even agree, to a certain point. But overall, the farther you go in the NCAA tourney, the better your team played when it REALLY counted...

Yep and that's where it comes down to philosophy you prefer. How much influence to put on a couple games at the end vs. balancing the whole schedule. Both perspectives are legitimate and have different strengths and most major sports try to strike some balance.

(02-19-2011 02:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I get what you're saying: no doubt, a regular season with home-away for all teams (i.e., everyone plays the same conference schedule) produces the most reliable (i.e., fluke-free) champion. Playoffs (tournaments) are a substitute when that's not possible (as in the Big East, with our 18 teams).

Nevertheless, playoffs have their advantages - they test a team's ability to perform in the crunch, under pressure, and that's a test of a champion as well.

But, don't get me started about the Big 10 and its "tie = champ" stuff, especially in football, where it is downright ridiculous. How many football teams got to print out "Big 10 champ" t-shirts this past season, three or four? i forget ... That cheapens the concept, IMO.

Thankfully, with 12 teams, the Big 10 will now be able to produce a single football champ every year ...

I do agree there are definite advantages to having a playoff and think it's a ton of fun. I'm not advocating ending the NCAA Tournament or anything. I just think the tournament's very different schedules for teams and one and done nature makes it kind of a lousy way to judge a season by. How you do in conference matters more to me in that light (unless we win the national title).

As for the Big Ten, well, we'll have to disagree there. I very much feel that champions are more legitimate without a conference championship game. Yes it means ties, but I have no problem with that if the teams...well tie.

I'd argue the Big Ten's result this year, while not ideal (round robin would be better) were better than in the 3 BCS conferences with CCGs. In the Big 12 this year, we had 5, 6-2 teams, but only two were given a chance to win it all. Oklahoma was in it because they had the highest BCS rankings in their division. Meanwhile Missouri lost out to Nebraska because the 2, 6-2 teams they beat happened to be in the south. In the SEC, we had the best team in the league facing off against a Florida team who's accomplishments were probably 4th or 5th best in the conference. In the ACC, we had an 8-0 Virginia Tech team with a chance to lose to a Florida State team which already lost 2 conference games. In none of those conference, did I feel the conference championship game made things more legitimate.

(02-19-2011 10:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nope, it's a PERFECT venue for basketball in all ways, size included.

How many seats?

(02-19-2011 03:01 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I'd argue the Big Ten's result this year, while not ideal (round robin would be better) were better than in the 3 BCS conferences with CCGs. In the Big 12 this year, we had 5, 6-2 teams, but only two were given a chance to win it all. Oklahoma was in it because they had the highest BCS rankings in their division. Meanwhile Missouri lost out to Nebraska because the 2, 6-2 teams they beat happened to be in the south. In the SEC, we had the best team in the league facing off against a Florida team who's accomplishments were probably 4th or 5th best in the conference. In the ACC, we had an 8-0 Virginia Tech team with a chance to lose to a Florida State team which already lost 2 conference games. In none of those conference, did I feel the conference championship game made things more legitimate.

To me, a champ-game is unnecessary, and in fact could be harmful, if the conference schedule is designed such that everyone plays everyone else. E.g., it's not needed in the Pac 10, because all the teams play each other.

Since all the teams play each other, the Pac 10 champ is legitimately whoever has the best record. Or, if there's a two-way tie, it's whoever won the head to head matchup between the teams that tied. That's a legit tie-breaker. If it's a 3-way tie, well then it's a legit 3-way tie and that is that.

Bottom line is that with a regular season in which everyone plays everyone, it's impossible for there to be two unbeaten teams in the conference. It's only possible for there to be one unbeaten team.

But, ties of any kind have no legitimacy to me if all the team didn't play each other, because then everyone didn't play the same schedule, and so looking at the records of any two teams is an apples to oranges comparison.

If the teams don't all play each other, then you need a title game, because since everyone plays everyone else within their division, that allows you to achieve what is achieved by playing everyone - a maximum of 1 team can go undefeated in conference play.

That's not only best for determining a conference champ, it's also fairer to other conferences: If our conference is structured such that two teams can go unbeaten, or makes it easy for there to be co-champs, that makes it easier for us to get positioned higher in the BCS standings and to lobby for extra BCS bowl bids (i.e., "both teams X and Y from our conference are conference champs, so both should be in the BCS ...").