(06-04-2014 06:43 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I have no problem with Texas getting it with the rules currently about sites....

What I have a problem with is that they aren't using at least "pseudo" neutral sites like they do in the NCAA basketball tourneys (both men's and women's). I see no reason baseball can't do that as well.

Remember, playing playoff games at non-neutral sites is not unusual. E.g., in the NFL, every playoff game except the last one is played at some participant's home stadium.

In the case of college baseball, fan interest is simply too low. You hold a Texas/UH super-regional in San Antonio, and you run a much greater risk of empty seats. And anyway, the championship round, the CWS is played at a neutral site.

The bids are not about the NCAA losing money. The bid process ensures that the NCAA cannot lose money even if no fans show at all. The bid guarantees that the NCAA will receive $X regardless of circumstance. Period. Carry on.

You have to host at one of the two teams stadium. Make no mistake, IMO, this i about the NCAA giving into the big boys to protect their job security. We are talking about chump change in the grand scheme of things.....and spare me this crap that teams would lose money or the super would have poor attendance. Show me some examples of recent supers that had tons of empty seats? The NCAA admitted that Houston was one of the highest #2 seeds in the tourney, their "student-athletes" earned the right to host. They further proved their worth by going to the toughest park in the country and beating LSU.....their reward is to go to another tough place to play.

(06-04-2014 09:59 PM)RedMountain Wrote:  The bids are not about the NCAA losing money. The bid process ensures that the NCAA cannot lose money even if no fans show at all. The bid guarantees that the NCAA will receive $X regardless of circumstance. Period. Carry on.

Good point. So that means the bids are about making money for the NCAA. And who can blame them for using that as a tie-breaker?

(06-05-2014 04:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 09:59 PM)RedMountain Wrote:  The bids are not about the NCAA losing money. The bid process ensures that the NCAA cannot lose money even if no fans show at all. The bid guarantees that the NCAA will receive $X regardless of circumstance. Period. Carry on.

Good point. So that means the bids are about making money for the NCAA. And who can blame them for using that as a tie-breaker?

If the 58k more that they are getting from UT sinks the NCAA they have bigger problems than they are letting on to.

If it’s close enough money that small should not be the deciding factor.

The on field performance should account for something when the option in this case may not be as cash rewarding but in terms of money (but close enough) going to the NCAA and available facilities its close enough.

We are not talking about a million dollar difference money wise or playing in a sand lot when it comes to facilities.

Should we come out on top this victory will just be that much sweeter. Just wish the NCAA was a little more about the athlete and a little less about the money.

(06-05-2014 04:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 09:59 PM)RedMountain Wrote:  The bids are not about the NCAA losing money. The bid process ensures that the NCAA cannot lose money even if no fans show at all. The bid guarantees that the NCAA will receive $X regardless of circumstance. Period. Carry on.

Good point. So that means the bids are about making money for the NCAA. And who can blame them for using that as a tie-breaker?

That's why the system is in place. So, I find no fault with how they awarded the site. Those rules were well-known by all participants. Don't like it? Money talks, BS begs for a ride.

(06-04-2014 07:46 AM)The Original Timmy Chan Wrote:  More bitching from a Coog fan here...but here's a good article detailing the bid process that awarded the Super Regional to UT-Austin. I know they're just following the system that's set up, but I think the system sucks...placing $$$ above the accomplishments of the student-athletes.

"I think both of the institutions, the (on-field) resumes are pretty similar," said J.D. Hamilton, the NCAA media coordinator for the Division I baseball championship. "You just have to find some place where there is a difference between the two institutions."

Hamilton explained that the committee did not see the specifics of the bid but was informed there was a financial "difference in the bids."

"One of our criteria is revenue potential, and the revenue potential is better at Texas and they proved that with the bid they gave over what Houston had," Hamilton said.


Pretty telling that the selection committee "did not see the specifics of the bid". Obviously they only looked at the bottom line, no other detail was important. UT-Austin outbid UH by $60,000 to host.


http://m.chron.com/sports/cougars/articl...t#comments

Well, what did you expect, it always award to the highest bidder on contracts. Nothing unusual here.

(06-05-2014 10:38 PM)RedMountain Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 04:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 09:59 PM)RedMountain Wrote:  The bids are not about the NCAA losing money. The bid process ensures that the NCAA cannot lose money even if no fans show at all. The bid guarantees that the NCAA will receive $X regardless of circumstance. Period. Carry on.

Good point. So that means the bids are about making money for the NCAA. And who can blame them for using that as a tie-breaker?

That's why the system is in place. So, I find no fault with how they awarded the site. Those rules were well-known by all participants. Don't like it? Money talks, BS begs for a ride.

Yes, bid higher next time Houston, if you can afford to!

(06-04-2014 06:43 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  What I have a problem with is that they aren't using at least "pseudo" neutral sites like they do in the NCAA basketball tourneys (both men's and women's).

The women's tournament games are often played on home courts, and in this case are much mor slanted against merit, as the team who has hosting honors will be host REGARDLESS of seed. I.e. if the team is a 15 seed hosting a first round, the two seed they play in the first round could have to play them at their place

(06-05-2014 04:50 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  If it’s close enough money that small should not be the deciding factor.

The on field performance should account for something when the option in this case may not be as cash rewarding but in terms of money (but close enough) going to the NCAA and available facilities its close enough.

Did I miss something, or don't Texas and Houston have the same seed? To quote you, "if it's close enough seeding that small should not be the deciding factor" when that much money is on the table. It's not like Texas was a 4 seed and Houston a 1 seed. Both were the same seed.

(06-04-2014 05:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, the NCAA does use "merit" as the first criterion for choosing the super regional sites. The team with the higher regional seed hosts the super regional, even if say the #2 seed is tiny Southeastern Louisiana and the #3 seed is LSU.

Case in point. Louisiana-Lafayette is actually hosting Ole Miss. The top seed is hosting every other matchup. But as stated, Houston and Texas are the only ones with the same seed. All of those complaining about merit seem to completely ignore this. In the NCAA's eyes in terms of seeding, both teams have the same merit based ranking.

(06-05-2014 04:50 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 04:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 09:59 PM)RedMountain Wrote:  The bids are not about the NCAA losing money. The bid process ensures that the NCAA cannot lose money even if no fans show at all. The bid guarantees that the NCAA will receive $X regardless of circumstance. Period. Carry on.

Good point. So that means the bids are about making money for the NCAA. And who can blame them for using that as a tie-breaker?

If the 58k more that they are getting from UT sinks the NCAA they have bigger problems than they are letting on to.

If it’s close enough money that small should not be the deciding factor.

The on field performance should account for something when the option in this case may not be as cash rewarding but in terms of money (but close enough) going to the NCAA and available facilities its close enough.

We are not talking about a million dollar difference money wise or playing in a sand lot when it comes to facilities.

Should we come out on top this victory will just be that much sweeter. Just wish the NCAA was a little more about the athlete and a little less about the money.

Remember, on field performance IS taken into consideration, in fact it trumps money. The first selection criterion is merit, as defined by regional seeding. Only in the cases like Houston vs Texas, where on field merit has been judged to be equal (both were #2 regional seeds) is money used.

(06-06-2014 07:59 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 05:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, the NCAA does use "merit" as the first criterion for choosing the super regional sites. The team with the higher regional seed hosts the super regional, even if say the #2 seed is tiny Southeastern Louisiana and the #3 seed is LSU.

Case in point. Louisiana-Lafayette is actually hosting Ole Miss. The top seed is hosting every other matchup. But as stated, Houston and Texas are the only ones with the same seed. All of those complaining about merit seem to completely ignore this. In the NCAA's eyes in terms of seeding, both teams have the same merit based ranking.

Yes, those who keep harping about the NCAA using money over merit are clearly clueless.

(06-06-2014 08:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 07:59 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 05:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, the NCAA does use "merit" as the first criterion for choosing the super regional sites. The team with the higher regional seed hosts the super regional, even if say the #2 seed is tiny Southeastern Louisiana and the #3 seed is LSU.

Case in point. Louisiana-Lafayette is actually hosting Ole Miss. The top seed is hosting every other matchup. But as stated, Houston and Texas are the only ones with the same seed. All of those complaining about merit seem to completely ignore this. In the NCAA's eyes in terms of seeding, both teams have the same merit based ranking.

Yes, those who keep harping about the NCAA using money over merit are clearly clueless.

While it is what it is the fact that money is the tiebreaker for anything is a complete joke.

Especially as pitiful as 58k.

(06-06-2014 08:52 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 08:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 07:59 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 05:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, the NCAA does use "merit" as the first criterion for choosing the super regional sites. The team with the higher regional seed hosts the super regional, even if say the #2 seed is tiny Southeastern Louisiana and the #3 seed is LSU.

Case in point. Louisiana-Lafayette is actually hosting Ole Miss. The top seed is hosting every other matchup. But as stated, Houston and Texas are the only ones with the same seed. All of those complaining about merit seem to completely ignore this. In the NCAA's eyes in terms of seeding, both teams have the same merit based ranking.

Yes, those who keep harping about the NCAA using money over merit are clearly clueless.

While it is what it is the fact that money is the tiebreaker for anything is a complete joke.

Especially as pitiful as 58k.

Money is never a joke, as all organizations including the NCAA can use it.

But again, if not money, then what? Since on-field merit has already been judged to be equal, then what is left to use as a tie-breaker other than money?

So every #2 seed is equal, yet every #1 seed is not. Makes perfect sense.

In every metric Houston was the higher ranked team and that was before they went into the most hostile environment in the country and took TWO FROM LSU!!!

Let's see, how many times this year has LSU loss two in a row playing in Baton Rouge against the great SEC, that would be ZERO. Your reward Houston, we will send you off to another huge home field advantage situation.

Anything to keep the big boys happy so the NCAA fat cats can continue to collect their inflated salaries to continue the corruption.

The thing for Houston to do is shut up and just keep winning!

(06-06-2014 10:29 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  The thing for Houston to do is shut up and just keep winning!

The fans here will be playing today in Austin, news to me.

Useless post.

(06-06-2014 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 08:52 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 08:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 07:59 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 05:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, the NCAA does use "merit" as the first criterion for choosing the super regional sites. The team with the higher regional seed hosts the super regional, even if say the #2 seed is tiny Southeastern Louisiana and the #3 seed is LSU.

Case in point. Louisiana-Lafayette is actually hosting Ole Miss. The top seed is hosting every other matchup. But as stated, Houston and Texas are the only ones with the same seed. All of those complaining about merit seem to completely ignore this. In the NCAA's eyes in terms of seeding, both teams have the same merit based ranking.

Yes, those who keep harping about the NCAA using money over merit are clearly clueless.

While it is what it is the fact that money is the tiebreaker for anything is a complete joke.

Especially as pitiful as 58k.

Money is never a joke, as all organizations including the NCAA can use it.

But again, if not money, then what? Since on-field merit has already been judged to be equal, then what is left to use as a tie-breaker other than money?

We (as it stands today) are not equal we exceed UT in every competitive metric.

They win with money. Period end of story.

Come Sunday either one of us could be moving on but going into the super regional we are superior in every aspect.

Just because we were both number 2 seeds means nothing.

If I'm not mistaken (and correct me if I'm wrong) but Texas and Houston had very similar profiles prior to the start of the tournament, correct? And Houston's got better after the first couple of rounds. Wouldn't that seem to indicate that Texas was indeed higher ranked prior to the start of the tournament, based on who they were pitted against? I mean if we're splitting hairs, since they had the "easier road?" I mean if were basing it on merit, regular season merit, it seems like they're actually ahead if that's what were getting at. But anyway as quo said, if they're a tie, and then as asked them to submit bids, and everyone knows that going in, it seems about as fair as it can be.

Houston loses 4-0 to Texas. Your finished Houston!