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

That's interesting...was Houston allowed to match the bid...or is this a silent thing?

I would think the NCAA would just look at the facility sizes...Texas seats 6,600, Houston 3,500 and just use that as the reason.

(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.

Look, it's easy to get on a high horse and say that "on field accomplishments" should trump dollars - when you are not the one responsible for paying the bills, and these events do generate bills to pay.

Except at very few places (like LSU) college baseball just does not attract enough fans to pay bills. Did you watch any of the AAC tournament in Clearwater, Florida? There were more players on the field most games than fans in the stands! So it makes sense that the NCAA takes revenue generation into consideration.

Houston needs to up its money game, not just its on-field game, if it wants to host regionals and super-regionals. That is just the reality of the situation, and it is a justified reality.

(06-04-2014 07:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Houston needs to up its money game, not just its on-field game, if it wants to host regionals and super-regionals. That is just the reality of the situation.

That is the bottom line, and like I said on the original post I'm mainly just bitching about a system I dislike.

I don't like the inconsistency. If it's just about who has the biggest facilities, and providing access to more fans, then why wasn't the Regional in Austin instead of Reckling? Because the committee was awarding on field play. So why don't they use the same criteria for Super Regionals?

I will shut up about it before the SR games are played...I dislike being on the side of the have nots.

Also tired of seeing 3500 capacity when we know Cougar Field can hold up to 5000 (still much less than D-F in Austin, and we just can't guarantee more $$$ for that simple fact.)

(06-04-2014 07:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

Look, it's easy to get on a high horse and say that "on field accomplishments" should trump dollars - when you are not the one responsible for paying the bills, and these events do generate bills to pay.

Except at very few places (like LSU) college baseball just does not attract enough fans to pay bills. Did you watch any of the AAC tournament in Clearwater, Florida? There were more players on the field most games than fans in the stands! So it makes sense that the NCAA takes revenue generation into consideration.

Houston needs to up its money game, not just its on-field game, if it wants to host regionals and super-regionals. That is just the reality of the situation, and it is a justified reality.

Honestly it's hard to disagree with this. It's about making money. These aren't charity events. Same thing applies to the bowls.

(06-04-2014 07:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

Look, it's easy to get on a high horse and say that "on field accomplishments" should trump dollars - when you are not the one responsible for paying the bills, and these events do generate bills to pay.

Except at very few places (like LSU) college baseball just does not attract enough fans to pay bills. Did you watch any of the AAC tournament in Clearwater, Florida? There were more players on the field most games than fans in the stands! So it makes sense that the NCAA takes revenue generation into consideration.

Houston needs to up its money game, not just its on-field game, if it wants to host regionals and super-regionals. That is just the reality of the situation, and it is a justified reality.

Stadium size and the size of a schools wallet should NEVER be a deciding factor in playoff seeding. Could you imagine if the NCAA basketball tournament held their Sweet 16 games at the teams home arenas. Then the home team would be determined by the size of their arena, not on court performance or rankings. That is exactly what is going on with baseball. This is NCAA baseballs Sweet 16.

(06-04-2014 11:38 AM)imbac Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 07:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

Look, it's easy to get on a high horse and say that "on field accomplishments" should trump dollars - when you are not the one responsible for paying the bills, and these events do generate bills to pay.

Except at very few places (like LSU) college baseball just does not attract enough fans to pay bills. Did you watch any of the AAC tournament in Clearwater, Florida? There were more players on the field most games than fans in the stands! So it makes sense that the NCAA takes revenue generation into consideration.

Houston needs to up its money game, not just its on-field game, if it wants to host regionals and super-regionals. That is just the reality of the situation, and it is a justified reality.

Stadium size and the size of a schools wallet should NEVER be a deciding factor in playoff seeding. Could you imagine if the NCAA basketball tournament held their Sweet 16 games at the teams home arenas. Then the home team would be determined by the size of their arena, not on court performance or rankings. That is exactly what is going on with baseball. This is NCAA baseballs Sweet 16.

I agree...I have never liked the way the baseball tourney is set-up...for both regional and supers. This is supposed to be a postseason tourney...not a revenue generator...to decide who goes to a neutral site in Omaha. I have been advocating for years that neutral sites be used for this....there are plenty of minor parks that could be used. And since the games are pretty much on a weekend, people could travel (they do in football and basketball, correct?). Three teams in regionals are traveling...why can't it be 4? One in super's is traveling, why not both. And larger stadiums could be used. The system gives WAY to much advantage to the home team considering you may have the 8th rated and 12th rated team in a regional together. WAY TOO MUCH ADVANTAGE.

(06-04-2014 07:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

Look, it's easy to get on a high horse and say that "on field accomplishments" should trump dollars - when you are not the one responsible for paying the bills, and these events do generate bills to pay.

Except at very few places (like LSU) college baseball just does not attract enough fans to pay bills. Did you watch any of the AAC tournament in Clearwater, Florida? There were more players on the field most games than fans in the stands! So it makes sense that the NCAA takes revenue generation into consideration.

Houston needs to up its money game, not just its on-field game, if it wants to host regionals and super-regionals. That is just the reality of the situation, and it is a justified reality.

Than why not do that with the regionals? Not surprised to see what side you are on.....

NCAA putting money in front of fairness to the "student-athletes", shocking, and Austin is an amazing 2.5 hours from Houston. Oh and the Astros are out of town all weekend, pretty sure they could have made more money with that move.

(06-04-2014 11:38 AM)imbac Wrote:  Stadium size and the size of a schools wallet should NEVER be a deciding factor in playoff seeding. Could you imagine if the NCAA basketball tournament held their Sweet 16 games at the teams home arenas. Then the home team would be determined by the size of their arena, not on court performance or rankings. That is exactly what is going on with baseball. This is NCAA baseballs Sweet 16.

I am not sure I understand this statement. In the NCAA tournament, this is EXACTLY how they decide who hosts the events, and then teams are placed (if seeded high enough ) to the closest venue that is not their own. It is essentially the same process.

The women's basketball tournament uses nearly the same process, only with the designation that if a school is hosting and is in the tournament they MUST play in their home venue.

(06-04-2014 11:38 AM)imbac Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 07:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

Look, it's easy to get on a high horse and say that "on field accomplishments" should trump dollars - when you are not the one responsible for paying the bills, and these events do generate bills to pay.

Except at very few places (like LSU) college baseball just does not attract enough fans to pay bills. Did you watch any of the AAC tournament in Clearwater, Florida? There were more players on the field most games than fans in the stands! So it makes sense that the NCAA takes revenue generation into consideration.

Houston needs to up its money game, not just its on-field game, if it wants to host regionals and super-regionals. That is just the reality of the situation, and it is a justified reality.

Stadium size and the size of a schools wallet should NEVER be a deciding factor in playoff seeding. Could you imagine if the NCAA basketball tournament held their Sweet 16 games at the teams home arenas. Then the home team would be determined by the size of their arena, not on court performance or rankings. That is exactly what is going on with baseball. This is NCAA baseballs Sweet 16.

Nobody can escape the reality of economics. Bills have to get paid. The college baseball tournament doesn't generate the huge dollars that the basketball tournament does, which is why the basketball games can be held at neutral sites.

And even those sites aren't always very neutral. High-attendance schools like Syracuse and North Carolina often get to play tournament games very close to home, because the NCAA knows they will draw big and generate money.

(06-04-2014 12:04 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 07:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

Look, it's easy to get on a high horse and say that "on field accomplishments" should trump dollars - when you are not the one responsible for paying the bills, and these events do generate bills to pay.

Except at very few places (like LSU) college baseball just does not attract enough fans to pay bills. Did you watch any of the AAC tournament in Clearwater, Florida? There were more players on the field most games than fans in the stands! So it makes sense that the NCAA takes revenue generation into consideration.

Houston needs to up its money game, not just its on-field game, if it wants to host regionals and super-regionals. That is just the reality of the situation, and it is a justified reality.

Than why not do that with the regionals? Not surprised to see what side you are on.....

NCAA putting money in front of fairness to the "student-athletes", shocking, and Austin is an amazing 2.5 hours from Houston. Oh and the Astros are out of town all weekend, pretty sure they could have made more money with that move.

OK, so let's say the NCAA puts a regional or super-regional at a small stadium/low-attendance school that had the best season, and the event loses money. Where does the money come from to pay for that?

You seem to be under a mistaken impression, namely that the NCAA chooses super-regional sites in order to make money. But really, what they are trying to do is avoid losing money, as these are money-sucks that simply do not pay for themselves. The goal is to minimize losses, not maximize gains.

Let me guess: You're not responsible for paying any of these bills, right? If you were, you'd sing a different tune.

(06-04-2014 12:18 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 11:38 AM)imbac Wrote:  Stadium size and the size of a schools wallet should NEVER be a deciding factor in playoff seeding. Could you imagine if the NCAA basketball tournament held their Sweet 16 games at the teams home arenas. Then the home team would be determined by the size of their arena, not on court performance or rankings. That is exactly what is going on with baseball. This is NCAA baseballs Sweet 16.

I am not sure I understand this statement.

That's because "imbac" clearly has no clue about how NCAA basketball sites are chosen.

(06-04-2014 01:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 12:04 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 07:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

Look, it's easy to get on a high horse and say that "on field accomplishments" should trump dollars - when you are not the one responsible for paying the bills, and these events do generate bills to pay.

Except at very few places (like LSU) college baseball just does not attract enough fans to pay bills. Did you watch any of the AAC tournament in Clearwater, Florida? There were more players on the field most games than fans in the stands! So it makes sense that the NCAA takes revenue generation into consideration.

Houston needs to up its money game, not just its on-field game, if it wants to host regionals and super-regionals. That is just the reality of the situation, and it is a justified reality.

Than why not do that with the regionals? Not surprised to see what side you are on.....

NCAA putting money in front of fairness to the "student-athletes", shocking, and Austin is an amazing 2.5 hours from Houston. Oh and the Astros are out of town all weekend, pretty sure they could have made more money with that move.

OK, so let's say the NCAA puts a regional or super-regional at a small stadium/low-attendance school that had the best season, and the event loses money. Where does the money come from to pay for that?

You seem to be under a mistaken impression, namely that the NCAA chooses super-regional sites in order to make money. But really, what they are trying to do is avoid losing money, as these are money-sucks that simply do not pay for themselves. The goal is to minimize losses, not maximize gains.

Let me guess: You're not responsible for paying any of these bills, right? If you were, you'd sing a different tune.

The NCAA and their billion dollar revenue does, and how often will it occur that a super regional host would lose money? Once a decade....or never? If Houston hosted, they would not lose money.

You can't on one hand preach about the sanctity of the student-athlete and on the other hand allow for money grabs when we are talking about the NCAA making a few extra dollars. Baseball at a super regional level is 100% sustainable this is not women's Bball, but the NCAA (if they can force their way) chooses to go to the highest bidder. It's flat out wrong. How many examples of NCAA greed do we need to see?

(06-04-2014 01:53 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 01:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 12:04 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 07:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

Look, it's easy to get on a high horse and say that "on field accomplishments" should trump dollars - when you are not the one responsible for paying the bills, and these events do generate bills to pay.

Except at very few places (like LSU) college baseball just does not attract enough fans to pay bills. Did you watch any of the AAC tournament in Clearwater, Florida? There were more players on the field most games than fans in the stands! So it makes sense that the NCAA takes revenue generation into consideration.

Houston needs to up its money game, not just its on-field game, if it wants to host regionals and super-regionals. That is just the reality of the situation, and it is a justified reality.

Than why not do that with the regionals? Not surprised to see what side you are on.....

NCAA putting money in front of fairness to the "student-athletes", shocking, and Austin is an amazing 2.5 hours from Houston. Oh and the Astros are out of town all weekend, pretty sure they could have made more money with that move.

OK, so let's say the NCAA puts a regional or super-regional at a small stadium/low-attendance school that had the best season, and the event loses money. Where does the money come from to pay for that?

You seem to be under a mistaken impression, namely that the NCAA chooses super-regional sites in order to make money. But really, what they are trying to do is avoid losing money, as these are money-sucks that simply do not pay for themselves. The goal is to minimize losses, not maximize gains.

Let me guess: You're not responsible for paying any of these bills, right? If you were, you'd sing a different tune.

The NCAA and their billion dollar revenue does, and how often will it occur that a super regional host would lose money? Once a decade....or never? If Houston hosted, they would not lose money.

You can't on one hand preach about the sanctity of the student-athlete and on the other hand allow for money grabs when we are talking about the NCAA making a few extra dollars. Baseball at a super regional level is 100% sustainable this is not women's Bball, but the NCAA (if they can force their way) chooses to go to the highest bidder. It's flat out wrong. How many examples of NCAA greed do we need to see?

No one disputes this is all about the almighty dollar. At least the NCAA has finally come out and said it's about the buck, and packed its prior hypocritical stance back in a box and stuffed it back in the closet.

Since the issue is all about money, then that once again raises the spector of equal access and anti-trust. The great money divide between the "haves" and the "have-nots" greatly affects what teams can bid. There's no way around that simple fact.

This lends credence to the argument that he only way to level the playing field is to pursue anti-trust litigation. If certain conferences wish to carve themselves out in order to keep the money all to themselves (stop with the feigned argument about helping student-athletes), and if the NCAA is going to foster that disparity by submitting sites to a "bid process" when the "bid process" is already rigged by the disparity in money available to the schools, then the only way to address that matter is through the courts.

(06-04-2014 02:46 PM)Ghis Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 01:53 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 01:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 12:04 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 07:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Look, it's easy to get on a high horse and say that "on field accomplishments" should trump dollars - when you are not the one responsible for paying the bills, and these events do generate bills to pay.

Except at very few places (like LSU) college baseball just does not attract enough fans to pay bills. Did you watch any of the AAC tournament in Clearwater, Florida? There were more players on the field most games than fans in the stands! So it makes sense that the NCAA takes revenue generation into consideration.

Houston needs to up its money game, not just its on-field game, if it wants to host regionals and super-regionals. That is just the reality of the situation, and it is a justified reality.

Than why not do that with the regionals? Not surprised to see what side you are on.....

NCAA putting money in front of fairness to the "student-athletes", shocking, and Austin is an amazing 2.5 hours from Houston. Oh and the Astros are out of town all weekend, pretty sure they could have made more money with that move.

OK, so let's say the NCAA puts a regional or super-regional at a small stadium/low-attendance school that had the best season, and the event loses money. Where does the money come from to pay for that?

You seem to be under a mistaken impression, namely that the NCAA chooses super-regional sites in order to make money. But really, what they are trying to do is avoid losing money, as these are money-sucks that simply do not pay for themselves. The goal is to minimize losses, not maximize gains.

Let me guess: You're not responsible for paying any of these bills, right? If you were, you'd sing a different tune.

The NCAA and their billion dollar revenue does, and how often will it occur that a super regional host would lose money? Once a decade....or never? If Houston hosted, they would not lose money.

You can't on one hand preach about the sanctity of the student-athlete and on the other hand allow for money grabs when we are talking about the NCAA making a few extra dollars. Baseball at a super regional level is 100% sustainable this is not women's Bball, but the NCAA (if they can force their way) chooses to go to the highest bidder. It's flat out wrong. How many examples of NCAA greed do we need to see?

No one disputes this is all about the almighty dollar. At least the NCAA has finally come out and said it's about the buck, and packed its prior hypocritical stance back in a box and stuffed it back in the closet.

Since the issue is all about money, then that once again raises the spector of equal access and anti-trust. The great money divide between the "haves" and the "have-nots" greatly affects what teams can bid. There's no way around that simple fact.

This lends credence to the argument that he only way to level the playing field is to pursue anti-trust litigation. If certain conferences wish to carve themselves out in order to keep the money all to themselves (stop with the feigned argument about helping student-athletes), and if the NCAA is going to foster that disparity by submitting sites to a "bid process" when the "bid process" is already rigged by the disparity in money available to the schools, then the only way to address that matter is through the courts.

They are just so two faced.....let's do all we can to protect the amateurism of the athletes just as we try to capture every last dollar to pad our coffers.

(06-04-2014 02:46 PM)Ghis Wrote:  If certain conferences wish to carve themselves out in order to keep the money all to themselves (stop with the feigned argument about helping student-athletes), and if the NCAA is going to foster that disparity by submitting sites to a "bid process" when the "bid process" is already rigged by the disparity in money available to the schools, then the only way to address that matter is through the courts.

So explain this to me: If the SEC has a lot more money than the AAC, then how is that a matter for the courts?

(06-04-2014 01:53 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 01:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 12:04 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 07:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

Look, it's easy to get on a high horse and say that "on field accomplishments" should trump dollars - when you are not the one responsible for paying the bills, and these events do generate bills to pay.

Except at very few places (like LSU) college baseball just does not attract enough fans to pay bills. Did you watch any of the AAC tournament in Clearwater, Florida? There were more players on the field most games than fans in the stands! So it makes sense that the NCAA takes revenue generation into consideration.

Houston needs to up its money game, not just its on-field game, if it wants to host regionals and super-regionals. That is just the reality of the situation, and it is a justified reality.

Than why not do that with the regionals? Not surprised to see what side you are on.....

NCAA putting money in front of fairness to the "student-athletes", shocking, and Austin is an amazing 2.5 hours from Houston. Oh and the Astros are out of town all weekend, pretty sure they could have made more money with that move.

OK, so let's say the NCAA puts a regional or super-regional at a small stadium/low-attendance school that had the best season, and the event loses money. Where does the money come from to pay for that?

You seem to be under a mistaken impression, namely that the NCAA chooses super-regional sites in order to make money. But really, what they are trying to do is avoid losing money, as these are money-sucks that simply do not pay for themselves. The goal is to minimize losses, not maximize gains.

Let me guess: You're not responsible for paying any of these bills, right? If you were, you'd sing a different tune.

The NCAA and their billion dollar revenue does, and how often will it occur that a super regional host would lose money? Once a decade....or never? If Houston hosted, they would not lose money.

You can't on one hand preach about the sanctity of the student-athlete and on the other hand allow for money grabs when we are talking about the NCAA making a few extra dollars. Baseball at a super regional level is 100% sustainable this is not women's Bball, but the NCAA (if they can force their way) chooses to go to the highest bidder. It's flat out wrong. How many examples of NCAA greed do we need to see?

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.

Money only becomes a factor if the seeds are the same. It's the tiebreaker. Since Houston and Texas were both #2 seeds, it came down to money.

What else would you have it come down to?

(06-04-2014 05:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 01:53 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 01:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 12:04 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 07:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Look, it's easy to get on a high horse and say that "on field accomplishments" should trump dollars - when you are not the one responsible for paying the bills, and these events do generate bills to pay.

Except at very few places (like LSU) college baseball just does not attract enough fans to pay bills. Did you watch any of the AAC tournament in Clearwater, Florida? There were more players on the field most games than fans in the stands! So it makes sense that the NCAA takes revenue generation into consideration.

Houston needs to up its money game, not just its on-field game, if it wants to host regionals and super-regionals. That is just the reality of the situation, and it is a justified reality.

Than why not do that with the regionals? Not surprised to see what side you are on.....

NCAA putting money in front of fairness to the "student-athletes", shocking, and Austin is an amazing 2.5 hours from Houston. Oh and the Astros are out of town all weekend, pretty sure they could have made more money with that move.

OK, so let's say the NCAA puts a regional or super-regional at a small stadium/low-attendance school that had the best season, and the event loses money. Where does the money come from to pay for that?

You seem to be under a mistaken impression, namely that the NCAA chooses super-regional sites in order to make money. But really, what they are trying to do is avoid losing money, as these are money-sucks that simply do not pay for themselves. The goal is to minimize losses, not maximize gains.

Let me guess: You're not responsible for paying any of these bills, right? If you were, you'd sing a different tune.

The NCAA and their billion dollar revenue does, and how often will it occur that a super regional host would lose money? Once a decade....or never? If Houston hosted, they would not lose money.

You can't on one hand preach about the sanctity of the student-athlete and on the other hand allow for money grabs when we are talking about the NCAA making a few extra dollars. Baseball at a super regional level is 100% sustainable this is not women's Bball, but the NCAA (if they can force their way) chooses to go to the highest bidder. It's flat out wrong. How many examples of NCAA greed do we need to see?

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.

Money only becomes a factor if the seeds are the same. It's the tiebreaker. Since Houston and Texas were both #2 seeds, it came down to money.

What else would you have it come down to?

Rpi and merit, just like everything else in american society. These r young men chasing a dream and dedicating countless hours to their craft.

Whomever comes up with the biggeat check doea not jive with the ncaa's mantra, at least not according to how they promote amateur athletics.

(06-04-2014 05:36 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 05:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 01:53 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 01:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 12:04 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  Than why not do that with the regionals? Not surprised to see what side you are on.....

NCAA putting money in front of fairness to the "student-athletes", shocking, and Austin is an amazing 2.5 hours from Houston. Oh and the Astros are out of town all weekend, pretty sure they could have made more money with that move.

OK, so let's say the NCAA puts a regional or super-regional at a small stadium/low-attendance school that had the best season, and the event loses money. Where does the money come from to pay for that?

You seem to be under a mistaken impression, namely that the NCAA chooses super-regional sites in order to make money. But really, what they are trying to do is avoid losing money, as these are money-sucks that simply do not pay for themselves. The goal is to minimize losses, not maximize gains.

Let me guess: You're not responsible for paying any of these bills, right? If you were, you'd sing a different tune.

The NCAA and their billion dollar revenue does, and how often will it occur that a super regional host would lose money? Once a decade....or never? If Houston hosted, they would not lose money.

You can't on one hand preach about the sanctity of the student-athlete and on the other hand allow for money grabs when we are talking about the NCAA making a few extra dollars. Baseball at a super regional level is 100% sustainable this is not women's Bball, but the NCAA (if they can force their way) chooses to go to the highest bidder. It's flat out wrong. How many examples of NCAA greed do we need to see?

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.

Money only becomes a factor if the seeds are the same. It's the tiebreaker. Since Houston and Texas were both #2 seeds, it came down to money.

What else would you have it come down to?

Rpi and merit, just like everything else in american society. These r young men chasing a dream and dedicating countless hours to their craft.

Whomever comes up with the biggeat check doea not jive with the ncaa's mantra, at least not according to how they promote amateur athletics.

Dude, didn't you read the last post? I explained that merit - meaning seeding, which includes RPI and all the other merit indicators that the committee used to seed teams - is in fact the first criterion for choosing a super regional. Money is only used to break a tie, that is, when merit has been judged to be equal.

Why isn't that sinking in?

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. There is some minor league ballpark in San Antonio not being used this weekend that could host these two teams for three games.

Considering the Top EIGHT get to Omaha, there is no reason you can't have "regional" baseball sites that host these events and the NCAA still get their dough. We are talking about 5-6K people tops. I have always said it was unfair and will continue to believe that.