The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Any rumors on who might host this?

I just looked, and on June 13 of last year, they announced Birmingham again. That means we are apx. 6 weeks out from that date. Have we heard of anyone bidding? Are we? I know last year we bid but also extended the length of the tournament.

HM's article last year stated the conference was considering splitting men's and women.

Any true neutral sites?

I had heard that Norfolk and Myrtle Beach were in the mix.

If it is in Birmingham again, C-USA would be a complete joke. I think Charlotte would be the best location, great "big" city and growing fast. All the respectable conferences have their tournaments in big cities.

A-10 - Brooklyn
ACC - Greensboro (exception)
AAC - Orlando
Big East - New York City
Big 10 - Chicago
Big 12 - Kansas City
MAC - Cleveland
MW - Las Vegas
Pac 12 - Las Vegas
SEC - Nashville
Sun Belt - New Orleans
C-USA - Birmingham, AL

All the evidence already points to CUSA being a complete joke.

(04-20-2016 04:50 PM)cmett003 Wrote:  If it is in Birmingham again, C-USA would be a complete joke. I think Charlotte would be the best location, great "big" city and growing fast. All the respectable conferences have their tournaments in big cities.

It'd have to be at Bojangles Coliseum, since there's no way CUSA could fill or even get close to filling Time Warner Arena. Plus the CIAA is playing next year's tournament at Bojangles, though they should be done by the time CUSA were to move in.

I just can't see the tournament ever being a success. Even if the conference gets markedly better, the footprint is so broad that almost assuredly you'll be looking at cringeworthy crowds when the host school isn't playing. I'd just as soon they scrap the tournament entirely and have the top four teams play a round-robin to determine the auto-bid (and spike all four teams' RPIs in the process).

(04-20-2016 04:50 PM)cmett003 Wrote:  If it is in Birmingham again, C-USA would be a complete joke. I think Charlotte would be the best location, great "big" city and growing fast. All the respectable conferences have their tournaments in big cities.

A-10 - Brooklyn
ACC - Greensboro (exception)
AAC - Orlando
Big East - New York City
Big 10 - Chicago
Big 12 - Kansas City
MAC - Cleveland
MW - Las Vegas
Pac 12 - Las Vegas
SEC - Nashville
Sun Belt - New Orleans
C-USA - Birmingham, AL

ACC tourney was in DC this past year. its been in charlotte before too.

(04-20-2016 04:52 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  All the evidence already points to CUSA being a complete joke.

(04-20-2016 04:59 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 04:50 PM)cmett003 Wrote:  If it is in Birmingham again, C-USA would be a complete joke. I think Charlotte would be the best location, great "big" city and growing fast. All the respectable conferences have their tournaments in big cities.

It'd have to be at Bojangles Coliseum, since there's no way CUSA could fill or even get close to filling Time Warner Arena. Plus the CIAA is playing next year's tournament at Bojangles, though they should be done by the time CUSA were to move in.

I just can't see the tournament ever being a success. Even if the conference gets markedly better, the footprint is so broad that almost assuredly you'll be looking at cringeworthy crowds when the host school isn't playing. I'd just as soon they scrap the tournament entirely and have the top four teams play a round-robin to determine the auto-bid (and spike all four teams' RPIs in the process).

I agree about the tournament. Just play each game at the higher seed and do it like the NIT. You have attendance then.

If the tournament is a must, then it needs to start on a Friday or Saturday (like the CAA). I personally am not going to use a week of leave to travel to Birmingham for a mid-week tournament start. Travel Tuesday, Play Wednesday, Play Thursday, play or travel home on a Friday. I love my Monarchs but I'll save my leave for other ODU away trips (like the NCAA or whatever football brings along). Another thought, if they played Friday through Sunday, that would leave two teams left for the Championship. Play the Championship the following Saturday at the higher seeded school to make it appeal to TV and put bodies in the seats...

An idea floating around would be to have the top 8 teams from the regular season 'make the tournament'. Games would be hosted by the higher seeded teams throughout. So, if for example, ODU finishes 1st in the regular season, we would host the number 8 seed and so on and so on. To me, given the one bid type of conference that we have, that would work best to our advantage.

I think you need to have at least the final four at a neutral site.

Sent from my Pixel C using Tapatalk

I am assuming the reason for neutral site tournaments is revenue? I might be mistaken. I know public position is neutral court so no team has an advantage...but does CUSA tournament really make money? There are like 100 people who attend.

I like playing at higher seeds...but I don't think that is how this is going to flow.

(04-21-2016 05:07 AM)BigBlue23 Wrote:  I am assuming the reason for neutral site tournaments is revenue? I might be mistaken. I know public position is neutral court so no team has an advantage...but does CUSA tournament really make money? There are like 100 people who attend.

I like playing at higher seeds...but I don't think that is how this is going to flow.

Yes. Cities and and the host school bid for the tournamanent together. The highest bidder wins. This insulates the league from the financial risk of running a lowly attended tournament.

(04-21-2016 05:37 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 05:07 AM)BigBlue23 Wrote:  I am assuming the reason for neutral site tournaments is revenue? I might be mistaken. I know public position is neutral court so no team has an advantage...but does CUSA tournament really make money? There are like 100 people who attend.

I like playing at higher seeds...but I don't think that is how this is going to flow.

Yes. Cities and and the host school bid for the tournament together. The highest bidder wins. This insulates the league from the financial risk of running a lowly attended tournament.

I wonder what would be more financially rewarding for the conference. A guaranteed pay day at a neutral site or splitting gate proceeds from higher seeds. You would assume that would equate to 7 close to sold out games?

(04-21-2016 05:51 AM)BigBlue23 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 05:37 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 05:07 AM)BigBlue23 Wrote:  I am assuming the reason for neutral site tournaments is revenue? I might be mistaken. I know public position is neutral court so no team has an advantage...but does CUSA tournament really make money? There are like 100 people who attend.

I like playing at higher seeds...but I don't think that is how this is going to flow.

Yes. Cities and and the host school bid for the tournament together. The highest bidder wins. This insulates the league from the financial risk of running a lowly attended tournament.

I wonder what would be more financially rewarding for the conference. A guaranteed pay day at a neutral site or splitting gate proceeds from higher seeds. You would assume that would equate to 7 close to sold out games?

Geesus. You gotta also wonder what would be easier to market to TV execs, a bunch of sold out tournament games or an empty arena because the host school isn't playing.

The lack of maleability this league has displayed isn't very inspiring. The host city hosting both tournaments worked when Memphis was in the league due to their great support and central locale. It just doesn't work anymore for anyone but the host.

Wouldn't Memphis be a good site? It's geographically center, no host team for home court advantage, and a decent city to travel to. Although I can't really speak on that last part since I've never been there. Anyone here been there? The only problem - is there really any incentive for Memphis to bid on it?

(04-21-2016 06:59 AM)odu09 Wrote:  Wouldn't Memphis be a good site? It's geographically center, no host team for home court advantage, and a decent city to travel to. Although I can't really speak on that last part since I've never been there. Anyone here been there? The only problem - is there really any incentive for Memphis to bid on it?

New Orleans !!!!

CUSA fans for the most part don't travel to tournaments, so locals have to be relied upon. Fair or not, there has to be a team with home court advantage. No one in Memphis cares about CUSA and knowing Memphis fans, the tournament there would be a source of derision.

(04-21-2016 07:21 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  CUSA fans for the most part don't travel to tournaments, so locals have to be relied upon. Fair or not, there has to be a team with home court advantage. No one in Memphis cares about CUSA and knowing Memphis fans, the tournament there would be a source of derision.

Why is there an insistence on having both the men and women in the same city? Seems like they're really limiting their options with that line of thought.

(04-21-2016 07:21 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  CUSA fans for the most part don't travel to tournaments, so locals have to be relied upon. Fair or not, there has to be a team with home court advantage. No one in Memphis cares about CUSA and knowing Memphis fans, the tournament there would be a source of derision.

Well, if it's true that CUSA fans don't travel to tournaments anyway, why not just reward the #1 overall team with the home court for the tournament? That way if they do get that advantage at least it's going to the "best" team and hopefully will do well in the NCAAT, assuming they win and not completely choke against the 8 seed...

(04-21-2016 08:05 AM)odu09 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 07:21 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  CUSA fans for the most part don't travel to tournaments, so locals have to be relied upon. Fair or not, there has to be a team with home court advantage. No one in Memphis cares about CUSA and knowing Memphis fans, the tournament there would be a source of derision.

Well, if it's true that CUSA fans don't travel to tournaments anyway, why not just reward the #1 overall team with the home court for the tournament? That way if they do get that advantage at least it's going to the "best" team and hopefully will do well in the NCAAT, assuming they win and not completely choke against the 8 seed...

It wouldn't change the success of the tournament any and would probably hurt it. Picking a city before the season at least gives fans a chance to plan to make the trip.

They just need to split the men and women up and have them play in separate cities. More cities could put up a competitive offer to host, allowing more excitement to be the host city as it would not be a guaranteed thing any longer.

As it is, how many cities actually bid to host? Birmingham, Biloxi and El Paso? That doesn't help increase the bid with that small of a selection.