The NCAA has elected to change the super regional format starting next year.


http://www.ncaa.com/news/softball/articl...day-format

Good, especially considering the potential heat that time of year.

So the reason to change the format is because the 3rd game is so important it needs its own day. Then why not have the first and second game on the same day, and the third game on the second day? Just a thought. Look forward to seeing if the new format helps.

(07-12-2016 09:08 PM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  So the reason to change the format is because the 3rd game is so important it needs its own day. Then why not have the first and second game on the same day, and the third game on the second day? Just a thought. Look forward to seeing if the new format helps.

I would venture to say for the same reason game 3 is getting it's own day. Game 2 has the potential to send a team to the WCWS. Trying to ensure that both teams are as rested as possible for the 2 games that matter the most.

There is 1 main reason for this move, and it is the reason game 1 and 2 CAN NOT be played on the same day. Ticket sales. If games 1 and 2 happen on 1 day, then there is a chance the schools and NCAA only get $ from 1 day of tickets. Now there are 3 days. 3 days of ticket sales, and not just $ from tickets but also concessions, hats, shirts and other gear. Don't let the NCAA's PR machine fool you and think this is about the athletes, it's about $ just like everything else the NCAA does.

JMUSukes20

That thought had also crossed my mind. Figured the Benjamins had to have something to do with this!!

Brian

It's true an extra (potential) day of ticket sales will generate a little extra income, but I have to think this decision is mostly about the players welfare.

Taking JMU's experience from this year as a prime example, when a team that has won game one loses game two on the second day the defeat can be psychologically difficult to overcome. It depends on the team's mental makeup, but I've never like the idea of having to play a double-header after having lost game one. There is no time to adjust and the momentum favors the winner of game two. You can argue it either way, and perhaps the pressure of playing the rubber match on day three is still going to favor the winner of game two, but it just feels like this would allow a little of the steam behind game two's victor to dissipate.

(07-13-2016 05:46 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  It's true an extra (potential) day of ticket sales will generate a little extra income, but I have to think this decision is mostly about the players welfare.

Taking JMU's experience from this year as a prime example, when a team that has won game one loses game two on the second day the defeat can be psychologically difficult to overcome. It depends on the team's mental makeup, but I've never like the idea of having to play a double-header after having lost game one. There is no time to adjust and the momentum favors the winner of game two. You can argue it either way, and perhaps the pressure of playing the rubber match on day three is still going to favor the winner of game two, but it just feels like this would allow a little of the steam behind game two's victor to dissipate.

In my experience, the vast majority of doubleheaders are split. Not too many sweeps. Players at this level know to put the past behind them and concentrate on the task at hand.
It's all about the $$$$.

(07-13-2016 07:18 AM)JMU83 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 05:46 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  It's true an extra (potential) day of ticket sales will generate a little extra income, but I have to think this decision is mostly about the players welfare.

Taking JMU's experience from this year as a prime example, when a team that has won game one loses game two on the second day the defeat can be psychologically difficult to overcome. It depends on the team's mental makeup, but I've never like the idea of having to play a double-header after having lost game one. There is no time to adjust and the momentum favors the winner of game two. You can argue it either way, and perhaps the pressure of playing the rubber match on day three is still going to favor the winner of game two, but it just feels like this would allow a little of the steam behind game two's victor to dissipate.

In my experience, the vast majority of doubleheaders are split. Not too many sweeps. Players at this level know to put the past behind them and concentrate on the task at hand.
It's all about the $$$$.

ooops, I need to research before posting. The vast majority of DH are not split. Carry on.

(07-13-2016 07:24 AM)JMU83 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 07:18 AM)JMU83 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 05:46 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  It's true an extra (potential) day of ticket sales will generate a little extra income, but I have to think this decision is mostly about the players welfare.

Taking JMU's experience from this year as a prime example, when a team that has won game one loses game two on the second day the defeat can be psychologically difficult to overcome. It depends on the team's mental makeup, but I've never like the idea of having to play a double-header after having lost game one. There is no time to adjust and the momentum favors the winner of game two. You can argue it either way, and perhaps the pressure of playing the rubber match on day three is still going to favor the winner of game two, but it just feels like this would allow a little of the steam behind game two's victor to dissipate.

In my experience, the vast majority of doubleheaders are split. Not too many sweeps. Players at this level know to put the past behind them and concentrate on the task at hand.
It's all about the $$$$.

ooops, I need to research before posting. The vast majority of DH are not split. Carry on.

My point stands.

(07-12-2016 11:17 PM)JMUDukes20 Wrote:  There is 1 main reason for this move, and it is the reason game 1 and 2 CAN NOT be played on the same day. Ticket sales. If games 1 and 2 happen on 1 day, then there is a chance the schools and NCAA only get $ from 1 day of tickets. Now there are 3 days. 3 days of ticket sales, and not just $ from tickets but also concessions, hats, shirts and other gear. Don't let the NCAA's PR machine fool you and think this is about the athletes, it's about $ just like everything else the NCAA does.

This is a straight up $$$$$ grab by the NCAA. Sure they will hide behind the player welfare concern.....but that is secondary to $$$$. Every decision the NCAA makes is first and foremost about the $$$$.

These young ladies are in excellent condition. And the current format is exactly what these teams are accustomed to playing throughout conference play all season. 3 games over 2 days on a Sat and Sun.

(07-12-2016 11:17 PM)JMUDukes20 Wrote:  There is 1 main reason for this move, and it is the reason game 1 and 2 CAN NOT be played on the same day. Ticket sales. If games 1 and 2 happen on 1 day, then there is a chance the schools and NCAA only get $ from 1 day of tickets. Now there are 3 days. 3 days of ticket sales, and not just $ from tickets but also concessions, hats, shirts and other gear. Don't let the NCAA's PR machine fool you and think this is about the athletes, it's about $ just like everything else the NCAA does.

True. Don't know why I forgot about the money when talking about the NCAA. Shame on me.

Weren't most of the tickets sold during the super regional part of a package? I seem to remember if you bought a ticket, you were buying for the whole super regional. I know there were single game seats, but just wondering the percentage over tickets that were sold in a package.
I would say that if anything this would encourage more people to buy a package rather than just one game. Plus, how many of the regions actually went to a third game? Obviously we did, and I think that third day would have made a huge difference.
For our region, did people that purchase game two get to stay for game three? If not, the school and NCAA got exactly the same amount of revenue as they would have putting that game the next day.

I believe Game 2 & Game 3 were part of one session. I didn't leave the park between games.

(07-13-2016 01:41 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  I believe Game 2 & Game 3 were part of one session. I didn't leave the park between games.

If that's the case... yeah I get why many see it as a moneygrab. I do feel like even if that was their intention there are many positives out of it. I would absolutely pay for another game if there was that extra day and not feel remotely bad about it. Plus I think that extra time for rest will produce a better game. From a marketing standpoint, it gives an opportunity for more people to see your team, both at the stadium and on television. A casual TV watcher might sit around to watch one game, but may not want to catch a second one following. Moving that game to another day increases exposure in my opinion.
From a statistic point of view, I wonder how many teams won game 2 and 3. Seems like a win could really push momentum in that team's favor. I felt like LSU carried a lot of momentum going into game 3 of our series.

(07-13-2016 02:07 PM)JMad03 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 01:41 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  I believe Game 2 & Game 3 were part of one session. I didn't leave the park between games.

If that's the case... yeah I get why many see it as a moneygrab. I do feel like even if that was their intention there are many positives out of it. I would absolutely pay for another game if there was that extra day and not feel remotely bad about it. Plus I think that extra time for rest will produce a better game. From a marketing standpoint, it gives an opportunity for more people to see your team, both at the stadium and on television. A casual TV watcher might sit around to watch one game, but may not want to catch a second one following. Moving that game to another day increases exposure in my opinion.
From a statistic point of view, I wonder how many teams won game 2 and 3. Seems like a win could really push momentum in that team's favor. I felt like LSU carried a lot of momentum going into game 3 of our series.

I do too, and given the injury to JJ, an extra day of rest might have helped.

You can bet its a moneygrab for the NCAA and also for the hosting schools.
But You also have to think how a 3 day would benefit the communities....people staying a 3rd day, the hotels, restaurants etc that benefit from such an event... Im sure that had something to do with it ..cause those people/businesses are more likely to sponsor teams and adds more advertising too. the more advertising the more people the more tickets the more $$$.

ITS all about the Ba$$

(07-14-2016 11:39 AM)Lwflyrod Wrote:  You can bet its a moneygrab for the NCAA and also for the hosting schools.
But You also have to think how a 3 day would benefit the communities....people staying a 3rd day, the hotels, restaurants etc that benefit from such an event... Im sure that had something to do with it ..cause those people/businesses are more likely to sponsor teams and adds more advertising too. the more advertising the more people the more tickets the more $$$.

ITS all about the Ba$$

Yep, they can blow all the smoke they want but if it didn't mean the possibility of more cash, no changes would be made.