Regarding the Richmond Coliseum replacement, only one proposal was submitted by the deadline with the review of the proposal versus criteria to be completed in about two weeks. If it meets the criteria, then negotiation is supposed to be completed by the end of September, and put before City Council before the end of the year. With Dominion and Altria's CEOs and a retired Suntrust exec as the core group, this is a group with a lot of Richmond influence and gravity. The combo of the people involved, only one proposal submitted, and criteria that the City would not be bearing the debt makes this a far different animal from the years of fantasies for replacing The Diamond. I think this may quietly become a reality and proceed very quickly. With the hotels that have gone up in downtown, the restaurant and microbrewery scene that has become a phenom, and the additional support hotel and retail revamp of the site area included in the proposal, it will make this a very hot, new venue. Especially when it's designed to have the flexibility in event sizes. With the Richmond Convention Center space next door, there are alot of creative options.

I would hope the Richmond based CAA office is being very, very proactive to get their foot in the door with planning. That window may be there when it first opens, but may close quickly with competing ACC/A10 interest once it's been in place a year or two.


Sent from my SM-N910V using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-07-2018 03:40 PM)Tribeheart Wrote:  Regarding the Richmond Coliseum replacement, only one proposal was submitted by the deadline with the review of the proposal versus criteria to be completed in about two weeks. If it meets the criteria, then negotiation is supposed to be completed by the end of September, and put before City Council before the end of the year. With Dominion and Altria's CEOs and a retired Suntrust exec as the core group, this is a group with a lot of Richmond influence and gravity. The combo of the people involved, only one proposal submitted, and criteria that the City would not be bearing the debt makes this a far different animal from the years of fantasies for replacing The Diamond. I think this may quietly become a reality and proceed very quickly. With the hotels that have gone up in downtown, the restaurant and microbrewery scene that has become a phenom, and the additional support hotel and retail revamp of the site area included in the proposal, it will make this a very hot, new venue. Especially when it's designed to have the flexibility in event sizes. With the Richmond Convention Center space next door, there are alot of creative options.

I would hope the Richmond based CAA office is being very, very proactive to get their foot in the door with planning. That window may be there when it first opens, but may close quickly with competing ACC/A10 interest once it's been in place a year or two.


Sent from my SM-N910V using CSNbbs mobile app

Perhaps the CAA will get a future looking virtual tournament to be streamed on-line and avoid an old style system...

I do know from Twitter that A10 folks are quite jealous of our free CAA TV. I believe that their online streaming presence is all or mostly pay per view.

I love the tournament concept and always have, especially if you live in a one bid league. For most of my years of following the Tribe, it was that one gleam of hope at the end of a dismal year, knowing that no matter how bad we were, there was always that possibility that a miracle could happen and we could string together 3 or 4 victories at the tournament (sometimes that was as many wins as we had all year), shock the world, and go to the Big Dance.

The stark reality, however, is that when leagues decide to have a year end tournament that decides the league's automatic berth into the NCAA tournament, fairness to the schools involved is not on the minds of the league brass. Any tournament is first and foremost held for one thing, money.

For all of the big boy multiple bid conferences, site selection is not a big deal. The tourney is held at a true neutral site, seats are evenly distributed amongst all of the schools and are in most cases sold out, and if someone has a bit of geographical advantage and wins the conference tournament over a more deserving team, it is no big deal because the more deserving team is going to get an at large bid anyway.

For many of the lower conferences tracking well below the CAA's rating, these schools have gone away from the neutral site altogether, with higher seeded teams hosting first round games and in many cases the highest seeded team never playing a road game as long as they keep winning. Crowds are probably bigger, revenues are probably greater because each game is a separate event, and the regular season becomes even more important because seeding determines home court advantage. Such an arrangement is probably the fairest way of having a post season tournament determine the big dance invitation because regular season success is really rewarded. Unfortunately, such a setup provides zero of the social fun of a neutral site tournament and no site is gaining anything financially since most of the fans at the game belong to the home team.

That brings us to the CAA and any other mid major conference who tries to have a real tournament experience at a "neutral site". This ultimately becomes a battle between dollars and fairness and dollars are going to win out. We do not have the advantage of having 10 member schools with rabid fan bases who are going to gobble up their evenly divided allocation of tickets. So we have no choice but to place the tournament in a city where at least one of the schools resides relatively close by and hope that the "home" school can sell a bunch of tickets. Probably does not necessarily generate a great infusion of additional cash into the local economy, other than hotels and restaurants accommodating the visiting teams and their traveling party, but it puts more fannies in the seats and generates more revenues for the CAA.

I love that the CAA holds a neutral site tournament and I fully understand the rationale behind placing the tournament in the back yard of one of the member schools. I also think that Charleston is a wonderful city and serves as a cordial host. I do not think, however, that placing the tournament in Charleston is fair to any school other than Charleston and perhaps UNCW, and it gives Charleston the biggest home court advantage since the one that VCU had in Richmond. I could perhaps stomach this advantage a little better if it were predominantly fan base driven, but it is not. It, instead, is geographically driven, and fairness loses out to money.

The northernmost schools and the southern most schools are always going to get screwed the most by any location that is not in their own back yard. And if the site chosen goes to an extreme like it does in Charleston, then the schools at the other end of the geographic spectrum are really screwed. But from a fairness perspective, a centrally located site is the most fair to the most schools. There is nothing indicated in the regular season attendance figures for both Charleston and W&M to suggest that Tribe fans were any less likely to attend the tourney than Charleston fans. In fact, I would bet you if you had the tournament half way between Charleston and Williamsburg, we would out draw them. Laying the tournament in the backyard of one of the member schools, where the only investment that school's fans have to make is a tournament ticket, is one thing. Having the tournament in one of the extreme locations, where travel is pretty brutal for every other fan, gives the host school a bigger advantage than I think that they deserve.

Good luck to the College of Charleston. In this instance their regular season play warrants the prize that they won last night.

(03-07-2018 05:50 PM)WMTRIBE75 Wrote:  For all of the big boy multiple bid conferences, site selection is not a big deal. The tourney is held at a true neutral site, seats are evenly distributed amongst all of the schools and are in most cases sold out, and if someone has a bit of geographical advantage and wins the conference tournament over a more deserving team, it is no big deal because the more deserving team is going to get an at large bid anyway.

This is why it should just rotate amongst the member schools. Try to time it to be really good when it's your year to host.

Reality also is that several of the fan bases in the league do not support their teams much anyway. While there are some great fans of Northeastern and Hofstra that post on this site and both teams have excellent annually good programs, their schools do not support the team much at all. Both of those teams drew nothing even when the tournament was in Baltimore. They do not even draw much for their home games. Drexel also does not draw, but probably would have a decent number of people show up for a tourney in Philly. Did Towson bring the most fans when the tourney was in Baltimore? Did Delaware? I think the clear #1 in fans in the CAA is UNCW. My best guess is that COC or W&M is second. JMU used to draw some, but drew nothing this year. Elon, Delaware, Drexel, Northeastern, Hofstra and Towson do not draw significant numbers. So, logically if you are trying to get a tournament with the highest attendance, placing it in Charleston or closer to UNCW or W&M are your options. Obviously Richmond or Norfolk would fit well for the Tribe and for UNCW, Raleigh or Greensboro is probably still better for them than Charleston.

Northeastern is actually an amazing program. Coach Coen has done an excellent job there and they have an annually good team with virtually no fan support at all.

I don't think we can guarantee success based on any venue anyway. The Tribe lost 3 games at home in CAA play this season. The advantage a host team gets is not insurmountable. Charleston absolutely should have lost last night. Last year, they lost to UNCW(I didn't stay for the final so I don't know who had more fans, I would assume COC did). For as major of an advantage the CAA was in Richmond for VCU, others won there(ODU, JMU, George Mason and UNCW won a lot of championships). There were a lot of Tribe fans in attendance Monday night, more than last year. Obviously not nearly as many as went to Baltimore 2-3 years ago, but still a significant number. It says a lot about this year's team and the efforts at W&M that so many people attended. Hopefully, we will have even more next March.

This is a very simple solution. If a team doesn't want to host, then they pass their year.

(03-07-2018 06:01 PM)Rocco Wrote:  

(03-07-2018 05:50 PM)WMTRIBE75 Wrote:  For all of the big boy multiple bid conferences, site selection is not a big deal. The tourney is held at a true neutral site, seats are evenly distributed amongst all of the schools and are in most cases sold out, and if someone has a bit of geographical advantage and wins the conference tournament over a more deserving team, it is no big deal because the more deserving team is going to get an at large bid anyway.

This is why it should just rotate amongst the member schools. Try to time it to be really good when it's your year to host.

Maybe someone already mentioned this, but why not allow the conference regular season champion host the tournament? I swear there are NCAA basketball conference that use this method.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(03-07-2018 08:49 PM)Tribal Wrote:  Maybe someone already mentioned this, but why not allow the conference regular season champion host the tournament? I swear there are NCAA basketball conference that use this method.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

May be a worthy reward, but tough for the home team to organize the event with one week lead time, if not decided until the last Saturday, as well as, fans making travel plans/decisions that late in the game.

Sent from my SM-N910V using CSNbbs mobile app

If I may be so bold...

Back in 1977, when things were much more enlightened ... :-)... the initial round of the Southern Conference tourney was held at the homes of the higher seeds. W&M lost at home to ECU, after beating ECU twice during the regular season. I think the latter rounds were at one site, but older folks can confirm or deny.

Taking all of the issues into consideration, I think the following would work:

The regular season ends on a Saturday.

On Tuesday, 10 plays at 7, 9 plays at 8.

On Saturday, 5 plays at 4, 6 plays at 3, etc.

Now you have four teams left. Four fan bases can taste it. Four fan bases can set up travel arrangements.

You then have your final four at a pre-determined neutral site.

Living in New Jersey, just wasn't going to get in the car when Tribe was one of ten teams playing in Charleston. However, when the Tribe is one of four, the dynamic changes, and that's when we went to Baltimore for some semi's.

In sum, need to go to a hybrid tournament set up ... home games for early rounds ... neutral site for final four.

Knight named to the CAA All-Tournament Team. Well deserved honor.

https://wydaily.com/local-news/2018/03/0...ment-team/

Wasn't sure where to put this comment. I looked for old posts but without success.

Anyway, many of us have noted that the A-10 always seems to gain extra bids to the NCAAT by having bubble (or lower) teams win their conference tournament while the expected champ who lost usually gets a bid anyway.

Well, based on today's results so far, it looks like the ACC is now trying to do the same thing. All three games today (so far, with UNC and Syracuse still playing) featured lower seeded teams beating the higher seeds and several of the lower seeds were definitely bubble or worse (Boston College and Notre Dame). Sure those teams are desperate and the higher seeds really have nothing to play for ---- but I, for one, think that the ACC already has more than enough teams in the tournament and doesn't need any more. There is no doubt in my mind that Northeastern would win 5 out of 10 games on a neutral court with neutral referees against both BC and ND (this year). So how about giving that bid to a deserving school (I could name several) who would actually appreciate it than to just another ACC also-ran.

(03-07-2018 08:56 PM)Tribeheart Wrote:  

(03-07-2018 08:49 PM)Tribal Wrote:  Maybe someone already mentioned this, but why not allow the conference regular season champion host the tournament? I swear there are NCAA basketball conference that use this method.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

May be a worthy reward, but tough for the home team to organize the event with one week lead time, if not decided until the last Saturday, as well as, fans making travel plans/decisions that late in the game.

Sent from my SM-N910V using CSNbbs mobile app

Looks like the MWC awards their regular season champ with hosting rights.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

If you're going to go that route, hosting by champion, save everyone the travel money and ditch the tourney altogether. What's the point. Just crown the regular season champ.

Fyi, the Championship game attendance was 7,945. That's the highest I believe since the old VCU days at the Coliseum.

The tourney total - five sessions - will total near 22,000.

Pretty solid results. I doubt many mid majors will top that.

Essentially we would have had the same thing the last 2 years. When the 1 seed wins the championship, it is hard to say they were disadvantaged under the current system of the neutral site. In fact, the #1 seed suffered no real disadvantage the last 5 years. Perhaps COC had more fans than UNCW last year, I am not sure. UNCW had a lot of people at the 2017 tourney. The only change I would suggest is going back to the Friday thru Monday schedule. That schedule is slightly easier for travel and work schedules.

(03-07-2018 10:52 PM)Zorch Wrote:  Wasn't sure where to put this comment. I looked for old posts but without success.

Anyway, many of us have noted that the A-10 always seems to gain extra bids to the NCAAT by having bubble (or lower) teams win their conference tournament while the expected champ who lost usually gets a bid anyway.

Well, based on today's results so far, it looks like the ACC is now trying to do the same thing. All three games today (so far, with UNC and Syracuse still playing) featured lower seeded teams beating the higher seeds and several of the lower seeds were definitely bubble or worse (Boston College and Notre Dame). Sure those teams are desperate and the higher seeds really have nothing to play for ---- but I, for one, think that the ACC already has more than enough teams in the tournament and doesn't need any more. There is no doubt in my mind that Northeastern would win 5 out of 10 games on a neutral court with neutral referees against both BC and ND (this year). So how about giving that bid to a deserving school (I could name several) who would actually appreciate it than to just another ACC also-ran.

No way Northeastern beats ND 5 out of 10 times when they are healthy. The ACC tourney is the 1st time they have had Colson since out of conference play. BC is pretty good also and I don't think NE beats them 5 out of 10 times either.

My issue with it(and the Tribe clearly is not in consideration this year) is that of 36 at large bids, mid major conferences might get 4. The ACC could get 25% of them by themselves. But, nothing is going to change. I think the CAA's success in the past 15 years has helped to make the system we have. The P5( or 6 or 7) conferences do not want the CAA, or Butler, or Wichita St, or Gonzaga taking their money. So, they continue to shift the criteria to ensure more 7-11 conference records from the big conferences get a bid, while a 25-28 win small conference team gets left out. And, when they applaud the 4 teams that get an at large bid, they will reward them by placing them against each other to reduce it to 2 as fast as possible. We cannot have another Butler, George Mason or VCU. Since we know that the mid majors cannot get OOC home games, the only hope then is the road or early season tournaments. I don't see it changing. In fact, it is more likely that eventually the big conferences either play their own tourney or eventually reduce even the auto bids to smaller conferences. But credit to Northeastern for getting 2-3 really good OOC games next year in that OOC tournament(2018 Charleston Classic held at COC's home arena).

Add COC to the early season tourney list next year. Here is a list I found and teams playing in various tourneys. https://www.bloggingthebracket.com/2017/...anksgiving

(03-08-2018 09:18 AM)TribePride91 Wrote:  Add COC to the early season tourney list next year. Here is a list I found and teams playing in various tourneys. https://www.bloggingthebracket.com/2017/...anksgiving

We seem to have this conversation on this board each year this time, after 90%+ of the teams are locked in.

Hopefully the athletic department explores this earlier.

It was interesting to note that the teams not yet in these early season events listed in article were limited to 8 conferences, of which the CAA is not one.

I'd love to see W&M participating in these events.

Given the large conference bias, I assume it would take a significant amount of lobbying to get in one and because of the limited number of slots left for 2018-19, we are at this point talking about 2019-2020, unless talks are already underway.

Playing traditionally higher ranked schools on a neutral court would be a good second choice to hosting them at Kaplan and more practical I'd assume. This format would also provide the team with in season experience in a tournament format.

Congrats to NE and CoC for making that happen for themselves.