TigerFan
PhD Student
Posts: 1888
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-15-22 10:43 AM - Post#339246
In response to dperry
I went to both games at the Palestra in 2017 and the one-game playoff at Yale in 2011 because I could drive to the games and get back home that day. I’ve also seen the Tigers play in the NCAA tournament at 9 times and was ready to spend more money than would have been reasonable to see them in the big tournament this year. My decision not to travel to Cambridge was a rational one: 1) I didn’t want to spend a lot of money on the trip knowing I was planning to travel to the NCAA tournament if the Tigers won, 2) I thought it wise for my mental health and that of those around me to avoid the misery and fury at the ILT if the Tigers didn’t prevail.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32816
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Tournament Attendances
03-15-22 10:47 AM - Post#339247
In response to dperry
Like other tournaments, it would be more of an alumni event, but by scheduling it during Spring Break, you are making certain that virtually none will be there. With Princeton having changed its finals to prior to the New Year, there is absolutely no reason the Ivies have to go until Selection Sunday.
But there are six Ivy business schools--some of the best in the nation. If we cannot market a tournament using some of that expertise, who can?
|
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts: 1439
Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Tournament Attendances
03-15-22 11:22 AM - Post#339250
In response to palestra38
Palestra 38 wrote:
<<With Princeton having changed its finals to prior to the New Year, there is absolutely no reason the Ivies have to go until Selection Sunday.>>
Unfortunately, there is one big reason (or many big rea$on$).
As was explained to me:
When the Ivy League revised its schedule this year, there were two versions. One had six single game weekends, the MLK Saturday/Monday weekend and three traditional back to back weekends with the traditional travel partners. That schedule, with the Ivy tournament on Selection Sunday weekend, was the one which was adopted.
There was an alternative schedule. It would have consisted of four single game weekends, the MLK Saturday/Monday weekend, and four traditional back to back weekends. The regular season would have ended one week earlier, and the tournament would have been one week earlier.
ESPN informed the Ivy League that the league could hold its tournament whenever it chose to do so. However, if the tournament were not held on Selection Sunday weekend, ESPN would not televise it.
Guess who prevailed?
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32816
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Tournament Attendances
03-15-22 11:42 AM - Post#339254
In response to Stuart Suss
Who gives a damn? No one is really watching it on TV anyway, and we can get another cable network (CBS, FX Sports, NBC Sportsnet) to broadcast it. The Tournament's problems are largely due to playing it against the finals of major conferences and on Spring Break.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21193
Reg: 12-02-04
|
Re: Tournament Attendances
03-15-22 11:45 AM - Post#339255
In response to palestra38
It's not just the tourney.
How many times in recent years has a Penn-Princeton game been during someone's break?
If you want to get student interest back at Penn, at least schedule these kinds of games when there are students around.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
Re: Tournament Attendances
03-15-22 01:21 PM - Post#339261
In response to palestra38
Who gives a damn? No one is really watching it on TV anyway, and we can get another cable network (CBS, FX Sports, NBC Sportsnet) to broadcast it.
You obviously don't care but the decision makers clearly did.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32816
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Tournament Attendances
03-15-22 01:22 PM - Post#339262
In response to PennFan10
Not necessarily that they "cared" but just went with the path of least resistance---which is what the Ivies typically do.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
03-15-22 01:48 PM - Post#339264
In response to palestra38
So, we chose to hold the games when they could be televised on ESPN and at a time when none of the student bodies are on campus. And we wonder why attendance is low and we all watch on ESPN?
We also make it so the 4 sets of fans have to travel. This is compounded by the fact that if you do travel it could well be (50% chance) for a single (disappointing) game on Saturday? Of course, that's endemic to any single elimination tournament. Even the early ACC games at the Barclays Center are barely attended. A few years ago I had the option of courtside tix to watch Pitt play for $25.
Also, a northern city in early March isn't much of a gathering.
Finally, keep in mind that we're the diehards! Very few others are.
If you want students, and want to make the regular season meaningful, let the #1 seed host the tournament. It's equitable, adds meaning to the season, and everyone still has a chance to host. I'm sure the putative host will be able to figure out how to keep its arena available and ticketing can all be digital. As for hotels, it seems that most fans either live locally or only come for a day trip. Others can always drive to the suburbs where the business hotels are plentiful and cheap. In many years, with the new schedule and only one final game on the last weekend, the top seed will be known two weeks in advance. If the host school has a gym that's too small, then that's gives that school a reason to build/expand.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32816
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-15-22 01:51 PM - Post#339265
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
I have no problem with that other than for your last sentence. If both Harvard and Columbia, after having raised boatloads of money, wouldn't build new reasonably sized arenas (although my daughter is at the Columbia Business School new campus right where I said they should have built the arena 15 years ago so I shouldn't complain), they never will.
So my suggestion is that sure, home team gets to "host" but minimum 5000 seats. However they can do it.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4911
Reg: 02-04-06
|
03-15-22 07:59 PM - Post#339295
In response to palestra38
The folly is inherently flawed, for all the reasons I and others have said ad nauseum, but one minor thing would at least be complementary to ESPN's insistence on holding it the weekend of Selection Sunday: Hold the first round on Thursday or Friday and the finals on Saturday. That way, someone outside the IL might actually watch the games and pay attention, as that is the day when all the conferences' results are eagerly awaited by the bracketology nuts.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
03-15-22 10:39 PM - Post#339344
In response to SRP
I think there are more games clogging the airwaves on Friday. Large conference semifinals.
Noon on Friday do it?
|
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts: 1146
Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
|
03-16-22 07:17 AM - Post#339350
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
If you want students, and want to make the regular season meaningful, let the #1 seed host the tournament.
You are aware why this doesn't happen, right?
I, mean, it's been pointed out well over dozens of times...
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
03-16-22 12:25 PM - Post#339368
In response to Go Green
I know there has been a lot written on it.
I'll go back and look.
I know there's a men's vs women's issue - they want to keep things together.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32816
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-16-22 12:40 PM - Post#339369
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Of course, with tiny arenas requiring split admissions and no planned social activities, what exactly is the cross-over of the fans of the men's and women's tournaments? Can't be more than 100.
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 3995
Reg: 11-23-04
|
03-16-22 12:55 PM - Post#339373
In response to palestra38
I really don’t think the league is all that concerned about attendance. Fact I don’t think they’re much concerned about tha “fans”. Their first priority are the players and the teams.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32816
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-16-22 01:37 PM - Post#339377
In response to Old Bear
What advantage is there for the players that the 2 tournaments be played in the same place? In a compressed tournament like this, they are going to play, eat and sleep. If the aim is to act in the interest of the players, what is the advantage of doing it the way we are doing?
|
LocalTiger
Masters Student
Posts: 430
Age: 58
Reg: 11-15-17
|
03-16-22 01:54 PM - Post#339378
In response to palestra38
the Princeton men attended the Women's semi, and thew players commented on how important that was to them.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
03-16-22 02:17 PM - Post#339381
In response to LocalTiger
I assume Power conferences separate the tournaments.
Why not hold them in separate locations like I assume we do for other sports.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
03-16-22 02:21 PM - Post#339382
In response to LocalTiger
Here is an interview with Robin Harris from 2019 that "tries to explain" some of the rationale for rotating venues:
https://www.inquirer.com/college-sports/ivy-le ague...
Some of the quotes include:
"What a wonderful opportunity, to be able to bring this terrific event to each campus community and have the local fans that support their teams at the school throughout the year have a chance to attend. And for fans that travel, to get to our campuses."
Is the small capacity of some Ivy venues a concern for you?
"We have to pay attention to capacity, and we have to make sure that we give our most ardent fans the opportunity to attend. All the venues can do that. We’re going to have terrific environments for our student-athletes who are playing, because we’re going to have packed venues everywhere we go. The Palestra was a great environment, the way the sound reverberates, for the men and the women. At the smaller venues, we’ll pack them"
"During the past several years, we’ve looked at a number of neutral facilities. That’s been part of the process throughout. There’s a couple of issues.
One, it’s very costly. It’s much more cost-effective to be in one of our campus venues.
The second piece is the atmosphere at neutral venues. Some conferences choose to go to neutral venues. Obviously all of the so-called “Power 6” conferences are at neutral venues, and sometimes their crowds are just not that great, and the atmosphere’s not that great, frankly."
"The tournaments were never about generating revenue. We want to cover our costs, and operate them in a cost-effective way, and we want to make sure ticket prices remain accessible to our fans."
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32816
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-16-22 03:28 PM - Post#339385
In response to PennFan10
"The tournaments were never about generating revenue. We want to cover our costs, and operate them in a cost-effective way, and we want to make sure ticket prices remain accessible to our fans."
(1) They are about not losing money
(2) They will not lose money
(3) And if we have to gouge our most ardent fans, we will do so so we don't lose money.
As a season ticket holder who paid for 14 games but received 11 this year, I am well aware of the Prime Directive of Ivy Sports.
|
