... And San Diego Nips Gonzaga for mens WCC Title!

[schmofstra]

Well I guess we won't be seeing any Toreros over in the Crapsville bar for a while!

Congrats to San Diego on upsetting St. Mary's in 2OT and then Gonzaga tonight 69-62.

[wkuhillhound]

UK fans everywhere are jumping for joy right now! That just improve their resume that much more. Despite losing to San Diego in the regular season. Now they the WCC Tournament champions, Kentucky is helped by them winning.

[Marcus Garvey]

And a bubble team somwhere, will have their dreams dashed by this. Looks like the WCC gets 3 in, as Gonzaga and St. Mary's are already mortal locks.

[CopperCat]

Wow, I never would have seen that coming. And I also would have never thought that the WCC would get three teams in the tournament.xthumbsupx

Go Zags!!!

[TheValleyRaider]

Nice job Toreros! xthumbsupx

Every spot that can be taken by another "mid-major" is good in my book xnodx

[Eyes of Old Main]

And anyone who beats Gonzaga is good in my book.

[bluehenbillk]

Just hurt the 'Cuse with that one...

[AshevilleApp2]

Congratulations! This will make Selection Sunday that much more interesting.

[gmoney55]

That's a killer to Nova.

[NorCalJack]

SDSU is a little new to this D-1 conference thing. SDSU just joined the Summit League this year. We are not allowed to compete in the Summit League tourney this year because we can not play in the NCAA tourney until we have complete the transition phase of our D-1 reclassification. I know the Summit League tourney is played at a neutral site. The WCC basketball tourney looks like it was played at the San Diego Terros home court. Why would they give the home team such a big home field advantage for such an important event? Are most conference tourney's played on neutral courts? Or do they rotate the tourney around to the home sites of the conference members?

Most Mid-Major conferences only get one team into the NCAA and I would think the conference would really want the best team in the conference to win the conference tourney. That way they have the best chance of advancing in the NCAA tourney. It just seems weird that one team would be given such an advantage in this situation. What other conferences have the conference tourney at the home site of one of the competing teams?

[Marcus Garvey]

SDSU is a little new to this D-1 conference thing. SDSU just joined the Summit League this year. We are not allowed to compete in the Summit League tourney this year because we can not play in the NCAA tourney until we have complete the transition phase of our D-1 reclassification. I know the Summit League tourney is played at a neutral site. The WCC basketball tourney looks like it was played at the San Diego Terros home court. Why would they give the home team such a big home field advantage for such an important event? Are most conference tourney's played on neutral courts? Or do they rotate the tourney around to the home sites of the conference members?

Most Mid-Major conferences only get one team into the NCAA and I would think the conference would really want the best team in the conference to win the conference tourney. That way they have the best chance of advancing in the NCAA tourney. It just seems weird that one team would be given such an advantage in this situation. What other conferences have the conference tourney at the home site of one of the competing teams?

That's on account of ESPN, aka, the "World Wide Leader," aka, the worst g--damn force in televised sports.
This was chronicled in John Feinstein's book, The Last Amatuers. ESPN agrees to televise the title games for all the little podunk conferences. In order to gurantee a sell-out, and a great "environment" for a game, they encourage the conferences to play the tournament final at the home court of one of the two teams. In the Patriot League, the first and 2nd rounds are at pre-determined location, with the final being held at the home court of the highest remaining seed.

I don't know if the WCC does it that way. They may just rotate the tournament among member schools. There are definite advantages to that. Namely, nobody has to go to the trouble of securing a neutral court location. Also, by hosting it at one of the member schools, attendance is generally better.

[AZGrizFan]

And a bubble team somwhere, will have their dreams dashed by this. Looks like the WCC gets 3 in, as Gonzaga and St. Mary's are already mortal locks.

And that bubble team is most likely either ASU or U of A. xmadx xmadx xmadx xmadx

[hebmskebm]

SDSU is a little new to this D-1 conference thing. SDSU just joined the Summit League this year. We are not allowed to compete in the Summit League tourney this year because we can not play in the NCAA tourney until we have complete the transition phase of our D-1 reclassification. I know the Summit League tourney is played at a neutral site. The WCC basketball tourney looks like it was played at the San Diego Terros home court. Why would they give the home team such a big home field advantage for such an important event? Are most conference tourney's played on neutral courts? Or do they rotate the tourney around to the home sites of the conference members?

Most Mid-Major conferences only get one team into the NCAA and I would think the conference would really want the best team in the conference to win the conference tourney. That way they have the best chance of advancing in the NCAA tourney. It just seems weird that one team would be given such an advantage in this situation. What other conferences have the conference tourney at the home site of one of the competing teams?


The WCC commish was on during the broadcast of one of the games saying that next year the tourney was going to be on a neutral site in Vegas for the first time.

Also, though the place looked nice on TV, I couldn't help but snicker at the name of USD's basketball court; the Jenny Craig Pavillion. :D :D :D

[USDFAN_55]

The WCC commish was on during the broadcast of one of the games saying that next year the tourney was going to be on a neutral site in Vegas for the first time.

Also, though the place looked nice on TV, I couldn't help but snicker at the name of USD's basketball court; the Jenny Craig Pavillion. :D :D :D

The WCC tournament has always rotated sites. It will be played in Vegas next year, but I can see that failing. There won't be nearly as many fans at a neutral site such as Vegas, plus it doesn't seem as cost efficient. Why pay to use an off site location when you can just use the arena of one of the league members. The one problem with that is teams such as Saint Mary's just don't have the proper facilities to host such an event. Really I think it comes down to Santa Clara, San Diego, and Gonzaga that have good enough facilities for the WCC tournament. Maybe it can be some kind of incentive for the other schools to get rid of their high school gyms.

[TheValleyRaider]

That's on account of ESPN, aka, the "World Wide Leader," aka, the worst g--damn force in televised sports.
This was chronicled in John Feinstein's book, The Last Amatuers. ESPN agrees to televise the title games for all the little podunk conferences. In order to gurantee a sell-out, and a great "environment" for a game, they encourage the conferences to play the tournament final at the home court of one of the two teams. In the Patriot League, the first and 2nd rounds are at pre-determined location, with the final being held at the home court of the highest remaining seed.

Actually, the Patriot League now does it all at the home courts of the higher seeded teams. That's how Colgate was able to host 2 games this year as the #3 seed. Of course, the continuing quest to find a neutral site for the tournament meanders on...

Otherwise, yeah, Feinstein pretty much nails it. Granted, it is more fun to watch when there's a big crowd, and the home court+ESPN being there will guarantee a big crowd. Switching it to the home court of the higher seeded team seems the fairest way to me if the insistence is on having one team be at home xtwocentsx

[Marcus Garvey]

Actually, the Patriot League now does it all at the home courts of the higher seeded teams. That's how Colgate was able to host 2 games this year as the #3 seed. Of course, the continuing quest to find a neutral site for the tournament meanders on...

Otherwise, yeah, Feinstein pretty much nails it. Granted, it is more fun to watch when there's a big crowd, and the home court+ESPN being there will guarantee a big crowd. Switching it to the home court of the higher seeded team seems the fairest way to me if the insistence is on having one team be at home xtwocentsx

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Of course, the book is like 6 or 7 years old, so I'm not surprised things have changed since then.

Personally, I hate conference tournaments. When I moved to AZ, the Big10 and Pac-10 still had no conference tourney, having abandoned them some years earlier. But the great god, $$$, came calling and they both reinstated their tourneys.

I particularly dislike the Pac-10's. They play it every stinking year at the Staples Center in L.A. Why? Sure, UCLA is a good draw, but Paulie Pavilion is not the largest arena in the Pac-10 for a reason. The attendance has been underwhelming at most of the games. I think they should rotate the Conference Tournament among at least 5 sites:
L.A. (Staples Center), Portland (the Jail Blazers' arena), Seattle (the Sonics' soon to be former arena), Oakland or San Jose and Phoenix (preferably USAirways Arena, but Glendale's a possiblity.)

[TheValleyRaider]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Of course, the book is like 6 or 7 years old, so I'm not surprised things have changed since then.

They've actually changed several times since then. When he wrote the book, they did it all at the site of the regular season champ, previously they rotated it around. Since the season chronicled in the book (1999-2000), they added American, tried the single-site thing at the ridiculous Show Place Arena, tried the 2 mini-tournaments at the top 2 seeds for 2 years, then finally switched to the all home site thing last season.

Really, the PL's leadership seems to be gun-shy after the Show Place time was such a mess. The site in Maryland was chosen partially to appease American, but instead screwed attendence because it was far away from the geographic center of the league. A site in New Jersey/Philadelphia region would be more reasonable xtwocentsx

[Marcus Garvey]

They've actually changed several times since then. When he wrote the book, they did it all at the site of the regular season champ, previously they rotated it around. Since the season chronicled in the book (1999-2000), they added American, tried the single-site thing at the ridiculous Show Place Arena, tried the 2 mini-tournaments at the top 2 seeds for 2 years, then finally switched to the all home site thing last season.

Really, the PL's leadership seems to be gun-shy after the Show Place time was such a mess. The site in Maryland was chosen partially to appease American, but instead screwed attendence because it was far away from the geographic center of the league. A site in New Jersey/Philadelphia region would be more reasonable xtwocentsx

Frankly, I think it was naive to think that any neutral site would draw well for the Patriot League. The teams all play in small arenas. They draw close to capacity only when they are near the top of the league. Otherwise, it's echo-city during the games. Casual college basketball fans aren't interested in seeing PL teams play.

The days of Holy Cross selling out games at Boston Garden are long over.