2011 NCAAW Sweet 16

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by grunewar

And for those of you who said the #1 seeds always win. See there, Tenn fell before the Final Four - Rare, but hey, it happens!

Ok, so the NCAAW's tournament will end up with three #1s and a #2 in the Final Four.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Ok, so the NCAAW's tournament will end up with three #1s and a #2 in the Final Four.

+1

Not exactly VCU over KU, or Butler over Florida.

[Nevadaref]

UConn is up 30 with under 5 minutes left and Geno puts Maya Moore back into the game! She left a few minutes ago after banging her knee into an opponent.
What does this tell us? That Geno is an idiot.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

UConn is up 30 with under 5 minutes left and Geno puts Maya Moore back into the game! She left a few minutes ago after banging her knee into an opponent.
What does this tell us? That Geno is an idiot.

Gee, I thought he was a genius....

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Gee, I thought he was a genius....

After all, he broke John Wooden's record.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Ok, so the NCAAW's tournament will end up with three #1s and a #2 in the Final Four.

Ended up being two 1s and two 2s as Baylor was not able to beat A&M for the fourth time this season.

[Nevadaref]

BTW how foolish is it to set up a bracket with a #1 and a #2 seed in a Regional from the same conference? It would seem to make sense to switch the #2 with one of the #2s from another Regional.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

BTW how foolish is it to set up a bracket with a #1 and a #2 seed in a Regional from the same conference? It would seem to make sense to switch the #2 with one of the #2s from another Regional.

Foolish or really really smart? Two teams from the same conference and the same state playing in Dallas in front of a sold out arena...foolish or smart?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

Foolish or really really smart? Two teams from the same conference and the same state playing in Dallas in front of a sold out arena...foolish or smart?

ESPN reports the attendance as 11,508. Let's say that the ticket price was $100. I know that the men's tickets were $90, so I am clearly high here, but it will help prove the point.

That is $100 x 11,508 for a total gate of $1,150,800.

The site gets the concessions, so the NCAA has to pay the facility rental and the people who staff the game, plus the money which is given to each school for participating out of the above.

After that really how much is left as profit? Does it really matter if 10,000 or 5,000 or 2,000 people are at the game? (I know that on the mens side if only 5,000 seats were available more demand would be created and it would be easy to double the ticket price, thus generating the same revenue. Would the case be the same for the women? Not sure.)

My point: I seriously doubt that the NCAA is making money from the on-site attendance. I contend that the major revenue stream comes from the TV contract. Compared to that the on-site money is a drop in the bucket.

(Just saw the USA article today with this quote: "But as the NCAA basketball tournament's Final Four gathers here this week — capping a three-week showcase that generates more than $771 million a year in television rights alone..."
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...terstitialskip)

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My point: I seriously doubt that the NCAA is making money from the on-site attendance. I contend that the major revenue stream comes from the TV contract. Compared to that the on-site money is a drop in the bucket.

(

Yet another reason why the NCAA sites these games at places where they know they will be able to sell a lot of tickets...at least this way they do make some money, rather than losing money at neutral sites.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Yet another reason why the NCAA sites these games at places where they know they will be able to sell a lot of tickets...at least this way they do make some money, rather than losing money at neutral sites.

Yep, and I highly doubt they're making $771 million on TV contracts for the women's tournament.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Yet another reason why the NCAA sites these games at places where they know they will be able to sell a lot of tickets...at least this way they do make some money, rather than losing money at neutral sites.

Even for the men's early tourney, afternoon games, there were very few people in the seats in some arenas.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

ESPN reports the attendance as 11,508. Let's say that the ticket price was $100. I know that the men's tickets were $90, so I am clearly high here, but it will help prove the point.

That is $100 x 11,508 for a total gate of $1,150,800.

The site gets the concessions, so the NCAA has to pay the facility rental and the people who staff the game, plus the money which is given to each school for participating out of the above.

After that really how much is left as profit? Does it really matter if 10,000 or 5,000 or 2,000 people are at the game? (I know that on the mens side if only 5,000 seats were available more demand would be created and it would be easy to double the ticket price, thus generating the same revenue. Would the case be the same for the women? Not sure.)

My point: I seriously doubt that the NCAA is making money from the on-site attendance. I contend that the major revenue stream comes from the TV contract. Compared to that the on-site money is a drop in the bucket.

(Just saw the USA article today with this quote: "But as the NCAA basketball tournament's Final Four gathers here this week — capping a three-week showcase that generates more than $771 million a year in television rights alone..."
Source: NCAA president: Time to discuss players getting sliver of revenue pie - USATODAY.com)

It is also about the building being full for TV!

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Ended up being two 1s and two 2s....

Ya see, parity!