|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Aug 15, 2019 14:20:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by nwhoopfan on Aug 15, 2019 14:45:40 GMT -8
How is reducing the number of sites hosting Regionals growing the game and increasing interest? I just don't see the point they are trying to make. Already 3/4 of the sites are in Texas and points further east. I could see them not bothering to have any Regional sites in the west ever if this happens. Yeah, that's great for the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by wbosh15 on Aug 15, 2019 14:53:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Aug 15, 2019 15:16:41 GMT -8
Agree 100% with nwhoopfan. This is a lame idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by nwhoopfan on Aug 15, 2019 15:39:53 GMT -8
There would have to be some major changes for the NCAA to allow a casino and Sin City to be host sites. NCAA (the organization) and sports betting don't really go together very well thus far.
So is the proposal to have those 2 sites host permanently? That also is a bad idea IMO. I know just about every conference in the west now have their conference tourney in Vegas. Many people seem to think it's the best place in the world. Not my cup of tea. I think Portland and Spokane getting chances to host Regionals has been great, I was hoping after Key Arena is refurbished yet again that they might be able to get a Regional. It's kinda nice when an event like that ends up close to where you live. I just can't see myself ever traveling to Vegas for it. That's just me of course.
And then there's the issue of UConn always having a Regional nearby. Almost always have one in state or in NYC. This would make it official that they would never have to leave their state on their way to the Final 4 each year. Seems like more than a little bit of an unfair advantage.
|
|
