it is bad enough having to play some of these guys but having to do it in places next to their home is not fair. Why can't the NCAA send those teams elsewhere so that noone has a real advantage...in other words, make it as neutral as possible. Examples: North Carolina, Villanova, Washington, and others.
Why Do Teams Have "Home" Court Advantage?
- Thread starter jbulldog
- Start date
I just don't see how it's fair home some teams are allowed to play so close to home.
I understand the logic of saying that they earned something by being a top seed, but to me, their reward is the fact that they get to play a 16-seed in the first round and an 8-9 in the second. That should be reward enough, without having to completely sway the playing field in some cases.
I understand the logic of saying that they earned something by being a top seed, but to me, their reward is the fact that they get to play a 16-seed in the first round and an 8-9 in the second. That should be reward enough, without having to completely sway the playing field in some cases.
They actually played 3 home games on that court this year. And only did that because the rule says you can't play an NCAA game on a court you played 4 or more games on during the regular season. They usually play more than 3, but I imagine they smartly decided to play 3 this year since they knew Philly was a site. It's still ridiculous they got to play a cab ride away from their campus, I don't care what seed they are. I think the rule shouldn't allow you to have played ANY home games at a host site in order to play at that site.
a "home court" advantage, we do what we mostly do best and that is choke it away.
See MSU as a #5 seed in Bham vs a #12 Butler.
2 hr drive from Strakville, huge contingent of MSU fans in the Bham metro area, good many in Atl. (a 2 hr drive) and we piss it away.
See MSU as a #5 seed in Bham vs a #12 Butler.
2 hr drive from Strakville, huge contingent of MSU fans in the Bham metro area, good many in Atl. (a 2 hr drive) and we piss it away.
that due to the economy, the NCAA was going to try and limit teams travel as much as they could. It looks like they did that to benefit the higher seeds. Not saying it's right or wrong, but I did hear that somewhere.
I look at it this way. You're not gonna have a site that's not near a college campus obviously, and chances are whatever sites you choose are gonna be a short distant from some of the teams that make it in the tourney field. Why not award the top seeds for their season with not making them travel cross country. I think they should take consideration of all teams and try to put them somewhat close (not cross country like us and UCLA had to do), but I have no problem with the top seeds getting to play close by.