And part of getting the #1 overall seed is being able to play close to home. It's been that way forever.
And part of getting the #1 overall seed is being able to play close to home. It's been that way forever.
Where would you like them to play the tournament to ensure total neutrality? Siberia? Mexico City? Darfur?
And this coming from a fan base that longed and pined for the Selection Committee to place us in Omaha so the fans could drive to the game.
Disagree. There are plenty of rewards for 1 seeds. Just like it was BS to have to play Michigan State in Auburn Hills in 2000.
C
CyBer
Guest
No kidding, also the fan base that is begging for the Big XII tournament to stay in KC so the fans could drive to the game.
That's part of the benefit of the #1 seed. A reward for staying on the gas during the regular season. No different from pro sports, except you're not even in your home arena.
So you're saying it was also BS for Iowa State to play in Minneapolis in 2000 as well?
We wouldve liked it, but also accepted not being there. The tournament should have some neutrality in its site seeding. If one team happens to benefit by luck, then whatever. I'd get rid of the protected sites in the first round as well (or at least give larger allotments than the ridiculously low 350 that allows the teams that know they'll be there all season to buy up all the seats)
Or maybe because KC has been the best location for the big 12 tournament and its not really arguable.
So you are saying that it was BS for Iowa State to have played in Minneapolis in 2000 and that us fans shouldn't have wanted to play in Omaha this year. Sounds about right.
In some ways, yes. Id be just fine with the sites being assigned blindly. Its a national tournament, seeds give enough advantage as it is, let the chips fall where they may.
C
CyBer
Guest
You guys are just arguing for the sake of arguing right now. Part of the reward of being the best is being able to play close to home. If your team is being screwed, then win more games and avoid it.
C
