Greed has killed the Final Four

• dazedconfused

  

  the final four has turned into "let's see how many people we can cram into this small aircraft hanger known as a stadium - quality basketball be damned (patent/credit to manhattan buckeye)." three straight final fours (detroit, indy and now houston) and i can't remember a single entertaining game.
  
  the atmosphere that accompanies quality basketball games is just not there in stadiums designed for football. sightlines are terrible and it's tough for the crowd to get into the game because, for one, they are so far away from the action and two, watching shot after shot clank off the rim is just not entertaining.
  
  i understand putting an extra 50,000 people in a stadium is good for the bottom dollar but it's terrible for basketball. not saying this dreadful game between butler and uconn could have been salvaged, but it may have had a fighting chance at the toyota center and not in cavernous reliant stadium.
  
  i know this is fruitless bitching at this point because the final four will only be held in about 8 giant-sized football stadiums (with about 70,000 people in tow) from now on but it just kind of sucks that the sport's most important three games have become so unwatchable.
• Al Bundy

  The decline in college basketball talent because of almost everyone good going pro early has killed the final four more than any arena could.
• SportsAndLady

  

  dazedconfused;733074 wrote: three straight final fours (detroit, indy and now houston) and i can't remember a single entertaining game.

  
  I agree with your post, however, Memphis/Kansas was a great national championship game..played in Detroit.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Al Bundy;733107 wrote:The decline in college basketball talent because of almost everyone good going pro early has killed the final four more than any arena could.

  
  Also agree with this...if everyone keeps their word on coming back (Sullinger, Barnes, etc.) next year is going to be amazing. There's not going to be a VCU or Butler in the Final Four, the way it should be.
• swamisez

  

  SportsAndLady;733136 wrote:I agree with your post, however, Memphis/Kansas was a great national championship game..played in Detroit.

  
  Was actually played in San Antonio. Carolina MSU was in Detroit in 09.
  
  Also, San Antonio has a different setup than the other arenas because they partition. It gives a slightly better view than the new setups in monster arenas.
• killer_ewok

  

  Next year the Final Four is in New Orleans. The last time it was held there.....Syracuse beat Kansas to win the national championship. That was a pretty good game.
• wildcats20

  

  Not to mention last years game between Duke and Butler was a pretty good game.
• elbuckeye28

  wildcats20;733160 wrote:Not to mention last years game between Duke and Butler was a pretty good game.

  
  There have been a number of good games, and I think Saturday's games were excellent. That said, I there has been some poor shooting performances that could be attributed to the court set-up.
• thavoice

  dazedconfused;733074 wrote:the final four has turned into "let's see how many people we can cram into this small aircraft hanger known as a stadium - quality basketball be damned (patent/credit to manhattan buckeye)." three straight final fours (detroit, indy and now houston) and i can't remember a single entertaining game.
  
  the atmosphere that accompanies quality basketball games is just not there in stadiums designed for football. sightlines are terrible and it's tough for the crowd to get into the game because, for one, they are so far away from the action and two, watching shot after shot clank off the rim is just not entertaining.
  
  i understand putting an extra 50,000 people in a stadium is good for the bottom dollar but it's terrible for basketball. not saying this dreadful game between butler and uconn could have been salvaged, but it may have had a fighting chance at the toyota center and not in cavernous reliant stadium.
  
  i know this is fruitless bitching at this point because the final four will only be held in about 8 giant-sized football stadiums (with about 70,000 people in tow) from now on but it just kind of sucks that the sport's most important three games have become so unwatchable.

  
  
  As an FYI..this is NOT a new thing.
  
  Back in 1987, and I remember this game well, t was held at the Superdome in La. There was 62,000+ at this game. I dont now how many were there last night. One of the roving announcers at teh game said he was told by a fan who sat near the top taht 'the game is just a rumor up here'
• Manhattan Buckeye

  The Superdome is tiny in comparison to Lucas Oil/Reliant. I've been to several games there - 1) they part the court and set up bleachers (actual bleachers, not rows of floor seats behind the basket) so that it looks like a normal arena, 2) If people want to buy the top level seats and bring binoculars they can do so - but at least in the Superdome it doesn't affect the game as much.
• Little Danny

  

  Al Bundy;733107 wrote:The decline in college basketball talent because of almost everyone good going pro early has killed the final four more than any arena could.

  
  +1. There is a reason teams like Butler, VCU, Gonzago, BYU et al do well in the tournament. It is becuase they have a bunch of 22-23 year olds who have been playing college basketball for four years while the teams from the power conferences are lucky to have one or two seniors.
• SportsAndLady

  

  swamisez;733147 wrote:Was actually played in San Antonio. Carolina MSU was in Detroit in 09.

  
  Ahh whoops...you're right.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Little Danny;733984 wrote:while the teams from the power conferences are lucky to have one or two seniors.

  
  Ehhh..juniors and seniors are virtually the same thing, to me. I mean if you're a junior, you have basically all the experience a senior would have. Lots of teams from power conferences have a good amount of juniors and seniors. Kansas started 2 seniors and 3 juniors. Ohio State 3 seniors. Pitt 3 seniors and 2 juniors.
  
  That being said, definitely agree that you need juniors and seniors to do well in the tourney...just disagree that it's only the VCUs and Butlers of the world that do well because they have upperclassman.
• thavoice

  Manhattan Buckeye;733857 wrote:The Superdome is tiny in comparison to Lucas Oil/Reliant. I've been to several games there - 1) they part the court and set up bleachers (actual bleachers, not rows of floor seats behind the basket) so that it looks like a normal arena, 2) If people want to buy the top level seats and bring binoculars they can do so - but at least in the Superdome it doesn't affect the game as much.

  
  I will have to check the tape of the IU game. Yes, I still have it, and all but their opening round win, on tape.
  
  I do remember the announcers, Packer in fact, talking about how the background there was very distracting. Also, there was a jumbotron that was in the peripheral vision to the left I think when one team was going a certain direction.
  
  Depends on how they do it in domes. I have seen some place the court like in the endzone and put up bleachers on the one side and use stadium seating on the other three sides. OTher place it more in the middle like for this FF. I wanna say that is how it was for the FF with IU, UNLV, Syr and Providence I think. Matter of fact, there was speculation that Providence, who lived and died by the three, was having hard time shooting because of the vastness of the dome.
  
  This isnt a new problem, and one that will not go away.
• Classyposter58

  

  Is it really that bad to see? I saw Michigan play Michigan State in hockey up in Michigan Stadium earlier this December and I didn't have amazing seats yet I could see pretty well I'd say...I could see the puck go in and constantly followed it. With that being said you'd think a place that only seats 65k wouldn't be that hard to see a giant orange ball
• Little Danny

  

  Classyposter58;736008 wrote:Is it really that bad to see? I saw Michigan play Michigan State in hockey up in Michigan Stadium earlier this December and I didn't have amazing seats yet I could see pretty well I'd say...I could see the puck go in and constantly followed it. With that being said you'd think a place that only seats 65k wouldn't be that hard to see a giant orange ball

  
  The issue of sight is for the players, not the fan. A basketball players depth perception is thrown off in these huge arenas. Screws up their shot.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Little Danny;736185 wrote:The issue of sight is for the players, not the fan. A basketball players depth perception is thrown off in these huge arenas. Screws up their shot.

  
  Its also not fun for spectators in the "cheap" seats. There's no way of even telling the ball is close to going in until it gets to the rim. Basketball just shouldn't be played in large arenas - football is fine for big stadiums (the upper deck endzone is actually pretty good if you want a "Madden video game view" to see plays develop) but almost in every situation smaller gyms = better gyms (Cameron Indoor, Palestra, my old HS gym, etc.).
• Classyposter58

  

  Little Danny;736185 wrote:The issue of sight is for the players, not the fan. A basketball players depth perception is thrown off in these huge arenas. Screws up their shot.

  
  Oh yeah I know that. I played bball before in hs for a small school and you get pretty used to that wall being 15 feet back of the hoop but we played at Central Catholic's gym up in Toledo for one game and that place is basically a mini-arena, with hoops that didn't hang from the rafters. Lets just say I threw up some of the ugliest shots ever during shoot around...that hoop was hard to get used to