It's Time to Change the Pac-10 Tourney
This week the Pac-10 basketball tourney will start for the final time. No, they're not scrapping the entire thing Los Angeles, don't get excited, it will just be the Pac-12 Tourney next year. Besides the addition of 2 more teams to the tournament, Larry Scott really needs to consider making some other vital adjustments.
Exposure
Some of you may have noticed that Scott announced that the Pac-10 tourney has partnered up with YouTube to stream post-game conferences as well as any games that are not already going to be broadcast on FSN (read: women's games). This is a great step by Scott and the conference in increasing exposure in the Pac-10 tournament. In the last couple of years the tournament has been little more than an after thought on the national stage at this time of year. And that really needs to change. I don't think I need to tell you how important it is for marketing dollars, recruiting, and the betterment of the conference to get as much exposure on Pac-10 teams as possible. Lastly, this small step is a sign of the forward thinking that Scott has in mind when it comes to the Pac-10's next media deal. Teaming up with the largest online video network in the world, even if it's for something as small as post-game conferences and not highly popular games means Scott is determined to broadcast as much Pac-10 sports as possible and he'll use all available media components possible to make that happen.
Format
Obviously with the addition of 2 more teams to the tourney, the format is going to have to change. I don't expect to see any extra days added to the tournament, but instead of having the top 6 teams in the conference get a first day bye, instead it will only be the top 4 teams. That means there is going to be an additional 2 games on the first day of the tournament and instead of 9 total games, 11 now.
One thing I hope they consider is moving up some of the start times for the games. Right now the final game on the first day starts at 8:30PM PST. That's 11:30PM EST where much of the selection committee and big time college basketball viewers reside. The first two rounds of the tournament get absolutely no exposure because they start so late. It would be real easy to start game 1 at 11:30AM, game 2 at 2:00PM, game 3 at 5:00PM and the final game start at 7:30PM. It would also allow the conference to put their more highly regarded games and teams in primetime on both the west and east coast for two consecutive days.
Location
Lastly, the whole "Pac-10 tourney in LA every year" thing has to stop. I understand that the last commissioner was spineless and bowed to whatever wish the So Cal schools demanded, but this is the dumbest thing. I won't even get into the fact that it's a competitive advantage for the So Cal schools to be able to play in the tournament close to home every year, instead I'll talk about this from a financial perspective.
Last year the Pac-10 tourney averaged attendance of 12,458 per game. For an arena that has capacity of 19,078 that means the place is 65% filled for every game. You know how you're watching the game at home and it seems like the place is half empty? Well, you're almost right. Now let's say that the average ticket price is $50, with an extra 6,600 seats available, that means the conference is giving up $330,000 for each game. With the conference expanding to 12 teams and now 11 games, that means if the conference is able to sell out the tournament they bring an extra $3.6 million dollars each year. Even if you cut that difference in half, you're still looking close to an extra $2 million dollar each year for the conference.
So how does the conference sell out the arena every year. Easy, change the location up.
There are now 6 other locations that can house a tournament that have greater than 17,000 seat capacity. US Airways Arena, Arizona (18,422), EnergySolutions Arena, Utah (19,911), Rose Garden, Oregon (20,630), Key Arena, Washington (17,072), Pepsi Center, Colorado (19,155), HP Pavillion, No Cal (19,190). Another thing I would do is let a "local" school be the host of the tournament each year and let them negotiate a deal with the arena for sponsorship rights and extra revenue sales (i.e. concessions, etc).
On top of that, you'll be opening the tournament to people who have no way of easily getting to LA each year to watch games. Plus, if you know the tournament won't be coming around to you for another 6-7 years, the number of sales of tickets will increase dramatically.
There are definitely some roadblocks to making this type of change, especially in using an NBA arena for 4 straight day (except Seattle, sorry about that) when it comes to scheduling. But nothing that should prohibit the Pac from doing so, especially considering the amount of money that is being left on the table.
I'm glad Scott is a forward thinking Conference Commissioner, and that he's willing to try some out of the box thinking to promote the teams in the conference. I really hope to see some of these changes in the tournament next year, because if I have to watch 11 half empty games when most of the country has gone to bed on a regional broadcast for another couple of years, I think I might pull my hair out.
26 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
And remember, that 12k attendance figure is an AVERAGE. Given that the semi-finals and finals probably draw sellouts or close to sellouts, the early round games (especially those not involving LA schools) are probably drawing somewhere around 8k, if that. That has got to be fixed. College basketball was not meant to be played in front of crowds like that.
I like your idea of rotating the location. Hopefully the logistics will allow it.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
The first couple of rounds average in the 6000 range. The finals average around 15k. I haven’t found a sell out once. Not even when USC is playing UCLA.
It’s pathetic really.
The Mount Rushmore of Media Idiots: Canzano, Brooks, Bachman and Wilner
Addicted to Quack
All the more reason to get it the fuck out of there.
THAT'S RIGHT, Kenny Wheaton you did. You cut back into GREATNESS.
by HoodRiverDuck on Mar 9, 2011 8:41 AM PST up reply actions
Forward this to Larry Scott
Because it’s a great idea.
"David Paulson dropped a ball one time just to see what it felt like. But he didn't like it so he decided not to do it again." -Mark Asper
by Mill_Duck on Mar 8, 2011 10:28 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Don't forget the boost to local economy.
This would be a good way to get some political backing against the so cal schools.
"Last time I checked, there is no ‘Hall of Average.’ " Chip Kelly
by PondJunky on Mar 8, 2011 11:26 PM PST via mobile reply actions
That's why I like the idea of a school "hosting" the tourney each year.
Let the school negotiate a contract with the arena for apparel and concession sales. Schools would then have a vested interest in making sure the games sold out as much as possible. You’d see Oregon put together a booster package with box seats, etc. They’d send out emails, coordinate student travel and ticket sales to try and make sure there were as many people there watching the game, buying jerseys/ t-shirts food etc.
Easy coordination and an extra paycheck for the school every 6 years.
The Mount Rushmore of Media Idiots: Canzano, Brooks, Bachman and Wilner
Addicted to Quack
Sorry, I mean every 12 years.
The Mount Rushmore of Media Idiots: Canzano, Brooks, Bachman and Wilner
Addicted to Quack
Every 7 years
There are now seven viable arena hosts (8 due to the two SF area ones) as listed above, so you rotate them:
Staples (USC/UCLA)
Oracle/HP Pavilion (Cal/Stanford)
US Airways Center (Zona/ASU)
Rose Garden (UO/OSU)
Key Arena (WSU/UW)
Energy Solutions Arena (Utah)
Pepsi Center (Colorado).
Rotation surely the right plan.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
And when you talk about the difficulties in working around an NBA team, I'm pretty sure the Big East has no problem in scheduling around the Knicks.
They once showed a clip of the Oregon offense to the French. The French decided to surrender, just to be on the safe side.
by QuackQuackAttack on Mar 9, 2011 6:22 AM PST up reply actions
yep
this would be scheduled before the NBA schedule comes out, therefore the NBA would work around it
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
The way the NBA schedule works
Is each team provides 55 dates in which the NBA can schedule games that would work for their arena. This is usually done in like June so yeah you could schedule around it easily.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
True
But I said 12 years because you rotate the host every year as well. So while there would be a game in Portland every 7 years, one time it would be hosted by OSU and another time it would be hosted by UO.
I wonder what how the local economies would feel about bringing in the tournament every 7 years or so on tourism, hotels, restaurants, etc? I think they might support the idea.
The Mount Rushmore of Media Idiots: Canzano, Brooks, Bachman and Wilner
Addicted to Quack
This is what i was trying to say.
It’s safe to say LA will try to fight it because of the local revenue they will loose, but i doubt they could argue with six other cities wanting the economic boost.
"Last time I checked, there is no ‘Hall of Average.’ " Chip Kelly
as a fan, I like your proposal...
… but I don’t really get the financial argument that you compiled based on arena capacity. Rotating, by itself, doesn’t really increase demand. I think the other activities the conference engages in would be more instrumental towards that end. Still, I support the idea.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
I appreciate your comment
I think rotating by itself does inherently increase demand. It’s not that the tourney will be going to cow towns like Corvallis or Pullman, these are still going to be major metropolitan areas, so there is definitely going to be a large base to market to. On top of that you’re opening up the tourney to individuals that may not have the opportunity to go to LA.
Anecdotally, if I knew the tourney was coming to Portland every 7 years, I’d make a concerted effort to attend a number of days. Whereas the added costs of travel and lodging to attend in LA are too high. I’d even consider driving to Seattle (still not that far) to see an Oregon game or two. I don’t think I’m alone.
Lastly, I think if you put the onus on the Universities to “host” the tournament, they’ll do a lot of the leg work to market the games and get the support and tickets sold (especially if they have a financial incentive to do so).
All you really have to do is look at how NCAA and NIT tourney games have faired in some of these areas to see how demand will increase (and usually those games didn’t even involve any local schools).
The Mount Rushmore of Media Idiots: Canzano, Brooks, Bachman and Wilner
Addicted to Quack
totally agree re: locations
It bores me to no end that it’s in LA every year. This would certainly energize excitement and awareness about the tourney in Pac-10 markets.
now, how to stir up interest around the rest of the country?
So you're saying we need to pay players.
THAT'S RIGHT, Kenny Wheaton you did. You cut back into GREATNESS.
by HoodRiverDuck on Mar 9, 2011 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
Not to mention,
As a student, it would be possible to go to the Pac-10 tourney when it would be in Portland. When it is always in LA, there is no chance that student populations other than USC/UCLA attend the tourney (which they dont). It would be fun to make discounted student tickets available for the schools that host the tourneys. Having students in the building generally brings life into a stadium.
The conference basketball game in LA every year is so damn boring. Ugh.
Self anointed President of the Kenjon Barner fan club.

by 

















