|
I don't get the whole placing all of the top 16 (ie 1-4 seeds) close to home. It makes sense for the 1 seeds and maybe some of the 2's. I remember not even 10 years ago when a team would get a 1 or 2 seed, but if they weren't the top ones they would get sent far away for the 1st weekend - abandoning that approach makes no sense.
But especially for 3 & 4 seeds the second round games are often matchups of 3-6 and 4-5, which are usually have closer scores AND the 3 or 4 seed is often playing very close to home and it gives an enormous home court advantage - that's why I highly dislike how the committee does this.
Saving on travel stuff is a reason, but giving 1 team a heavy home area advantage is well, unfair. Part of the toughness of playing in the tourney is playing on neutral courts, not places within 50 miles from your campus. That doesn't test how tough a team is.
Obviously since the sites are pre determined it can be hard to avoid, but nowadays the committee is rewarding too many teams by placing them near home.
|
