--- Original Message ---
From: "John T. Whelan" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject:      Re: NCAA Gives Final Approval to 16-Team
NCAA Tournament


>I don't know that it's a done deal that there will be
four
>neutral-site regionals.  I've heard three different
plans mentioned:
>
>1) Four 4-team regionals at neutral sites (two East,
two West)
>2) Four 4-team regionals hosted by the four #1 seeds
>3) Two 8-team regionals
>
>#1 is the most likely since the NCAA has probably
already made
>commitments to the regionals sites for the next three
years.  #2 is
>the fairest (eliminates the perpetual home game for
Michigan and
>rewards the top four teams),

I'm kind of tired of this.  If everyone wanted to end
Michigan's perpetual advantage, they've had a
perfectly viable option: they could have submitted
bids.  Michigan got the 2002 and 2003 West Regionals
because they were the *only* school that submitted a
bid for either one.

If St. Cloud doesn't want to play in Michigan, they
could have bid themselves.  They didn't, so they
really don't have much to complain about.  Ditto
Michigan State's feelings about playing in Ann Arbor.

>One question, if they go to four neutral-site
regionals, is whether
>all the hosts will be assured of playing at home.  In
other sports the
>hosts are explicitly *not* allowed to play at home.
This wasn't
>practical when there was only one regional in each
region, but becomes
>an option when you can just send the host to the
other regional in
>their region.

You won't get any Western schools to bid on regionals
if the host doesn't get to play there.  You can't send
them to the other regional if there isn't anyone
that's going to host it.

J. Michael Neal