The NCAA Tournament - Opinion

I do like this time of year - especially with the NCAA basketball tournament. But, I was thinking the other day: it's certainly not the same tournament that it was 20 years ago.

Hang with me on this one. First, 20 years ago, there were no "play-in" games. It was 64 teams, period. The NCAA selection committee chose the field of 64, and that was it. Now, it's up to 68 or 69. According to Wikipedia, there are 346 member Division I schools.

Twenty years ago, regional games were frequently played, although not always, in college arenas. Not so much anymore. Most of the regional matchups are in large, downtown arenas that house professional teams. I remember days when regionals were played at college arenas like The Pit at the University of New Mexico; or Thomson-Boling Arena at the University of Tennessee. It's been quite some time since I've seen either of those venues on the tournament lineup.

And, how about the Final Four itself? The 1985 Final Four, for instance, was at Rupp Arena at the University of Kentucky. The 1983 Final Four, which had one of the best game endings I've ever seen (who can forget the last-second NC State dunk by Lorenzo Charles to win the game) was at University of New Mexico's University Arena (aka "The Pit").

Several years ago, after the ticket debacle at the 1996 Final Four in East Rutherford, NJ, the NCAA made a decision that traditional arenas could no longer accomodate the Final Four. The 1996 Final Four was at the Meadowlands Arena (gone through several names over the years) which sat about 18,000.

After all the other tickets were handed out, there were only about 1,100 tickets for general public sale.

Since 1997, Final Fours have been played exclusively in domed stadiums. Back then, the "minimum" seating capacity to host a Final Four was 33,000. Which essentially rules out any traditional basketball arena.

Now, the NCAA requires a minimum seating capacity of 70,000. That pretty much rules the Metrodome out for future Final Fours. Click "The NCAA Tournament - Opinon" for a link to a Flickr photo I found for last year's Final Four, and what the setup looks like.

It seems to me the whole NCAA tournament is becoming more about TV dollars and selling tickets. Hence, the bigger arenas, more teams, etc. Take a look at this year: now we have games on four TV networks. That's great for people who want to see every game; but the entire tournament used to be on just one TV station: CBS.

The NCAA tournament is falling victim to neutralization all around. If you watch the games this year, all the floors in all the cities look exactly the same. The NCAA must have spent a fortune having a hardwood floor made for every city that hosted a game. The NCAA is plastering it's black and blue color scheme everywhere, from the floors to the banners to almost anything and everything that says "NCAA Tournament". About 20 years ago, all the NCAA would do was put a few decals over the home court logos. That was it.

And, advertising. If you go to an NCAA tournament game, you'll notice that blue tarps are placed over arena and stadium advertising. They probably don't do that as much anymore, since the advent of the LED digital "ribbon board" that can change advertisements. But, some of the older arenas that have permanent ads, are still covered up. One good thing is that it covers up beer ads - and alcohol is not sold at NCAA tournament events. But, this one really got to me, I had read about this in the Detroit Free-Press back in 2009. The 2009 Final Four was held at the new home of the Detroit Lions, which seats somewhere in the neigborhood of 66,000.

As with many new stadiums, the seats all have cupholders on them. At Ford Field, Aquafina "sponsored" all the cupholders. During the preparation for the Final Four, crews went to EVERY seat and put a blue sticker over the Aquafina logos. I guess Aquafina isn't an "official" NCAA sponsor. But, are TV cameras really going to pick up a little sticker? Seemed a little odd and a colossal waste of time to me.

People love college basketball because you don't have collective-bargaining agreements, or player contracts, owner lockouts or endorsement deals. College basketball wasn't supposed to be about the money. But, the way the NCAA is running the tournament these days, money seems to be the number one priority. I miss the old days.

Wolves need some serious marketing help

I have to admit, I've lost all interest in the Timberwolves. I can't even remember the last time I actually paid to go to a game. The last game I went to, I had received free tickets from the Timberwolves promotions department.

If you've watched any of the pre-season games on TV, there's empty blue seats everywhere. Not like it was when Kevin Garnett was here, there wasn't an empty seat in the house.

I was reading Patrick Reusse's column in the Star Tribune today (click post title to read full article), and he believes the T-wolves need some serious marketing to go along with the new shooters that are part of a team that seems to be in a constant state of re-building.

They've done their best in the past couple years in the area of branding: re-designed jerseys, a re-designed logo (which looks awful) and a new Target Center court. They've done some new things in the ticketing department as well. Last season, according to Reusse's article, the T-wolves had an abysmal season ticket base of 5,000.

When Garnett played here, I remember it being almost impossible to get a seat in the lower seating bowl of the arena. The lower level at Target Center seats about 8,300 people (total capacity is just shy of 20,000). What's even worse, is the team expected to lose another 10 percent of that base from last season.

It may not be the team, however. People still are loving the Minnesota Wild on the other side of the river; even though the Wild's consecutive sellout streak at the Xcel Energy Center has come to an end. And, let's not forget all the hype about the Twins this year with Target Field opening and the overall excitement that was re-generated for the Twins. An excitement, only to be squashed away in three games against the Yankees.

The T-Wolves started things off late last season when they decided to cut season ticket prices. I don't remember too much about that particular campaign, and I can't remember whether ticket prices were cut across the board, or just for new season ticket accounts. Even before that, the team has touted a season ticket up in the far reaches of the arena, that goes for about $300-some-odd a season.

And, apparently, it's worked. The Wolves, instead of losing another 10 percent of their season ticket base, have actually GAINED about 2,000 season ticket holders. Well, that helps, but for the most part still leaves the Target Center well below half-capacity.

If you have 7,000 season ticket holders (banking on the fact that they'd all show up for every game), and 3,000 unlucky fans decide to walk up to the ticket office ten minutes before the tip-off to snag a ticket, that's only 10,000 people. Which leaves the remaining 10,000 or so seats unoccupied.

Granted, the Wolves surprisingly had a decent pre-season. But, that's happened before. I remember getting so excited one year when the Wolves went 7-1 in the preseason. Hardly did anything after that, and to my recollection, didn't even win 35 games that season.

In seasons since Garnett's departure, it's felt very much like the expansion year of 1989 all over again. Only problem was, in 1989, people were so excited to have NBA basketball back in town after an almost 30-year absence, they didn't care how bad the team was.

Now, 22 years later, people do care, and they seem to be proving it by placing their allegiances elsewhere. Even Reusse commented that the one replica jersey he saw in the stands at the Target Center the other night was an Adrian Peterson Vikings jersey. But, if this Wolves team is really as good as it seems, or as Reusse postulates, then the Wolves need to get some serious marketing work done to make these lower ticket prices pay off.

Could Target Field be lonely?

I'm sorry it's been so long since I wrote.

I have been writing a lot of articles at allvoices.com ( http://www.allvoices.com/users/Lrasmussen )

I read an interesting article today about the Seattle Mariners and how their attendance is incredibly low this year for the first time since they opened their new ballpark in 1999.

Of course, they're in last place in the AL West. Seems that low attendance would follow suit.

With the Twins dismal performance as of late, and now that we are at the midway point of the season, could Target Field become a lonely place the second half of it's first season?

And then, throw in the Vikings and the apparent return of Brett Favre, that might pose even more trouble at the gates at Target Field. If the Twins aren't doing well, and September's colder air moves in, there might be a lot of empty seats at the ballpark those last few weeks.

I'm not sure the "honeymoon" period for Target Field is quite over, though. People might still be flocking to the ballpark, for the sake of seeing the ballpark. But, not too long from now, the ballpark will become less and less of a draw, and the bottom line will be putting a competitive team on the field.

It seems many newer ballparks in Major League Baseball eventually get to the half-full point. Ballparks in Detroit, Milwaukee, Texas and other cities have lots of empty seats to look at these days. Ballparks that were once big draws for fans, but now, not so much.

I'd hate to see that happen to Target Field; but the harsh reality is, it probably will and possibly sooner than later.