I was very impressed with this year's tournament in Omaha. Attendance records got shattered, crowd was amazing, overall high marks all around. Only one minor issue as I see it... the crowd was 99.9% Nebraska. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but what happens if/when Nebraska is eliminated early or worse doesn't make the field? I think that the Central location, alumni base for all of the midwest schools, and the most famous baseball park in the midwest tips the scales to Wrigley as a permanent site. it would be an event unlike any other on an annual basis similar to the Olde Big East playing in the Garden. It may even make the league more attractive to recruits that want the chance to play at Wrigley. Long story short, as long as the league is rotating site, Omaha should be in the rotation but if we are talking permanent host... it's got to be Iraq err Chicago.

How well does the tournament tend to draw? Did Omaha have fewer fans of other Big Ten schools than usual?

The sports outside football/basketball are a little more complicated for me as their drawing power beyond local areas are a lot more limited. I think lacrosse should always be in the east (where most the support is) and hockey always in the west (where most the support is). For football/basketball, I think they should generally in the center of the conference.

For baseball, if a permanent site was selected, the idea of always being in Wrigley is fun, but only if draws well (at least close to Omaha). That said, I don't know if a permanent site is ideal or not.

Wrigley would be perfect, such an awesome ballpark.

Wrigley is a dump. I don't care how much history the ballpark has. The B1G can do far better. Best case scenario would be rotating the tournament between Omaha, Minneapolis, and Columbus.

(05-30-2014 02:13 PM)Panthergrad11 Wrote:  Wrigley is a dump. I don't care how much history the ballpark has. The B1G can do far better. Best case scenario would be rotating the tournament between Omaha, Minneapolis, and Columbus.

Columbus can't hold a crowd of 20,000 like last Sunday. Columbus's Huntington Park has a capacity of 7,600 seated, 10,000 standing room.

If historic Wrigley is too much of a dump, then I reckon the White Sox's home ground is also located in the Chicago area (not that I pay much attention to Artificial League clubs).

If you use Chicago use Wrigley. I don't care what physical state it's in, there a few places that have a mystique to them that add to games and Wrigley is one (along with the Rose Bowl, Yankee Stadium (at least the old one), and select few others).

Wrigley is not an option until the renovations are made to that stadium. U.S. Cellular isn't an option in the city either as it's not in a safe neighborhood. What about Victory Field in Indianapolis? They won't get the 20,000 they would in Omaha but the stadium can seat 14,000+ when you include the lawn seating and standing room area as well.

Wrigley would be fine, it's a worn down museum (viewpoint provided by local Sox fan).

There would need to be coordination with the Schlubs and their crappy management, but it could work. Still be a lot of empty seats though.

(05-30-2014 10:30 PM)Panthergrad11 Wrote:  Wrigley is not an option until the renovations are made to that stadium. U.S. Cellular isn't an option in the city either as it's not in a safe neighborhood. What about Victory Field in Indianapolis? They won't get the 20,000 they would in Omaha but the stadium can seat 14,000+ when you include the lawn seating and standing room area as well.

U.S. Cellular is fine during events. That neighborhood at other times is clearly not great. Wrigley is a really nice park, a living museum for the game and will be even better once renovations are made. One of the places worth throwing in that rotation would be New York. New York is a baseball town and with the right promotion could be a big drawing event here.

(06-03-2014 10:06 AM)brista21 Wrote:  U.S. Cellular is fine during events. That neighborhood at other times is clearly not great. Wrigley is a really nice park, a living museum for the game and will be even better once renovations are made. One of the places worth throwing in that rotation would be New York. New York is a baseball town and with the right promotion could be a big drawing event here.

IMO in Chicago, it's Wrigley or nothing. The ballpark IS the attraction. Same for the East Coast, Yankee Stadium or Fenway. There are nice professional parks all over the place, but you specifically need a location with some tradition. Looking at past B1G tournament site most are on campus. So moving to a professional park carries risk, but you've got to get a place that can be an event just bcause of the location. Nothing looks good on TV with empty stands and from the standpoint of fans close to Site, Wrigley is way ahead of other potential venues. And carries tradition on par with elite historical venues.

(06-03-2014 06:27 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 10:06 AM)brista21 Wrote:  U.S. Cellular is fine during events. That neighborhood at other times is clearly not great. Wrigley is a really nice park, a living museum for the game and will be even better once renovations are made. One of the places worth throwing in that rotation would be New York. New York is a baseball town and with the right promotion could be a big drawing event here.

IMO in Chicago, it's Wrigley or nothing. The ballpark IS the attraction. Same for the East Coast, Yankee Stadium or Fenway. There are nice professional parks all over the place, but you specifically need a location with some tradition. Looking at past B1G tournament site most are on campus. So moving to a professional park carries risk, but you've got to get a place that can be an event just bcause of the location. Nothing looks good on TV with empty stands and from the standpoint of fans close to Site, Wrigley is way ahead of other potential venues. And carries tradition on par with elite historical venues.

The New Yankee Stadium has no tradition and frankly isn't particularly nice. Its a marginally shorter trip from midtown/downtown Manhattan on the subway at this point nothing else. Citi Field is a vastly superior facility. Neither neighborhood is worth writing home about, Yankee Stadium has a few bars outside the stadium and Citi Field has a McFaddens in the building. (Although the chop shops are due to be replaced by condos/apartments and retail/restaurants/bars at Citi Field.)

That being said I agree with Wrigley or nothing in Chicago. The neighborhood is part of the attraction with Wrigley. There is nothing quite like the experience of hitting Wrigleyville for a pregame meal and drinks or just drinks and then heading into the game.

Wrigley is ideal, but what if the Cubs are home?

(06-03-2014 09:27 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  lege
Wrigley is ideal, but what if the Cubs are home?

If it becomes a yearly event. I'm sure the MLB and Cubbies could arrange a long set of Roadies during the tournament. Don't forget that the MLB is jealous of the ready made stars the NCAA produces for the NFL and NBA. In fact it was quite apparent in the latest CBA that the MLB was trying to push talent to the colleges and improve the profile of college ball. They've finally come to the realization that a healthy college product is good for the MLB as well. So if a high profile league throws a premier tournament with a healthy crowd at one of the most historic sites in the game... that would be good for college ball as well as pro. The only question is then the possible wear and tear on the field and if it is too severe I could se the cubbies saying no.

As a side note, I'd also include all 13 of the baseball teams in the league in the tourney instead of 6 or 8 they do now. Make it a single elimination party with the top 3 seeds getting a first round bye.

(06-04-2014 10:37 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 09:27 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  Wrigley is ideal, but what if the Cubs are home?

If it becomes a yearly event. I'm sure the MLB and Cubbies could arrange a long set of Roadies during the tournament. Don't forget that the MLB is jealous of the ready made stars the NCAA produces for the NFL and NBA.

And if it alternates between East and West, that's even easier, since MLB normally schedules teams so if they are on a road trip for a big weekend, they are at home for that same weekend the following year, so it would just take talking to MLB to make sure that there is a Cubbies road trip window in the conference tournament dates in alternate years.

Would Cincinnati be an option? It is somewhat between Columbus and Bloomington.

(06-05-2014 09:14 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Would Cincinnati be an option? It is somewhat between Columbus and Bloomington.

Actually, among MLB ball parks for the the teams of the whole Eastern Division, Cleveland is probably more central than Cincinnati .... those are pretty much the only eastern schools that Cincinnati is closer to.. And really Bloomington is the only Big Ten school where driving to Cincinnati is dramatically better than driving to Cleveland (see below).

But a MLB park will have 40,000+ capacity, and even a great turnout for a Big Ten baseball championship tournament could look lost in a major league park. Unless they do something to not just reduce the number of sections they open but make them not look like an ocean of empty seats, packing out a bigger Minor League park like at Indianapolis makes for a more exciting atmosphere at the game and a better look on TV.

I guess if they tarped used boardings on top of the seats of the upper deck and the upper half of outfield bleacher seating, they could retrofit a MLB park to a capacity more like 20,000 to 25,000, which is more in line with the very successful experiment in using Omaha.

But if they did that, it would tilt even more toward a regular alternation between two parks, in the West and the East, since a professional looking job would be tailored to a particular park's layout.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Google Driving Times, Cinci, Cleveland (aka The Mistake on The Lake when I was growing up in Central Ohio):

Bloomington: 2:23 / 5:46 (+3:23)
Columbus: 1:49 / 2:15 (+0:26)

Lansing: 4:49 / 3:48 (-0:59)
Ann Arbor: 3:57 / 2:46 (-1:11)
New Brunswick: 9:47 / 7:14 (-1:27)
College Park: 8:06 / 5:55 (-2:11)
State College: 6:51 / 3:55 (-2:56)

Average: 5:23 / 4:31

(06-04-2014 10:37 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 09:27 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  lege
Wrigley is ideal, but what if the Cubs are home?

If it becomes a yearly event. I'm sure the MLB and Cubbies could arrange a long set of Roadies during the tournament. Don't forget that the MLB is jealous of the ready made stars the NCAA produces for the NFL and NBA. In fact it was quite apparent in the latest CBA that the MLB was trying to push talent to the colleges and improve the profile of college ball. They've finally come to the realization that a healthy college product is good for the MLB as well. So if a high profile league throws a premier tournament with a healthy crowd at one of the most historic sites in the game... that would be good for college ball as well as pro. The only question is then the possible wear and tear on the field and if it is too severe I could se the cubbies saying no.

As a side note, I'd also include all 13 of the baseball teams in the league in the tourney instead of 6 or 8 they do now. Make it a single elimination party with the top 3 seeds getting a first round bye.

I'd actually only move it out to 10 and otherwise leave the format as is. Give the top 6 squads a first round bye and let the bottom 4 do a "single elimination play-in" to join the rest of the tournament.

You could do this with 13 as well in a sense. Give the top 11 a first round bye and put the bottom two in a single game playoff to be included. In round 2 the top 4 get a bye while the remaining 8 face off in a single elimination round. The remaining 8 then can do the traditional double elimination.

(06-06-2014 10:39 AM)brista21 Wrote:  I'd actually only move it out to 10 and otherwise leave the format as is. Give the top 6 squads a first round bye and let the bottom 4 do a "single elimination play-in" to join the rest of the tournament.

I'd flip that around for a balance 1st/2nd round schedule of four games each, so top four squads get a bye and the bottom 8 have a single elimination play in.

And don't bracket the single elimination ... keep interest across the elimination tournament by bracketing by the reseeding #5-#12 as #5 to #8 based on the order of the original seeds of the four elimination game winners. So if the #5 team is upset by the #12 team and the #8 by the #9, its reseeded:

#6 -> #5 v #4
#7 -> #6 v #3
#9 -> #7 v #2
#12 -> #8 v #1

... because regular season finish should matter, and the regular season champion should start against the lowest seeded school left in the field.

And as for #13 ... well, if the last place team wants to go, then don't finish in last place next year. If Wisconsin restarted baseball, I'd say the same for #13 and #14.

As far as a pure knockout tournament, its baseball, I reckon it should be pure double elimination for the top teams in the conference, where the question to argue is how deep that should go. While I like 4 byes / 8 play-in, I can see a case for 6 byes / 4 play-in.

Because, sure there's one-game Wild Card playoff, but they didn't win their division. Division Winners go straight to a five game Division Series. And after all, we want to send teams that can win double elimination tournaments to the NCAA Regionals, which are four team double elimination tournaments where you win the regional tournament you are placed in ... or else go home.

(That last is part of the argument in favor of doing it as two four-team brackets, rather than the losers bracket crossing over with the winners bracket, since then the championship game or series is between the winners of two four team double elimination brackets, in the exact structure of an NCAA regional ... but I don't fell strongly enough that issue either way to argue for one or the other).

(06-06-2014 10:39 AM)brista21 Wrote:  I'd actually only move it out to 10 and otherwise leave the format as is. Give the top 6 squads a first round bye and let the bottom 4 do a "single elimination play-in" to join the rest of the tournament.
You could do this with 13 as well in a sense. Give the top 11 a first round bye and put the bottom two in a single game playoff to be included. In round 2 the top 4 get a bye while the remaining 8 face off in a single elimination round. The remaining 8 then can do the traditional double elimination.

The reason I like all of the teams in the conference in is that everyone could bring fans. I still prefer single elimination tourney because hope springs eternal and a single elimination tournament could breed a lot of excitement because anything can happen in one game. You never know what can happen if a pitcher gets hot or the bats warm up. In time the goal would be to create an event but IMO you'd want to make sure as many fans can/will atttend every year.

I'm not against rotation, but I'm against the football divisional set-up having anything to do with other sports.

For travel, I think it almost makes sense to think of things in 3 pieces. 1. The 3 east coast schools. 2. The Midwestern core which is closer to Indianapolis and Chicago. 3. The Midwestern outer teams who have a bit longer trip, especially to Indianapolis. The distinction between 2 and 3 is fairly blurry, but useful with a few examples (for instance Omaha isn't a bad travel location for group 3, but is some in group 2).

I think locations in either the 1st or 3rd category should only be used if great local support is expected (which it clearly is in Omaha).