NCAA WOMEN'S FINAL FOUR

April 5, 2004

Sue Donohoe

Cheryl Marra

CHERYL MARRA: Sure. I might begin to address that, just to take you back a little chronologically of how we have gotten to where we are and where we are going next. Obviously last year was the first year that we went to predetermined sites. And we selected 16 predetermined sites indicating that if in fact you were in that, the tournament, and you were hosting, you would have the opportunity to play there. That decision came about as we were making that movement to help with that balance. That in fact we believe that the fans supporting women's basketball today is very much about teams, not so much as much as we would like about women's basketball collectively, just as a sport. And so we looked at that as a balancer. One, to be able to have the fan support, the enthusiasm, make it a great student-athlete experience for the teams that were being part of the tournament. So that was a first step. The second step we looked at after doing predetermined sites for two years, was to say overall, our objective would be to get to neutral sites. That's the objective of the coaches, the objective of the committee as well. However, it need to be balanced. As you've indicated, what is that balance? We want to be sure that we can continue to bring along the great crowds that we have begun to see. And so as we're moving from 16 predetermined sites we're going to 8 predetermined sites. That again is partly because of balance. We will be able to make it more neutral than it has been. Obviously now 8 we reduce by 50 percent those institutions that might have an opportunity to play at home, but also to create an atmosphere that we believe will allow fans to continue to be a part of what we are doing. How much that means are a part of what we decide, it's always a piece. And it's a piece partly because there's a process that we must go through, a governor's process in the NCAA that makes any final decisions every time we're going to make a change in our format. So while the committee might sit down and say, we look like we're ready to go to neutral sites, if we were to forward that, if that's what we believed, it might not necessarily get through the governance process of the NCAA to say, yes, we are going to do that. So right now as a committee, we take a look at where we have been, we went to 16 sites, that if you were the higher seeded team, you also had the opportunity to gain not only the seed, but the site, we moved in a direction to go to 16 predetermined sites, a lot of that was coupled with the ability to go to 63 games on television as well. To be able to turn that around in three to four days, which is what we were doing originally was going to be far more difficult than in working with our partner, ESPN, we wanted to make the best possible situation we could and that obviously was a piece of the determination when we went to the 16 predetermined sites. Now going to 8, we're able to balance some other things. Another step towards neutrality, still continuing to give ESPN the lead time that they need and actually probably creating a better environment for them as well because in terms of talent, in terms of production, I would imagine they would be able to save some costs going in that direction. So it is a constant balance. And we're hoping as a committee that we can continue to keep our finger on the pulse to say, when is the next move? When have we proven ourselves. I believe everybody would have to be agree that going to predetermined sites has created a great excitement, attendance is up, the host institutions are doing a much better job in being prepared. We have created a lot of good things. This allowed us to put 63 games on TV, a lot of those were objectives that we had an as a committee and we feel very good about what we have done with that.

CHERYL MARRA: Well I think there were three almost four sites that sold out. And that was pretty exciting anytime we can do that. I believe Minnesota was very close to capacity and that was great given what they had done. I also believe that Missoula had close to a sellout capacity, which is good for them, that's something that they might not have had a chance to host with the other way that we had provided sites. I also think that New Mexico, they had created something for us last year and there was a chance they may not have even been in the tournament, but luck would have it for them that they were able also to create close to a sell-out situation. And I believe also up in Bridgeport they were also sold out. So what we found was we had some great excitement happening. In places that would not have, had we just stayed with the higher seeded teams having the opportunity to also host. So what you find is, you're creating the ability for people around the country to get excited. You think Santa Barbara, you know, to be able to play there also created new excitement out there. We had several sites that did a great job. Moving on to the regionals, we had some great regionals. Hartford, that was also sold out and ODU the final night had sold out. So we did do a great job. What we will see and I will be honest with you as well as our neutral sites did not have the same results as those that had a host in them. And again, as I said, we're trying to balance exactly when we make that next step is that's some of the information we're looking at. Last year we had two neutral sites, this year we had four neutral sites. And that gave us the ability to step back and say, what's happening at the neutral sites, how can we take what we're learning there to help us make a decision where we're going to move next.

CHERYL MARRA: One thing we will do, there will be some similarities as to how the men are doing it, and some differences, too. The biggest difference will be in women's basketball we are going to continue to let the host institution, if they are in the tournament, to play at home. We believe that that's very, very critical to the growth of our game as we continue to move forward. At the same time, there will be parts of the pod system that we will use as well. That being that the institutions that are playing at one particular site, they may not necessarily both advance, the teams that come out of there, to the same regional. All the details of that will be worked out in our June meeting. But there are several parts of the men's system we will use but the most significant we will not you will have the opportunity to play at home if you are in fact hosting.

CHERYL MARRA: I'll answer the first one first and then go with the second one. As far as the timing, we had 40 institutions or conferences that put in bids to host the first and second round site, which we will assign for 2005 and 2006. So we will have a little bit more lead time than we have ever had. We have pared that down to 30. That we are going to take a look at. And that final decision will be made at our June meeting. For the following two years. In terms of geographically distributing those, one thing that is important that we have to lay on top of our decision is also the time zones relative to working with our ESPN partner, to make sure that they are able to find the windows that will fit within the time zones, so that we have maximum exposure to our particular game. In terms of who we assign at what particular site to take a look at that, one thing that I think is critical for you to know is that we are going to protect the integrity of the bracket first and foremost, as opposed to make sure that people are at the sites that we believe might draw attendance. And we find a way to balance that as much as we possibly can. When we put each team where they deserved to fit in terms of their seed, it really isn't fair to move them off just so that we can have more attendance. And so the first thing we do is put the teams in the tournament, the second thing we do is seed, and the third thing we do is provide the sites for them. So obviously going to 8 sites we're going to have more opportunity now to keep people geographically distributed, because you're going to pull 8 there. And that is something that we do try to do when it's possible and when it won't affect the integrity of the bracket and what we have put together.

CHERYL MARRA: Sure, I'll be happy to explain that. We do have a women's basketball championship pool reporter policy. And one of the things that's important to note within that policy is what are the issues that would rise to the level of allowing a pool reporter to go in there, and it's important that you go in for an interpretation. Not to determine if there was a foul or not. If there's an interpretation of a rule, that is not clear, then a committee member would escort a pool reporter in there to get that. In this particular case it was quite clear what the protocol was as far as going to the monitor and looking if there was time left on there, and it wasn't felt that there was any interpretation that was necessary of the rules. But it was more felt that they were going to try to decide if a foul should or should not have been called. That is not an interpretive decision. So the decision that was made was going with the policy that the NCAA had stipulated and staying within that particular policy and in this case we believe it was followed.

CHERYL MARRA: Well I don't know the answer to the second part of your question, if they would in the men's game and what their protocol is, but I think clearly any time you're going to deviate from what your protocol is, you open up the doors for any other type of situation to be involved. And at that point now you start to getting into calls, now you start subjecting yourself to even question exactly why you have the policy in place. So I think the policy is there, we're going to continue to follow it, and we believe the right thing was done in this particular situation.

CHERYL MARRA: You bet. One thing that I'm sure you're very much aware of, we select Final Fours quite aways into the future. Right now we're already up to 2010. And at the time this particular committee was making the determination where we were going to put these sites, we didn't have dome experience. At least the sites for the next three or four years. And so one thing we needed to do was to go through dome experience, we have had two very pleasant dome experiences. As a matter of fact I think it exceeded all of our expectations to move into such a large arena. And so at the time our committee was trying to balance, okay, we had a good dome experience, we have been in some great traditional facilities as well, and they're very different experiences for us. The traditional, as you could tell, being in there, the electricity last night to be able to be very close to the court, to really create a wonderful women's basketball experience, which is what they have been used to throughout the year, really has a lot of pluses to it. In addition, moving to the dome, as all of you here could attest, imagine how many more tickets we might have sold, particularly with some newcomers and somebody from the home state in the championship. I can go through for you where we will be in the next few years and what happened in the committee is, we found a balance between being in a dome and being in an a traditional facility. The next time that this comes through, for an opportunity to make those assignments, will be in 2011 in the future and the committee at that point in time will have to take another look at, are we to the point that we need to stick with a dome going forward or do we still want a mix of traditional and domes. So next year we will be in Indianapolis and we will be in a dome. We then move to Boston, where we will be in an arena. We'll be at Cleveland in 2007 in an arena. We will then go in 2008 to Tampa, which will be an arena. 2000, St. Louis is a dome. And 2010 San Antonio is a dome. So you can see that we continue to feel that both create great environments for us.

CHERYL MARRA: Again, we have not worked through all the specific details as to how we're going to do that. One thing we're very, very fortunate in moving to the Sunday-Tuesday format, that allows us to be playing on Saturday and Sunday. And I can tell you that was part of our thought process that it might have been more challenging to move to have 8 sites at a facility if we were going to be on a Thursday and Friday, particularly with the crowds you have the potential to bring. So the Saturday and Sunday format for the first grouping of games that we're going to play, we will take a look at one, how we're going to ticket those particular things, the timing we're going to use with that, obviously television will come into play in terms of the windows that they might provide relative to that. The details of that unfortunately you're going to have to wait until June and we should be able to come out very clearly with the specifics of that.

CHERYL MARRA: Well, I can't answer specifically. I'm not sure how the television ratings might play out. I know that the Connecticut-Tennessee is always a great ratings game for ESPN. I will say this: We have talked a great deal about parity. And then you're right, we take a look and say, who is playing in this championship game. I would ask you though to reflect to say how in the world did they get there? What was their process to get there? It was a much more difficult road than they have ever had before. And that speaks so much to the parity. It was just as easy for either of those teams not to have made it, even to the Final Four, as difficult it was for them to make it into that championship game. That I think is where we speak very strongly to parity. You look at the No. 1's we had out there, we only have one here. That speaks a great deal to the parity as well and so the road that each of them have had to take to get to this point has clearly shown how much more difficult it is and where that parity is. Would we like two different teams? You know what, if the best teams have played and gotten through the championship, those are the teams we want there out there on the floor tomorrow night.

CHERYL MARRA: I think that's one of the steps that they can take. You can either go with a conference, your conference can choose to sponsor, you could take the Big-10, they could choose to go somewhere in Chicago, the United Center, the Horizon, they could go to different places as a conference and sponsor it. And still hopefully get that hometown feel if you possibly can. That's something that we're excited to see happen. Again, that makes it just that much more neutral. If you take a look at that and it's another step that I know the coaches and the committee would like to move towards, so there is the opportunity if you cannot host in your particular facility, to find other ways to still be a host and still try and draw your fans geographically as close as you possibly can. And this year in the mix of the 30 sites that we're looking at, there are some of those exact examples that we have conferences or institutions that are trying to be the host in some neutral sites.

CHERYL MARRA: I don't believe we have two schools. We do have conferences. But to my recollection we do to not have two schools. And again this is the first time we have had the opportunity to do that. We're going to sign two years out. When the rotation comes back around again, my sense is we're going to have a better pool relative to people trying to find some unique ways to still maintain that hometown advantage, if you will, and yet find somewhere else that they can do it. And I think that's going to be very good for the game as well.

CHERYL MARRA: Probably, begin, we look at the experience that we have had and where that growth is. So we don't want to do that too far ahead of time. And what we have done in the past, particularly with the two dome experiences we have had, we go about 18 months out. And we have a little better sense at that point in time what we want to set that to because obviously the critical mass there is selling tickets. And so you want to know exactly what your seats numbers are going to be and again and what we believe that the championship can hold and where the interest is at that point in time to create that same type of environment that will just be electric and enthusiastic and a great student-athlete experience.

SUE DONOHOE: I would say right now there's always discussion about it. And there's been some ongoing discussion when we're we are going to be ready for that. I think the committee probably feels like just as we're taking these incremental steps, step by step, to get to neutrality, as we're making those steps. Those are the sort of steps that whether we ever get to a revenue share situation or not, but until we make these appropriate steps and we get in situations where we're in a sell-out situation Final Four regionals first and second rounds, we're probably not ready to get there yet. I would tell you, I think there are people some folks in the women's basketball community that want to get to a revenue share situation, there are people there that never want us to get there. And so I think as the committee moves forward, they will continue to talk the state coordinators, will continue to talk, but no timelines have been set on it by any means.

CHERYL MARRA: Absolutely there's a pro and con. And I would think if you look over on the men's side there's a pro and con there. Some would say that the rich keep getting richer. And that's always a concern that you want to keep the balance as much as you possibly can. Right now those that have chosen to bid on the championship, in some respects they're putting themselves out there as well financially to make sure that not only do you have the opportunity to host it, but that you can come out financially so that you're not losing money. I think there are many that have the opportunity right now to do that. Once you move to the revenue share, you take a look at that, some of the larger conferences are going to have more access to that, clearly, than some of the others. And so right now they're all players in the game. And if you can choose to bid on this for a site, then you can find a way to make that work, we really don't look at it relative to what conference you're from, but more from, do you meet all the criteria we're looking for to be able to be a host institution or a host conference.

CHERYL MARRA: Have you been in our meetings? In fact, that is something that has certainly been put out on the table that we have talked about probably more seriously last summer than we had ever, to take a look at what is it that is allowed, some of these sites to do particularly well, what is it that has been more difficult for some sites to be able to achieve. And clearly you don't have to follow the same format that's there every year. You don't have to follow the same format as our counter parts the men have. And we are discussing, would it be a great thing to go three years at one particular site, allow it to grow and allow that city to really embrace the event itself. So we are talking about that. At what point we'll make that final determination, obviously we have decided at least for 2005 and 2006 to move it. I would guarantee you that this summer there will be some long deliberations about where do we go from there.