Siting the Game at UW

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Siting the Game at UW

Post by UPSoccerFanatic on Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:11 pm

First,a congratulations to the men for their tournament selection. They earned it the hard way with a great run in the latter part of the season. GO PILOTS!

For those who are interested in the NCAA's siting the game at UW, and in the spirit of some of the discussion regarding the women's team being sent to Boulder for their round 1 and 2 games, here are the NCAA's criteria for site selection for the men's games. These all are "copy and pastes" directly from the NCAA's Division 1 Men's Soccer Championship Handbook. Those of you who are familiar with the UW facilities especially might wonder how the NCAA sited the game at UW:

Site Selection. For the Division I men’s championship, the site selection criteria are as follows (see Appendixes G and H):

60 percent Committee ranking

40 percent (1) Facility—
Quality of field surface (60 percent)
Evaluation of facility (30 percent)
Game management (10 percent)

Note: For preliminary-round sites, a team seeded in the top 16 will automatically be selected as a site, unless the institution did not submit a bid to host or its field is unplayable. If a game involves two seeded teams, the higher seed will host, unless the institution did not submit a bid to host or its field is unplayable. [Note: UW was not seeded.]

Appendix G
2007 Site Selection Criteria

1. Committee ranking 60%

2. Facility. Using the facility grading form,100 possible points x 40% 40%
No Points No Points
1 = 48 25 = 24
2 = 47 26 = 23
3 = 46 27 = 22
4 = 45 28 = 21
5 = 44 29 = 20
6 = 43 30 = 19
7 = 42 31 = 18
8 = 41 32 = 17
9 = 40 33 = 16
10 = 39 34 = 15
11 = 38 35 = 14
12 = 37 36 = 13
13 = 36 37 = 12
14 = 35 38 = 11
15 = 34 39 = 10
16 = 33 40 = 9
17 = 32 41 = 8
18 = 31 42 = 7
19 = 30 43 = 6
20 = 29 44 = 5
21 = 28 45 = 4
22 = 27 46 = 3
23 = 26 47 = 2
24 = 25 48 = 1
TOTAL 100%


Appendix H
FACILITY EVALUATION GRADING FORM
(Complete for each institution under consideration to host - for committee use only)
INSTITUTION _________________________________________
NAME OF FACILITY ___________________________________
DATE OF FACILITY EVALUATION _________________________
REGION _____________________________________________
REGIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIR _______________
EVALUATION OF FACILITY (30 points)

1. Permanent Seating (10 points possible) ______________


a. minimum of 2,000 seats 10 pts.

b. minimum of 1,500 seats 8 pts.

c. minimum of 1,000 seats 6 pts.

d. minimum of 500 seats 4 pts.

e. less than 500 seats 2 pts.

2. Restrooms (4 points possible) ______________

a. restrooms at facility 4 pts.

b. portable unit at facility 3 pts.

c. restrooms at adjacent building (within 200 yards) 2 pts.

3. Locker Room/Meeting Room (4 points possible) ______________

a. facilities available at field 4 pts.

b. facilities in adjacent building (within 200 yards) 3 pts.

c. tent available at field 2 pts.

4. Security Barriers (4 points possible) ______________

a. permanent barriers surrounding facility and field 4 pts.

b. permanent barrier surrounding facility only 3 pts.

c. permanent barrier surrounding field only 3 pts.

d. no permanent barriers at facility 0 pts



5. Press Box (4 points possible) ______________


a. permanent structure, enclosed with phone lines, broadcast radio capability, PA system 4 pts.

b. permanent structure enclosed with PA system 3 pts.

c. platform with tent cover 2 pts.

6. Scoreboard (4 points possible) ______________

a. permanent with clock 4 pts.

b. permament scoreboard 3 pts.

c. portable scoreboard 2 pts.


QUALITY OF FIELD SURFACE (60 points)

1. Field Surface (18 points possible) ______________


a. excellent natural grass surface 18 pts.

b. good natural grass surface 15 pts.

c. excellent artificial surface that is natural-grass like in quality 12 pts.

d. adequate natural grass surface 9 pts.

e. less than adequate natural grass or artificial surface 0 pts.

2. ONLY SOCCER LINES ON FIELD (8 points) ______________

3. Drainage (10 points possible) ______________

a. excellent drainage 10 pts.

b. good drainage 6 pts.

c. fair drainage 2 pts.

4. Field Size (18 points possible) ______________

a. 75 x 120 or larger 18 pts.

b. 70 x 120 or larger
75 x 115 or larger 15 pts.

c. 70 x 115 or larger 12 pts.

d. 70 x 110 or larger 9 pts

e. Less than “d” 0 pts



5. Field Crown (6 points possible) ______________


a. no crown 6 pts.

b. moderate crown 3 pts.

c. prominent crown 0 pts.


GAME MANAGEMENT (10 points)

1. Concessions at Facility (1 point) ______________


2. Hotel Availability (3 points possible) ______________

a. numerous facilities within five miles 3 pts.

b. numerous facilities within 10 miles 2 pts.

c. facilities available 1 pt

2. Field Security and Ushers (4 points possible) ______________

a. professional staffing only (campus security & local police 4 pts.

b. professional staff assisted by student workers 3 pts.

c. athletic department staffing with students 2 pts.

3. Airport Accessibility (2 points possible) ______________

a. airport within 20 minutes of campus 2 pts.

b. airport within 45 minutes of campus 1 pt.

TOTAL ______________


WEATHER PATTERNS

Average November temperature ______________


Average November rainfall ______________

UPSoccerFanatic
All-WCC
All-WCC

Number of posts : 1701
Age : 71
Location : Portland, Oregon
Registration date : 2007-10-31

View user profile http://sites.google.com/site/rpifordivisioniwomenssoccer/

Back to top Go down

Re: Siting the Game at UW

Post by Geezaldinho on Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:14 pm

thanks for the info.

I guess i would be fun to assess the relative merits of the two sites, though I suppose it's moot at this point unless the department just wants to raise a stink (not likely, their big deal is fairness with seeding)

I can see we have advantages in restrooms, airport, field crown, professional staff, and several other standards.

They actually seem kind of stupid.

Geezaldinho
Pilot Nation Legend
Pilot Nation Legend

Number of posts : 10316
Location : Hopefully, having a Malbec on the square in Cafayate, AR
Registration date : 2007-04-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Siting the Game at UW

Post by Stonehouse on Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:00 pm

Yeah... especially since UW is 8-7-4 on the season. But whatever... UP lost to the Huskies earlier in the year and I'm not going to get myself into a tizzy over this one. Yeah, it would be great to host, but when you are heading into the selection not sure if you're even going to make it, you really can't complain if you have to travel.

Santa Clara got the No. 8 seed but will have a brutal first game, playing the winner of UCLA and New Mexico. I know UCLA is way down this year and New Mexico isn't where it used to be, but still... that's a trap game if there ever was one.

Anyway, Gonzaga also got an at large... kind of surprising since they stuggled so much at the end of the year, but they did have some really nice wins early in the season. They travel to play Southern Methodist.

San Diego was the odd man out despite finishing in second place in the WCC. They did awesome in conference play but really struggled early in the season and I think their RPI suffered from that and from a weaker SOS. Bummer for them... would have been nice to get four WCC teams in.

Still, I am more than happy with three.

Stonehouse
All-American
All-American

Number of posts : 2990
Age : 34
Location : Portland, OR
Registration date : 2007-06-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum