• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

Michelle Turner and the Bruins have not hosted a softball regional since the NCAA began emphasizi

Much like a real estate agent repeats the maxim, “Location, Location, Location,” the NCAA stresses the quality of facilities as its main criterion for picking a softball postseason regional site.

Despite being ranked in the top two the last two years, UCLA’s substandard facilities at Easton Stadium severely hurt its chances to host a regional.

“The criteria is looking for a site that can pack fans in and facilities that look good,” said Marianne Vydra, senior women’s administrator at Oregon State and NCAA softball committee member. “Lights are also an absolute must.”

This emphasis on the quality of the facilities was instituted in 2001. Previously, the only determining factor for a regional site was a top-eight ranking – determined by the NCAA softball committee.

After the new selection criteria for regional sites were enacted last year, UCLA – No. 1 at the end of the 2002 regular season – was forced to play the regional round in Columbia, S.C. The main factor was likely the greater potential for revenue at Beckham Field than in Westwood.

With the new criteria, combined with Easton Stadium’s seating capacity of a mere 1,100 and its temporary lighting; it is likely that UCLA will not host any regionals in the near future.

Easton’s facilities do not fare well compared to the regional sites picked this year. Each of the host stadiums has a capacity of 3,000-5,000 people and all of the facilities have permanent lights.

This explains how No. 25 Florida and unranked Fresno State were selected to host regionals ahead of higher ranking teams.

Only one Pac-10 school, Arizona – by far the strongest conference in the nation – was selected as a regional site. This has brought up some questioning by Pac-10 coaches.

“The eight sites they’ve chosen are very strong facility-wise,” Oregon State softball coach Kirk Walker said. “But there are very strong facilities in that category that they didn’t choose. The ones I can think of are Arizona State and Washington.

“I hoped we would have had more than the one regional.”

•••

There are also other changes in the structure of NCAA postseason softball. The following is a summary of the modifications:

• 2003 will be the first year that the tournament will include 64 teams instead of the previous field of 48 teams. This changes the format from six teams in each regional to eight.

• Teams from the same conference cannot be placed in a regional site together.

This impacts the Pac-10 conference more than any other conference, since all eight teams from the Pac-10 conference qualified for regionals.

• The NCAA Regional sites were announced at the end of last season, but from now on they will be announced two weeks before the end of the season.

“It allows institutions to book hotel rooms and market the regionals,” said Lisa Vad Thorner, assistant commissioner of the Western Athletic Conference and NCAA softball committee chairman.

• The ability of teams to travel by air was changed this year to pre-Sept. 11, 2001 standards. Many teams’ air travel was restricted last year by assigning teams to local regionals.

“This year we get to be back to pre-9/11 policies,” Vydra said. “We get to be fair about assigning teams and not have to worry about air travel.”

There are future changes in store as well.

In 2005, the NCAA is planning to create a postseason structure similar to baseball, with 64 teams sent to 16 regional sites.

The 16 regional site winners would go on to eight super-regional sites, and the winners of these go on to the Women’s College World Series.

All of these changes are a radical departure from the old selection criteria that allowed UCLA to host regionals for three straight years from 1999 to 2001.

So, unless UCLA makes the appropriate changes to keep up with the NCAA’s policies, do not expect a regional in Westwood any time soon.