Sixteen years after the Final Four last took place in anything besides cavernous domed football stadiums, the NCAA has apparently begun looking into more intimate venues for its showcase basketball event.
ESPN.com reported Thursday night that the NCAA and the men's basketball selection committee have discussed the possibility of playing the Final Four in an arena in a major metropolitan city. Such a move couldn't happen until at least 2017 because the next four Final Fours are booked for domes in Atlanta, Arlington, Indianapolis and Houston.
The upside to going back to arenas would be that the more intimate setting is more conducive to basketball and would give the NCAA greater ability to host the event in destination cities like Los Angeles or New York. Of course, the downside would be that as much as 50,000 fewer tickets would be available to the general public, sending prices skyrocketing.
To get a better idea how players might feel about such a change, Yahoo! Sports spoke to four guys who have played in Final Fours about the topic. Ex-Kentucky guard Jeff Sheppard, ex-Michigan State forward A.J. Granger, former VCU guard Joey Rodriguez and current Butler center Andrew Smith each weigh in on that topic below.
The NCAA is considering having NBA-style arenas host the Final Four in the future rather than domed football stadiums. Do you have a preference?
SHEPPARD: I lean toward the big venues. I think the Final Four is a special event, and what makes it so special is it being in a football stadium with the bright lights on you. I've always told people it's different playing in the Final Four, different even than playing in the other rounds of the NCAA tournament or in the SEC tournament. I think that's good. I think it helps the event. Also, there are obvious reasons for fans to want to keep it at the bigger arena because they get to get in. It's easier to get a ticket. I can't imagine what kind of price tag they'd put on tickets if they go from 80,000 seats to 20,000. So I'm all for keeping it in the big domes. I love the atmosphere it creates.
SMITH: I really like the football domes. It does take a few shots to get used to the huge area behind the backboard, but as much as the announcers talk about it, it's not really that much of a factor. At least it wasn't for me. And doing it in the domes is really special for the players because not a lot of people get to play in front of 70,000 fans. We all play in similar arenas to NBA arenas all the time. The Final Four you get that special feeling being in front of 70,000 people at a huge football stadium. It's a pretty amazing thing to walk out of the tunnel and see 70,000 people or even see 20,000 people there to watch shootaround. I personally would hate to give that up.
RODRIGUEZ: It was cool playing in Houston at Reliant Stadium, but I've had much rather have played that game at the United Center, where we played the second and third round. It was so much easier playing in an arena than it was in that dome. We scored pretty well in the semifinal, but not as well as we did the rest of the tournament. Then you watch the national championship game (between Butler and UConn). Seeing guys shoot as badly as they did in that game, that's evidence to me that it needs to be moved because all those guys can shoot the ball. The backdrop has something to do with it. So it was cool to experience playing in a football stadium, but playing in the Final Four, in a game you really want to win, I'd rather play in an NBA-style arena.
GRANGER: I didn't mind too much playing in a dome as long as the fans were part of the game. Given my choice I'd much rather play in a basketball arena, but it's more about the fans than it is the shooting backdrop. When you put a basketball floor in the corner of a dome like what Syracuse does on a normal basis and you can bring in temporary bleachers, I don't mind that. But I went to the Final Four at Ford Field and that isn't good for anybody. I was literally 20 rows off the floor behind the student section off one of the corners, and I could hardly see what was happening. I would rather stay home and watch the game than not see a basketball game because you probably only have anyone in the first 15 rows who can experience the game. They're pumping the sneaker squeaks through the speaker system to make you feel like you're closer to the floor. I found it very unappealing to watch a basketball game from that environment.
The College World Series has traditionally been held in Omaha every year. Would you rather one city become a permanent host for the Final Four or have the event rotate from city to city the way it does now?
SHEPPARD: I've never thought about that, but my gut feeling is to say I love that idea of having a permanent host city. To me, what makes sense is to have it in Indianapolis, site of NCAA headquarters. If you're a college baseball player, you grow up wanting to play in the World Series in Omaha. It's part of the backyard talk. As a basketball player, the high school athletes in Kentucky dream about playing in the state championship at Rupp Arena. Every t-shirt you see uses that as motivation. I love that. I wish they played the SEC tournament in Atlanta every year. I think that mentality makes sense. I point to Indianapolis because they have a great venue there, NCAA headquarters are there and it's Indiana.
SMITH: The only city I'd want it to be in every year is Indianapolis. I think personally, cycling through different cities is probably a better thing just because it feels new every year. When we had the Super Bowl here last year, it was a pretty special time for Indianapolis. I know other cities enjoy having events like that, and obviously it's good for those cities because it brings in a ton of money. So I think the cycling process is good. It would be too difficult to choose one location.
RODRIGUEZ: I like the rotation. I think it's good different cities get to experience it. If you have it in one particular city, how are you going to pick? I like the rotation. I think there are a lot of different cities that host it really well. They already go to a lot of the same cities all the time, but with how these football stadiums are now with the high-tech screens they have, they can have it anywhere.
GRANGER: I like to see the rotation at that level. In a conference tournament, there's something to be said for the consistency. But once you get into the NCAA tournament, I enjoyed playing at different arenas. We went to the Final Four two years in a row, and I enjoyed the experience of playing at different sites. For us, it created a unique advantage. My junior year when we lost to Duke, were certainly didn't have an advantage. But my senior year we went from Cleveland, to Detroit, to Indianapolis, and we certainly had more of a local presence. I think we were lucky because it was Indy that year, but I don't think it's a good thing to have it in the same city year after year.
BRADENTON, Fla. (AP) -- The Panthers have listed running back Jonathan Stewart as questionable for Sunday's season opener at Tampa Bay.
A three-member panel has overturned the suspensions handed down to four players by the NFL in the bounty case, and all four suspended players -- New Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma, defensive end Will Smith, Cleveland Browns linebacker Scott Fujita, and at-large defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove -- are free to play this NFL season. It is a crushing defeat for the league and commissioner Roger Goodell.
Hargrove had been released by the Green Bay Packers on Aug. 24, but his availability could have the Packers re-thinking that decision. Vilma had been suspended for the entire 2012 season, while Fujita was hit with a three-game ban and Smith was set to be out four games.
The original appeal ruling, given by arbiter Stephen Burbank, opined that Goodell was within his authority to suspend the four players for alleged "pay-to-injure" schemes and other pay-for-performance actions. Per the panel ruling, Goodell can re-suspend the players if there is concrete evidence of a pay-to-injure scheme, but he will have to be much more proactive about actually producing evidence this time. The panel did reportedly rule that there was evidence of pay-to-injure during the 2009-2011 timeline, but what evidence that may have been is still unknown.
"Consistent with the panel's decision, Commissioner Goodell will, as directed, make an expedited determination of the discipline imposed for violating the league's pay-for-performance/bounty rule," the NFL said in a statement. "Until that determination is made, the four players are reinstated and eligible to play starting this weekend."
Later on Friday, in a memo to all 32 teams, the NFL sounded a bit more resolute.
Nothing in today's decision contradicts any of the facts found in the investigation into this matter, or absolves any player of responsibility for conduct detrimental. Nor does the decision in any way suggest what discipline would be appropriate for conduct that lies within the authority of the Commissioner.
Per the panel's direction, the Commissioner will promptly reconsider the matter and make a determination of the appropriate discipline consistent with the standards set forth in today's decision. All clubs will be advised when that decision is made.
Adam Schefter of ESPN.com reported that while Goodell will work to rule again, he will not do so before Week 1 of the regular season.
[Related: Former Saints WR Joe Horn talks to Yahoo! Sports Radio about the appeal decision]
If Goodell wanted to, he could say that all the suspensions were solely for pay-to-injure, and re-implement all of them as they were, and it's important to keep in mind that if the players are unhappy with the new suspensions, they can seek legal redress in the New Orleans court of Judge Helen G. Berrigan. Berrigan, who recently heard arguments in the NFL's appeal of Vilma's defamation suit against Goodell, said that she wanted more information from the league, but that she would likely wait for the panel ruling before making a decision of her own.
However, if the players go back before Judge Berrigan, the NFL is unlikely to be happy with the results. On Aug. 10, Berrigan said from the bench that if she could legally do so, she would rule in Vilma's favor, based on the evidence the league had produced.
"The only thing better would have been a decision," Vilma said outside the courthouse. "I came here with no expectations. I'm glad she could see through some of the b.s. I'm cool with that until we get a decision. Patience is my best friend."
On Aug. 21, Judge Berrigan said that she wanted more information on when Goodell decided that the suspensions, implemented in late March, would come down, in relation to when he made the suspensions public. The NFL Players Association argued that it had asked the NFL to defer discipline against the players so that all parties could review evidence.
From that order:
"The Court is aware that Goodell stated, during the March 21, 2012 interview with the NFL Network and ESPN, that he would have disciplined the players at the same time as the coaches but for the NFLPA's indication that they 'wanted some time to investigate [the allegations] and talk to its own players. The Court is asking for the specific date on which this request occurred. If the date is already in the record, the parties may simply cite to the relevant document in the record; if it is not, then the parties shall submit the relevant evidence."
If not, as Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk pointed out, "the statements made on March 21 by Goodell regarding Vilma could be viewed as unnecessary to the disciplinary process and thus not within the confines of Goodell's job duties and, most importantly, completely beyond the scope of the labor agreement's arbitration procedures."
This would jibe with what NFLPA lead outside counsel Richard Smith told Shutdown Corner via email in May. "If these matters are not barred altogether by the release in the CBA, they are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the System Arbitrator, not Roger Goodell," Smith told us. "If the System Arbitrator were to find that he does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the entire matter, the only conceivable issue remaining would fall within the on-the-field provisions of the CBA that culminate in an appeal. None of it is within Roger Goodell's jurisdiction. He had no jurisdiction to take the action he took, period."
The Saints are the biggest winners in this specific case, as they will get Will Smith back against Robert Griffin III and the Washington Redskins. Smith is the Saints' most effective pass rusher, and under new defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo, New Orleans' defense is not expected to blitz as often as they did under former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, who is serving an indefinite suspension for his part in the bounty scandal. Vilma is currently rehabbing an injured knee, and Fujita is a depth player -- albeit a valuable one -- at this point in his career.
Saints coaches and executives, including head coach Sean Payton, general manager Mickey Loomis, and assistant coach Joe Vitt, will remain suspended at this time because they were not part of the appeal filed by the players.
[Related: Saints' Sean Payton is still coaching … his son's team of 6th-graders]
A very happy Vilma tweeted out the news:
"Congratulations to our players and the Saints organization. A 3 judge panel UNANIMOUSLY overturned the bounty suspensions for players," Saints quarterback Drew Brees said on Twitter.
"Glad to have my teammates Will Smith and Jon Vilma back!! Bounty suspensions were overturned!! Who Dat!!" Saints running back Pierre Thomas added on his account.
Stay tuned for much more on this breaking story as more details are released.
Related NFL video from Yahoo! Sports:
Other popular content on the Yahoo! network:
• NFL's most valuable franchise hasn't been to Super Bowl in 16 years
• Video: Does extra wild card equal more drama?
• Y! Games: The worst game franchises they keep making games for
• Michael Jordan to serve as adviser for U.S. Ryder Cup team
Recent Comments