|
|
Post by SaintsFan on Oct 4, 2013 10:08:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MTS on Oct 4, 2013 10:57:46 GMT -5
Might not be the worst thing. Think back to 2009 how about a match-up with #10 USC for #9 Siena instead of #1 Louisville. Sweet 16 much more realistic. Sometimes it can work in a mid-majors favor. #1 Louisville vs. #13 Cleveland State #2 Michigan State vs. #12 Arizona #3 Kansas vs. #11 Dayton (*match-up actually did happen) #9 Siena vs. #10 USC The entire pod would have to change to get all the teams at the same site of course. |
|
gorvy
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 10,017
Dislikes:
|
Post by gorvy on Oct 4, 2013 11:55:27 GMT -5
As I said in the other thread, I like the new format for their league because they have a balanced schedule. It makes sense to reward the best teams .
The NCAA is a different story since the schedule is imbalanced. It makes sense for the winning team to take the seed position of the team it beats. I don't think the NCAA will mess with it until a mid actually wins the whole thing. Even then the logistics of reseeding would be cumbersome and literally billions would be at stake.
|
|
IndianSaint
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 8,974
Dislikes:
|
Post by IndianSaint on Oct 4, 2013 12:06:08 GMT -5
Just my opinion, but can't see NCAA ever following AE's Tourney format. NCAA is all about the money, TV exposure, hype, etc.. It'd be a logistics nightmare (unless they only considered doing it for the first two round to get to 64). Think of the travel issues, TV Networks having to pick up & move to next location, etc.. Never will happen for all rounds, maybe first two. |
|
IndianSaint
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 8,974
Dislikes:
|
Post by IndianSaint on Oct 4, 2013 12:08:44 GMT -5
As I said in the other thread, I like the new format for their league because they have a balanced schedule. It makes sense to reward the best teams . The NCAA is a different story since the schedule is imbalanced. It makes sense for the winning team to take the seed position of the team it beats. I don't think the NCAA will mess with it until a mid actually wins the whole thing. Even then the logistics of reseeding would be cumbersome and literally billions would be at stake. Not to mention it'd put an end to the gambling pools/sheets (as they exist now). |
|
|
|
Post by greengold4ever on Oct 4, 2013 12:15:20 GMT -5
been stated before............IF you really want to reward the best team, then simply just give the auto-bid to the reg season league winner, solves that problem.................but the conferences hold their tournaments, mainly because it is a money making bonanza (well, the bcs leagues that is because of the massive tv dollars given for coverage/contracts).............each conference sends their best based on reg season standings, then if you choose to hold a tournament that is up to each league individually, at-larges would still be available and those spots given to the best of the rest that did not win their conference out right!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by MTS on Oct 4, 2013 12:39:50 GMT -5
been stated before............IF you really want to reward the best team, then simply just give the auto-bid to the reg season league winner, solves that problem.................but the conferences hold their tournaments, mainly because it is a money making bonanza (well, the bcs leagues that is because of the massive tv dollars given for coverage/contracts).............each conference sends their best based on reg season standings, then if you choose to hold a tournament that is up to each league individually, at-larges would still be available and those spots given to the best of the rest that did not win their conference out right!!!!!!!!!! Will ya please change that damn avatar please?  |
|
glen
Team Captain
Posts: 1,845
Dislikes:
|
Post by glen on Oct 4, 2013 13:31:00 GMT -5
Sounds like everyone wants their cake and eat it too. They want the $$$ from the tournament but still want "the best team" (the highest seeds) to win. You can't have it both ways. Mid-majors should skip the tournament IMO since it usually doesn't help them. The problem is the BCS/mid-major double standard. If a top-seeded mid loses to a lower seed it is always a sign that the top seed wasn't as good as billed. For the BCS teams it is a sign that the lower seed was way better than their record indicates. It isn't fair but that's the way it is.
For mids, the top seed gains little and has almost everything to lose. Even a win against a 200+ RPI team is going to cost. And really, does it do the conference any good to have a team in the play-in games? I mean, really, c'mon. Even when that Lanier team did it, sure I was happy that Siena was dancing but it sucked for the conference and really proved nothing other than we could beat another scrub and still lose to the eventual champ.
|
|
IndianSaint
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 8,974
Dislikes:
|
Post by IndianSaint on Oct 4, 2013 15:20:10 GMT -5
Sounds like everyone wants their cake and eat it too. They want the $$$ from the tournament but still want "the best team" (the highest seeds) to win. You can't have it both ways. Mid-majors should skip the tournament IMO since it usually doesn't help them. The problem is the BCS/mid-major double standard. If a top-seeded mid loses to a lower seed it is always a sign that the top seed wasn't as good as billed. For the BCS teams it is a sign that the lower seed was way better than their record indicates. It isn't fair but that's the way it is. For mids, the top seed gains little and has almost everything to lose. Even a win against a 200+ RPI team is going to cost. And really, does it do the conference any good to have a team in the play-in games? I mean, really, c'mon. Even when that Lanier team did it, sure I was happy that Siena was dancing but it sucked for the conference and really proved nothing other than we could beat another scrub and still lose to the eventual champ. Yeah, Siena did loose to eventual champs MD & lost by the fewest point margin of MDs other opponents. It got Jimmy's attention (about Siena). May not have helped the conference but helped Siena get recognized. |
|
gorvy
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 10,017
Dislikes:
|
Post by gorvy on Oct 4, 2013 18:42:11 GMT -5
Sounds like everyone wants their cake and eat it too. They want the $$$ from the tournament but still want "the best team" (the highest seeds) to win. You can't have it both ways. Mid-majors should skip the tournament IMO since it usually doesn't help them. The problem is the BCS/mid-major double standard. If a top-seeded mid loses to a lower seed it is always a sign that the top seed wasn't as good as billed. For the BCS teams it is a sign that the lower seed was way better than their record indicates. It isn't fair but that's the way it is. For mids, the top seed gains little and has almost everything to lose. Even a win against a 200+ RPI team is going to cost. And really, does it do the conference any good to have a team in the play-in games? I mean, really, c'mon. Even when that Lanier team did it, sure I was happy that Siena was dancing but it sucked for the conference and really proved nothing other than we could beat another scrub and still lose to the eventual champ. I disagree. Yeah it's a risk for the top seed. But you would really want to deny the kids an opportunity to win a championship? Yeah regular season ones are cool but usually the clinching victories are anticlimactic. We wouldn't see tommy Mitchell sitting on the hoop or thousands of fans rushing the court. Watching archbold and karangwa turn around their season in six games was a highly satisfying and rewarding experience for me. I would never want to wish it away. Again, in a league like the maac, with 68 teams if the top seed isn't good enough to get an at large I'm not going to get bent out of shape if it loses in the conference tournament. The ae has the right idea. Let them eat cake. |
|
|
|
Post by DelmartianEd on Oct 5, 2013 0:29:47 GMT -5
Sounds like everyone wants their cake and eat it too. They want the $$$ from the tournament but still want "the best team" (the highest seeds) to win. You can't have it both ways. Mid-majors should skip the tournament IMO since it usually doesn't help them. The problem is the BCS/mid-major double standard. If a top-seeded mid loses to a lower seed it is always a sign that the top seed wasn't as good as billed. For the BCS teams it is a sign that the lower seed was way better than their record indicates. It isn't fair but that's the way it is. For mids, the top seed gains little and has almost everything to lose. Even a win against a 200+ RPI team is going to cost. And really, does it do the conference any good to have a team in the play-in games? I mean, really, c'mon. Even when that Lanier team did it, sure I was happy that Siena was dancing but it sucked for the conference and really proved nothing other than we could beat another scrub and still lose to the eventual champ. Oh, yes, the 2012-2013 Atlantic Sun Conference regular season champion Mercer could have been in the NCAA Tournament instead of tournament winner Florida Gulf Coast, or really, they both could have skipped the event since it doesn't help them. Who needed Dunk City or the Pac-12 job that their coach got? |
|
|
|
Post by greengold4ever on Oct 6, 2013 14:59:14 GMT -5
Sounds like everyone wants their cake and eat it too. They want the $$$ from the tournament but still want "the best team" (the highest seeds) to win. You can't have it both ways. Mid-majors should skip the tournament IMO since it usually doesn't help them. The problem is the BCS/mid-major double standard. If a top-seeded mid loses to a lower seed it is always a sign that the top seed wasn't as good as billed. For the BCS teams it is a sign that the lower seed was way better than their record indicates. It isn't fair but that's the way it is. For mids, the top seed gains little and has almost everything to lose. Even a win against a 200+ RPI team is going to cost. And really, does it do the conference any good to have a team in the play-in games? I mean, really, c'mon. Even when that Lanier team did it, sure I was happy that Siena was dancing but it sucked for the conference and really proved nothing other than we could beat another scrub and still lose to the eventual champ. I disagree. Yeah it's a risk for the top seed. But you would really want to deny the kids an opportunity to win a championship? Yeah regular season ones are cool but usually the clinching victories are anticlimactic. We wouldn't see tommy Mitchell sitting on the hoop or thousands of fans rushing the court. Watching archbold and karangwa turn around their season in six games was a highly satisfying and rewarding experience for me. I would never want to wish it away. Again, in a league like the maac, with 68 teams if the top seed isn't good enough to get an at large I'm not going to get bent out of shape if it loses in the conference tournament. The ae has the right idea. Let them eat cake. you can't have it both ways Gorvachev................deny kids an opportunity?  ...........they had a chance through 4 intense months of conference play, so if they aren't good enough to win during that stretch WHY should they be afforded a chance to get lucky and win over a weekend tournament ...............that does a dis-service to the reg season champ, they have 1 "off" night/game in March and it is all over (more so for the mid-majors), and it does not necessarily mean they weren't good enough either, far from the truth................if leagues insist on these tournaments, then they need to better protect the top seed, extra bye's, home court advantage and such, IMHO................reward those that have earned that right!!!!!!!!!! |
|
gorvy
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 10,017
Dislikes:
|
Post by gorvy on Oct 6, 2013 19:09:14 GMT -5
I disagree. Yeah it's a risk for the top seed. But you would really want to deny the kids an opportunity to win a championship? Yeah regular season ones are cool but usually the clinching victories are anticlimactic. We wouldn't see tommy Mitchell sitting on the hoop or thousands of fans rushing the court. Watching archbold and karangwa turn around their season in six games was a highly satisfying and rewarding experience for me. I would never want to wish it away. Again, in a league like the maac, with 68 teams if the top seed isn't good enough to get an at large I'm not going to get bent out of shape if it loses in the conference tournament. The ae has the right idea. Let them eat cake. you can't have it both ways Gorvachev................deny kids an opportunity? ...........they had a chance through 4 intense months of conference play, so if they aren't good enough to win during that stretch WHY should they be afforded a chance to get lucky and win over a weekend tournament ...............that does a dis-service to the reg season champ, they have 1 "off" night/game in March and it is all over (more so for the mid-majors), and it does not necessarily mean they weren't good enough either, far from the truth................if leagues insist on these tournaments, then they need to better protect the top seed, extra bye's, home court advantage and such, IMHO................reward those that have earned that right!!!!!!!!!! Yes, you are denying the kids an opportunity to win a championship if you take the conference tournaments away. I'm talking about the kids that finished in first place too. Don't tell me that Hasbrouck, Moore, Ubiles, Brown etc don't cherish the memories of winning a conference tournament championship. That's an experience that they will likely never replicate for the rest of their lives, and you want to take that away from them? Have you thought this all the way through Aint man? If you are worried about having a bad day, how about building a strong NONCONFERENCE Schedule and WINNING THE GAMES. EVERY GAME MATTERS! That's how you get an at large bid from the MAAC. Iona has done it, Manhattan has done it, and so could Siena have if they had faltered. There are 68 teams now and realistically, the next best thing from having the top seed winning the tournament is a hot conference tournament winner headed to the NCAAs. Otherwise, if the top seed loses and is really deserving, they will get a chance. And hey, there is always the NIT :-) I have no problem with the rest of your post, which is why I have been in favor of the AE's new tournament format. That's why I liked the MAAC's foray into forward thinking when they gave out the double byes, and why I deplored the idea of a neutral site tourney. But take the whole thing away? No way-- it's almost inhumane. What's next, games only on Friday and Saturday night??? |
|
|
|
Post by greengold4ever on Oct 6, 2013 20:32:14 GMT -5
you can't have it both ways Gorvachev................deny kids an opportunity? ...........they had a chance through 4 intense months of conference play, so if they aren't good enough to win during that stretch WHY should they be afforded a chance to get lucky and win over a weekend tournament ...............that does a dis-service to the reg season champ, they have 1 "off" night/game in March and it is all over (more so for the mid-majors), and it does not necessarily mean they weren't good enough either, far from the truth................if leagues insist on these tournaments, then they need to better protect the top seed, extra bye's, home court advantage and such, IMHO................reward those that have earned that right!!!!!!!!!! Yes, you are denying the kids an opportunity to win a championship if you take the conference tournaments away. I'm talking about the kids that finished in first place too. Don't tell me that Hasbrouck, Moore, Ubiles, Brown etc don't cherish the memories of winning a conference tournament championship. That's an experience that they will likely never replicate for the rest of their lives, and you want to take that away from them? Have you thought this all the way through Aint man? If you are worried about having a bad day, how about building a strong NONCONFERENCE Schedule and WINNING THE GAMES. EVERY GAME MATTERS! That's how you get an at large bid from the MAAC. Iona has done it, Manhattan has done it, and so could Siena have if they had faltered. There are 68 teams now and realistically, the next best thing from having the top seed winning the tournament is a hot conference tournament winner headed to the NCAAs. Otherwise, if the top seed loses and is really deserving, they will get a chance. And hey, there is always the NIT :-) I have no problem with the rest of your post, which is why I have been in favor of the AE's new tournament format. That's why I liked the MAAC's foray into forward thinking when they gave out the double byes, and why I deplored the idea of a neutral site tourney. But take the whole thing away? No way-- it's almost inhumane. What's next, games only on Friday and Saturday night??? BUT, you do realize the real reason these tournaments exist, and they do so even at the lowest of all levels ............it is because of money, it has NOTHING to do with giving kids a chance, nor making a feel good story become prominent for Cinderella to wear that slipper, should that happen then it is gravy amid the hoopla...................this is all gonna be moot in the very near future anyway, as there has been talk that the NIT post season event will be a thing of the past (which is also now owned by the NCAA) and the plan to engulf those 32 teams into the main NCAA tournament, thus allowing 96 teams to vie for the Championship and give plenty of invites to those truly worthy!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
gorvy
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 10,017
Dislikes:
|
Post by gorvy on Oct 6, 2013 21:44:13 GMT -5
Yes, you are denying the kids an opportunity to win a championship if you take the conference tournaments away. I'm talking about the kids that finished in first place too. Don't tell me that Hasbrouck, Moore, Ubiles, Brown etc don't cherish the memories of winning a conference tournament championship. That's an experience that they will likely never replicate for the rest of their lives, and you want to take that away from them? Have you thought this all the way through Aint man? If you are worried about having a bad day, how about building a strong NONCONFERENCE Schedule and WINNING THE GAMES. EVERY GAME MATTERS! That's how you get an at large bid from the MAAC. Iona has done it, Manhattan has done it, and so could Siena have if they had faltered. There are 68 teams now and realistically, the next best thing from having the top seed winning the tournament is a hot conference tournament winner headed to the NCAAs. Otherwise, if the top seed loses and is really deserving, they will get a chance. And hey, there is always the NIT :-) I have no problem with the rest of your post, which is why I have been in favor of the AE's new tournament format. That's why I liked the MAAC's foray into forward thinking when they gave out the double byes, and why I deplored the idea of a neutral site tourney. But take the whole thing away? No way-- it's almost inhumane. What's next, games only on Friday and Saturday night??? BUT, you do realize the real reason these tournaments exist, and they do so even at the lowest of all levels ............it is because of money, it has NOTHING to do with giving kids a chance, nor making a feel good story become prominent for Cinderella to wear that slipper, should that happen then it is gravy amid the hoopla...................this is all gonna be moot in the very near future anyway, as there has been talk that the NIT post season event will be a thing of the past (which is also now owned by the NCAA) and the plan to engulf those 32 teams into the main NCAA tournament, thus allowing 96 teams to vie for the Championship and give plenty of invites to those truly worthy!!!!!!!!!!! Of course it is about the money. News flash though, the entire season is about the money, so do you want to cancel the regular season too? Patsos cancelled the trip to Italy with better competition (and perhaps less thugs?) to save 100k. Now there is a practice game outside of the season ticket package. Prices for the season go up even as the team is losing--- but better get your tickets now because they might be "sold out". Soon the players will be paid, I wonder where that money is coming from? It's all about the money, but that doesn't stop us from attending, right? It makes sense from a competition standpoint and a financial standpoint to hold the tournament. If you don't like paying for them, you can always choose to watch on espn3-- if they make the quarter finals. |
|
...........they had a chance through 4 intense months of conference play, so if they aren't good enough to win during that stretch WHY should they be afforded a chance to get lucky and win over a weekend tournament ...............that does a dis-service to the reg season champ, they have 1 "off" night/game in March and it is all over (more so for the mid-majors), and it does not necessarily mean they weren't good enough either, far from the truth................if leagues insist on these tournaments, then they need to better protect the top seed, extra bye's, home court advantage and such, IMHO................reward those that have earned that right!!!!!!!!!!