|
|
Post by fwalum on Mar 9, 2011 1:21:42 GMT -5
Here we go again... the same old talk about the tournament format... maybe not!
It seems that every year the teams seeded 3-10 complain about the tournament format and then are admonished by those that say "This is the best design to make sure that the conference is represented by our best team and also give the HL it's best possibility for a multiple bid". Well this year I believe the chinks in the double bye armor have been exposed. Does anyone really believe that Milwaukee's body of work was better than CSU's??? Three teams in the conference have higher RPI's, so explain to me how this double bye thing with Milwaukee hosting helped the conference in any way shape or form! I can maybe live with the team hosting issue, but in these days of extreme conference parity the double bye needs to end. This year it has severely hampered the chances of better conference exposure. Milwaukee would have most likely been seeded lower in the NCAA tournament than CSU or Valpo and will probably receive a lower NIT seeding. We had such a hotly contested conference season that it would have been nice to see something that could have exploited the conference parity rather than this double bye joke that masqueraded as a tournament.
|
|
|
|
Post by drewsaders11 on Mar 9, 2011 10:04:01 GMT -5
What if there were two teams far and away better than the conference? Like the America East...Vermont 13-3, Boston 12-4, the next team with 9 wins. Would you use the double bye there? You can't tweak it to the standings. I think Valpo had their chances to be in one of those top two positions, and blew lost three games at the end of the year. And I'm sure Cl St wishes they could have their close games against Mil and Det back from the last month of the regular season. No system is perfect, obviously, but I think this truly does reward teams for playing well in the regular season.
|
|
|
|
Post by wh on Mar 9, 2011 11:47:54 GMT -5
What if there were two teams far and away better than the conference? Like the America East...Vermont 13-3, Boston 12-4, the next team with 9 wins. Would you use the double bye there? You can't tweak it to the standings. I think Valpo had their chances to be in one of those top two positions, and blew lost three games at the end of the year. And I'm sure Cl St wishes they could have their close games against Mil and Det back from the last month of the regular season. No system is perfect, obviously, but I think this truly does reward teams for playing well in the regular season. You could make the same argument about any mechanism that rewards some teams over other teams. Why not a triple bye for the No.1 seed directly into the championship game - same argument applies. Why not just have the top 2 teams play - same argument applies. Why not forgo the tournament entirely like the Ivy league - same argument applies. Or - why not give the top teams a single bye - same argument applies? Everyone agrees that some teams should be rewarded over other teams. The point is some us believe that there are other formats that do it more equitably for all concerned, as evidenced by what the rest of the college basketball does. |
|
|
|
Post by valporun on Mar 9, 2011 13:34:06 GMT -5
What if there were two teams far and away better than the conference? Like the America East...Vermont 13-3, Boston 12-4, the next team with 9 wins. Would you use the double bye there? You can't tweak it to the standings. I think Valpo had their chances to be in one of those top two positions, and blew lost three games at the end of the year. And I'm sure Cl St wishes they could have their close games against Mil and Det back from the last month of the regular season. No system is perfect, obviously, but I think this truly does reward teams for playing well in the regular season. You could make the same argument about any mechanism that rewards some teams over other teams. Why not a triple bye for the No.1 seed directly into the championship game - same argument applies. Why not just have the top 2 teams play - same argument applies. Why not forgo the tournament entirely like the Ivy league - same argument applies. Or - why not give the top teams a single bye - same argument applies? Everyone agrees that some teams should be rewarded over other teams. The point is some us believe that there are other formats that do it more equitably for all concerned, as evidenced by what the rest of the college basketball does. I honestly do not have an issue with the tournament format. Do I wish Valpo had one of the coveted double-byes? Yes! Did they do everything necessary to get a bye? No! Losing important conference games over the last month was their downfall to having to play two extra games. If you can't win the important games in the regular season, then you don't deserve a bye, or to have the tournament format work in your favor. When we first joined the HL, I wasn't sure I was going to like the format, but now that we've had a few years in the league, I've grown to appreciate what the "double-bye" means, it is one of the goals that Valpo needs to strive for. Our goals should be: 1. BEAT BUTLER 2. WIN 13 HL GAMES 3. WIN A DOUBLE-BYE IN THE HL TOURNAMENT 4. WIN HL TOURNAMENT 5. WIN A FAVORABLE SEED INTO NCAA TOURNAMENT Until we do these things on a consistent basis, we have to WORK to get them. If Valpo doesn't meet the first two goals, then they most likely won't get to 3-4-5. Valpo still has some work to do, but we saw some promise for the first time since we joined the HL, but we didn't put the complete package together to get 3-4-5. I guess I get tired of everyone wanting the tournament format to work in Valpo's favor, but they never get anything more about how to do it than a personal theory of how any byes should work out, or a good tourney format. This is why I posted GOALS Valpo needs to work towards on a consistent basis for the double-bye format to work in our favor. FYi, the IVY League has to have a mini-tournament this year, as Harvard and Princeton tied for the top spot in the conference, after Princeton beat Penn last night. |
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Mar 9, 2011 16:33:03 GMT -5
First of all, I don't agree that some teams should be rewarded above others based on standings, at least not with byes, but I'm probably the only one  I have a different take: what we saw last night was the nightmare scenario I pictured for Valpo if we had ended up hosting the tourney. Unless you're Butler, hosting the tourney puts *enormous* pressure on you to follow through or you just plain look bad (or at least feel bad). That gut-punch you just felt means that Butler is still miles ahead of the rest of us in some ways, though not as many miles as previous years. My point is, it's easy to think of the double-bye/host perk as handing the tourney and the auto-bid to the #1 seed. Wrong. They have to man-up and take it. Milwaukee crapped the bed last night. We could have easily done the same. That doesn't change my position on the double-bye, it merely cements the point that my position on the double-bye has nothing to do with unfairness. |
|
|
|
Post by fwalum on Mar 10, 2011 1:32:41 GMT -5
You are all missing my point.
The tournament did NOT reward the teams that played the best in the regular season. The RPI clearly indicates that 3 teams had better "regular seasons" than Milwaukee.
I am not bashing Milwaukee, I know from experience that what they did at the end of the conference portion of the season was quite a feat. I am saying however, that our tournament format is close to being no tournament at all and that the reasons most commonly given for this format did not hold true for this years tournament. The conference (notice I did not say Valpo) would have been better off if the championship would have been played between the two teams with the highest RPI. The format almost certainly prevented that from happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackpantheruwm on Mar 10, 2011 2:26:47 GMT -5
I think, all you need to look at is the championship game of this conference, and the championship game in your old conference, to see what really is working.
|
|
|
|
Post by drewsaders11 on Mar 10, 2011 10:17:33 GMT -5
You are all missing my point. The tournament did NOT reward the teams that played the best in the regular season. The RPI clearly indicates that 3 teams had better "regular seasons" than Milwaukee. I am not bashing Milwaukee, I know from experience that what they did at the end of the conference portion of the season was quite a feat. I am saying however, that our tournament format is close to being no tournament at all and that the reasons most commonly given for this format did not hold true for this years tournament. The conference (notice I did not say Valpo) would have been better off if the championship would have been played between the two teams with the highest RPI. The format almost certainly prevented that from happening. play well in the regular season of the Horizon League, not nonconference. That is where RPI comes into play. |
|
|
|
Post by bbtds on Mar 10, 2011 19:25:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ValpoHoops on Mar 10, 2011 21:49:05 GMT -5
The problem with Tues/Fri/Sun/Tues... What if, Green Bay plays the first two games at home as the #3 seed...then has to travel to Cleveland for a Sunday game, then has to head home for a Tuesday game... OR, Valpo has a bad regular season and starts on the road against WSU, then plays three days later, then has to go to Cleveland two days later... |
|
|
|
Post by bbtds on Mar 11, 2011 4:20:14 GMT -5
The problem with Tues/Fri/Sun/Tues... What if, Green Bay plays the first two games at home as the #3 seed...then has to travel to Cleveland for a Sunday game, then has to head home for a Tuesday game... OR, Valpo has a bad regular season and starts on the road against WSU, then plays three days later, then has to go to Cleveland two days later... That could happen with the current format. Just more time between the semi-final and the final game. The same answer would be given as is given for the double bye. If you don't win the #1 or #2 seed during the HL season then you can't complain about the tourney format being unfair to your team. Every team has a fair chance at winning the #1 or #2 seed during the HL season. |
|
|
|
Post by wh on Mar 11, 2011 9:45:19 GMT -5
Commissioner Jon LeCrone favors retaining the Horizon's tourney format. He said the league might consider a Tuesday/Friday/Sunday/Tuesday timetable, playing the first two rounds at campus sites. IMO this would be a significant improvement: ---The No.3 and 4 seeds would play the first 2 rounds at home (assuming they hold serve in round 1). This provides a new advantage for the "best of the rest" that presently doesn't exist. ---An extra day of rest between round 2 and the semi-final round is huge for the 2 survivors. ---In general I think it would diminish the "top 2 seeds or bust" feeling of the current format, which would be a good thing. Personally, I would do a 180 about my current feelings if these changes were made. |
|
|
|
Post by ValpoHoops on Mar 11, 2011 9:52:38 GMT -5
The problem with Tues/Fri/Sun/Tues... What if, Green Bay plays the first two games at home as the #3 seed...then has to travel to Cleveland for a Sunday game, then has to head home for a Tuesday game... OR, Valpo has a bad regular season and starts on the road against WSU, then plays three days later, then has to go to Cleveland two days later... That could happen with the current format. Just more time between the semi-final and the final game. The same answer would be given as is given for the double bye. If you don't win the #1 or #2 seed during the HL season then you can't complain about the tourney format being unfair to your team. Every team has a fair chance at winning the #1 or #2 seed during the HL season. I'm not saying it can't happen now, I'm thinking about the idea of not knowing in advance. Even if Valpo had to go to YSU then GB under the current format, they KNOW they will be going to GB and can plan accordingly, rather than have to make two plans. Obviously, you would know where you were headed for the Sunday game... Also, you only deal with it once, as the Saturday-Tuesday of the current format leaves more than enough time for planning and scheduling and such. Was just the first thought that came to my mind thinking about it. |
|
rink
Bench Warmer
Posts: 198
|
Post by rink on Mar 11, 2011 9:59:05 GMT -5
In my opinion, the closer the league gets to having the regular season conference winner earning the bid to the NCAA tournament, the better. The double-bye concept is decent. Triple-bye would be better, and better still would be no tournament at all. Of course, that would hurt revenue, so I guess double-bye is an okay compromise.
I want no part of a conference tournament's flukey crapshoot undoing a season's worth of sample data when deciding who the Big Dance participant should be. If the MLB adopted a policy where the first 150 games only determined the seeding for an NL Central tournament that decided who the division representative would be in the NLDS playoff round, it would be ridiculed as completely insane. I don't know why it's any different for college basketball.
Yes, playoffs in any sport are a crapshoot where seeding serves as an invisble hand towards rewarding season-long achievement, I understand that -- and there's no escaping that "anything could happen" in the NCAA tournament just like any other sport -- but in college basketball you essentially have dozens of mini-playoffs before the real playoff and it just doesn't make any sense. You don't need crapshoot1 before crapshoot2 ... why introduce potential for the wrong representative to be in the tournament? ... why do so little to reward teams for winning the conference season, rewards not at all on par with the achievement it really is?
Horizon gets closer on doing things right with respect to all this and I applaud them for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Mar 11, 2011 11:34:51 GMT -5
I want no part of a conference tournament's flukey crapshoot undoing a season's worth of sample data when deciding who the Big Dance participant should be. If the MLB adopted a policy where the first 150 games only determined the seeding for an NL Central tournament that decided who the division representative would be in the NLDS playoff round, it would be ridiculed as completely insane. I don't know why it's any different for college basketball. 162 games is a strong sample size. 18 is a weak sample size. It's apples vs. oranges. I can't stand the wildcard in MLB. I love the crapshoot in College basketball. I'm not being inconsistent in the least. They're two completely different contexts. There's no way in College Basketball to prove who is the best team (note: I didn't say "decide", I said "prove"), and one need look no further than the 2010-2011 HL season to see an example of where the standings(+tiebreaker in this case) did *not* prove who is the best team. If you can prove who the best team in a conference is, then I'll happily hop on board the Ivy League train and say to hell with the conference tournament, just send the regular season winner (and if there's a tie, have a playoff, just like they do in baseball). Everyone else can go home. You aren't going to be able to do that in College Basketball, so I then abandon any pretense of there being a clearly better team in the conference and I say everyone should have at least a decent chance to be the representative. Of course, I could care less about raising the profile of the conference, so I'm sure I'm on an island by myself on that one. But I don't care. I love seeing teams compete on neutral courts and let the best team win, if they can. If there is a clearly better team, then they *should* win, and if they don't, it's on them. I am for unfettered competition, with no artificial constraints intended to program a certain desired result. Let it just be 5-on-5, starting at 0-0 with the same rules all the way around, conference affiliations be damned. If you want to strut around as the best team in the land, win first, then strut. Since that'll never happen in my lifetime, I will enjoy whatever subset I can find that fits that description, and I will absolutely and with a clear conscience enjoy stunning upsets in the NCAA tournament, and gleefully mock the gnashing of teeth that goes on when it happens. I will laugh at the Seth Greenburg's of the world as they piss and moan about being left out for the 50 millionth time. In short, I'll get my enjoyment wherever I can. In the HL, I will of course continue to root for Valpo to get the #1 seed and host, because that's the only game there is right now -- there isn't another option for me. I am first a Valpo fan and I'm not going to abandon my hometown team because I have a philosophical disagreement with the way the conference tourney is set up. Once again, one thing I am *not* accusing the conference of is being unfair. The 0-0 level playing field in my above pipe dream is in place at the end of November. That's when your conference tournament starts and everyone starts on an equal footing, knowing the rules and knowing the path they have to take. If Valpo takes the 1 seed, I will be there with bells on, but I will also be paranoid about frittering away such a staggering advantage. Losing in the championship game is not that bad, but losing in the semifinal round would be crushing. And even if we take it all, I will still continue to miss the old format we used to have where everybody started that first Saturday in March on a level playing field with pretty much the same path to success, the only exception being the higher seeded teams getting to play the bottom feeders in the first round. You win that crapshoot, no one can take it away from you. You win the HL with the double-bye, people will always be able to talk about the huge advantage you got that helped you win it. It subtracts from the majesty of the feat in my opinion. But if it's Valpo, I'll enjoy it nonetheless. Oh, I'll know that we'll probably end up with a better seed this way than coming out of the Mid-Con. I'll be filled with thoughts of how being in the HL has made us a better team. But deep down inside, I'll still miss the Mid-Con way of doing March Madness -- because when you won there, you did it without any "help". |
|
