|
|
Post by stlvufan on Aug 25, 2010 8:18:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by agibson on Aug 25, 2010 10:21:46 GMT -5
Odd. The article doesn't really say what they thought was wrong with the double bye.
It does mention that the coaches "felt the double bye was a killer and the stats prove it."
And says that they were proposing a move back to a straight tournament format.
They're worried that the momentum a team has from winning two games in two days offsets their tired legs, and gives them an advantage coming into a game against a team with a double bye?
The comparison with the Horizon League does seem pretty funny - but I wish I knew more specifically what the Big East coaches were thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Aug 25, 2010 11:30:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by agibson on Aug 26, 2010 3:31:26 GMT -5
Thanks for the quotes!
But, doesn't one of these quotes explicitly say that the banquet's been canceled? Explicitly because it wouldn't make any sense to bring the players out early to sit around?
I guess this format isn't _quite_ like the Horizon. It's on neutral ground, for starters.
But, it is hilarious to see the top Big East coaches complaining about the format. I assume that the weaker Big East teams may have different objections.
|
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Aug 26, 2010 10:51:23 GMT -5
I just think it's hilarious that Syracuse, UConn, et. al. are spitting all over the advantage that they probably all lobbied for back when this format was put in place and certainly over an advantage that DePaul and Rutgers would KILL for.
Absolutely hilarious.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackpantheruwm on Aug 26, 2010 16:29:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by wh on Aug 26, 2010 20:39:47 GMT -5
I'm kind of surprised that the "double bye" discussion has started already, but since it has I can't let Jimmy's analysis go unchallenged. - First, lets set the record straight on at-large bids. The HL has had exactly ZERO legitimate at-large bids since the league adopted the double bye format. The No. 1 seed somehow losing in the tournament on their home court against a dead tired, lower seeded team and yet still finding its way into the tournament as an at-large doesn't count. Legitimate multi-bid leagues place more than one team in the Dance - even when the No. 1 seed wins the conference tournament. - Jimmy contrasts us with two lower rated conferences to lend support for our tourney format over theirs. Instead, how about comparing the HL to Conference USA and the Missouri Valley Conference. Both use a single bye format and both have legitimately placed multiple entries into the NCAA tourney on several occasions over the period the HL double bye format has been in place. What does that say about the advantage of our format over theirs. - As I've pointed out before, no conference have followed our lead and gone to the double bye format. I always find that a little troubling.
|
|
|
|
Post by bballraider on Aug 26, 2010 23:52:24 GMT -5
I'm kind of surprised that the "double bye" discussion has started already, but since it has I can't let Jimmy's analysis go unchallenged. - First, lets set the record straight on at-large bids. The HL has had exactly ZERO legitimate at-large bids since the league adopted the double bye format. The No. 1 seed somehow losing in the tournament on their home court against a dead tired, lower seeded team and yet still finding its way into the tournament as an at-large doesn't count. Legitimate multi-bid leagues place more than one team in the Dance - even when the No. 1 seed wins the conference tournament. - Jimmy contrasts us with two lower rated conferences to lend support for our tourney format over theirs. Instead, how about comparing the HL to Conference USA and the Missouri Valley Conference. Both use a single bye format and both have legitimately placed multiple entries into the NCAA tourney on several occasions over the period the HL double bye format has been in place. What does that say about the advantage of our format over theirs. - As I've pointed out before, no conference have followed our lead and gone to the double bye format. I always find that a little troubling. wh, I have to disagree, your counter statements against Jimmy carry very little substance in their contradiction. Also I know this is going to be a long post, so I apologize in advance for being long-winded. You say a #1 team that loses to a lower, tired team and gets an at-large bid doesn't count.  ?? An at-large team is an at-large team period. The definition of an at-large is a team that gets into the tourney regardless of whether they win the conference tourney or not, regardless of seed. Mid-major at large bids are mostly earned in the non-conference portion of the schedule, and the tourney format has little if any impact. Jimmy states that the current format helps put teams into the tourney that are capable of winning games because they have earned it. Either through doing well in the entire regular season, or being able to overcome the teams that have done well in the regular season and winning against the odds in the post season tourney. So far that seems to be how things have played out. As far as contrasting against other conferences, it's hard to find conferences that are in the same situation as the HL either in number teams or quality of play in the conference. The closest seems to be the WCC with 1 dominant team and then a few teams that can compete against that team. The WCC does have the same 2 bye tourney format as the HL, except they play at a neutral site. I think the WCC holds their tourney in Vegas which can help to get a legitimate audience. I think if the HL fans could show they could support a neutral conference tourney then I think the league would consider changing the location, something I hope does happen. The MVC would be one conference that is similar in size that does a traditional tourney. But as a whole their conference has elevated themselves through investing more money in their programs, and elevating the non-conference schedule so that the majority of losses in the league or conference tourney are not looked at as devastating losses that would knock a team off the bubble. The HL has not made that commitment as a whole yet, so in league, losses and early round conference tourney losses to a team in the bottom half of the league would knock a potential bubble team off that bubble. That is not always the case in the MVC. As you can gather, I am proponent of the current format, although I hope one day the league can raise their statue to have a neutral site tourney, and possible a different format when all the teams are closer in commitment and ability. I think the current format is forcing the teams that are not making that commitment to either step up or live with the outcome. I am one of those people that feels that my team will always compete for a top spot, so I think we have a shot at the top two seeds. That may not always be the case, but the rules at the beginning of the season are the same for everybody, so if we have to be a 4 or lower seed they so be it. One thing I do think the league should change now is the final tiebreaker or tell teams to only play D1 games. Right now the final regular season rpi is the last tie-breaker in the seeding process. I think once you get to this point a coin flip or some other method should be invoked. Currently, because how the RPI works, it is better to play, win or lose, against a non-D1 team then to play a low D1 team and win. That does not seem right. I do not think teams should be rewarded for playing basically additional exhibition games. WSU lost out on a 2 seed to CSU one year because of this exact scenario. Now WSU's new coach has changed philosophy because of that and we now play D2 teams instead of low D1 teams. |
|
|
|
Post by wh on Aug 27, 2010 8:44:38 GMT -5
I'm kind of surprised that the "double bye" discussion has started already, but since it has I can't let Jimmy's analysis go unchallenged. - First, lets set the record straight on at-large bids. The HL has had exactly ZERO legitimate at-large bids since the league adopted the double bye format. The No. 1 seed somehow losing in the tournament on their home court against a dead tired, lower seeded team and yet still finding its way into the tournament as an at-large doesn't count. Legitimate multi-bid leagues place more than one team in the Dance - even when the No. 1 seed wins the conference tournament. - Jimmy contrasts us with two lower rated conferences to lend support for our tourney format over theirs. Instead, how about comparing the HL to Conference USA and the Missouri Valley Conference. Both use a single bye format and both have legitimately placed multiple entries into the NCAA tourney on several occasions over the period the HL double bye format has been in place. What does that say about the advantage of our format over theirs. - As I've pointed out before, no conference have followed our lead and gone to the double bye format. I always find that a little troubling. wh, I have to disagree, your counter statements against Jimmy carry very little substance in their contradiction. Also I know this is going to be a long post, so I apologize in advance for being long-winded. You say a #1 team that loses to a lower, tired team and gets an at-large bid doesn't count. ?? An at-large team is an at-large team period. The definition of an at-large is a team that gets into the tourney regardless of whether they win the conference tourney or not, regardless of seed. Mid-major at large bids are mostly earned in the non-conference portion of the schedule, and the tourney format has little if any impact. Jimmy states that the current format helps put teams into the tourney that are capable of winning games because they have earned it. Either through doing well in the entire regular season, or being able to overcome the teams that have done well in the regular season and winning against the odds in the post season tourney. So far that seems to be how things have played out. As far as contrasting against other conferences, it's hard to find conferences that are in the same situation as the HL either in number teams or quality of play in the conference. The closest seems to be the WCC with 1 dominant team and then a few teams that can compete against that team. The WCC does have the same 2 bye tourney format as the HL, except they play at a neutral site. I think the WCC holds their tourney in Vegas which can help to get a legitimate audience. I think if the HL fans could show they could support a neutral conference tourney then I think the league would consider changing the location, something I hope does happen. The MVC would be one conference that is similar in size that does a traditional tourney. But as a whole their conference has elevated themselves through investing more money in their programs, and elevating the non-conference schedule so that the majority of losses in the league or conference tourney are not looked at as devastating losses that would knock a team off the bubble. The HL has not made that commitment as a whole yet, so in league, losses and early round conference tourney losses to a team in the bottom half of the league would knock a potential bubble team off that bubble. That is not always the case in the MVC. As you can gather, I am proponent of the current format, although I hope one day the league can raise their statue to have a neutral site tourney, and possible a different format when all the teams are closer in commitment and ability. I think the current format is forcing the teams that are not making that commitment to either step up or live with the outcome. I am one of those people that feels that my team will always compete for a top spot, so I think we have a shot at the top two seeds. That may not always be the case, but the rules at the beginning of the season are the same for everybody, so if we have to be a 4 or lower seed they so be it. One thing I do think the league should change now is the final tiebreaker or tell teams to only play D1 games. Right now the final regular season rpi is the last tie-breaker in the seeding process. I think once you get to this point a coin flip or some other method should be invoked. Currently, because how the RPI works, it is better to play, win or lose, against a non-D1 team then to play a low D1 team and win. That does not seem right. I do not think teams should be rewarded for playing basically additional exhibition games. WSU lost out on a 2 seed to CSU one year because of this exact scenario. Now WSU's new coach has changed philosophy because of that and we now play D2 teams instead of low D1 teams. Some counter points: - Beginning with the original press release and continuing to the present, part of the spin from the HL office is that among many advantages the double bye format is intended to raise the profile of the conference. If you want to talk "substance," please show me some hard evidence that it has done that in any way, shape or form. How has the fact that the tourney winner may have ended up with a higher seed and gone deeper in the tournament translated into any sort of advantage for the other 9 teams. Is the quality of league recruiting any better? Are our 2nd and 3rd seeds any closer to earning at-large bids than they were before? Show me some hard evidence, not just re-spin of the Commissioner's talking points. How about this for some hard evidence. The HL is owned by the Butler Bulldogs and the double bye format is helping to keep them there. They can tell their recruits that as the dominant team in the HL, the conf. tourney format gives them a clear advantage over every other HL team in getting to the Big Dance (every player's dream). Just one more disadvantage for other HL coaching staffs to overcome when going head to head with Butler for quality recruits. They can point to the same advantage of going to Butler rather than the MAC and other Mid's that use a single bye or no bye format. What does the rest of the league tell recruits? "If you somehow help us overtake the top team in the league and their incredible tournament format advantage over the rest of us, we could have a chance to get a decent seed and win a game or two in the Big Dance." Ridiculous. Advantage Butler, and not so much as a single crum from the Butler feast for the rest of us. As far as playing D-2 teams instead of weaker D-1's as some sort of a scheduling strategy, I'm not so sure. You indicate that playing a D-2 is better for your RPI than beating a weak D-1. Look at Oakland last year. They played 19 games against opponents with an RPI of 200 or greater. And yet, they had an RPI of about 50. Why - because they won all those games. Beating a weak D-1 during non-conf. play isn't going to have any noticeable impact on anyone's final RPI. The danger is in losing to them. I seriously doubt if Homer and company are scheduling D-2's as any sort of a formula for success. That said, I absolutely hate seeing even one D-2 on our home schedule. To the point that everyone has the same opportunity to earn the No. 1 seed, of course that's true. It would still be true if we went to a triple bye format or any 8-team format. What's important is which format is in the best interest of our conference - short term and long term. |
|
|
|
Post by agibson on Aug 27, 2010 10:42:34 GMT -5
Well, once you've agreed to play that weak team the penalty for losing to them is the same as if you lost any other game on your schedule. But, obviously, it adds insult to injury.
And, that said, a top-25 team can lower their RPI even by beating a team from, say, the bottom 100. (On neutral ground; it's even worse at home.) So, in that sense a D2 would be better.
Yeah, I'd be pretty surprised if anyone in the HL had RPI in mind when scheduling D2's. But, it's no impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by zvillehaze on Aug 27, 2010 12:22:31 GMT -5
In the 8 years since the format has changed:
- an HL team has won at least 1 NCAA game in 7 of 8 years
- an HL team has advanced to the Sweet 16 in 4 of 8 years
- an HL team has advanced to the National Championship game
- HL teams have a combined record of 14-11 in the NCAA tourney (the MVC is only 9-16 over the same time period and the MAC is 2-8)
I don't know if that success is due to the HL tourney format or not. However, due to the successes in the NCAA tourney, people now know about the Horizon League. If programs aren't able to capitalize on that recognition and improve the level of their programs, they need to quit pointing fingers at the tournament format and take a look in the mirror.
|
|
|
|
Post by zvillehaze on Aug 27, 2010 15:17:32 GMT -5
- Beginning with the original press release and continuing to the present, part of the spin from the HL office is that among many advantages the double bye format is intended to raise the profile of the conference. If you want to talk "substance," please show me some hard evidence that it has done that in any way, shape or form. How has the fact that the tourney winner may have ended up with a higher seed and gone deeper in the tournament translated into any sort of advantage for the other 9 teams. Is the quality of league recruiting any better? Are our 2nd and 3rd seeds any closer to earning at-large bids than they were before? Show me some hard evidence, not just re-spin of the Commissioner's talking points. First, tournament wins by Milwaukee, CSU and Butler have added money to the pockets of every HL program. If Valpo and other programs don't utilize that money to improve their programs, then it's hard to blame the HL or its tourney format. You are right on one thing ... the format of the tourney does absolutely nothing to help the at large chances of teams in the HL. A team's at large resume is built through a.) their own performance in both non-con and league games, and b.) enhanced by the non-con performance of other teams in the HL that help raise the RPI/national profile of the league. If you want to point a finger, point it at the programs that lay eggs in the non-con season and drag down the entire league. How about this for some hard evidence. The HL is owned by the Butler Bulldogs and the double bye format is helping to keep them there. They can tell their recruits that as the dominant team in the HL, the conf. tourney format gives them a clear advantage over every other HL team in getting to the Big Dance (every player's dream). Just one more disadvantage for other HL coaching staffs to overcome when going head to head with Butler for quality recruits. They can point to the same advantage of going to Butler rather than the MAC and other Mid's that use a single bye or no bye format. What does the rest of the league tell recruits? "If you somehow help us overtake the top team in the league and their incredible tournament format advantage over the rest of us, we could have a chance to get a decent seed and win a game or two in the Big Dance." Ridiculous. Advantage Butler, and not so much as a single crum from the Butler feast for the rest of us. I'd don't know what Coach Drew tells his recruits, but I'd be very surprised if he didn't mention the post season success of Butler or CSU or Milwaukee when attempting to convince kids to come to Valpo. The fact the teams from this league not only show up for NCAA tourney games, but actually win and advance, should be a selling point for all teams in the league. Some posters over here (vu72, for example) think that Valpo had the league's best freshmen class last year and another good class this year. Are you saying the success of HL teams in the NCAA tourney had absolutely zero to do with that recruiting success? |
|
|
|
Post by wh on Aug 27, 2010 15:58:56 GMT -5
Just want to say that I hope no one is taking this discussion personally. I have a lot of respect for knowledgeable fans from other HL teams like zville, blackpantheruwm, bballraider, bigdwsu, coogles, etc. that feel comfortable enough to post their thoughts and views over here. Beyond that, I'm afraid I'm out of amunition about this topic.  I should add ghostofdylan, eddiec and staxawax. |
|
|
|
Post by zvillehaze on Aug 27, 2010 16:14:26 GMT -5
Just want to say that I hope no one is taking this discussion personally. I have a lot of respect for knowledgeable fans from other HL teams like zville, blackpantheruwm, bballraider, bigdwsu, coogles, etc. that feel comfortable enough to post their thoughts and views over here. Beyond that, I'm afraid I'm out of amunition about this topic. Not at all. I love this board because people can have civil discussions without things getting personal or vulgar (excluding vu72's late night postings about Butler fans ;D ). For the record, I wouldn't care one bit if the HL changed the tourney format. I'm not a huge fan of a neutral site right now, but only because I don't want our championship game on ESPN with 3,000 fans in the seats. Beyond that, I don't really care. What I really believe is that the HL will get multiple NCAA bids when they have multiple teams that deserve to be in the tourney. And that, IMO, has little to do with the format. For example, you mentioned that the MVC format resulted in multiple bids, yet they've been a single bid league the last three years! The tourney format is the same as the years they got three or four teams in ... they just don't have as many good teams. I've made the same point over here for a long time, and it's particularly relevant for Valpo this year. Many think you have a team that may contend for the league title and may be NCAA worthy. If that's the case, they need to PROVE IT by coming out of the gates and taking care of business from the first day of the season. No excuses about being young or playing on the road ... win games and build your resume. I want Butler to remain good, but I'm not opposed to other HL teams getting better. I'd love for HL to have two, three or even four teams in the NCAA tourney. My point is that the format of the league tourney will neither make that happen or prevent it from happening. |
|
|
|
Post by dylanrocks on Aug 28, 2010 6:20:04 GMT -5
I agree with everything said above by zville. Schedule better, compete harder and win more in the non-conference season. In the coming season, Milwaukee has accomplished the first; now it needs to take care of the rest.
Perhaps you have to host the tournament once or twice to realize what a great benefit the tournament format is to the program and to the league. The one thing I would do is separate the league tournament second-round games from the semifinal by another day.
In 23 years before the adoption of the tournament format, MCC/Horizon League teams won a cumulative 12 games in the Big Dance. In the eight years since, Horizon League teams have won 14 -- or nearly two per season.
Now, if "major" NCAA tournament expansion (to 96, 128, 256 or 343 teams) takes hold, I would immediately scrap the current format and go to a more orthodox arrangement.
Until then, let's get our best one or two teams into the NCAAs and continue to be the ninth-best tournament-performing conference in the next decade.
|
|
?? An at-large team is an at-large team period. The definition of an at-large is a team that gets into the tourney regardless of whether they win the conference tourney or not, regardless of seed. Mid-major at large bids are mostly earned in the non-conference portion of the schedule, and the tourney format has little if any impact. 