|
Post by valpo89 on Mar 1, 2011 15:03:25 GMT -5
I'm going to go against most of the VU fans here and say I think the format has accomplished what it was set out to accomplish. I believe the top two teams deserve some type of reward for getting it done over an 18 game schedule. I think it's great that the No. 1 seed hosts the tournament. Remember the days of playing the Mid-Con tourney in Fort Wayne, or even The Mark? Sure, it was nice because it was a relatively short drive, and Valpo won most of those tournaments. And, it's cool to be able to see four games at one site in the same day. But it's awful from a television and exposure standpoint. ESPN doesn't want empty bleacher seats. The double bye is a great goal for everyone in the conference. It has worked for THE LEAGUE. It has helped get more than one team in the NCAA in some years. It was there for the taking for Valpo this season, and the team stumbled in two huge games and then again - when the door was re-opened - against a bad/mediocre Loyola team. Besides, if you want the Horizon to change the format, don't you think the league officials would do everything possible to avoid a scenario in which little old Valpo would host? They got a big enough scare this year.
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Mar 1, 2011 15:09:16 GMT -5
I'm going to go against most of the VU fans here and say I think the format has accomplished what it was set out to accomplish. I agree, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by valpo89 on Mar 1, 2011 15:13:24 GMT -5
You like how I worded that StLu? It's hard not to agree with that SENTENCE, but maybe not all of the message.
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Mar 1, 2011 15:35:19 GMT -5
You like how I worded that StLu? It's hard not to agree with that SENTENCE, but maybe not all of the message. Indeed. It's almost like you're a journalist, trained for this kind of thing
|
|
|
Post by rlh on Mar 1, 2011 17:34:54 GMT -5
I still don't like it...never will...no matter if we get the benefit or not.....call me old fashioned...I don't care...it sucks
|
|
|
Post by cmack on Mar 1, 2011 17:36:12 GMT -5
HOW or WHEN CSU got their losses has nothing to do with anything. What sports fan could honestly believe this??? Of course it matters when you get your losses. I understand that mathematically an early loss equals the same as a late loss. But come on, playing Loyola in December could not possibly seen as just the same as playing Loyola in late February when a double bye is on the line. At least, I hope the coaches and players recognized the difference, even if some fans do not.
|
|
|
Post by wh on Mar 1, 2011 17:55:25 GMT -5
You would not be bashing the tournament format if you got the job done. It's probably true that we wouldn't mind the stench as much if we lived upwind from the source.
|
|
|
Post by sanitylost17 on Mar 1, 2011 18:38:07 GMT -5
If the whole goal is get NCAA tournament wins, then we better hope that Butler or CSU win. They are the only ones with a low enough RPI to get a decent seed in the tourney. We all know seeding is everything. Don't get me wrong, Milwaukee is playing great the last half of the year, but they will probably get a lower seed and draw a much tougher opponent. What is this?!?!?! You mean to tell me that if the #1 seed in the HL tourney wins, it will actually be bad for the league? ....but but but.....I thought the whole idea of the double bye was to put our best foot forward? The #1 seed getting to play the #9/#10 seed to open the tournament IS AN ADVANTAGE, and should have no problem winning that game. (especially if you keep homecourt advantage, which is a good idea)
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Mar 1, 2011 18:48:48 GMT -5
I What is this?!?!?! You mean to tell me that if the #1 seed in the HL tourney wins, it will actually be bad for the league? Exactly no one is arguing this.
|
|
|
Post by justducky on Mar 1, 2011 19:29:29 GMT -5
You would not be bashing the tournament format if you got the job done. It's probably true that we wouldn't mind the stench as much if we lived upwind from the source. I stated two weeks ago that we should enjoy the double bye this year then lead the outcry for its destruction. Nothing stated today even begins to change my mind on persuing that course. The best way to guarantee that the team playing the best March basketball advances is to elliminate the double bye.
|
|
|
Post by eddiec on Mar 1, 2011 20:33:48 GMT -5
The question is this: what is a conference judged by? Is it their non-conference record? What was ours last season? Is it the high-majors they beat? Name me all the high-majors we won against. Is it conference attendance? Does anyone who isn't a huge basketball fan know that Creighton is annually top 10 in attendance? My point is, conferences, especially those outside the high-majors, are judged on how they do in the NCAA Tournament. I can tell you that the new format of the double-bye was designed to get the best teams into the NCAA Tournament, so the conference has a better chance at winning in the big dance and pulling in the respect and money. As much as it pains you to hear me say, it works. Since 2003, when the new tournament format was adopted, the Horizon League has had at least one victory in 7 of 8 years. The only time the H-League didn't have a tournament victory was in 2004, when UIC upset Milwaukee on our home court and got blasted in the first round. Our at-large resume wasnt quite there and we were one of the "first four out," played in the NIT, and lost in the second round of that tournament in a three-point game at Boise State. The conference's record is 14-11 in the NCAA Tournament over that span. We protect the best teams because the best teams have the best shot to make the most noise. Is it unfair? No. Because the top teams earned it. The reason Cleveland State is getting shafted is because they couldn't get it done against the best; they're 1-3 against the best teams in the conference, and they got beat by Detroit, the next team all three didn't tie against - Butler and Milwaukee both swept Detroit. But you know what? Cleveland State isn't bellyaching. They're getting ready to do what they did in 2009, when they became the first team without the double-bye to win the conference tournament. So you might say that CSU, even though they were a 3-seed in 2009, won - so they had to be one of the better teams. My point is this - if Cleveland State, or Valpo, or Detroit is good enough to get to the NCAA Tournament, then they will be the best team. Think about it. If Valpo were to run the table in the conference tournament, they will have beaten Milwaukee and likely Butler/Cleveland State on their floor. And that will prove you're the best, as you'd be 2-1 over the two teams you'd play. Because the #1 and #2 seeds have proven, year in and year out, that they were the best by winning the most and against the best teams in the regular season. The way the #3 seed, like the 09 Vikings, proves it's the best is by overcoming the obstacles set in front of them. So what do you want to change? You want to make it equal? One bye for the top two teams, so they have barely any advantage at all? Or do you move the tournament to a neutral site, which does nothing to change the #2 seed's standing while completely changing the #1 seed, who now has no advantage for being better than the #2. The fact of the matter is when the tournament is at a neutral site, we get what we had in 2002, which is an ESPN matinee championship played in front of a crowd of 1,000. Even worse would be like the revolving host; who would like to see Butler vs. Valpo in the conference final in 2012 at YSU's Beeghly Center?! You would not be bashing the tournament format if you got the job done. Forget the loss to us; you went 1-2 in the last week against three of the bottom four teams. Nicely stated, BP. FWIW, I wouldn't care if the league decided to change the format because I'm confident that my team (Butler) and yours (Milwaukee) would move forward and make the best of whatever format the majority of league members decide is best. Every league makes a decision on how to value the regular season. It falls somewhere between sending the regular season champ (ala The Ivy League) to flipping a coin or spinning ping-pong balls to see who goes (would make you guys happy). The HL and the WCC give more weight to the regular season, but I would understand if you want to move to a coin flip because it would be more "fair" to everyone. The fact is that Valpo fans/players/coaches/media knew the tourney format when they joined the league. They knew it before this season started. They knew it when they had a chance to host and lost it by throwing up on their jerseys. Not sure why it suddenly becomes something to whine about every year at this time. If all you guys don't like the format, talk to your AD and President to ask what they're doing to get it changed. I'm sure you could also get back into the Mid-Con, since everyone here seems to think those days were great and HL sucks. Would hate to see you go, but we'd get over it. Nobody really likes the neighbor that keeps begging to get inviited to the monthly poker party, then when finally invited, shows up and complains about everything. You're that guy.
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Mar 1, 2011 22:08:15 GMT -5
The question is this: what is a conference judged by? Is it their non-conference record? What was ours last season? Is it the high-majors they beat? Name me all the high-majors we won against. Is it conference attendance? Does anyone who isn't a huge basketball fan know that Creighton is annually top 10 in attendance? My point is, conferences, especially those outside the high-majors, are judged on how they do in the NCAA Tournament. I can tell you that the new format of the double-bye was designed to get the best teams into the NCAA Tournament, so the conference has a better chance at winning in the big dance and pulling in the respect and money. As much as it pains you to hear me say, it works. Since 2003, when the new tournament format was adopted, the Horizon League has had at least one victory in 7 of 8 years. The only time the H-League didn't have a tournament victory was in 2004, when UIC upset Milwaukee on our home court and got blasted in the first round. Our at-large resume wasnt quite there and we were one of the "first four out," played in the NIT, and lost in the second round of that tournament in a three-point game at Boise State. The conference's record is 14-11 in the NCAA Tournament over that span. We protect the best teams because the best teams have the best shot to make the most noise. Is it unfair? No. Because the top teams earned it. The reason Cleveland State is getting shafted is because they couldn't get it done against the best; they're 1-3 against the best teams in the conference, and they got beat by Detroit, the next team all three didn't tie against - Butler and Milwaukee both swept Detroit. But you know what? Cleveland State isn't bellyaching. They're getting ready to do what they did in 2009, when they became the first team without the double-bye to win the conference tournament. So you might say that CSU, even though they were a 3-seed in 2009, won - so they had to be one of the better teams. My point is this - if Cleveland State, or Valpo, or Detroit is good enough to get to the NCAA Tournament, then they will be the best team. Think about it. If Valpo were to run the table in the conference tournament, they will have beaten Milwaukee and likely Butler/Cleveland State on their floor. And that will prove you're the best, as you'd be 2-1 over the two teams you'd play. Because the #1 and #2 seeds have proven, year in and year out, that they were the best by winning the most and against the best teams in the regular season. The way the #3 seed, like the 09 Vikings, proves it's the best is by overcoming the obstacles set in front of them. So what do you want to change? You want to make it equal? One bye for the top two teams, so they have barely any advantage at all? Or do you move the tournament to a neutral site, which does nothing to change the #2 seed's standing while completely changing the #1 seed, who now has no advantage for being better than the #2. The fact of the matter is when the tournament is at a neutral site, we get what we had in 2002, which is an ESPN matinee championship played in front of a crowd of 1,000. Even worse would be like the revolving host; who would like to see Butler vs. Valpo in the conference final in 2012 at YSU's Beeghly Center?! You would not be bashing the tournament format if you got the job done. Forget the loss to us; you went 1-2 in the last week against three of the bottom four teams. Nicely stated, BP. FWIW, I wouldn't care if the league decided to change the format because I'm confident that my team (Butler) and yours (Milwaukee) would move forward and make the best of whatever format the majority of league members decide is best. Every league makes a decision on how to value the regular season. It falls somewhere between sending the regular season champ (ala The Ivy League) to flipping a coin or spinning ping-pong balls to see who goes (would make you guys happy). The HL and the WCC give more weight to the regular season, but I would understand if you want to move to a coin flip because it would be more "fair" to everyone. The fact is that Valpo fans/players/coaches/media knew the tourney format when they joined the league. They knew it before this season started. They knew it when they had a chance to host and lost it by throwing up on their jerseys. Not sure why it suddenly becomes something to whine about every year at this time. If all you guys don't like the format, talk to your AD and President to ask what they're doing to get it changed. I'm sure you could also get back into the Mid-Con, since everyone here seems to think those days were great and HL sucks. Would hate to see you go, but we'd get over it. Nobody really likes the neighbor that keeps begging to get inviited to the monthly poker party, then when finally invited, shows up and complains about everything. You're that guy. I'm not complaining about it. I'm stating my opinion of it. I stated that if I had a good alternative to suggest, I'd propose it. If I thought I could convince people that it's better to abandon this idea of guaranteeing the "best team" goes to the dance in favor of the pure excitement that is single-elimination chaos, I would. I pick my battles, and that ain't one of them. I'm not really interested in pushing for a change that no one else wants, anyway, and I understand the philosophy behind the current format. If Valpo had held onto first place, I would have been at the ARC bringing my best Valpo-fanaticism. The only thing I wouldn't have done is suddenly switched my position on the format. For me, the format is actually not the big picture. The big picture is that which Kyle Whelliston has written about in the past: The Sportz Bubble. In that context, the HL strategy makes sense. When I say I hate the format, I'm saying I hate the monster that rules College Basketball and makes this kind of strategy a priority. Call me a dinosaur if you like. I'm enjoying the HL just fine, not complaining about anything. Just calling it like I see it, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by valpofan56 on Mar 1, 2011 22:10:41 GMT -5
Personally, I think the format is great. Why shouldn't the emphasis be put on the 18 league games that you play? You want the team(s) that represent your conference in the NCAA Tournament to be the best and have the best chance to win some games. You don't need a UIC getting hot/lucky in 3 or 4 games at a neutral site and taking the auto bid and then getting a 15 or 16 seed and getting spanked in the first round.
The fact of the matter is, Valpo choked. The tournament could very easily have been in NWI this year, but it wasn't because we sucked when it mattered most.
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Mar 1, 2011 22:37:18 GMT -5
Personally, I think the format is great. Why shouldn't the emphasis be put on the 18 league games that you play? You want the team(s) that represent your conference in the NCAA Tournament to be the best and have the best chance to win some games. You don't need a UIC getting hot/lucky in 3 or 4 games at a neutral site and taking the auto bid and then getting a 15 or 16 seed and getting spanked in the first round. The fact of the matter is, Valpo choked. The tournament could very easily have been in NWI this year, but it wasn't because we sucked when it mattered most. It all depends on what you value most. "Your best" team is a nebulous category to me, as I explained. These teams don't play each nearly often enough to "prove" anything. "You don't need a UIC getting hot/lucky in 3 or 4 games at a neutral site, etc...." because you value conference profile and attractiveness (beginning with wins on the grand stage). I understand that, and I can enjoy that, after a fashion. I value a level playing field where on any given day, any team can beat any other team, and teams aren't handicapped at crunch time by their seedings. Where everyone starts out with a clean slate (like IHSAA before they split into classes). Where, if you truly are the better team, you man up and show it on the court instead of whining about having to prove it against a "clearly inferior team", and where "clearly inferior teams" show no intimidation and put all their marbles on the table and compete as best they can and if they lose, they lose with their heads held high. Frankly, I'd think at least 8 out of 10 times the "so-called" better team is going to win anyway. It's a place where the only advantage a team has is their own superior strength or talent, not some arbitrary rule of the tournament. Am I dreaming? Absolutely. As I've stated over and over again, I'm not on a crusade here, because it's not worth it to me, and because the current format is hardly the worst thing in the world, and because it does not come close to ruining my enjoyment of this conference. You're entitled to believe it's all for the good, and maybe you're even right. Just don't expect me to agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by rlh on Mar 1, 2011 22:40:58 GMT -5
Hosting and one bye puts value on the regular season just fine. For you Butler fans, some of us have been questioning this from day one, and will continue too....You have your opinion and I'm entitled to mine...by the way, I heard our AD explaining why he likes it tonight...I don't have to agree with him either.....my perogative....had nothing to do with who's where in the seedings...it's just not a good way to do it as far as I'm concerned and I have the right to feel that way now and into the future.....and when we get those two byes sometime, I'll still feel the same way...but I will enjoy going to the dance again
|
|