|
Post by letsgovu on Feb 28, 2011 21:03:30 GMT -5
heard Mike was doing much better but would most likely not play on Tuesday
|
|
|
Post by vu72 on Feb 28, 2011 22:31:16 GMT -5
heard Mike was doing much better but would most likely not play on Tuesday That is NOT good news. Without Mike this tired team needs to go one short unless Cam can come in (his own physically issues) and give us some meaningful minutes. Most likely this will be a battle to the end and our remaining guys get even less rest going forward. Let's hope Mike get well soon!!
|
|
|
Post by justducky on Mar 1, 2011 0:42:05 GMT -5
My gut is telling me we will be lose to Detroit in the 2nd round You wanna know what else sucks. Butler lost 5 conference games but they still get the semi-final bye... Like I said after the Loyola game, there are worse things than the 4 seed in the Milwaukee bracket. So- VU over Detroit, CSU over WSU , followed by VU over UWM and Butler over CSU. Then back to Hinkle for another Butler title. Yes Green Bay might be able to win at Wright State and yes Valpo only has about a 40% chance vs UWM but those are my official predictions. If VU falls in its half of the bracket then Butler falls in the title game and that wouldn't be all bad. You have probably already heard my opinion on the double-bye but in case you missed those posts here I go again. When healthy and rested the top 4 maybe 5 teams in the Horizon are virtually equal in talent. But with the double-bye coronation system equality has nothing to do with it. If you are developing late (Detroit) tuff break, comeing off of injuries (WSU) oh well. Maybe if you reach the title game it would be your 9'th in 21 days (VU),but everybody is tired. Maybe you have the best RPI in the Horizon (CSU) but because of the tiebreakers you have less than a 10% chance of a tournament title. Could somebody please reassure me that this will be the last year for the double-bye system ? I thought it was ill-conceived and unfair when we were on top, but now I really loathe it. Death to the double-bye. But because of it, the chance for the title are UWM 42% Butler 31% CSU and VU both 8% the field 11%. What a system!
|
|
|
Post by rlh on Mar 1, 2011 1:41:12 GMT -5
The team really getting screwed in this format is Cleveland State. Not only do they have the best overall record in the league, but they tied for the championship...their reward, play 4 games to win the championship. Simply not fair and I don't care what the league office thinks...it's just not
|
|
|
Post by wh on Mar 1, 2011 2:24:24 GMT -5
My gut is telling me we will be lose to Detroit in the 2nd round You wanna know what else sucks. Butler lost 5 conference games but they still get the semi-final bye... Like I said after the Loyola game, there are worse things than the 4 seed in the Milwaukee bracket. So- VU over Detroit, CSU over WSU , followed by VU over UWM and Butler over CSU. Then back to Hinkle for another Butler title. Yes Green Bay might be able to win at Wright State and yes Valpo only has about a 40% chance vs UWM but those are my official predictions. If VU falls in its half of the bracket then Butler falls in the title game and that wouldn't be all bad. You have probably already heard my opinion on the double-bye but in case you missed those posts here I go again. When healthy and rested the top 4 maybe 5 teams in the Horizon are virtually equal in talent. But with the double-bye coronation system equality has nothing to do with it. If you are developing late (Detroit) tuff break, comeing off of injuries (WSU) oh well. Maybe if you reach the title game it would be your 9'th in 21 days (VU),but everybody is tired. Maybe you have the best RPI in the Horizon (CSU) but because of the tiebreakers you have less than a 10% chance of a tournament title. Could somebody please reassure me that this will be the last year for the double-bye system ? I thought it was ill-conceived and unfair when we were on top, but now I really loathe it. Death to the double-bye. But because of it, the chance for the title are UWM 42% Butler 31% CSU and VU both 8% the field 11%. What a system! Nothing legitimate can ever come from illegitimate process: ---The decision to change should never have been made in the immediate aftermath of no.1 seed Butler losing their opening game against the no.8 seed. Any no.1 seed that loses to the worst team in the conference and then blames the tournament format for killing their post season chances should be told to pound sand. And yet, for some strange reason they were placated to the most extreme degree possible - go from no byes for anyone to double byes for the top 2 seeds. ---I could feel somewhat better about the decision making process had they at least waited for a year. It's the old adage about never making an important decision in the emotion of the moment. But they didn't wait. That tells me about the judgment of the people who made the decision. ---The decision makers (executive committee or whatever), were a combination of representative coaches and athletic directors. As I understand it, the 2 people who lobbied hardest for the double bye were Butler's AD (obviously) and brazen opportunist Bruce Pearl (knowing that his team would have a huge advantage over the next couple of years). ---Group think prevailed among a group of 1st and 2nd level managers. As much as we hold coaches in high esteem, they are the equivalent of small operating unit managers. They are paid to think tactically, not strategically. Typical of a group like this they went for the quick fix, instead of a long term solution. I'd bet any amount of money that they DID NOT use a comprehensive strategic planning process. No doubt they came to a conclusion and then put some strategy around it in order to dupe the presidents. The old "tail wagging the dog" syndrome. ---In the 9 years since, not one other conference of similar size has followed our lead. We are the only smart ones. All the rest are dumb. Any attempt by LeCrone or anyone else I've ever heard to try to legitimize this basterdized format is nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig.
|
|
|
Post by cmack on Mar 1, 2011 6:20:27 GMT -5
Seems to me that the HL tournament format leaves you 2 options:
1. Kick the dirt and complain about how unfair the system is, or 2. Step up and win the games you are supposed to win.
Cleveland State, just like Valpo, choked when the games counted and landed right in the position they deserved. Milwaukee and Butler, on the other hand, played well under pressure late in the conference season and earned the reward of the double bye.
The system is only unfair to those who cannot suck it up for a full 18 game schedule.
|
|
|
Post by wh on Mar 1, 2011 8:17:12 GMT -5
Seems to me that the HL tournament format leaves you 2 options: 1. Kick the dirt and complain about how unfair the system is, or 2. Step up and win the games you are supposed to win. Cleveland State, just like Valpo, choked when the games counted and landed right in the position they deserved. Milwaukee and Butler, on the other hand, played well under pressure late in the conference season and earned the reward of the double bye. The system is only unfair to those who cannot suck it up for a full 18 game schedule. HOW or WHEN CSU got their losses has nothing to do with anything. They could have gotten their losses early in conf., put on a furious run in the latter part of the season to pull into a 3-way tie, and still ended up with the same result. The fact is 3 teams tied for 1st, 2 of the 3 got double byes and the other got screwed. Had we won just 1 more game, 2 teams would have gotten screwed. It would be one thing if 2 of the tied teams earned a single bye, or a higher seed, or home court advantage, or any of several reasonable advantages that other conference tournament formats provide. But to gift wrap the championship for 1 or 2 tied teams over other tied teams is result of a short-sighted, fundamentally flawed process. By the way, Butler was no more (and probably less) a "victim" of the former tournament format than CSU is of the current one. It will be interesting to see if the league jumps through hoops like they did for Butler to fix the current inequity they created in 2002.
|
|
|
Post by rlh on Mar 1, 2011 9:50:58 GMT -5
I don't mean this as an disrespect, but the league is Butler oriented at this time, justlike the Mid-Con was Valpo oriented when we were winning all those championships....so all decisions will be weighted in that way. I know the league office will deny any such thought, but Butler is the big name, gets the league on TV and makes the league important to the national media.
|
|
|
Post by blackpantheruwm on Mar 1, 2011 11:36:10 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.
|
|
|
Post by rlh on Mar 1, 2011 12:17:40 GMT -5
Still don't like the double bye....never have...never will....even if it was ours.....It sucks and everyone (almost) in the nation knows it but our conference. if not, more would do it....Using your premise, if we had deserved two teams that year, we would have gotten two teams in the tournament. Obviously, we did not....PERIOD !!!!!
|
|
|
Post by blackpantheruwm on Mar 1, 2011 12:45:03 GMT -5
Still don't like the double bye....never have...never will....even if it was ours.....It sucks and everyone (almost) in the nation knows it but our conference. if not, more would do it....Using your premise, if we had deserved two teams that year, we would have gotten two teams in the tournament. Obviously, we did not....PERIOD !!!!! Say what you will. You know who can answer you best? Wright State fans, who bashed the tournament format until they hosted in 2007. They don't argue with it anymore.
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Mar 1, 2011 13:17:33 GMT -5
Minor quibble: a single bye is *not* "hardly any advantage at all". It's a significant advantage.
That said, as far as I can tell, the math ain't right for a single bye. It's either double-bye or nothing (at least if you want to limit it to the top 2).
And reading between the lines that Cleveland Plain Dealer, I'm not so sure I don't hear a tiny bit of belly-aching from Waters over this. He has no reason to (2009) of course, and I'm sure he moves on from it quite quickly and gets past it, but I've come to know him as someone who never passes up a chance to whine about something publicly (politically, if you want to get down to it).
I hate the double-bye and I would hate it if Valpo had it too. Of course I wouldn't be gloomy about it if we had it, nobody is *that* altruistic. But I can assure you that I wouldn't suddenly turn into a staunch defender because of it.
I can't argue with your rationale, blackpantheruwm. If that is what serves the conference's best interests, then the HL is simply (and inexplicably) ahead of the curve among mid-major conferences. The Big East is mulling the double-bye (and amazingly shunning it so far), but that's apples vs. oranges -- no angst about being shut out from any at-large bids.
What this all adds up to for me is just one more reason why NCAA Division I College Basketball is so screwed up. College Basketball, in which teams play each other at most twice during a season, is simply not a sport conducive to "proving" who is the best team during the regular season. We assign that label to the team that finishes in 1st place, and then ask them to prove it all over again in the conference tourney (unless we're the Ivy League, which in some ways is more ahead of the curve than everyone else). Given that, I don't begrudge the notion of giving the top team a significant advantage.
If you're going to tell someone they're the best team in the conference and then ask them to prove it all over again, you better give them a leg up, else what was the point of striving to finish 1st in the first place???
Ah, but that presumes the premise that that 1st place team is, by definition, the best. I don't buy that presumption, at least not in principle and not by definition. I don't buy the presumption that in a puny 18-game regular season anybody *has* to be designated "the best".
I think there's something pure about simply seeding the teams and bringing them all together in one place and giving everyone virtually an equal chance. If you truly are the best team, you should be able to demonstrate it the only place where it truly matters -- on the court.
Unfortunately, there's no place for that kind of thinking in today's NCAA (though The Summit League still has it, and I still miss it). So.... I compromise. If I could figure out a way to do 10 teams with only a single-bye for the top 2 teams, I'd propose it. The only one I'm aware of is a single-bye for the top 6 teams (the HL Women's conference tourney). And that does not seem like much of a reward either because even a 6th place team gets one.
Given that I can't think of a better way to do it right now, I accept the double-bye. But I will never pronounce it good.
|
|
|
Post by milldew1 on Mar 1, 2011 13:45:21 GMT -5
Seems to me that the HL tournament format leaves you 2 options: 1. Kick the dirt and complain about how unfair the system is, or 2. Step up and win the games you are supposed to win. Cleveland State, just like Valpo, choked when the games counted and landed right in the position they deserved. Milwaukee and Butler, on the other hand, played well under pressure late in the conference season and earned the reward of the double bye. The system is only unfair to those who cannot suck it up for a full 18 game schedule. Perfectly stated.
|
|
|
Post by jbowker on Mar 1, 2011 13:55:53 GMT -5
Interesting... CSU and UWM home pages on their athletics websites...
OK, I can quite pouting now...
|
|
|
Post by justducky on Mar 1, 2011 14:23:04 GMT -5
Still don't like the double bye....never have...never will....even if it was ours.....It sucks and everyone (almost) in the nation knows it but our conference. if not, more would do it....Using your premise, if we had deserved two teams that year, we would have gotten two teams in the tournament. Obviously, we did not....PERIOD !!!!! Say what you will. You know who can answer you best? Wright State fans, who bashed the tournament format until they hosted in 2007. They don't argue with it anymore. Let me rephrase this arguement. Suppose that every year before the tournament, we were to poll the 3-10 coaches and give them a choice. The first choice would be the current format and the second would be a single-bye system with the 1 and 2 seed teams being awarded a 5 point advantage before tip off in each game they played. I am sure the response would be "Hell- give them 8 and we are still better off." This is the magnatude of their advantage. What if Bobby Knight had come in mid season as coach in any of the bottom 8 schools and had somehow taken that team to the semifinals. When asked by the press about the double-bye what would be his reply? This is how we need to respond. Sometimes somebody just needs to step forward drop their pants and shine their ass at the powers that be. That may not be too polite but it might just get their attention. It is now our responsibility to work to ensure that this is the last year for this lunacy.
|
|