Post by wh on Mar 4, 2011 10:05:58 GMT -5
In an attempt to be more constructive about my criticism of the current tournament format, I would like to offer up a possible alternative approach for everyone’s consideration. Here is my proposal for what I sincerely believe to be a better tournament format:
• Only the top 6 seeds are eligible
• Tournament is held over 3 consecutive days at the venue of the #1 seed
• Day 1 – Quarterfinals (Seeds 3-6 --- 2 games)
• Day 2 – Semi-finals (Quarterfinal winners vs. 1&2 seeds --- 2 games)
• Day 3 – Championship game
Advantages over current format (IMO)
• Round 1 of the current format is in effect eliminated. This eliminates my biggest criticism that the 3-6 seeds are unfairly abused by the current process.
• The No.1 and 2 seeds still have a distinct advantage. They still only have to win 2 games. Their semi-final opponents are still leg weary from playing the previous day. The No.1 seed is still hosting.
• Eliminating current round 1 games eliminates the time, expense, and wear and tear on teams, including criss-crossing multiple states, scheduling games at the last minute, making last minute hotel arrangements, extending player’s time away from the classroom, and playing in front of small, disinterested fan bases.
• Everything the current process reportedly is designed to protect (sending the best team to the NCAA tournament, protecting RPI’s, etc.) remains intact.
• Last, but not least, I think this format not only saves a lot of unnecessary expense, holding the tournament at one SCHOOL-BASED location over 3 consecutive days has the potential to attract a lot of fans from the 5 visiting schools and provide successful image the conference is looking for.
Disadvantages over current format:
• IMO it is always good to include all 10 teams. I just don’t see a way of making that happen and still remedy problems with the current format.
• If the No.1 seed loses its semi-final game, the remaining highest seed doesn’t get to host the championship game.
On balance I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Any thoughts?
• Only the top 6 seeds are eligible
• Tournament is held over 3 consecutive days at the venue of the #1 seed
• Day 1 – Quarterfinals (Seeds 3-6 --- 2 games)
• Day 2 – Semi-finals (Quarterfinal winners vs. 1&2 seeds --- 2 games)
• Day 3 – Championship game
Advantages over current format (IMO)
• Round 1 of the current format is in effect eliminated. This eliminates my biggest criticism that the 3-6 seeds are unfairly abused by the current process.
• The No.1 and 2 seeds still have a distinct advantage. They still only have to win 2 games. Their semi-final opponents are still leg weary from playing the previous day. The No.1 seed is still hosting.
• Eliminating current round 1 games eliminates the time, expense, and wear and tear on teams, including criss-crossing multiple states, scheduling games at the last minute, making last minute hotel arrangements, extending player’s time away from the classroom, and playing in front of small, disinterested fan bases.
• Everything the current process reportedly is designed to protect (sending the best team to the NCAA tournament, protecting RPI’s, etc.) remains intact.
• Last, but not least, I think this format not only saves a lot of unnecessary expense, holding the tournament at one SCHOOL-BASED location over 3 consecutive days has the potential to attract a lot of fans from the 5 visiting schools and provide successful image the conference is looking for.
Disadvantages over current format:
• IMO it is always good to include all 10 teams. I just don’t see a way of making that happen and still remedy problems with the current format.
• If the No.1 seed loses its semi-final game, the remaining highest seed doesn’t get to host the championship game.
On balance I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Any thoughts?