|
|
Post by cmo on May 29, 2018 15:37:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by southernsader on May 29, 2018 16:18:44 GMT -5
Interesting concept. But it is C-USA. The problem isn't scheduling, it is the composition of the league. That idea may contribute to increased in season interest intra-conference, but will doubtless still result in " low seeds and early exits from the NCAA tournament".
|
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on May 29, 2018 17:30:18 GMT -5
Stupid. Making sure your top teams run out of gas before they even get to the conference tournament. And worse teams end up with better seeds in the conference tourney, increasing the odds of a mediocre team winning it in the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ray on May 30, 2018 10:07:46 GMT -5
Stupid. Making sure your top teams run out of gas before they even get to the conference tournament. And worse teams end up with better seeds in the conference tourney, increasing the odds of a mediocre team winning it in the end.
Why is it making anyone run out of gas? They're playing the same number of league games.
The article didn't mention this (or I missed it), but it would seem like they should freeze the conference tournament seedings between the two groups... ie if you play the round-robin in the top-half of the league, you should be guaranteed a top-half seed for the conference tourney even if you get swept in the round-robin. Likewise, if you "win" the loser's bracket, all that should get you is the top seed available from among those teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on May 30, 2018 15:11:50 GMT -5
Stupid. Making sure your top teams run out of gas before they even get to the conference tournament. And worse teams end up with better seeds in the conference tourney, increasing the odds of a mediocre team winning it in the end.
Why is it making anyone run out of gas? They're playing the same number of league games.
The article didn't mention this (or I missed it), but it would seem like they should freeze the conference tournament seedings between the two groups... ie if you play the round-robin in the top-half of the league, you should be guaranteed a top-half seed for the conference tourney even if you get swept in the round-robin. Likewise, if you "win" the loser's bracket, all that should get you is the top seed available from among those teams.
This would make sense and be much more reasonable.
No matter the gimmick, however, mid-majors will always get the short end of the stick. The idea on this proposal is to have the top half of the conference get a strength of schedule boost and thus greater chance at producing an at-large berth. However, what will happen in real life is that the corrupt committee will use the system against them. Say the second best team in Conference USA loses to the number one team both in the late-season "flex" conference matchup and in the conference tournament. Even with an overall record of, say 27-4, the committee will say, "Look Conference USA number 2 lost to Conference USA #1 twice. Proves they couldn't beat a Top 40 team! And they choked down the stretch. Leave them out in favor of a tenth ACC team! Hooray for the P6!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Ray on May 31, 2018 10:18:19 GMT -5
Yeah, realistically this doesn't move the needle on at-larges. The only scenario I can see it helping is the really, really strong team from the one-bid league that stubs their toe in the conference championship game. If they ran roughshod through the league all year, and dominate this round-robin, maybe the SoS boost is enough to help their resume at the end.
But to your point, the more common outcome will be muddying the waters and making resumes less distinguishable within the league. C-USA isn't exactly in the same situation as the PL, but in the PL essentially ANY league loss is a bad loss for resume purposes. So this model would likely be counterproductive to resume-building at the PL level. Occasionally a monster Bucknell team would still shred the league an improve their resume as a result, but more likely in a parity year, your conf champ would now end up, say, 12-6 in the league rather than 14-4, and the committee would say "scoff, you only went 12-6 in the 27th ranked league in the country. Go to Dayton."
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom on May 31, 2018 11:47:22 GMT -5
So. You have two fairly even teams that are a cut above the rest of the league. The play once. The home team wins and secures the No.1 spot in the round robin. The top guys get their rematch back at the same home court as the first time..
I suppose I should commend them on thinking outside the box, but my guess is that it's just a gimmick that will not meet its objectives
|
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jun 1, 2018 14:59:56 GMT -5
So. You have two fairly even teams that are a cut above the rest of the league. The play once. The home team wins and secures the No.1 spot in the round robin. The top guys get their rematch back at the same home court as the first time.. I suppose I should commend them on thinking outside the box, but my guess is that it's just a gimmick that will not meet its objectives Not when the decked is stacked the way it is. Look at the Bracketbusters -- that idea faded awful fast.
"WHAT? YOU'RE A MID-MAJOR WITH A 29-2 RECORD AND YOU LOST TO MEMPHIS? GO TO THE NIT!!!" Basically the way the committee handled the Bracket Buster results.
|
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Jun 1, 2018 17:21:56 GMT -5
Might not have produced the desired results, but I liked seeing some of those matchups. The HC at Hofstra game in 2007 (outside of the outcome) was a really great game; Bucknell at Northern Iowa the year before was as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jun 1, 2018 18:26:05 GMT -5
Might not have produced the desired results, but I liked seeing some of those matchups. The HC at Hofstra game in 2007 (outside of the outcome) was a really great game; Bucknell at Northern Iowa the year before was as well. I loved and miss the Bracket Buster match ups as well. I remember listening to that game in my dorm room on Easy Street. My classmates and I had been hoping that our resume would put us in one of the games on ESPN or ESPN2 but that game ended up being nationally broadcast on EPNU. We got revenge against Hofstra the next year in our home opener -- one cool part of that set of games was that there was always a home-and-home involved. The next year our game was against Northeastern at the Hart, which we won handily, and we wound up sweeping the series with a win in Brookline in November of 2008. IIRC, 2007-2008 was the last year the PL participated in the ESPN Bracket Busters and several years beyond that the entire concept was finished. |
|
|
|
Post by res on Jun 1, 2018 19:45:38 GMT -5
Might not have produced the desired results, but I liked seeing some of those matchups. The HC at Hofstra game in 2007 (outside of the outcome) was a really great game; Bucknell at Northern Iowa the year before was as well. I would agree (outside of the outcome). |
|
GO TO THE NIT!!!" Basically the way the committee handled the Bracket Buster results. 