Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 109
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles

    Non-ACC conference tournament discussion

    Did I miss it over the last few years or is the Big East using a new tournament format this year? I just saw it, and wow -- with the possible exception of making a tiny bit more money -- is it dumb.

    The top 4 teams don't get one bye, meaning one day of extra rest relative to the rest of the teams. The top 4 seeds get TWO byes -- TWO extra days of rest relative to the bottom 8 teams. Teams 5 through 8 get one extra day. So on the first day, which is Tuesday, teams seeded 9-16 play each other. The 4 winners play on Wednesday against teams seeded 5 through 8. The 4 winners of those games then play on Thursday against teams seeded 1 through 4. So teams seeded 9-16 have to win FIVE games in five days to win the thing, while the top 4 seeds only need to win three straight.

    This strikes me as so unfair. I understand the byes for top seeds when your tournament has a number of teams not divisible by 8. Then you have to do the byes. But when you have a perfectly symmetrical number like the Big East does (16), to artificially create extra advantage for the top teams by concocting this kind of format, in the hopes of making some bank from the Tuesday gate for S. Florida v. Depaul and Cincinnati v. Rutgers, just stinks.

    To me, the top seeds already have major advantages. First, they have the best teams of course. Next, they already have the easiest road. #1 would have matchups, barring upsets, with #16, then #8, then #4 before the finals. #2 would have the next easiest road, etc. Same as in the NCAA's. Fine. Those are two pretty big advantages. Now you have to serve up opponents that are not only inferior to begin with, but also tired? When it isn't necessary to do so? What would be so terrible about a 4 round tournament with the first round being 1 v 16, 2 v 15, 3 v 14, etc. like any normal person would design?

    It's kind of the same problem I have with the geographic advantages that the NCAA gives the top teams in the Big Dance. I know, it helps with the gate. But I always have clung to the idea that we should be testing the mettle of the top teams. I'm not saying that, for instance, Kansas should have to play, say, Florida State in a 1 vs. 8 second round game in Jacksonville. Not saying that at all. Too close to their opponent's home floor. But I also don't think they should get to play them in St. Louis. If they're that good (and I mean all the top teams -- indeed all the teams period, not just Kansas of course), make them win 6 games against tournament-worthy teams on truly neutral floors. No obvious advantage to either squad. That's what the champion should have to do.

    Just as in this silly Big East thing, the top teams in the NCAA already have the biggest advantages -- those again being the best teams and the easiest paths. Giving them the next best thing to home games in the NCAA tournament is contrary to the spirit of the tournament, or at least the tournament I thought I used to know.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    It's been that way for a few years in the Big East, and I actually like the way the Big East tournament is set up. It uses a shocking concept - actually giving a real weight to the regular season.

    They didn't want to wear out their best teams (and hurt those teams' NCAA chances) by making them have to play 4 games to win the conference tournament. It's not fair to the really good teams to have to play more games than similar teams from other conferences just so that a couple of really crappy teams can get a bailout chance at a title.

    It also reduces the chances that a really crappy team (like DePaul, Rutgers, etc) sneaks in a gets a bid and potentially takes a bid away from a stronger bubble team from the conference. Though that's not really part of the reasoning.

    So, they came up with a system that allowed their top 4 teams to only have to play 3 games to win it, but also still allowed the entire conference a chance to win. Sure, it's not equally "fair" to all the teams. But basically, I don't see a need for more "fairness." That was the point of playing the regular season. Is it fair to the teams that played the best all season to have the slate almost completely wiped clean and have to play a single-elimination conference tournament? No. The worst teams had their chance to make their tourney lives easier by winning more regular season games. They failed to do so. They don't deserve a nearly-complete "do-over" in the conference tournament.

    Granted, I'm also someone who thinks there are too many teams in the tournament already. Really - teams who go .500 in conference don't deserve a chance to be the conference (or national) champion in my opinion.

  3. #3
    The West Coast conference (Gonzaga's conference) does this as well. Seeds 5-8 play day 1, winners play seeds 3 and 4 day 2, winners play seeds 1 and 2, day 3 and winners play for the title on day 4 so seeds 1 and 2 only have to win 2 games in an 8 team conference.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Eternal Outlaw View Post
    The West Coast conference (Gonzaga's conference) does this as well. Seeds 5-8 play day 1, winners play seeds 3 and 4 day 2, winners play seeds 1 and 2, day 3 and winners play for the title on day 4 so seeds 1 and 2 only have to win 2 games in an 8 team conference.
    I like it. It puts greater value on the regular season, and reduces the likelihood that you get a crappy team representing your conference. In lesser conferences like the WCC (though they often have 2-3 good teams), this is even more important, because you want to try to make sure you get your best team(s) to the tournament so you can milk as many dollars as possible from the NCAA. Making your best teams play more games in a single-elimination format reduces the likelihood that you get your best teams representing your conference.

    In the Big East, I don't think this is really the driver. I think it's more an admission that the conference is too big, and they don't want to wear down their best teams with 4 games in 4 days right before the NCAA tournament.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    This strikes me as so unfair.
    It's completely fair. The bad teams could have avoided their fate by sucking less during the regular season. That's when your "equal opportunity" comes.

    The best thing to do is not to have so many damn teams in your conference in the first place, but barring that I'd much rather slight DePaul and keep a strong contender for the national championship (the Cuse this year) from having to play on four straight days.

    FWIW, the ACC had a miniature version of this for a few years, back when it was nine teams. The #1 seed played #9 on Thursday, with the winner getting a bye into Saturday. There was also a 7/8 game on Thursday, with the winner playing #2 on Friday. I think we were the #1 every year this system was in effect (and won our game each time).

    Just as in this silly Big East thing, the top teams in the NCAA already have the biggest advantages -- those again being the best teams and the easiest paths. Giving them the next best thing to home games in the NCAA tournament is contrary to the spirit of the tournament, or at least the tournament I thought I used to know.
    This smells like a troll... the tournament you used to know? Does that include 1988, when we played in the Dean Dome? Or 1974, when NC State played its first two games in Reynolds and the championship in Greensboro? I believe Ucla got to play in Los Angeles every year. I'd rather have the current system, which saves on travel costs/time and keeps more fans interested in the early rounds, than send three teams from the DC area out to Boise, as was the case in 2001.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    This format gives teams 9 - 12 (South Florida, Seton Hall, uCon, Cincinatti) a chance to pick up an extra easy win to beef up their resumes. USF (19-11) and SH (18-11) and maybe uCon (17-14) are in a position that with the easy win and one mild upset (GTown, ND, Marquette) they can go dancing.

    More teams in means more money.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    This format gives teams 9 - 12 (South Florida, Seton Hall, uCon, Cincinatti) a chance to pick up an extra easy win to beef up their resumes. USF (19-11) and SH (18-11) and maybe uCon (17-14) are in a position that with the easy win and one mild upset (GTown, ND, Marquette) they can go dancing.

    More teams in means more money.
    I'm not sure an extra win against a bottom-feeder really adds much to their resume. Sure, more wins are nice, but the committee will take a look at against whom those wins actually came. If anything, I'd say it gives those teams an extra chance to have a bad loss burst their bubble. I don't think the decision was made to help out the 9-12 teams. I'm pretty sure it was made to give everybody a chance (they used to not even have all 16 teams playing) while not penalizing the top teams by playing more games.

  8. #8
    Oh, something else. You can't play more than four games a day at one site. So if you want to accommodate an eight-team first round, your options are:

    1. Find another site (involving additional logistical arrangements and travel costs, especially in NYC -- where you gonna play the games? East Rutherford? Nassau Coliseum?)
    2. Play games on more than one day, causing some winners to have more rest than others in the next round
    3. Play first-round games on homecourts, causing additional travel costs and scheduling uncertainties and belying the OP's desire for the "fairness" he seeks. Also, good luck filling the Carrier Dome for Syracuse/DePaul on two days' notice.

    I think going to a classic four-round format is more unfair, not less.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Delaware
    I don't think it has been stated explicitly yet, but the original format of the Big East Tourney when the 16 team conference was formed was the exact same as the current ACC tourney, 12 teams with 4 first round byes. After a couple of years, most agreed that teams shouldn't have to fight to make the conference tourney, but were also worried about the negative effects that a straight 16 team bracket could have on the top teams in the NCAA's by playing 4 games in 4 days (no other conference has their top teams do that). The current format was the compromise struck and I believe took effect in 2008. Ironically, the teams usually in the most precarious bubble situations (9-12) actually get punished the most, having to play a game against a bottom feeder than can only hurt them before playing everyone else. For example, if UConn, which really needs big wins, wants to beat a top 4 team, they will have to do so on their third game in three days, when their opponent has rested.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by SCMatt33 View Post
    For example, if UConn, which really needs big wins, wants to beat a top 4 team, they will have to do so on their third game in three days, when their opponent has rested.
    Maybe if Uconn hadn't honked games against South Florida, Providence and Cincinnati (twice) I'd be more sympathetic.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Smile NCAA Implications

    IMHO (remembering that the H is usually silent when the Grouse clucks), this is all about preserving the NCAA chances of the top teams. This scheme avoids their playing four games in four (or five) days, which would be a burden in terms of the following weeks.

    WRT to DePaul, Providence et al. on the bottom of the Big East: they are probably going to play one or, at most, two games. If a bottom team goes on a streak, then we have an "Odyssey" story of a a long voyage against all odds.

    WRT to teams 5-8, well -- they should have won more games.

    sagegrouse
    'BTW, why the heck does the Big East have 16 teams? It seems ludicrous. and what's so "East" about DePaul and Marquette? Or even Notre Dame, although the Irish are a "money team" and tend to have a huge following in the Northeast''

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    'BTW, why the heck does the Big East have 16 teams? It seems ludicrous. and what's so "East" about DePaul and Marquette? Or even Notre Dame, although the Irish are a "money team" and tend to have a huge following in the Northeast''
    I am in Chicago, the de facto capital of the Midwest. The closest Televen school to me is of course Northwestern, but three Big East schools are closer to me than the nearest other Televen school. And the Big East has a school actually in Chicago whereas the Televen does not.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by hurleyfor3 View Post
    2. Play games on more than one day, causing some winners to have more rest than others in the next round
    If it were a simple 16 team format you could have the top 4 teams play on Wed. and the remaing games be played on Thursday. Then after the first round everyone plays second round on Friday, Semis on Sat, and Championship on Sun.

    I think this is an excellent idea the only draw back is that the top seeds, assuming they win, would play 4 games in 5 days. This can be adjusted by tipp off times. Let's say the number one seed wins their first game on Wed then they would be scheduled to play the earliest game on Fri and the latest game on Sat.

    the coaches of the top seeds may like this more because the first two games mimicks the NCAAT in that you play a week opponent then rest one day and play a better opponent.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by noyac View Post
    If it were a simple 16 team format you could have the top 4 teams play on Wed. and the remaing games be played on Thursday. Then after the first round everyone plays second round on Friday, Semis on Sat, and Championship on Sun.

    I think this is an excellent idea the only draw back is that the top seeds, assuming they win, would play 4 games in 5 days. This can be adjusted by tipp off times. Let's say the number one seed wins their first game on Wed then they would be scheduled to play the earliest game on Fri and the latest game on Sat.
    Another problem is that this would give lower-seeds (if they manage an upset over the top seeds) an advantage against middle-upper seeds, by having an extra day's rest. That's counterintuitive. By comparison, a #13 seed would have the following path: beat #4 seed, day off, beat #5/12 seed, beat #1/16/8/9 seed, win the final. That's 4 games in 5 days. The #8 seed would have the following path: beat the #9 seed, beat the #1/16 seed, beat the #4/13/5/12 seed, win the last round. That's the same path as the #13 seed, but they'd have to do it in 4 days instead of 5 days. So you have given a benefit to the lower seed.

    Quote Originally Posted by noyac View Post
    the coaches of the top seeds may like this more because the first two games mimicks the NCAAT in that you play a week opponent then rest one day and play a better opponent.
    I don't think the coaches of the top seeds are going to prefer any 4-game format to a 3-game format. They're going to prefer to be rewarded for playing well in the regular season.

    As SCMatt said more eloquently than I had implied, the format chosen by the Big East was chosen so that the top seeds got a true benefit from doing well in the regular season, but the bottom seeds still technically had a chance to win it.

  15. #15

    UConn loses to St.Johns

    St. Johns just blew the doors off of Connecticut. Final was like a 25 point margin. I have never seen UConn play so poorly. It was really, really bad.

    Any thoughts on what this season means for Calhoun and UConn?

    Personally, I'm not sure Calhoun is back next year. He seems to hate his team, and his team clearly doesn't respond to him. They have a weak bench, they lose three seniors, and Roscoe Smith is only a verbal commitment for next year at this point.

  16. #16
    I love it!
    ~rthomas

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, NC

    Bottom 3

    1. unc
    2. twerps
    3. u-conn

    Just can't root for these 3 teams. Go Duke!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Westport, CT
    Living in CT it's even easier to hate the UConvicts.

    I have a picture of Christian Laettner in my office to annoy the heck out of the UConn fans.

    Unfortunately, when the men are down, they always have the women's team to root for. Hey, maybe they could beat their men

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!

    WCOY

    Roy or Calhoun for worst coach of the year?

    I fully expect to see a landslide of articles talking about the demise of UConn as a national power. This is the 2nd time in 4 years they have failed to make the tourney. They also have a first round loss in the past 4 years. They are not an elite program.

    I just heard ESPN say that UConn has not won a game in the Big East tournament since 2005. Is that really possible? I mean, they sucked this season but they were 31-5 last season, 24-9 the year before, and 30-4 in 2006. They didn't win a BEast tourney game in any of those season?!?! Not elite.

    I am telling ya, as time goes by we should really learn to appreciate what K and Duke do EVERY SINGLE SEASON a bit more. Even if they have struggled to get past the Sweet 16 a bit lately, they are stunningly good year-in and year-out in a way that no other program can approach (except maybe Kansas).

    --Jason "K has missed the NCAAs a grand total of 1 time since 1983... the season he was not there -- no other coach comes close" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Roy or Calhoun for worst coach of the year?

    I fully expect to see a landslide of articles talking about the demise of UConn as a national power. This is the 2nd time in 4 years they have failed to make the tourney. They also have a first round loss in the past 4 years. They are not an elite program.

    I just heard ESPN say that UConn has not won a game in the Big East tournament since 2005. Is that really possible? I mean, they sucked this season but they were 31-5 last season, 24-9 the year before, and 30-4 in 2006. They didn't win a BEast tourney game in any of those season?!?! Not elite. ...

    --Jason "K has missed the NCAAs a grand total of 1 time since 1983... the season he was not there -- no other coach comes close" Evans
    And next year could (should?) be worse! They lose seniors Robinson, Dyson and Edwards, and could lose Kemba Walker. The incoming recruits that signed LOIs aren't very impressive, and the impressive recruit, Roscoe Smith hasn't signed an LOI.

    I think Calhoun is too stubborn to resign on such a low note. It wouldn't surprise me though, if he has another mid-season medical issue when it becomes apparent his team sucks and he retires from there.

Similar Threads

  1. Non-ACC Conference Tournament Thread
    By Acymetric in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-07-2010, 07:17 PM
  2. The Second Best Conference
    By NYC Duke Fan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-04-2010, 06:40 PM
  3. (pre) ACC Tournament discussion thread
    By feldspar in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 03-10-2009, 03:39 PM
  4. Idol- discussion and who won?
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-26-2007, 02:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •