Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Why even bother inviting the 13 and 14 seeds? They have virtually zero chance of winning it all. I suppose you're giving them an opportunity for an additional ACC win, but I'm not thinking these teams are getting into the NCAA's anyways.

    And as I stated in a thread several months ago regarding the ACC tournament, we already have droves of empty seats for the thursday games. Things are only going to get much, much worse. The Wednesday crowds will resemble middle school contests.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    Yes. People pining for 1974 often lose sight of this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Indoor66 View Post
    If I was pining for the '70's it would be '78 rather than '74!
    Exactly! Any Duke fan pining for 1974 has serious issues.
    Bob Green
    United States Navy (Retired)
    @JBobGreen

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    For now. Expansion has required a lot of sacrifices for what could turn out to be a ~5 year stay of execution.
    I suppose, but we're currently on a decade-long stay of execution (2003). Heck, the SWC expired in the mid-90s. Our solution has been to eat the Big East, and mostly we've been able to do that because of their janked-up hybrid nature with the football-not-football messy memberships. For all of the criticism of Swofford, he trumped Tranghese in the survival game. And where Darwinian, big business is involved--and that's what college FB and MBB is--staying ahead of the game, by even a few years, five even, just for survival, is the business. Don't let's kid ourselves. Staying ahead for five years is what you need to stay ahead for the next five years.

    Whining about how there aren't eight teams in the ACC is inane at this point, though I do see a lot of it on this board. (Not from you, Duvall). Oh waaah waaah, the ACCT isn't exactly like it was when I was a kid. Look folks, either we get out of the game entirely, or we play it in its unbelievably dirty real-world incarnation. It's really dirty business. That's a fact. So we're going to have to require more sacrifices for the next five year stay of execution, and the next, and the next after that.

    I'd reiterate my talking point about how Duke should go D3 in all sports after Krzyzewski retires, but I know no one wants to hear it. D3 would be far more aligned with the institutional mission.


    PS - I said 74 because I thought it was the peak of the State-UNC-Maryland hegemony--the peak of the conference in MBB. I know we sucked that year.
    Last edited by throatybeard; 05-16-2012 at 11:28 PM.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southern Pines, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by hurleyfor3 View Post
    Again, I'd like to know your answer to scheduling more than four games on the same day, then having all the winners play at a single site the following day. Not to mention how you'd handle ticket sales vs. the current system of people buying the entire tournament at once.

    My (partial) suggestion was here.
    In a 16 team league, what's wrong with scheduling the opening round at the home sites of the 8 top seeded teams? Do it on Tuesday to allow the victors the time off to prepare for the grind of the traditional ACC 3 rounds in 3 days, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday at one site with no byes. I'm not worried about ticket sales yet, but the first round sales should be handled by the home team. For the final three rounds, sell them just like we did when we were a 8 team league. Ta, da, problem solved.

    For a 14 team league, what will be, will be. Why 2 byes, though? When I get elected the commish, I would have 4 rounds in which only the 2 top teams get a bye. Again, do the first round of 12 teams on the home court of the higher seeded teams on Tuesday, eliminating 6 of them. That leaves 8 teams for the traditional 3 rounds in 3 days ending just prior the NCAA selection show on CBS.
    Maybe that's too simple, huh?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by UrinalCake View Post
    Why even bother inviting the 13 and 14 seeds? They have virtually zero chance of winning it all. I suppose you're giving them an opportunity for an additional ACC win, but I'm not thinking these teams are getting into the NCAA's anyways.

    And as I stated in a thread several months ago regarding the ACC tournament, we already have droves of empty seats for the thursday games. Things are only going to get much, much worse. The Wednesday crowds will resemble middle school contests.
    I don't see why the crowd size for those games is an issue. There won't be that many fans there, but so what? As Cdu pointed out a few posts back, every team deserves a chance to play, but that doesn't mean that we as fans have to watch them. The only time I'll be paying attention to the Wednesday games is if Duke is unfortunate enough to have to play that day....but if we are in that position I'll be very happy that we have the opportunity and I won't give two licks if there are 10,000 people in the stands or 50. (Actually I might rather have 50, that way when 3/4 of the crowd is yelling against us, it won't matter so much.)
    Mmmm, BBQ!

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by UrinalCake View Post
    Why even bother inviting the 13 and 14 seeds? They have virtually zero chance of winning it all. I suppose you're giving them an opportunity for an additional ACC win, but I'm not thinking these teams are getting into the NCAA's anyways.

    And as I stated in a thread several months ago regarding the ACC tournament, we already have droves of empty seats for the thursday games. Things are only going to get much, much worse. The Wednesday crowds will resemble middle school contests.
    This seems like an important question to me. People keep opining that we have to figure out a way to get all 14 teams to the tournament, but do we? What if we just had the top 8 teams play in a 3-day tourney? Bottom six? Tough luck. Think about how exciting and important the regular season would become. Can you imagine actually being pumped up for an 8th/9th place match-up at the end of the regular season?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhead View Post
    In a 16 team league, what's wrong with scheduling the opening round at the home sites of the 8 top seeded teams? Do it on Tuesday to allow the victors the time off to prepare for the grind of the traditional ACC 3 rounds in 3 days, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday at one site with no byes. I'm not worried about ticket sales yet, but the first round sales should be handled by the home team. For the final three rounds, sell them just like we did when we were a 8 team league. Ta, da, problem solved.
    This seems like an interesting idea as well. Unless anyone brings up some glaringly obvious objection that I'm simply missing, this would be the solution I would promote. Fight all season for home-court in the opening round? Not a terrible idea.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    I don't see why the crowd size for those games is an issue.
    We'll just have to disagree on this. I think the crowd size is a huge deal. If you're not playing these games for the fans, and the teams have very little at stake, then why do it? I have a stong suspicion that some of the teams in this year's thursday games could have cared less about playing. It just seems like an enormous waste of time to me. The ACC tournament should be the conference's signature event. When 3/4 of the seats are empty it's an embarrassment.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by UrinalCake View Post
    We'll just have to disagree on this. I think the crowd size is a huge deal. If you're not playing these games for the fans, and the teams have very little at stake, then why do it? I have a stong suspicion that some of the teams in this year's thursday games could have cared less about playing. It just seems like an enormous waste of time to me. The ACC tournament should be the conference's signature event. When 3/4 of the seats are empty it's an embarrassment.
    I think that would happen with any large tournament, in any sport. As long as the seats are filled for the final rounds, I don't think the ACC or anyone else would consider it to be an embarrassment. Now if those seats are empty on Saturday and Sunday? Then yeah, someone has a huge problem.
    Mmmm, BBQ!

  9. #29
    They won't accept any plan that has 6 games on one day. You can't do it at one site and if you scatter to campus sites, the games will take place at similar times and screw things up for TV.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southern Pines, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by forbiddendonut View Post
    They won't accept any plan that has 6 games on one day. You can't do it at one site and if you scatter to campus sites, the games will take place at similar times and screw things up for TV.
    Trust me. ESPN can handle it. They have three networks plus an online streamer. The NCAA has 2 days in its annual tourney with 16 games each. Works out fine, doesn't it?

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    The Big East announced their new format yesterday, which will now include 2 play in games on Monday. For those saying that there should be teams left at home for our tourney, I would like to point out this quote; I think it applies to the ACC just as well.
    Coaches were unanimously in favor of having all 18 future Big East members play in their conference tournament.
    http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...rnament-format

    I bet if there was a poll of the ACC coaches you would find a similar reaction.
    Mmmm, BBQ!

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by UrinalCake View Post
    Why even bother inviting the 13 and 14 seeds? They have virtually zero chance of winning it all. I suppose you're giving them an opportunity for an additional ACC win, but I'm not thinking these teams are getting into the NCAA's anyways.
    Ordinarily, I'd agree that including everyone isn't necessary, but when there's an unbalanced schedule, I think you've got to include everyone. For example, what if the 11-14 seeded teams are only separated by a game or two and the 13th seeded team has played multiple games against the 1st and 3rd seeded team, while the 11th seeded team got by with playing the 9th and 12th seeded teams twice. Granted, an argument could be made that the 13th seeded team already had more chances to prove itself capable of beating the higher seeded teams so it shouldn't be "given" yet another opportunity, but that doesn't mean they're less deserving than the 11 seed with an easier schedule.

    ...

    Personally, I think the ACC is in a tough position of choosing between several equally mediocre alternatives for a 14 team tournament because they've got such a narrow window within which to schedule the games. A possible solution would be to condense the regular season schedule by adding one more 3 game week for everyone, which would cause the season to end a few days earlier. With the extra time, you could (1) do the first round of play-in games (11 v. 14 and 12 v. 13) on Monday on the higher seeded school's campus and leave the 4-day, 12 team portion as is Thursday-Sunday, which is probably the more profitable option; or (2) use two of Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday (or all three so that the games don't overlap) to have the higher seeded schools host 3/14, 4/13, 5/12, 6/11, 7/10, and 8/9 games, leaving 8 rested teams for Friday, Saturday, Sunday finale. The benefits of having 6 "first round" games on campus is that it rewards the higher seeded teams by getting to host a game, gives the same amount of rest to teams between games, and still gives the 1 and 2 seeds a bye for the first round. The benefits of having the 11-14 seeds go through play-in games is that it allows the ACC to bundle tickets to the Thursday games and minimizes travel between games, while providing the 1 and 2 seeds a double-bye and the 3-10 teams a single-bye. From a fan's perspective, I like option (2) better because I probably won't be going to the tournament and can watch the first round of games on TV, and because it seems to provide a more level playing field than option (1), taking "scheduling" wins out of the equation.

    Here is what the format for option two would look like:

    Monday/Tuesday:
    3 v. 14
    6 v. 11
    7 v. 10*

    Tuesday/Wednesday:
    4 v. 13
    5 v. 12
    8 v. 9*

    Friday
    1 v. 8/9
    2 v. 7/10
    3/14 v. 6/11
    4/13 v. 5/12

    Saturday: Semifinals

    Sunday: Finals

    *The 8 v. 9 and 7 v. 10 games could get their own day to allow for early and late evening games only or as a third game, with staggered start times so that no second halves overlap. The 8 v. 9 game would be played after the 7 v. 10 game to give the 1 seed a less rested opponent than the 2 seed.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southern Pines, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by dcdevil2009 View Post
    Ordinarily, I'd agree that including everyone isn't necessary, but when there's an unbalanced schedule, I think you've got to include everyone. For example, what if the 11-14 seeded teams are only separated by a game or two and the 13th seeded team has played multiple games against the 1st and 3rd seeded team, while the 11th seeded team got by with playing the 9th and 12th seeded teams twice. Granted, an argument could be made that the 13th seeded team already had more chances to prove itself capable of beating the higher seeded teams so it shouldn't be "given" yet another opportunity, but that doesn't mean they're less deserving than the 11 seed with an easier schedule.

    ...

    Personally, I think the ACC is in a tough position of choosing between several equally mediocre alternatives for a 14 team tournament because they've got such a narrow window within which to schedule the games. A possible solution would be to condense the regular season schedule by adding one more 3 game week for everyone, which would cause the season to end a few days earlier. With the extra time, you could (1) do the first round of play-in games (11 v. 14 and 12 v. 13) on Monday on the higher seeded school's campus and leave the 4-day, 12 team portion as is Thursday-Sunday, which is probably the more profitable option; or (2) use two of Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday (or all three so that the games don't overlap) to have the higher seeded schools host 3/14, 4/13, 5/12, 6/11, 7/10, and 8/9 games, leaving 8 rested teams for Friday, Saturday, Sunday finale. The benefits of having 6 "first round" games on campus is that it rewards the higher seeded teams by getting to host a game, gives the same amount of rest to teams between games, and still gives the 1 and 2 seeds a bye for the first round. The benefits of having the 11-14 seeds go through play-in games is that it allows the ACC to bundle tickets to the Thursday games and minimizes travel between games, while providing the 1 and 2 seeds a double-bye and the 3-10 teams a single-bye. From a fan's perspective, I like option (2) better because I probably won't be going to the tournament and can watch the first round of games on TV, and because it seems to provide a more level playing field than option (1), taking "scheduling" wins out of the equation.

    Here is what the format for option two would look like:

    Monday/Tuesday:
    3 v. 14
    6 v. 11
    7 v. 10*

    Tuesday/Wednesday:
    4 v. 13
    5 v. 12
    8 v. 9*

    Friday
    1 v. 8/9
    2 v. 7/10
    3/14 v. 6/11
    4/13 v. 5/12

    Saturday: Semifinals

    Sunday: Finals

    *The 8 v. 9 and 7 v. 10 games could get their own day to allow for early and late evening games only or as a third game, with staggered start times so that no second halves overlap. The 8 v. 9 game would be played after the 7 v. 10 game to give the 1 seed a less rested opponent than the 2 seed.
    I go along with that plan with little variation. As I stated in an earlier post in this thread the first round would be played on the home court of the higher seeded teams. Those games would be played on Monday allowing the winning teams a little more time for travel to the tournament site, but a Monday and Tuesday schedule should work out, too. That might help with the TV coverage.

    What I like about the home court is that I believe that there would a better chance for a good crowd. Only the lower seeded teams would have to travel, but that's not a big problem. They'd have to travel to the tourney site anyhow. Another advantage in a 16 team ACC tourney is that the extra 2 teams would fold in seamlessly, but without byes. It also saves the traditional 8 teams playing 3 games in 3 days format, a supreme challenge for the championship team. Let's not lose that concept. It makes the ACC special.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhead View Post
    What I like about the home court is that I believe that there would a better chance for a good crowd. Only the lower seeded teams would have to travel, but that's not a big problem. They'd have to travel to the tourney site anyhow. Another advantage in a 16 team ACC tourney is that the extra 2 teams would fold in seamlessly, but without byes. It also saves the traditional 8 teams playing 3 games in 3 days format, a supreme challenge for the championship team. Let's not lose that concept. It makes the ACC special.
    If you are BC and you have to travel to Miami...that might be a bit of a problem. Not for the team, but for the fans. I still don't get the empty seat argument. (Not picking on you JH..just the idea.) There are going to be empty seats in any early round game. How do you sell those tickets? If you wait until the seeds are decided (often the weekend before the tourney) then nobody will be able to prepare. Not the "home" team, not the visiting team...and not the fans. At least with everyone showing up in the same place, even if it is on a Wednesday, they know where they will be. And who profits from that home game scenario? The crappy team that earned the spot in a play in game? Ugh. My guess is the school would ultimately lose money having to host it. The ACC? Doubtful..they'll have to pony up cash for advertising and personnel too. That game is going to lose money no matter what, but at least it will lose less being played at the same site that everyone else is playing.
    Mmmm, BBQ!

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    I suppose, but we're currently on a decade-long stay of execution (2003). Heck, the SWC expired in the mid-90s. Our solution has been to eat the Big East, and mostly we've been able to do that because of their janked-up hybrid nature with the football-not-football messy memberships. For all of the criticism of Swofford, he trumped Tranghese in the survival game. And where Darwinian, big business is involved--and that's what college FB and MBB is--staying ahead of the game, by even a few years, five even, just for survival, is the business. Don't let's kid ourselves. Staying ahead for five years is what you need to stay ahead for the next five years.

    Whining about how there aren't eight teams in the ACC is inane at this point, though I do see a lot of it on this board. (Not from you, Duvall). Oh waaah waaah, the ACCT isn't exactly like it was when I was a kid. Look folks, either we get out of the game entirely, or we play it in its unbelievably dirty real-world incarnation. It's really dirty business. That's a fact. So we're going to have to require more sacrifices for the next five year stay of execution, and the next, and the next after that.

    I'd reiterate my talking point about how Duke should go D3 in all sports after Krzyzewski retires, but I know no one wants to hear it. D3 would be far more aligned with the institutional mission.


    PS - I said 74 because I thought it was the peak of the State-UNC-Maryland hegemony--the peak of the conference in MBB. I know we sucked that year.
    But the appealing thing about Duke is its great academics along with successful sports teams (mostly basketball, but lax and other sports are starting to be constant national contenders)

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southern Pines, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    If you are BC and you have to travel to Miami...that might be a bit of a problem. Not for the team, but for the fans. I still don't get the empty seat argument. (Not picking on you JH..just the idea.) There are going to be empty seats in any early round game. How do you sell those tickets? If you wait until the seeds are decided (often the weekend before the tourney) then nobody will be able to prepare. Not the "home" team, not the visiting team...and not the fans. At least with everyone showing up in the same place, even if it is on a Wednesday, they know where they will be. And who profits from that home game scenario? The crappy team that earned the spot in a play in game? Ugh. My guess is the school would ultimately lose money having to host it. The ACC? Doubtful..they'll have to pony up cash for advertising and personnel too. That game is going to lose money no matter what, but at least it will lose less being played at the same site that everyone else is playing.
    There are no play in games. It is the first round of the tournament, but at the home site of the seeded team. At the tournament site, early in the week nobody will be there yet, and the first round will be crowdless, so why bother. At least at the home site the local fans will be there if they are there for regular season games. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. I think the conference should pay the travel costs for every team in the tournament, up until they lose and go home, that is. In fact, if I had my druthers, the conference would pay all travel costs for conference games. If these games are going to lose money no matter what, as you say, that loss would be mitigated by playing in Roanoke, or Chapel Hill, or Winston Salem, or any home site when the cost would be much higher where the tournament is played. The cost skyrockets when everybody, including fans, has to show up at the same place for a potential five or six days. The other answer is to only invite eight teams to the tournament. Not cool.

    See you at Wally Wade in September, and we can debate it there.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Tampa
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    What's wrong with a 14-team field for a 14-team conference?
    The fact that it is not an 8-team field for an 8-team conference.

    Here, I even came up with a seal to use:


    http://graphics.fansonly.com/schools...c-seal2-lg.gif

    (This was for Throaty)
    Last edited by msdukie; 05-25-2012 at 12:13 AM.
    ___________________
    Mike Stein
    Trinity '97, Tent #1 '97
    Tampa

Similar Threads

  1. Proposed New NCAA Tournament Format
    By GoingFor#5 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-27-2012, 08:34 AM
  2. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 07-15-2010, 04:56 PM
  3. Irving's team banned from tournament
    By Brian913 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-12-2010, 11:49 PM
  4. ACC Roundup - Tournament Edition
    By gw67 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-12-2009, 10:12 AM
  5. Dream Team vs Beijing edition
    By tecumseh in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-12-2007, 01:39 PM

Posting Permissions

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