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.
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.
Some questions cannot be answered
Who’s gonna bury who
We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
---Over the Rhine
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?
"With seven national titles and 20 Final Fours in the 64-team NCAA Tournament era, Duke and UNC have had more playoff success than any other CONFERENCE." - Al Featherston
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.
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.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...rnament-formatCoaches were unanimously in favor of having all 18 future Big East members play in their conference tournament.
I bet if there was a poll of the ACC coaches you would find a similar reaction.
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:
3 v. 14
6 v. 11
7 v. 10*
4 v. 13
5 v. 12
8 v. 9*
1 v. 8/9
2 v. 7/10
3/14 v. 6/11
4/13 v. 5/12
*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.
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.
See you at Wally Wade in September, and we can debate it there.
Here, I even came up with a seal to use:
(This was for Throaty)
Last edited by msdukie; 05-25-2012 at 12:13 AM.
Trinity '97, Tent #1 '97