PDA

View Full Version : Non-ACC conference tournament discussion



tommy
03-08-2010, 02:10 AM
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.

CDu
03-08-2010, 06:01 AM
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.

Eternal Outlaw
03-08-2010, 10:28 AM
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.

CDu
03-08-2010, 10:43 AM
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.

hurleyfor3
03-08-2010, 10:52 AM
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.

BD80
03-08-2010, 10:56 AM
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.

CDu
03-08-2010, 11:04 AM
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.

hurleyfor3
03-08-2010, 11:17 AM
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.

SCMatt33
03-08-2010, 11:19 AM
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.

hurleyfor3
03-08-2010, 11:23 AM
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.

sagegrouse
03-08-2010, 11:38 AM
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''

hurleyfor3
03-08-2010, 11:44 AM
'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.

noyac
03-08-2010, 01:56 PM
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.

CDu
03-08-2010, 02:23 PM
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.


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.

theAlaskanBear
03-09-2010, 03:36 PM
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.

rthomas
03-09-2010, 03:54 PM
I love it!

jv001
03-09-2010, 04:04 PM
1. unc
2. twerps
3. u-conn

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

fisheyes
03-09-2010, 04:18 PM
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 :rolleyes:

JasonEvans
03-09-2010, 10:46 PM
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

BD80
03-09-2010, 11:10 PM
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.

tommy
03-10-2010, 01:05 AM
There is no way you can credibly say that any tournament which by design sets up games in which one team is completely rested and its opponent is playing its third game in three days, is fair. Now apparently some posters don't think it's important to try to be fair in these tournaments, or don't think that stacking the deck in favor of the teams that finished at the top of the regular season standings constitutes unfairness. I agree that some advantage to the top teams -- like that afforded by their seeding -- is appropriate. But isn't that enough? Why should they also get the advantage of freshness?

If these conferences, like the Big East, are really intent on ensuring that their top teams advance to the NCAA's and are fully rested for them, then why even bother having the conference tournament? (of course, money. I get it.) If you're going to have the tournament for financial reasons, then why not stack the deck in favor of the top teams even more? Why not have the #1 seed get to host the tournament instead of it being held at a neutral site? (oh yeah: home game = unfair advantage) Why not have the bottom feeder teams get only 1 timeout per half? That'll make em good and tired. Or why not just spot the top teams 15 points or so? That should make sure they win, right?

I jest of course, but it just seems to me that the advantages being given the top regular season teams are too much. At some point it diminishes the integrity of the tournament when the deck is stacked so heavily. The fix is kind of in, making it nearly impossible for a low seeded team to make a run through the tournament. I say don't be so afraid. The big boys should be able to handle themselves just fine, and if they can't, well, it may say good things about the depth of your conference. If they can't handle a game on Tuesday, followed by a day of rest, then games Thursday through Saturday, then four full days rest before their NCAA opener -- if that simply exhausts them too much -- then they don't have what it takes to be a champion anyway.

Indoor66
03-10-2010, 06:58 AM
There is no way you can credibly say that any tournament which by design sets up games in which one team is completely rested and its opponent is playing its third game in three days, is fair. Now apparently some posters don't think it's important to try to be fair in these tournaments, or don't think that stacking the deck in favor of the teams that finished at the top of the regular season standings constitutes unfairness. I agree that some advantage to the top teams -- like that afforded by their seeding -- is appropriate. But isn't that enough? Why should they also get the advantage of freshness?

If these conferences, like the Big East, are really intent on ensuring that their top teams advance to the NCAA's and are fully rested for them, then why even bother having the conference tournament? (of course, money. I get it.) If you're going to have the tournament for financial reasons, then why not stack the deck in favor of the top teams even more? Why not have the #1 seed get to host the tournament instead of it being held at a neutral site? (oh yeah: home game = unfair advantage) Why not have the bottom feeder teams get only 1 timeout per half? That'll make em good and tired. Or why not just spot the top teams 15 points or so? That should make sure they win, right?

I jest of course, but it just seems to me that the advantages being given the top regular season teams are too much. At some point it diminishes the integrity of the tournament when the deck is stacked so heavily. The fix is kind of in, making it nearly impossible for a low seeded team to make a run through the tournament. I say don't be so afraid. The big boys should be able to handle themselves just fine, and if they can't, well, it may say good things about the depth of your conference. If they can't handle a game on Tuesday, followed by a day of rest, then games Thursday through Saturday, then four full days rest before their NCAA opener -- if that simply exhausts them too much -- then they don't have what it takes to be a champion anyway.

But everybody has to get a trophy.

CDu
03-10-2010, 11:57 AM
There is no way you can credibly say that any tournament which by design sets up games in which one team is completely rested and its opponent is playing its third game in three days, is fair. Now apparently some posters don't think it's important to try to be fair in these tournaments, or don't think that stacking the deck in favor of the teams that finished at the top of the regular season standings constitutes unfairness. I agree that some advantage to the top teams -- like that afforded by their seeding -- is appropriate. But isn't that enough? Why should they also get the advantage of freshness?

If these conferences, like the Big East, are really intent on ensuring that their top teams advance to the NCAA's and are fully rested for them, then why even bother having the conference tournament? (of course, money. I get it.) If you're going to have the tournament for financial reasons, then why not stack the deck in favor of the top teams even more? Why not have the #1 seed get to host the tournament instead of it being held at a neutral site? (oh yeah: home game = unfair advantage) Why not have the bottom feeder teams get only 1 timeout per half? That'll make em good and tired. Or why not just spot the top teams 15 points or so? That should make sure they win, right?

I jest of course, but it just seems to me that the advantages being given the top regular season teams are too much. At some point it diminishes the integrity of the tournament when the deck is stacked so heavily. The fix is kind of in, making it nearly impossible for a low seeded team to make a run through the tournament. I say don't be so afraid. The big boys should be able to handle themselves just fine, and if they can't, well, it may say good things about the depth of your conference. If they can't handle a game on Tuesday, followed by a day of rest, then games Thursday through Saturday, then four full days rest before their NCAA opener -- if that simply exhausts them too much -- then they don't have what it takes to be a champion anyway.

You're missing the point. The conference tournament is intended to crown the conference champion and thus the representative of the conference in the NCAA tournament.

Why is it fair to the teams that earned it over the course of the season to basically wipe the slate clean and make them go undefeated in a single-elimination tournament?

The bolded part is the key, in my opinion. It's not a matter of whether or not they can handle it. They handled it by proving to be the best team over the course of the regular season. And now you're going to make that essentially meaningless by deciding things with a single-elimination tournament? That's silly.

I'm actually against the concept of a conference tournament. I'd rather see a true round-robin regular season, with the winner getting the conference champion automatic bid. Obviously in super-conferences that won't work because it would be too many games. But in your typical 8-10 team league, it would work just fine.

Single-elimination tournaments are not fair. Round-robin is fair. So if you're going to argue for fairness, that's the route you should go, rather than suggesting that we make the regular season basically meaningless.

dball
03-10-2010, 12:10 PM
But in your typical 8-10 team league, it would work just fine.

8-10 typical? Like the A10 or the Big 10? :)

CDu
03-10-2010, 12:16 PM
8-10 typical? Like the A10 or the Big 10? :)

Well, I was referring more to the mid-majors and the lower conferences. But your joke is duly noted.

juise
03-10-2010, 09:55 PM
I know that it's silly to get caught up in how every game affects Duke, but (as I said in another thread) I'm bored and need a reason to get engaged in as many games as possible. Do we cheer for Texas and Louisville to win and move out of 8-seed range or does winning (in this round) keep them in that range? Are most of us not threatened by either of those teams? I would personally much rather see a Northern Iowa or UNLV as our second-round opponent.

YourLandlord
03-10-2010, 10:07 PM
A fan in the Weber State - Montana game just had a sign that said "Bring On Duke."

And Anthony Johnson is just hitting ridiculous shots all second half.

juise
03-10-2010, 10:14 PM
A fan in the Weber State - Montana game just had a sign that said "Bring On Duke."

And Anthony Johnson is just hitting ridiculous shots all second half.

Yeah, I'm thinking that sign was made assuming that Weber State wouldn't blow a 20-point halftime lead. Oops.

pfrduke
03-10-2010, 10:17 PM
Yeah, I'm thinking that sign was made assuming that Weber State wouldn't blow a 20-point halftime lead. Oops.

Ridiculous comeback by Montana to win.

In related news, the losses by Weber State and Quinnipiac in their conference finals tonight push both teams into the NIT (as regular season champs who did not win their tourney). That takes away more space that UNC could potentially fall into. Weber State, hurting the Heels again, even without The Show.

ETA: Jackson State lost to Grambling in the SWAC quarters, putting them in the NIT as well. That's 7 conference winners who have eaten up NIT spots, leaving just 25 available for the rest of the field.

Duvall
03-10-2010, 10:22 PM
Ridiculous comeback by Montana to win.

In related news, the losses by Weber State and Quinnipiac in their conference finals tonight push both teams into the NIT (as regular season champs who did not win their tourney). That takes away more space that UNC could potentially fall into. Weber State, hurting the Heels again, even without The Show.

ETA: Jackson State lost to Grambling in the SWAC quarters, putting them in the NIT as well. That's 7 conference winners who have eaten up NIT spots, leaving just 25 available for the rest of the field.

Getting closer to the dream scenario: UNC is rejected by the NIT, accepts an invitation to the CBI for the extra games and practice time, makes the CBI championship series - and has to decide whether to hang a CBI banner.

pfrduke
03-10-2010, 10:24 PM
Getting closer to the dream scenario: UNC is rejected by the NIT, accepts an invitation to the CBI for the extra games and practice time, makes the CBI championship series - and has to decide whether to hang a CBI banner.

In said scenario, I think Duke should offer to invite Deon Thompson and Marcus Ginyard back to the Dean Dome for the Duke-UNC game and dedicate a "CBI runner-up" banner in their honor to hang in Carolina in perpetuity. :D

juise
03-10-2010, 10:39 PM
Getting closer to the dream scenario: UNC ... has to decide whether to hang a CBI banner.

I don't think they'd even blink.

devildownunder
03-10-2010, 11:29 PM
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.

Completely agree about the Big East tournament but nto about the size of the NCAAs. Ever since the tournament expanded to 64 teams, IMO we should set that figure right alongside 90 feet between the bases as two examples from sports that demonstrate just how close mankind can come to perfection.

And, no, I do NOT acknowledge the play-in game as part of the tournament. I refuse to let some money-driven compromise mess with my 64-sided perfection. :)

juise
03-10-2010, 11:36 PM
It took me a while to figure out why there was only one first round game in the Pac-10 tournament (or whatever we're calling it this year... demolition derby?). I was wondering if somehow I missed that only the top 9 teams made the tournament. Then I realized that USC was missing. For shame, Tim Floyd and OJ Mayo. For shame.

juise
03-11-2010, 12:36 PM
A few good ones going on outside the ACC. Texas Tech trails Kansas by only 2 at half (I'm guessing that one will be double digits before all is said and done). Georgetown leads Syracuse by 7 with less than 8:00 remaining.

pfrduke
03-11-2010, 12:38 PM
In other news, Georgetown has bounded out to a 7 point lead over Syracuse with under 8 minutes to play, in a game that the Orange led most of the way.

pfrduke
03-11-2010, 12:39 PM
A few good ones going on outside the ACC. Texas Tech trails Kansas by only 2 at half (I'm guessing that one will be double digits before all is said and done). Georgetown leads Syracuse by 7 with less than 8:00 remaining.

Great minds think alike. ;)

KU has some history of lackadaisical Big XII tourney performances; last year they lost to a 5-11 Baylor team in this very game.

juise
03-11-2010, 01:32 PM
The Kansas game is shaping up to about what I expected.

In other news, Memphis (a bubble team) is struggling with Houston. This could be problematic for their bid. Elliot is 0-6 from the field (6-8 from the line). For his sake, I hope they can put together a late run.

noyac
03-11-2010, 01:37 PM
Does anyone think Marquette has a chance at winning today. I know Nova has not played great lately but I just don't think they will lose.

juise
03-11-2010, 02:32 PM
Lunardi had Memphis as one of the last 4 in going into today. Houston's one-point victory over Memphis could change that.

InSpades
03-11-2010, 02:32 PM
Memphis and Elliot Williams did not do themselves a favor with a lose vs. Houston today in the C-USA quarterfinals. Lunardi had them firmly on the bubble and that can't really help. Probably bubble'ing out with that loss.

rotogod00
03-11-2010, 02:35 PM
Lunardi had Memphis as one of the last 4 in going into today. Houston's one-point victory over Memphis could change that.

yup, they're likely out, just like gtech would probably be out if they lose to unc. for the bubble teams that are currently projected to be in the tourney, the biggest thing that can knock them out is a "bad" loss

RainingThrees
03-11-2010, 03:27 PM
Marquette and Nova are playing right now and I have not seen Taylor King. Close game and Marquette has a four point lead with 4 minutes left. It should come down to the buzzer.

-jk
03-11-2010, 03:48 PM
Down goes Nova, 80 - 76, to Marquette.

-jk

pfrduke
03-11-2010, 03:49 PM
Down goes Nova, 80 - 76, to Marquette.

-jk

Making it the 15th game Marquette has played this year within 5 points or fewer. The 3 games between Marquette and Villanova were decided by a grand total of 7 points, with Marquette ending up one point ahead.

NashvilleDevil
03-11-2010, 03:54 PM
Marquette just beat 'Nova. It would appear that WVU is now the favorite to win the Big East. If they do win it does anyone think their seeding will be affected by not having played Syracuse or Villanova?

tommy
03-11-2010, 04:44 PM
You're missing the point. The conference tournament is intended to crown the conference champion and thus the representative of the conference in the NCAA tournament.

Why is it fair to the teams that earned it over the course of the season to basically wipe the slate clean and make them go undefeated in a single-elimination tournament?

The bolded part is the key, in my opinion. It's not a matter of whether or not they can handle it. They handled it by proving to be the best team over the course of the regular season. And now you're going to make that essentially meaningless by deciding things with a single-elimination tournament? That's silly.

I'm actually against the concept of a conference tournament. I'd rather see a true round-robin regular season, with the winner getting the conference champion automatic bid. Obviously in super-conferences that won't work because it would be too many games. But in your typical 8-10 team league, it would work just fine.

Single-elimination tournaments are not fair. Round-robin is fair. So if you're going to argue for fairness, that's the route you should go, rather than suggesting that we make the regular season basically meaningless.

WADR, I don't think I'm missing your point. I just disagree with it. Is the conference tournament intended to crown the conference champion, or to attempt to pre-ordain that crowning? My contention is that by going out of its way to provide a large amount of extra rest for the top 4 teams relative to the bottom 4, they are making an already likely result (one of the top 4 teams winning the thing) almost inevitable. (I know, I know! -- Nova and Cuse are killing my argument today!)

As far as "wiping the slate clean" goes, well, to a degree, that's what you're doing when you decide to have one of these tournaments. The top teams get a significant advantage by receiving top seeds and therefore an easier path to advancing. But I think that the idea of the tournament shouldn't be for the league to try to replicate the results of the regular season. It's up to the teams themselves to do that, if they are able. If they're not able, well, that's on them.

Where it seems that we most agree is that having the tournament at all reduces the importance of the regular season. But that's a choice each conference makes. Once that choice is made, I think they should not go overboard to try to stack the deck, and instead put the teams on as equal a footing as they can, and may the best team, over those 4 (or whatever number) days, win. That seems fair to me.

CDu
03-11-2010, 05:10 PM
WADR, I don't think I'm missing your point. I just disagree with it. Is the conference tournament intended to crown the conference champion, or to attempt to pre-ordain that crowning? My contention is that by going out of its way to provide a large amount of extra rest for the top 4 teams relative to the bottom 4, they are making an already likely result (one of the top 4 teams winning the thing) almost inevitable. (I know, I know! -- Nova and Cuse are killing my argument today!)

And my point is that I think the tourney should more closely reflect the results of the regular season. The teams that did well in the regular season deserved a big advantage. You played the regular season to see who was the best. Why create a single-elimination tournament to try to come up with a different result? Why not give the teams that earned it over the season as good a chance as possible to repeat, while giving a very small (but still tangible) chance to those teams that proved over the course of the year that they had no business being there?


As far as "wiping the slate clean" goes, well, to a degree, that's what you're doing when you decide to have one of these tournaments.

That's how it has mostly turned out, but it doesn't have to be that way. You can make the tournament more suited to place value on the regular season. Which is, to a large degree, what the Big East tourney approach does.


The top teams get a significant advantage by receiving top seeds and therefore an easier path to advancing.

I think you overvalue how much easier the path is for a top seed compared to lower seeds. For example, if all other seeds hold, a #1 seed would have to beat a #8, #4, and #2 seed. A #8 seed would have to beat a #1, #4, and #2 seed. That's a very small difference in degree of difficulty despite comparing two very different seed levels. I could illustrate it with probabilities, but hopefully you can see it visually there. You're basically saying that a season's worth of proving that you are the best team is only worth an advantage in a single game (of three) in the tournament over a team that proved it was middle/bottom of the road in the conference.


But I think that the idea of the tournament shouldn't be for the league to try to replicate the results of the regular season. It's up to the teams themselves to do that, if they are able. If they're not able, well, that's on them.

It's MUCH harder to replicate the results of the regular season in a 3-game, single-elimination format. The probability of losing a single game in three games is fairly high, even for the favorite.


Where it seems that we most agree is that having the tournament at all reduces the importance of the regular season. But that's a choice each conference makes. Once that choice is made, I think they should not go overboard to try to stack the deck, and instead put the teams on as equal a footing as they can, and may the best team, over those 4 (or whatever number) days, win. That seems fair to me.

And I disagree. You're suggesting we just give up on the idea of giving much value to the regular season. I think that they should make every effort NOT to devalue the regular season. There's no reason that the tournament has to wipe the slate clean. It's just the little league mentality of "give everybody an equal shot in the tourney" coming into play.

I think that results over the course of a 16-18 game stretch should be valued more than results over a 1-3 game stretch. THAT seems fair to me.

pfrduke
03-11-2010, 07:01 PM
And Pitt is trailing at the half to Notre Dame. Impressive showing so far by the top 4 seeds in the BET.

pfrduke
03-11-2010, 07:08 PM
In contrast, Kansas State certainly decided to show up at the Big XII tourney. They're up 51-26 on OK State (a certain tournament team, IMO) at the half. Ouch.

snowdenscold
03-11-2010, 07:13 PM
They should make the event 2 weeks long. On day one, 15/16 play. The next day the winner plays 14. The day after the winner plays 13, etc. So the number if games you have to play to win the tournament is the same as your seed #. Simple enough?

I kid of course. I'm actually on CDu's side here. Yes, the higher seeds are given an advantage, but they certainly aren't handed the championship! It's still one and done for them. It's nice to see the regular season valued - in other sports, if you bomb your regular season, your last game is your last game. At least in the conference tournaments all the teams get a shot. If you have to work harder at it because your regular season sucked? Too bad, so sad.

juise
03-11-2010, 10:16 PM
Cincinnati's showing some signs of life. Let's go, Bearcats!

rotogod00
03-11-2010, 10:25 PM
cincy-wv tied with 30 secs left

rotogod00
03-11-2010, 10:27 PM
bearcat ball to win the game

SCMatt33
03-11-2010, 10:27 PM
Still tied. 6.4 left. Cincy ball. C'mon bearcats!

rotogod00
03-11-2010, 10:28 PM
yikes. almost a 5-sec violation. no TOs left

YourLandlord
03-11-2010, 10:30 PM
Go Cinci!

rotogod00
03-11-2010, 10:30 PM
crap....bearcat turnover. wv ball with 3 secs left

SCMatt33
03-11-2010, 10:30 PM
they just lost it out of bounds. WVA has 3 seconds

ChrisP
03-11-2010, 10:32 PM
How could you lose the ball like that in THAT situation? Aaaaaaaaahhhh!

SCMatt33
03-11-2010, 10:33 PM
crap

rotogod00
03-11-2010, 10:33 PM
bank 3 to win the game. UNBELIEVABLE

juise
03-11-2010, 10:35 PM
This is what the Italians call "disastro."

OldSchool
03-11-2010, 10:41 PM
Man, I really feel sorry for that kid Dixon of Cincy who dribbled the ball out of bounds with 3 seconds left.

The only way to bounce back from something like that would be to spank UNC in the NIT.

PumpkinFunk
03-11-2010, 10:42 PM
That was an incredible game between WVU and Cincy... just as all of the Big East games have been today. Quite the opposite of our conference's tourney, in fact.

pfrduke
03-12-2010, 01:35 AM
That was an incredible game between WVU and Cincy... just as all of the Big East games have been today. Quite the opposite of our conference's tourney, in fact.

Well, remember that the Big East is a day ahead of us. Don't knock the quality of the ACC Tourney until at least after our top 4 teams play.

pfrduke
03-12-2010, 12:32 PM
Don't look now, but Kentucky is currently being doubled up by Alabama in the 1st half - 22-11 lead for the Tide.

Bah; as soon as I post this it goes to 22-13.

pfrduke
03-12-2010, 12:50 PM
And Michigan just took a 2-pt lead over OSU with :25 to play.

NYDukie
03-12-2010, 12:55 PM
And Michigan just took a 2-pt lead over OSU with :25 to play.

If this holds and Duke wins today, I personally only see WVU as our competition for the fourth #1 seed. I think SU and UK are locked in regardless of SU's loss and UK's ongoing battle with Bama right now. Seems to me the teams outisde the Big 3 fighting for the last #1 slot are Duke, WVU, OSU and KSU, though I see KSU as the weakest one unless they win out and WVU goes down tonight and Duke goes down tomorrow. Even then, I would still give Duke the edge. Looking more and more to me as Duke/WVU 1-2 in the West.

Eternal Outlaw
03-12-2010, 12:56 PM
Nice defense Michigan, gave them the best possible shot that you could hand a team with 2.2 left. No effort at all to make them waste time in the back court.

NYDukie
03-12-2010, 12:56 PM
Spoke too soon on OSU...goes to show you how crazy these tourney's are. My luck, things will change again with that 1 second remaining...LOL

pfrduke
03-12-2010, 12:57 PM
And Michigan just took a 2-pt lead over OSU with :25 to play.

What a finish-

Manny Harris hits a 2 to put Michigan up with 3 seconds left, and then Evan Turner nails a 3 at the buzzer to win it for OSU.

Bluedog
03-12-2010, 01:10 PM
1-3-1 defense with nobody guarding the inbounder and only one guy on the national player of the year with under 2 seconds left? What?! There were 2 guys within the key just watching. Don't you think they could have helped more by being on the perimeter? In any event, still hit an amazing 40 foot jumper and certainly wasn't easy, but Michigan could have (and should have) made it nearly impossible.

juise
03-12-2010, 01:17 PM
Two miraculous buzzer beaters by our competitors for a #1 seed. That seems like a bad omen.

Channing
03-12-2010, 01:55 PM
perhaps the worst last play defense I have ever seen. gave ET a clean run up the court, ne defense in site until he pulled up for the shot. awful awful coaching.

noyac
03-12-2010, 02:01 PM
I am watching UK and they are only up 3 with 3 min left. Signs of things to come in the NCAA's?

juise
03-12-2010, 02:09 PM
I am watching UK and they are only up 3 with 3 min left. Signs of things to come in the NCAA's?

It's what's they've done all year. They usually get away with it, but I'm not convinced that their inconsistency will carry them to a title. I would be surprised if they make it to the Final Four.

Channing
03-12-2010, 02:56 PM
will Wisc break 40 pts? Thats the big question right now.

BlueDevilBaby
03-12-2010, 03:35 PM
Lehigh sucks, Lehigh sucks! Go Lafayette ('89)!:D

juise
03-12-2010, 06:34 PM
Northwestern up 4 on Purdue at half. Let's start a pick 'em contest for who will hit a buzzer-beater three to save them.

SCMatt33
03-12-2010, 07:55 PM
Dayton is throwing away it's chance at beating Xavier. They were up big, but after a furious Xavier comeback, they went down 2 with just over 30 seconds left. Dayton tried to dribble to half court and call a timeout, but Xavier attempted to swat the ball away as the timeout was being granted. The Dayton player holding the ball then attempted to punch (he ended up grazing his arm) the Xavier player going by, earning a T. Xavier made both technical shots, and then got fouled immediately and hit two more to go up 6, pretty much ending the game. Dayton will have to sweat it out now, and I doubt the committee will like how they lost it.

YourLandlord
03-13-2010, 12:04 PM
Vermont up on BU by 11 at halftime.

Why you should care:
1) One of the UVM players is from Durham and his dad is a Professor at Duke. This poor player's Mom died this week from cancer. So sad.

2) Wynton Marselis' son also plays for UVM, how cool is that?

Go Cats Go!

YourLandlord
03-13-2010, 01:21 PM
And Vermont is in the NCAA!

Merlindevildog91
03-13-2010, 04:12 PM
I'm in a Raycom market, on a satellite dish, so no Big Ten game. Is it REALLY 26-4, Minnesota over Purdue?

CDu
03-13-2010, 04:15 PM
I'm in a Raycom market, on a satellite dish, so no Big Ten game. Is it REALLY 26-4, Minnesota over Purdue?

28-6 with under 4 to go in the half. That's right - 6 points for Purdue in 16 minutes. They're a much different team without Hummel, because Minnesota isn't very good.

Still, gotta cheer for the Gophers to go ahead and win today so that OSU can't pass us. If Minnesota wins, the committee may just consider the Big-10 final irrelevant for OSU's seeding purposes.

Merlindevildog91
03-13-2010, 04:21 PM
I thought without Hummel, Purdue would be in trouble, but I had no idea it would be this bad.

ChicagoCrazy84
03-13-2010, 04:23 PM
What a disgusting performance from Purdue in the 1st half. Hummel or no Hummel, they are still a talented team. Etwaun Moore is like 1-13. You are basically playing a home game and you put up a performance like that. That is unacceptable and Im not even a Purdue fan!

sagegrouse
03-13-2010, 04:24 PM
By making a bucket at the buzzer. Score: Minnesota 37, Purdue 11.

Anyone care to opine that this performance is not worthy of a #1 seed?

sagegrouse

WordLife565
03-13-2010, 04:25 PM
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.

it's necessary in order to accomodate all 16 teams. before last year, ONLY THE TOP 12 got to compete in the conference tournament. Now THAT is unfair.

Merlindevildog91
03-13-2010, 04:26 PM
I wonder if the Golden Gopher fans were chanting "double digits" as the teams ran off the floor.

I think it's safe to assume Purdue is no longer in line for a 1 seed.

papa whiskey
03-13-2010, 04:28 PM
I stopped worrying about Purdue a while ago. There are still two other teams though.

CDu
03-13-2010, 04:29 PM
I wonder if the Golden Gopher fans were chanting "double digits" as the teams ran off the floor.

I think it's safe to assume Purdue is no longer in line for a 1 seed.

Seth Davis and Greg Anthony are talking about them as a 4/5 seed. It really depends on how much the committee penalizes them for the loss of Hummel. Without Hummel, they are probably an upper/mid-tier Big-10 team.

Yes, they have basically no chance at a #1 seed.

Merlindevildog91
03-13-2010, 04:31 PM
Wonder if Tubby will go into stall ball for the second half.

Oh, sorry, wrong thread.:D

InSpades
03-13-2010, 04:37 PM
I think Purdue has no shot at a #1 and Ohio State hasn't done themselves any favors to get a #1 with how they've played (miracle last second shot to beat Michigan and 2 OTs vs. Illinois). So I guess that leaves WV and Kansas State?

CDu
03-13-2010, 05:00 PM
I think Purdue has no shot at a #1 and Ohio State hasn't done themselves any favors to get a #1 with how they've played (miracle last second shot to beat Michigan and 2 OTs vs. Illinois). So I guess that leaves WV and Kansas State?

I think OSU's shot got hurt by not facing strong enough competition. They were behind us, and they needed to beat at least one of MSU, Purdue, or Wisconsin to have any hope of passing us. That isn't going to happen.

WVU has a good chance to take it with a win tonight, regardless of what we do tomorrow. Kansas State probably has had the best week so far, but they had the most ground to make up. But if they beat Kansas tonight, they've got a strong case as well.

So yes, I think realistically it's down to us, KSU, and WVU. And we may need both to lose to stay ahead of them regardless of what we do tomorrow. Our total resume is still better, but both of those teams have done a lot more against the Top-25 and/or Top-50 than us.

WiJoe
03-13-2010, 05:36 PM
NCAA has to make some kind of rule prohibiting anything other than WHITE numbers on BLACK uniforms. What they need to do is OUTLAW black uniforms, but that will never happen.


:eek:

DukieInBrasil
03-14-2010, 02:12 PM
epic collapse of Miss St vs. Kentucky to allow overtime. Up 3 with 5 seconds left and their G fouls Bledsoe, consequently fouling out and eliminating him from the OT, who makes one of 2. Kentucky gets the Oboard and misses the 3 gets the Oboard again and makes the putback with 1 second left to tie the game. Just terrible end of game management by MSU

Lulu
03-14-2010, 02:33 PM
Can you imagine the uproar if the officials had made a call like the lane violation in the KY-MSU game that put it into OT? I can't.

Lulu
03-14-2010, 02:40 PM
Was there any chance we could have swapped overall seeds with Ky had they lost (rightfully) while we won? I wasn't even considering it, but just crossed my mind.

Indoor66
03-14-2010, 02:42 PM
Was there any chance we could have swapped overall seeds with Ky had they lost (rightfully) while we won? I wasn't even considering it, but just crossed my mind.

What does it matter? KY did not lose.

theAlaskanBear
03-14-2010, 03:04 PM
Can you imagine the uproar if the officials had made a call like the lane violation in the KY-MSU game that put it into OT? I can't.

It wasnt just the missed calls at the free throw line. In the second half, Mississippi St didn't even make it into the 1-and-1, until the last minute, while Kentucky was shooting two for as long as I was watching. There were several plays. You can say its "style of play" differential, but they both were playing rough and physical, and Vanardo in particular got roughed going after rebounds regularly.

Btw, I always thought I liked Cousins, and his production for UK, but this is my first game watching Kentucky, and he plays with the worst attitude I have ever seen anyone play with.

Lulu
03-14-2010, 03:06 PM
Then we might as well discuss nothing that has occurred in the past. It's going to really interesting here if we can discuss nothing but the future. (That's in response to the "What's it matter, KY won" post.)

If anything scares me about KY, I'm not sure if it's Wall or just their luck. Funny how they even had to rely on that last shot of theirs getting missed so badly that it only clipped the rim into Cousins hands. That ball takes a bounce and it's game over. Crazy. There does need to be a ref reprimand though.

Maybe I'm way off track... maybe it's Calipari's pact with Satan. That makes a lot more sense.

Delaware
03-14-2010, 03:54 PM
Unless the ESPN box score is wrong, they have played 6 players at this point with 10 minutes left in the game... does anyone know if they have that short of a bench normally? And how are they not exhausted?:D And how did they function without Turner?

CDu
03-14-2010, 04:25 PM
Unless the ESPN box score is wrong, they have played 6 players at this point with 10 minutes left in the game... does anyone know if they have that short of a bench normally? And how are they not exhausted?:D And how did they function without Turner?

They play 7 guys fairly regularly. But two of those guys only play 12-15 minutes per game. Four of their starters average 33.7-36.8 minutes per game, and the fifth starter averages 25.0 mpg. So yes, they don't use their bench much at all.

With regard to how they functioned without Turner? They didn't. They went 3-3, but those three wins were against Cleveland St, Presbyterian, and Delaware St. They lost all three meaningful games in the six games Turner missed.

karmacoma
03-15-2010, 08:58 AM
Just caught the highlight out of the corner of my eye, and thought I saw Wall leave the stripe before the ball hit the rim. Anyone have a more accurate insight on this?

karmacoma
03-15-2010, 09:01 AM
Just saw a bit of it again on SC, and I think I was wrong in the call of the question -- it wasn't Wall at the line, was it? Whoever it was, I'm wondering if anyone else had a better look at whether he left the stripe early.

InSpades
03-15-2010, 09:11 AM
Just saw a bit of it again on SC, and I think I was wrong in the call of the question -- it wasn't Wall at the line, was it? Whoever it was, I'm wondering if anyone else had a better look at whether he left the stripe early.

We discussed this in the non-ACC tournament thread (too lazy to link). Bledsoe was at the line. Wall was not in the blocks at all. He entered the 3-point area before the ball hit the rim rather blatantly. He then proceeded to get the rebound. Should have been a lane violation, Miss. St.'s ball out of bounds and barring a miracle, game over.

karmacoma
03-15-2010, 09:12 AM
We discussed this in the non-ACC tournament thread (too lazy to link). Bledsoe was at the line. Wall was not in the blocks at all. He entered the 3-point area before the ball hit the rim rather blatantly. He then proceeded to get the rebound. Should have been a lane violation, Miss. St.'s ball out of bounds and barring a miracle, game over.

Thanks! I'll find the info in that thread.

InSpades
03-15-2010, 10:01 AM
Thanks! I'll find the info in that thread.

My bad, it was actually this (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19889) thread that we discussed it.