PDA

View Full Version : Reseeding the Final Four



the amoeba
03-31-2011, 12:52 PM
I rarely post but read this board often as I find the level of discussion here better than most any other basketball specific forum. I couldn't find any discussion on the matter using the search tool, so I'll ask the question myself. How does the DBR board feel about reseeding the Final Four. Yahoo's blog trots the idea out once a year (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Why-reseeding-before-the-Final-Four-would-be-a-t?urn=ncaab-wp1514) only to denigrate the idea.

I know I bought into the idea in '04 when we had a thrilling (From a neutral observer's perspective) semi-final between the two best teams that was followed two days later by an anti-climactic "Final".

The primary argument I see over and over is that it would "ruin" office pools and the practice of filling out brackets. I can't say I understand this argument. Of the 63 (Now 67) lines to fill in on a bracket, reseeding the FF would eliminate exactly one of them; that of the National runner-up. Are there really that many pools where multiple participants correctly predict every single game up to the final that would require that line as a tiebreaker?

Duvall
03-31-2011, 12:56 PM
I rarely post but read this board often as I find the level of discussion here better than most any other basketball specific forum. I couldn't find any discussion on the matter using the search tool, so I'll ask the question myself. How does the DBR board feel about reseeding the Final Four. Yahoo's blog trots the idea out once a year (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Why-reseeding-before-the-Final-Four-would-be-a-t?urn=ncaab-wp1514) only to denigrate the idea.

I know I bought into the idea in '04 when we had a thrilling (From a neutral observer's perspective) semi-final between the two best teams that was followed two days later by an anti-climactic "Final".

Well, last year reseeding would have avoided the projected blowout of a Duke-Butler final in favor of making possible an exciting Duke-West Virginia final.

I'm not sure seeds make that much difference by the last weekend. Certainly not enough for the NCAA to risk damaging the golden goose of office pools.

sporthenry
03-31-2011, 01:02 PM
It is all about the brackets. Just as this addition of 3 extra teams has screwed up filling out the brackets (VCU didn't win til 11:00 the day before the tournament started?), reseeding would make it worse. How would it even work? And the games in the later stages are worth more in most brackets.

The NCAA might do it b/c they are all about money just like they added teams and might add more but they also overlooked the fact that everyone watches for the brackets.

uh_no
03-31-2011, 01:04 PM
Well, last year reseeding would have avoided the projected blowout of a Duke-Butler final in favor of making possible an exciting Duke-West Virginia final.

I'm not sure seeds make that much difference by the last weekend. Certainly not enough for the NCAA to risk damaging the golden goose of office pools.

THIS!!!

What happened after 2004 was that they changed the bracketing rules so that regions weren't paired with eachother til after the brackets came out. In 2004, the problem was that due to location rules, duke and uconn went to two regions that were predetermined to be matched with eachother, despite being 1 and 2 overall. So in today's world, they would have switched up the semifinal pairings on that sunday so that duke would have played like GT and Uconn would have played the other team. The caveat with this, though, is that it only works for the top seeds. As soon as there are upsets, the whole thing goes to chapel hill in a handbasket. So, you could theoretically reseed and put uconn with VCU and UK with butler, but once you get past the top seeds, like this year, you must assume that the rest of the seeds are closer in quality anyway (closer than the gap between the top seeds and the next lower guys), so reseeding makes less sense. Even with what would seem like optimal matchups, you still sometimes don't get the title game you want. For example, when UNC won, you would have had to say that uconn and UNC were the top two teams in the final four, and despite being on opposite sides of the bracket, uconn didn't end up winning anyway. SO, switching wouldn't guarantee the wanted matchups anyway, and may prohibit any good games in the final four. 2 years ago, who wouldn't have wanted to see hasheem thabeet v. tyler hansbrough in the semi instead of a guard heavy villanova team? Well, I did at least, but because they were on opposite side and uconn choked in the semi, we ended up with a blow out title game.

In the end you can't guarantee the best matchup in either case, and its much less of a hassle for everyone NOT to reseed.

roywhite
03-31-2011, 01:15 PM
Generally speaking, I don't like to see meddling very much with the tournament format and procedures. It's such a great event that captures the attention of the nation, even for weeks before the games begin with conference play-ins and bracket talk.

Just don't see the advantage of re-seeding at the time of the Final Four.

Plus Billy Packer thought it was a great idea. Reason enough to be skeptical. :)

brevity
03-31-2011, 01:19 PM
Seeding can't predict the future. I can't argue with that.

But, unless you can show me two brackets that have all 64 games called correctly up to this point, I can't see how reseeding affects office pools one bit. Am I missing something?

Sounds like you are missing something. Reseeding by definition ruins a personal bracket, whether perfect up to that point or not. Last year I (and many others) picked a Duke-West Virginia semifinal, and we would have received no additional points for picking the winner correctly had the Final Four been reseeded. All because a pair of 5 seeds managed to get into the Final Four instead of Kansas and Syracuse.

I can see why it's tempting to think about reseeding in a year like this, but this year is not a good example. Most people have stopped looking at their own brackets at this point, and no longer have a personal stake in what's going to happen.

If you read the ESPN article (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/28729/tournament-challenge-two-have-all-four) about the two people in their contest who picked the Final Four correctly, one of them had the strangest Southeast Region ever. He/she picked Butler to advance each round, but picked EVERY OTHER GAME wrong.

OldPhiKap
03-31-2011, 01:30 PM
I rarely post but read this board often as I find the level of discussion here better than most any other basketball specific forum. I couldn't find any discussion on the matter using the search tool, so I'll ask the question myself. How does the DBR board feel about reseeding the Final Four. Yahoo's blog trots the idea out once a year (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Why-reseeding-before-the-Final-Four-would-be-a-t?urn=ncaab-wp1514) only to denigrate the idea.

I know I bought into the idea in '04 when we had a thrilling (From a neutral observer's perspective) semi-final between the two best teams that was followed two days later by an anti-climactic "Final".

The primary argument I see over and over is that it would "ruin" office pools and the practice of filling out brackets. I can't say I understand this argument. Of the 63 (Now 67) lines to fill in on a bracket, reseeding the FF would eliminate exactly one of them; that of the National runner-up. Are there really that many pools where multiple participants correctly predict every single game up to the final that would require that line as a tiebreaker?

Good to see your post, and given how well-stated it is I hope you choose to post more often in the future.

My biggest problem is that you may punish a team that has already beaten a high seed by lining them up with another as a matter of rule. VCU beat Kansas, for example, and I don't think it is fair to say that they should now be paired with whichever team is perceived to be the strongest. (Even though the best team may turn out to be Butler). I like the the way this is turning out, actually -- two power teams on one side of the bracket, two mid-majors on the other.

Just wish we were one of the power teams. C'est la vie.

But good topic, I have not thought about that before.

SoCalDukeFan
03-31-2011, 01:32 PM
I don't really care about the bracket argument but I am still opposed.

Of course I also expect the Committee to do a better job. I want it set up so that the top 1 seed is projected the play the 4th of the 1 seeds. I also want a better S curve filling out the field. By winning the ACC Tournament Duke should have been considered the 3rd of the 1 seeds and Pitt should have been sent out West.

It takes several things to win a NC and luck is usually one of them. Part of the luck is the match ups and how it plays out. I like it that either Butler or VC will be in the NC game. I know of no other match play type tournaments that reseed and don't know why college basketball should. Tennis and golf don't.

It will take lots of good fortune to keep the NCAA from ruining the tournament. Hopefully they will not do this.

SoCal

uh_no
03-31-2011, 01:40 PM
I want it set up so that the top 1 seed is projected the play the 4th of the 1 seeds. I also want a better S curve filling out the field. By winning the ACC Tournament Duke should have been considered the 3rd of the 1 seeds and Pitt should have been sent out West.


The number 1 overall is always paired with the worst of the number ones. This rule was instituted after the 2004 debacle.

I didn't realize winning the ACC tournament meant you have to be the #3 overall. The committee made a lot of mistakes, I concur, but Duke as the 4th overall seed is not one of them. Pitt won their regular season crown, but not their tournament. Duke did the opposite. Pitt lost to SJ by 1, duke by a lot. Pitt's last two losses of the season came to final 4 teams by a COMBINED 3 points. Duke's last loss came to a team who didn't make the final 4 by 17 (given they certainly played fabulously). Given the facts on selection sunday, and looking at it retroactively, you really can't fault the committee for seeding pitt in front of duke.

yancem
03-31-2011, 01:41 PM
Well, think of it this way, if you reseeded the final four you would have UConn playing VCU and Kentucky playing Butler. This could lead to a UConn vs Kentucky final which is a worst case scenario as far as I'm concerned. The way it stands now, we are guaranteed at least one of UConn or Kentucky not making the final and at least one of VCU or Butler making the final. This gives us the best chance of neither Cal or Calhoun winning a NC.

Seems like the seeding works well for this year at least!

the amoeba
03-31-2011, 01:43 PM
Sounds like you are missing something. Reseeding by definition ruins a personal bracket, whether perfect up to that point or not. Last year I (and many others) picked a Duke-West Virginia semifinal, and we would have received no additional points for picking the winner correctly had the Final Four been reseeded. All because a pair of 5 seeds managed to get into the Final Four instead of Kansas and Syracuse.



I suppose I'm just looking at this too much from the gambling perspective, where the important consideration is having a clear winner at some point. From a personal perspective I could see why people could get very attached to their picks all the way through to the title game.

Still, if UConn/UK take a commanding lead Monday night I reserve the right to shake my fist at the sky.:D

Did people fill out brackets back when they had a third place game? How was it handled?

theAlaskanBear
03-31-2011, 01:46 PM
I would like add my voice to chorus that has already decried this idea. The "projected blowout" the OP talks about in the Duke-Butler game was a 2-point thriller. Look at the great results of this years tournament.

The NCAA doesn't seem to realize the great simplicity to a successful tourney: we dont need first four 16s playing 12s who turn around and play 5s or 1s or reseeding the final four.

Seed the top 64 teams. (or 68 with play-in games; 16 seeds only). Play basketball. The drama, the excitement, the great storylines, the OT thrillers -- they take care of themselves.

superdave
03-31-2011, 01:50 PM
My biggest problem is that you may punish a team that has already beaten a high seed by lining them up with another as a matter of rule. VCU beat Kansas, for example, and I don't think it is fair to say that they should now be paired with whichever team is perceived to be the strongest. (Even though the best team may turn out to be Butler). I like the the way this is turning out, actually -- two power teams on one side of the bracket, two mid-majors on the other.


Excellent point, OPK. Re-seeding would seem arbitrary after 2 weekends of basketball, especially in the event that a lower seed knocks off some higher seeds to make it to the Final Four. The tournament was and is a great fool-proof thing. We dont need to screw with it any more!

brevity
03-31-2011, 02:17 PM
What happened after 2004 was that they changed the bracketing rules so that regions weren't paired with eachother til after the brackets came out. In 2004, the problem was that due to location rules, duke and uconn went to two regions that were predetermined to be matched with eachother, despite being 1 and 2 overall.

Meant to reply to this. You're remembering it wrong. Connecticut was not a top seed; they were a 2 seed in the West that year. They won the Big East tournament, but they had a 2nd place regular season finish in the league and 6 losses. This was also the season where Stanford and St. Joseph's flirted with undefeated records. (I'm sure a lot of people thought Duke and Connecticut were the two best teams, but the seeding did not reflect that.)

The bracketing rules were (probably) changed because of Kentucky and Arizona in 2003. The Wildcats and Wildcats were the top 2 teams and were placed on the same side of the bracket, which resulted in some criticism. Ultimately it didn't matter, as neither reached the Final Four.

mgtr
03-31-2011, 02:23 PM
I don't believe in changing the rules once the game has started. Butler and VCU have played great so far. So, lets penalize both of them and make them play a higher seed! I don't know the Vegas line on any of the games, but I wouldn't be overly surprised if one of them win it all.

NSDukeFan
03-31-2011, 02:31 PM
The number 1 overall is always paired with the worst of the number ones. This rule was instituted after the 2004 debacle.

I didn't realize winning the ACC tournament meant you have to be the #3 overall. The committee made a lot of mistakes, I concur, but Duke as the 4th overall seed is not one of them. Pitt won their regular season crown, but not their tournament. Duke did the opposite. Pitt lost to SJ by 1, duke by a lot. Pitt's last two losses of the season came to final 4 teams by a COMBINED 3 points. Duke's last loss came to a team who didn't make the final 4 by 17 (given they certainly played fabulously). Given the facts on selection sunday, and looking at it retroactively, you really can't fault the committee for seeding pitt in front of duke.

I can see the argument for seeding Pitt ahead of Duke, though I can also see an argument the other way. For all the mistakes the selections committee made, I don't think it is fair to have expected them to have taken into account Pitt's future loss to Butler and Duke's future loss to Arizona.

SoCalDukeFan
03-31-2011, 02:32 PM
The number 1 overall is always paired with the worst of the number ones. This rule was instituted after the 2004 debacle.

I didn't realize winning the ACC tournament meant you have to be the #3 overall. The committee made a lot of mistakes, I concur, but Duke as the 4th overall seed is not one of them. Pitt won their regular season crown, but not their tournament. Duke did the opposite. Pitt lost to SJ by 1, duke by a lot. Pitt's last two losses of the season came to final 4 teams by a COMBINED 3 points. Duke's last loss came to a team who didn't make the final 4 by 17 (given they certainly played fabulously). Given the facts on selection sunday, and looking at it retroactively, you really can't fault the committee for seeding pitt in front of duke.

both had Duke 3 and Pitt 4.

I also want the Committee to put more weight on the conference tournaments than I think they do.

SoCal

uh_no
03-31-2011, 02:45 PM
both had Duke 3 and Pitt 4.

I also want the Committee to put more weight on the conference tournaments than I think they do.

SoCal

the polls also do not measure the same things as the committee does

polls=if you lost last week you drop down...(and had lost in their tournament)
committee=overall body of work

uh_no
03-31-2011, 02:46 PM
Meant to reply to this. You're remembering it wrong. Connecticut was not a top seed; they were a 2 seed in the West that year. They won the Big East tournament, but they had a 2nd place regular season finish in the league and 6 losses. This was also the season where Stanford and St. Joseph's flirted with undefeated records. (I'm sure a lot of people thought Duke and Connecticut were the two best teams, but the seeding did not reflect that.)

The bracketing rules were (probably) changed because of Kentucky and Arizona in 2003. The Wildcats and Wildcats were the top 2 teams and were placed on the same side of the bracket, which resulted in some criticism. Ultimately it didn't matter, as neither reached the Final Four.
You sir, are correct.

SCMatt33
03-31-2011, 02:56 PM
Excellent point, OPK. Re-seeding would seem arbitrary after 2 weekends of basketball, especially in the event that a lower seed knocks off some higher seeds to make it to the Final Four. The tournament was and is a great fool-proof thing. We dont need to screw with it any more!

The counter argument in favor of re-seeding is that a bracket unnecessarily rewards lower seeded teams who have weaker opponents advance in their bracket. For example, UNC got a pretty big gift by having Marquette in it's path while Ohio State as the top seed had to play Kentucky. Somebody will get screwed in any format. We tend to find the case of Ohio State getting screwed more palatable because we are used to it. Obviously the NCAA will never do this because of bracketing and they aren't one to bite the hand that feeds them (on a completely different note I still find it so ironic that the popularity of an "amateur" tournament is largely based on gambling).

If they did do it, however, they should go all out and have reseeding for the regional rounds as well. Potential travel prevents reseeding between rounds 1 and 2 and between the S16 and E8, but there is no reason to put UConn vs. VCU in this bracket if you didn't put Marquette against Ohio State first. The NFL and NHL both re-seed and it works out fine for them. The NBA does not re-seed and their aren't any problems there. I don't think that there is one that is definitely better than the other, but since the NCAA has a vested interest in the bracket format, there is no reason not to keep it.


Meant to reply to this. You're remembering it wrong. Connecticut was not a top seed; they were a 2 seed in the West that year. They won the Big East tournament, but they had a 2nd place regular season finish in the league and 6 losses. This was also the season where Stanford and St. Joseph's flirted with undefeated records. (I'm sure a lot of people thought Duke and Connecticut were the two best teams, but the seeding did not reflect that.)

The bracketing rules were (probably) changed because of Kentucky and Arizona in 2003. The Wildcats and Wildcats were the top 2 teams and were placed on the same side of the bracket, which resulted in some criticism. Ultimately it didn't matter, as neither reached the Final Four.

The funny thing about 2004 (which HAD overall seeding for those thinking that 04 had anything to do with changing the rule) is that Kentucky was the number 1 overall seed, not any of the teams flirting with undefeated records or the two top teams in the Final Four. I highly doubt that any one bracket would cause the NCAA to change rules like that. I don't really know, but I imagine that it happened over time where the NCAA brass felt like the top two teams were on the same side of the bracket too often.

UrinalCake
03-31-2011, 02:59 PM
I think by the time you get to the Final Four you can't really say that any one or two teams are definitively better than the others. If you wanted to add some semblence of "fairness" you'd have to reseed earlier, maybe at the Sweet-16 or Elite 8 rounds. Of course, reseeding at the Elite 8 would be impossible under the current format because you'd have to physically travel to a new location within two days.

Besides, if a lower ranked team springs an upset, they should be rewarded by getting to play in the position of the higher-ranked team that they beat. One of the things I don't like about the hockey playoffs is that it's almost impossible for the lower seeds to advance very far because each round they have to play against the best remaining team.

Another question is, how would you determine the new seeds? Would you use the original seeds from when the bracket was released? What happens with a team that was very clearly underseeded, as VCU was? Would you still treat them as an 11 seed?

SoCalDukeFan
03-31-2011, 03:10 PM
The reseeding could also just add to controversy.

Do you reseed based on the Committee's ranking prior to the tournament or do you take tournament play into account? What about key injuries during the tournament? How about bad match ups?

Leave it alone.

If the NCAA wants to change something in the tournament they should avoid having number 1 seeds travel across country and three time zones.

SoCal

Tjenkins
03-31-2011, 03:11 PM
One of the best things about the tournament is its random,unpredictable magic and weird match-ups. Reseeding the Final Four(or any other part of the bracket for that matter)ruins this. Almost no one expected Butler & VCU to make the Final Four,let alone face each other.

Most pro-reseeding advocates(like Packer)are the sort of people who are now complaining about how Florida-Kansas would have been a better Final Four match-up than VCU-Butler.

Nugget
03-31-2011, 03:30 PM
The number 1 overall is always paired with the worst of the number ones. This rule was instituted after the 2004 debacle.

I didn't realize winning the ACC tournament meant you have to be the #3 overall. The committee made a lot of mistakes, I concur, but Duke as the 4th overall seed is not one of them. Pitt won their regular season crown, but not their tournament. Duke did the opposite. Pitt lost to SJ by 1, duke by a lot. Pitt's last two losses of the season came to final 4 teams by a COMBINED 3 points. Duke's last loss came to a team who didn't make the final 4 by 17 (given they certainly played fabulously). Given the facts on selection sunday, and looking at it retroactively, you really can't fault the committee for seeding pitt in front of duke.

I agree with that -- I think it absolutely right that the Commitee made Pitt the 3rd #1 and us the 4th.

Where they really fell down was in the seeding and bracketing of the 2, 3 and 4 seeds for all the reasons hashed out at length the last 2 weeks.

And re-seeding in the Final Four would be patently insane. Given everything we've seen over the past 2 seasons, how can anyone claim to know with certainty that U.Conn-Kentucky (which could easily have lost to Princeton) is a better or more worthy title game than U.Conn-VCU, which just finished beating Big 12, Big East and Big 10 teams by double digits, or U.Conn against a Butler team trying to cap off last year's magical run with an even more improbable final victory?

sagegrouse
03-31-2011, 04:03 PM
The main tenet of the seeding business is as follows: teams penalized with low seeds get stuck with playing much higher seeded opponents. If they should win, however, then the silver lining is that they inherit that opponents place in the bracket, and -- if it should happen to be a #1 seed -- as in Pitt losing to Butler, then Butler gets to play the #4 seed not the #2 seed (it beat both of them BTW).

Taken to its logical extreme, it would ensure that Cinderella would be matched with the toughest and ugliest stepsister in every round. And, if limited to the Final Four, that is just as pernicious. And, if applied to every case, it would mean that great importance in FF matchups would be given to the difference between a #2 and #3 seed, for example, when -- in truth -- the NCAA has very little evidence to support its rankings.

Anyway, "reseeding" is an awful idea. BTW don't discount the importance of the office pools. They drive interest, viewership and revenue. 68 teams is already threatening a good thing. Reseeding would really screw it up.

sagegrouse

gep
03-31-2011, 11:37 PM
The main tenet of the seeding business is as follows: teams penalized with low seeds get stuck with playing much higher seeded opponents. If they should win, however, then the silver lining is that they inherit that opponents place in the bracket, and -- if it should happen to be a #1 seed -- as in Pitt losing to Butler, then Butler gets to play the #4 seed not the #2 seed (it beat both of them BTW).

Taken to its logical extreme, it would ensure that Cinderella would be matched with the toughest and ugliest stepsister in every round. And, if limited to the Final Four, that is just as pernicious. And, if applied to every case, it would mean that great importance in FF matchups would be given to the difference between a #2 and #3 seed, for example, when -- in truth -- the NCAA has very little evidence to support its rankings.

Anyway, "reseeding" is an awful idea. BTW don't discount the importance of the office pools. They drive interest, viewership and revenue. 68 teams is already threatening a good thing. Reseeding would really screw it up.

sagegrouse

(first bold) My son made that same observation. If a 16-seed beats a 1-seed in the 1st round, then, theoretically, every game after that is "easy" as far as getting to the FF... and more-so if it's the supposed overall 1-seed. I think that day may be coming...:cool:

(second bold) As others have posted, it is totally unfair if a low seed beats a high seed, then gets re-seeded so that they now play a higher seed than a lower seed, as they deserved by beating the high seed in the first place... gotta reward success, I think.

gep
03-31-2011, 11:42 PM
I hope this is not too off-topic.

I heard on the radio a couple of days ago that someone proposed a double-elimination NCAA tournament. I don't know how that will work... maybe too many games with 68 teams.

But within this thread, what about a double-elimination FF? Off the wall, I know, but just a thought...:confused:

throatybeard
04-01-2011, 12:19 AM
I can't wait till K retires, and, I don't know, Capel is our coach, whoever, it doesn't matter, and we're a 4-seed in a region in which the 1, 2 and 3 eat it in the second round.

And then the national media, the North Carolina media, and everyone alive bitches about how the Duke fix is in because we got to play a 10 from the other side of the bracket instead of the 5 we were "supposed to."

Wait, yes, yes I can.

The bracket is the bracket. Let it be.

uh_no
04-01-2011, 12:23 AM
i can't wait till k retires

you take that back right now throatybeard!!!!

:p

throatybeard
04-01-2011, 12:33 AM
you take that back right now throatybeard!!!!

:p

Ha.

This reminds me of a Scott Adams (Dilbert author) joke where he edits a perfectly normal interoffice memo to read something like Stalin killed your sister.

I'll tell you this, Uh No, you're the UConn bipartisan, yes? It drives me nuts how Duke people repeatedly say that the winner of the 2004 semifinal would definitely win the title, and that that loss necessarily deprived us of a national title. Ignoring the fact that GT beat us, a month earlier, IN DURHAM.

uh_no
04-01-2011, 01:02 AM
Ha.

This reminds me of a Scott Adams (Dilbert author) joke where he edits a perfectly normal interoffice memo to read something like Stalin killed your sister.

I'll tell you this, Uh No, you're the UConn bipartisan, yes? It drives me nuts how Duke people repeatedly say that the winner of the 2004 semifinal would definitely win the title, and that that loss necessarily deprived us of a national title. Ignoring the fact that GT beat us, a month earlier, IN DURHAM.

I remember another dilbert where there is a splotchy phone call conenction from the pointy haired boss and it said "go through my desk and take the papers off and something else" and he only heard "throw my desk off the roof"....anyway

I am the bipartisan. I do think GT caught Uconn on the wrong night (much like how we caught arizona this year), I did not know that they had beated Duke (and if I had known, I probably would have been happy at the time....oh what a regrettable past I've had!) The number of NBA players in that semifinal was incredible.

Charlie Villlanueva
Ben Grdon
Emeka Okafor
Marcus Williams
Josh Boone (now in china...spent 4 years with the nets though)
Hilton Armstrong
Denham Brown(1 year in the lague)
JJ Redick
Luol Deng
Daniel Ewing(2 years in the league)
Shelden Williams
Chris Duhon
Shavlik Randolph


I doubt there has been a game since with as many players who made it to the league. Shame the refs had to be the main attraction of the night. Damn shame we were cheated out of a good game.