- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/15/10 at 10:27 am to The Easter Bunny
quote:But would that bug you more than when they say, "X has a better overall resume but we gave it to Y b/c they were hotter down the stretch."? B/c that line really gets on my nerves.
If the committee were to come out and say, "it was close, but we gave X a spot just because of their RPI" then I'd start getting pissed.
Posted on 3/15/10 at 10:30 am to Jamohn
I don't like the "got hot" argument, either. I also don't like using conference tournaments to give out bids.
Posted on 3/15/10 at 10:31 am to The Easter Bunny
quote:Good man! That is my absolute pet peeve in CBB (as shown in my earlier post).
I also don't like using conference tournaments to give out bids.
Posted on 3/15/10 at 10:35 am to Jamohn
quote:
That is my absolute pet peeve in CBB (as shown in my earlier post).
At least in basketball you know that every conference will crown their champion the same way (except Ivy League, I think). With football there are so many different ways. Some have conference championships, some play a true round robin, and some play a half-arse version (looking at you, Big10).
I personally wish basketball and football would play a true round robin schedule, with basketball playing a home and home series with every other team in conference.
Posted on 3/15/10 at 10:40 am to The Easter Bunny
There is absolutely no good reason that every conference doesn't have a home and home round robin in basketball.
Posted on 3/15/10 at 10:44 am to The Easter Bunny
For all CFB conferences to pull off a true round robin they'd have to limit the size of their conferences to 8-10 teams. I agree that it's probably the best way to crown a champion. The Pac-10 has the best way of crowning a champ and they don't injure their teams' BCS chances by forcing them to play an extra tough game in a conf. championship.
The most offensive thing to me about the CBB conf tourneys is when a small conference will send a crappy team to take up their one bid just b/c it won the conf tourney over what may be its one legit team that dominated all reg. season and had one hiccup in the conf tourney. CBB plays enough games in it's regular season to determine a legit conference champ. The tourneys are unnecessary and nothing but a money grab.
The most offensive thing to me about the CBB conf tourneys is when a small conference will send a crappy team to take up their one bid just b/c it won the conf tourney over what may be its one legit team that dominated all reg. season and had one hiccup in the conf tourney. CBB plays enough games in it's regular season to determine a legit conference champ. The tourneys are unnecessary and nothing but a money grab.
This post was edited on 3/15/10 at 10:45 am
Posted on 3/15/10 at 10:53 am to Sophandros
quote:
There is absolutely no good reason that every conference doesn't have a home and home round robin in basketball.
Exactly. GT played 16 conference games. You're telling me Florida A&M, @UT-Chattanooga, Arkansas Pine-Bluff, Kennesaw State, Winston-Salem State, and Kentucky State are better opponents than playing the rest of the ACC teams?
Posted on 3/15/10 at 11:07 am to The Easter Bunny
Using a BCS formula to determine the top 64/64 teams would remove all of the fun out of the tournament. Seeing Florida skulldrag UCLA/Ohio State in the final pales in comparison to Northwestern State beating Iowa in the first round. I even enjoy the games where a mid-major takes a big conference team down to the wire and comes up short.
Vermont over Syracuse >>>>>> UNC over Michigan State
If you remove the Cinderella aspect of March Madness, you ultimately remove the most compelling aspect of the tourney.
Vermont over Syracuse >>>>>> UNC over Michigan State
If you remove the Cinderella aspect of March Madness, you ultimately remove the most compelling aspect of the tourney.
Posted on 3/15/10 at 11:12 am to Jamohn
quote:But, to play devil's advocate, why is it bad for the small schools to do something to get a very small slice of the pie? they hold those tourneys for TV and just a little bit of that ESPN money. Is it fair? Obviously not. But big conference make money motivated decisions all the time and we're okay with it, so why can't the little guys do the same?
The tourneys are unnecessary and nothing but a money grab.
And I like the NCAA's policy: we'll take your conference champ HOWEVER YOU DECIDE IT. This means the NCAA is completely uninvolved with the messy business of crowning every single conference champ. Just tell us the champ, and they get a bid. It's up to the conferences, not the NCAA. This is, to use an analogy, the NCAA acting like small government instead of meddling in local affairs.
Posted on 3/15/10 at 11:16 am to thenry712
quote:
Using a BCS formula to determine the top 64/64 teams would remove all of the fun out of the tournament. Seeing Florida skulldrag UCLA/Ohio State in the final pales in comparison to Northwestern State beating Iowa in the first round. I even enjoy the games where a mid-major takes a big conference team down to the wire and comes up short.
Vermont over Syracuse >>>>>> UNC over Michigan State
If you remove the Cinderella aspect of March Madness, you ultimately remove the most compelling aspect of the tourney.
Use it as a tool. And besides, I'm not advocating taking away the autobids, either.
Posted on 3/15/10 at 11:39 am to Sophandros
See, and this is what is great about the tourney: upsets early, chalk late. Everyone gets their day, really. The early upsets are fun, but has there been an "unworthy" champ since 1985 Villanova? The tourney usually does a good job of crowning a champ, despite its inherent unfairness (one and done)
Posted on 3/15/10 at 11:47 am to Baloo
quote:
"unworthy" champ since 1985 Villanova
From 1990-2009 (20 tourneys) i think 15 or 14 #1 seeds have won, only Arizona was ranked lower than a 3 and they were a 4 or 5 iirc.
This post was edited on 3/15/10 at 11:48 am
Posted on 3/15/10 at 11:51 am to Baloo
quote:
why is it bad for the small schools to do something to get a very small slice of the pie? they hold those tourneys for TV and just a little bit of that ESPN money. Is it fair? Obviously not. But big conference make money motivated decisions all the time and we're okay with it, so why can't the little guys do the same?
Who is this "we" that are OK with it? I HATE the conference tourneys from a sports purist perspective (as a strong advocate of the free market I have no problem with the conferences decisions to hold them of course) because they cheapen regular seasons.
Posted on 3/15/10 at 12:00 pm to Baloo
quote:I do too. I think that the NCAA should take a laissez-faire approach to how conferences crown their champs to take advantage of their auto-bids.
I like the NCAA's policy: we'll take your conference champ HOWEVER YOU DECIDE IT.
I think it's on the conferences to police themselves and I think these small-conference tourneys screw over the regular season champs pretty bad. It's not like bigger conferences where we all know that if UK lost in the SEC tourney they'd still be in and probably keep a #1 seed. The small conferences are screwing over their regular seasons and their regular season champs.
It is a money grab, but I understand your point: Nobody really pays attention to their regular seasons anyway (besides gambling degenerates of course) and the only way their teams get any national cred is based on the OOC schedules so they hold these winner-take-all tourneys so people pay attention to their conf games for a week.
Posted on 3/15/10 at 12:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
The selection committee should be Joe Lunardi, Jay Bilas, Doug Gotlieb, and other ESPN analysts.
Posted on 3/15/10 at 12:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
basically, this guy went on a major tangent talking about how important subjectivity was. how it was important to see the teams (to see if they play defense, or if they controlled tempo, he suggested)
then why the hell did they pick minnesota and illinois over Moo St
Posted on 3/15/10 at 12:07 pm to RiverTigers2003
quote:Dear God no
The selection committee should be Joe Lunardi, Jay Bilas, Doug Gotlieb, and other ESPN analysts.
if I have to listen to Vitale one more time, im gonna listen to him one more time but not like it
Posted on 3/15/10 at 12:09 pm to HDTigers
It should be a combination of statisticians, along with Joe Lunardi and a couple other "bracketologists", along with analysts like Bilas who know what they are talking about. Put three of each.
Posted on 3/15/10 at 12:10 pm to HDTigers
Not Dick Vitale. But the espn guys know more than some random committee members.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News