(03-15-2014 05:34 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  the format isn't bad, its the format PLUS the uneven 18 game schedule that's a problem.

Completely agree, that's why I don't like the double bye for the 3 and 4 seeds. Playing the lower seeded teams is reward enough.

The top two seeds getting speed passes to the semis is pretty bad ridiculous. At least make them play three games in order to win...

(03-15-2014 07:51 PM)TimBuck2 Wrote:  The top two seeds getting speed passes to the semis is pretty bad ridiculous. At least make them play three games in order to win...

Why?

(03-15-2014 07:38 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 02:41 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  With all due respect what or who benefits from MAC programs slitting one anothers throats in a soap operat NO ONE outside the MAC cares about or watches.

It's March Madness, not March Mildness. Since there is just 1 league that doesn't hold a tournament, the very-different-than-all-D1-leagues Ivy League, that's all that need be said.

No one watches? The average HH viewership for last year's MACC was 321K. That ranked 3rd among the 16 league title games played on ESPN2, ESPNU, NBCSN. It was higher than the viewership for some early-round, high-major tournament games. It beat the viewership counts for every regular season ESPNU game and quite a few high-major regular season ESPN2 games.

Having played in March Madness representing the MAC a long time ago it is no more a phenomna now than then.

Today, WMU cant average 2500 fans. In '76 we had several conference games over 10,000 and two games over 10,500. In the tournament WMU traveled quite well to South Bend and Baton Rogue.

Those #'s are of fans. People who watch on TV are in and out flipping to Jeopardy, reality shows or another game.

Can the tournament. Put a premium on building a great program that has staying power because if it doesnt your gone. Regular season champions should get the automatic bid to the NCAA. If like this year, Toledo is game but not the champion they sure in the heck look better to the committee than struggling some with EMU and then getting pasted by WMU.

Is not the goal to get as many MAC programs into the dance? Or feed your fat can watching it on the boob tube?

(03-15-2014 08:33 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 07:38 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 02:41 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  With all due respect what or who benefits from MAC programs slitting one anothers throats in a soap operat NO ONE outside the MAC cares about or watches.

It's March Madness, not March Mildness. Since there is just 1 league that doesn't hold a tournament, the very-different-than-all-D1-leagues Ivy League, that's all that need be said.

No one watches? The average HH viewership for last year's MACC was 321K. That ranked 3rd among the 16 league title games played on ESPN2, ESPNU, NBCSN. It was higher than the viewership for some early-round, high-major tournament games. It beat the viewership counts for every regular season ESPNU game and quite a few high-major regular season ESPN2 games.

Having played in March Madness representing the MAC a long time ago it is no more a phenomna now than then.

Today, WMU cant average 2500 fans. In '76 we had several conference games over 10,000 and two games over 10,500. In the tournament WMU traveled quite well to South Bend and Baton Rogue.

Those #'s are of fans. People who watch on TV are in and out flipping to Jeopardy, reality shows or another game.

Can the tournament. Put a premium on building a great program that has staying power because if it doesnt your gone. Regular season champions should get the automatic bid to the NCAA. If like this year, Toledo is game but not the champion they sure in the heck look better to the committee than struggling some with EMU and then getting pasted by WMU.

Is not the goal to get as many MAC programs into the dance? Or feed your fat can watching it on the boob tube?

Since tournaments aren't going away because of the money and exposure, I think the best option is take the top 16 leagues based on three year rolling RPI average and guarantee their regular season champ an auto bid along with the conference tournament champ.

The difference though would be the 16 regular season champs would be guaranteed which sub-regional they would start in. For example, if the MAC were in the top 16, the regular season champ would be guaranteed placement in say Milwaukee. If you win the regular season championship, your fans can start booking travel and hotels.

The champ would still have an incentive to perform well in the tournament to get the best possible seed.

The regular season has so little meaning that it is hard to get the attention of fans.

Of course I think it would also help to start the season January 2, unless a fan base is really hoops oriented or the football team is really lousy, the casual fan doesn't even notice hoops is going on until football wraps up.

it should be noted that on the women's side they are complaining about this format for the exact opposite reason. The top 2 seeds are just 1-6 in the tournament and they claim its because the time off makes them rusty.

remember, this format change happened in part because Kent State threw a big hissy fit when #9 Ohio bumped off #1 Kent State in the 2nd round in 2010. The format at the time had the bottom 8 seeds played the first round on Sunday and then didn't play again until Thursday, giving the lower seeds plenty of time to rest. This was considered to not be a big enough advantage for the top 4 seeds, which in turn made winning the regular season less important.

(03-16-2014 02:16 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  it should be noted that on the women's side they are complaining about this format for the exact opposite reason. The top 2 seeds are just 1-6 in the tournament and they claim its because the time off makes them rusty.

If the BBall numbers expand to 14, they'll have to do a look in again anyway.

My personal preference with 14 is to relegate the bottom two, bye the top four seeds directly to Cleveland, with Wednesday/Thursday quarterfinals, then semi-finals and finals ... play the on campus play-in finals on Sunday for the teams in the Wednesday quarterfinals and Monday for the teams in the Thursday quarterfinals.

(03-15-2014 08:25 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 07:51 PM)TimBuck2 Wrote:  The top two seeds getting speed passes to the semis is pretty bad ridiculous. At least make them play three games in order to win...

Why?

What other conference does this? Makes 3+ seeds at huge disadvantage to win the thing in current set up.

And for a conference that rarely ever gets any at large bids wouldn't it make sense to even out the tournament more? If there is a team that will absolutely make the NCAAs based on regular season, don't we want a different team to win the tournament so we get two teams in?

Worst set up right now from tournaments I've looked at.

(03-16-2014 09:47 AM)TimBuck2 Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 08:25 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 07:51 PM)TimBuck2 Wrote:  The top two seeds getting speed passes to the semis is pretty bad ridiculous. At least make them play three games in order to win...

Why?

What other conference does this? Makes 3+ seeds at huge disadvantage to win the thing in current set up.

And for a conference that rarely ever gets any at large bids wouldn't it make sense to even out the tournament more? If there is a team that will absolutely make the NCAAs based on regular season, don't we want a different team to win the tournament so we get two teams in?

Worst set up right now from tournaments I've looked at.

"Even out the tournament" means to dilute a full two months of sweat and toil. How is that even handed? How does the 3-4 day event with the primary purpose of making $ and getting face time help assure the conference getting the best rep in? Not only could the best team possibly lose but so could other top 2. Now you have some under or near .500 team having to rep the MAC but other top teams being marginalized because of that.

Based on the dwindling casual fan attendance and the fact Kent and Akron are down I bet profit was way down compared.

My rationale is devoid of emotion. Schedule up, win those games, succeed in conference and you have recipe for more than one team with an acceptble resume. Otherwise you are simply diluting the body of work, diminishing the stature of the conference AND playing right into the hands of the Jay Bilas of the world who want the MAC to go away.

(03-16-2014 11:13 AM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 09:47 AM)TimBuck2 Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 08:25 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 07:51 PM)TimBuck2 Wrote:  The top two seeds getting speed passes to the semis is pretty bad ridiculous. At least make them play three games in order to win...

Why?

What other conference does this? Makes 3+ seeds at huge disadvantage to win the thing in current set up.

And for a conference that rarely ever gets any at large bids wouldn't it make sense to even out the tournament more? If there is a team that will absolutely make the NCAAs based on regular season, don't we want a different team to win the tournament so we get two teams in?

Worst set up right now from tournaments I've looked at.

"Even out the tournament" means to dilute a full two months of sweat and toil. How is that even handed? How does the 3-4 day event with the primary purpose of making $ and getting face time help assure the conference getting the best rep in? Not only could the best team possibly lose but so could other top 2. Now you have some under or near .500 team having to rep the MAC but other top teams being marginalized because of that.

Based on the dwindling casual fan attendance and the fact Kent and Akron are down I bet profit was way down compared.

My rationale is devoid of emotion. Schedule up, win those games, succeed in conference and you have recipe for more than one team with an acceptble resume. Otherwise you are simply diluting the body of work, diminishing the stature of the conference AND playing right into the hands of the Jay Bilas of the world who want the MAC to go away.

And if the 1/2 seeds played one more game it would increase revenue. I get your point about diluting, but how often is that going to happen? I just the the advantage of 1/2 in the semis is way too big of one. What other conference tourneys are set up like the MAC?

Just don't have a tournament if you're scared your #1 won't make it. Is a little exposure on espn3 up until the finals worth it?

It's not fear, it's smarts. Give your best teams the best chance to advance. The ESPN Championship Week format is with us to stay for the foreseeable future. So if we have a tourney, we play to our strengths, not to give our weaker teams a better chance.

As far as the tourney experience for the fans, the 1-4 seed single bye was best, no doubt. This current format is good for the better teams, but worse for other reasons. It's a trade-off. There have been some unintended consequences of the double and triple bye format. Has someone worked out a single-bye for 3-4/double-bye 1-2 format that works? I'm thinking that's problematic.

(03-16-2014 12:13 PM)axeme Wrote:  It's not fear, it's smarts. Give your best teams the best chance to advance. The ESPN Championship Week format is with us to stay for the foreseeable future. So if we have a tourney, we play to our strengths, not to give our weaker teams a better chance.

As far as the tourney experience for the fans, the 1-4 seed single bye was best, no doubt. This current format is good for the better teams, but worse for other reasons. It's a trade-off. There have been some unintended consequences of the double and triple bye format. Has someone worked out a single-bye for 3-4/double-bye 1-2 format that works? I'm thinking that's problematic.

The Sun Belt and Southland do something like that (single-bye for 3-4/double-bye 1-2) but they only take the top 8 teams.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...tournament

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...tournament

(03-16-2014 11:58 AM)TimBuck2 Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 11:13 AM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 09:47 AM)TimBuck2 Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 08:25 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 07:51 PM)TimBuck2 Wrote:  The top two seeds getting speed passes to the semis is pretty bad ridiculous. At least make them play three games in order to win...

Why?

What other conference does this? Makes 3+ seeds at huge disadvantage to win the thing in current set up.

And for a conference that rarely ever gets any at large bids wouldn't it make sense to even out the tournament more? If there is a team that will absolutely make the NCAAs based on regular season, don't we want a different team to win the tournament so we get two teams in?

Worst set up right now from tournaments I've looked at.

"Even out the tournament" means to dilute a full two months of sweat and toil. How is that even handed? How does the 3-4 day event with the primary purpose of making $ and getting face time help assure the conference getting the best rep in? Not only could the best team possibly lose but so could other top 2. Now you have some under or near .500 team having to rep the MAC but other top teams being marginalized because of that.

Based on the dwindling casual fan attendance and the fact Kent and Akron are down I bet profit was way down compared.

My rationale is devoid of emotion. Schedule up, win those games, succeed in conference and you have recipe for more than one team with an acceptble resume. Otherwise you are simply diluting the body of work, diminishing the stature of the conference AND playing right into the hands of the Jay Bilas of the world who want the MAC to go away.

And if the 1/2 seeds played one more game it would increase revenue. I get your point about diluting, but how often is that going to happen? I just the the advantage of 1/2 in the semis is way too big of one. What other conference tourneys are set up like the MAC?

So I got you to be honest about it and I appreciate your candor.

It's about the $.

So let's deal with the devil on OUR terms.

I dont know for fact but I suspect that if a MAC team make a decent run the $ is reasonably good and far better than a conference tournament.

Now get 2 teams in because they are building programs to compete against the A-10's, MVC, MWC, Colonial, etc by scheduling ACC, B10, SEC and PAC10.

Likely more losses than wins but some wins and though "close" isnt publically acknowledged it is a factor. If you beat a team or two and are close on some others while those we really are fighting for slots for are scheduling like Akron (Lil Sisters of the Poor and Blindmans Bluff) or a "midling BCS program" gets slaughtered in conference by a team or two, the MAC stands to do even better.

So if you deal with the devil it better be on your own terms or your living in hell. End of discussion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(03-16-2014 01:24 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  Now get 2 teams in because they are building programs to compete against the A-10's, MVC, MWC, Colonial, etc by scheduling ACC, B10, SEC and PAC10.

Except this is the MAC ... even if the MAC reached that level, it wouldn't be consistently the same two teams, because of successful coaches being taken for bigger money programs looking for a coach.

Which leans toward another argument for seeding #1-#4 into a full quarterfinal, and bringing four opponents in from on-campus preliminary finals. IMV, if the top two are that much better, as opposed to just having a handful of breaks go their way during the regular season, then the day of rest before the semi's should be all the reward they really need.

(03-16-2014 01:53 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 01:24 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  Now get 2 teams in because they are building programs to compete against the A-10's, MVC, MWC, Colonial, etc by scheduling ACC, B10, SEC and PAC10.

Except this is the MAC ... even if the MAC reached that level, it wouldn't be consistently the same two teams, because of successful coaches being taken for bigger money programs looking for a coach.

Which leans toward another argument for seeding #1-#4 into a full quarterfinal, and bringing four opponents in from on-campus preliminary finals. IMV, if the top two are that much better, as opposed to just having a handful of breaks go their way during the regular season, then the day of rest before the semi's should be all the reward they really need.

You don't want it to be the same two teams. Why would you even hint at that?

And I agree about coaches moving up. But if you aspire to be a HC knowing that shelf life is relatively short, would you want to interview at a program that has existing talent returning from the targeted pinnacle or not? Getting the right hire should be alot less difficult if you are bringing in $ because the conference is well represented in the NCAA's.

It isnt a zero sum game. You win then you automatically lose (a coach). And if you do, the well hasnt run dry. There are plenty of young and old assistants who given the correct environment can and will be successful.

Don't look at success as a threat and wind up embracing mediocrity so you don't feel the pain. Because right now your hurting. Your sitting and WMU is dancing.

I would much rather have WMU AND Toledo in the dance. In fact, I would like having Buffalo getting in.

You can't schedule mediocrity, play in an existing 1 bid confernece and expect to go anywhere unless you get lucky or are very good.

WMU is very good. But if they lost to Akron . . . the NIT wouldnt even be certainty if they hadnt been reg season champs. Right now, it's that dour.

There needs to be a change across the board by the MAC.

(03-16-2014 02:09 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  You don't want it to be the same two teams. Why would you even hint at that?

I wouldn't "hint at that", which would be among the reasons I didn't "hint at that".

The scenario where the single bye 3/4, double bye 1/2, is superior to a full quarterfinal is if you are aiming at building up two flagship programs for the conference.and want.to maximize the prospect for seeing those two in the championship every year and minimize their exposure to the middle of the league ladder, despite the sacrificed opportunity for development of those middle of the ladder clubs.

Since the 1/2 double bye format puts that strategy on the table, it is relevant that it's not a feasible option for the MAC, so it can be taken off the table without having to go into what a craven strategy it would be.

One thing that the MAC cannot accept if it has ambitions of being a two-NIT-bid conference (as a first stepping stone to a two-bid conference) is the presumption that the middle of the MAC ladder has to consist of mediocrity which the tournament structure has to sidestep. And if is aiming to be a conference of opportunity for its middle of the table teams, that includes giving them opportunities and challenging the best teams to prove it on the court rather than sheltering them from competition.

I think the current format is fine. 18 games schedules compensates for the unbalanced schedule. You got 18 games to state you case for those byes. A teams draw shouldn't matter if they are truly the best of the league. Good teams rise to the occasion regardless of the opponent. MAC sent its best teams to the title game and its best team won the auto bid. Having the carrot for byes forces teams to up their level of play. This helps the MAC champion play well in the NCAA tournament as they must play well for months.

(03-18-2014 01:22 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 02:09 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  You don't want it to be the same two teams. Why would you even hint at that?

And if is aiming to be a conference of opportunity for its middle of the table teams, that includes giving them opportunities and challenging the best teams to prove it on the court rather than sheltering them from competition.

How is an 18 game regular season sheltering anyone? Over an 18 game season how does a team not have the opportunity to prove itself?
Do it 18x your'e good. Do it 1x you could be darn lucky.

Do you want a proven winner or set of winners or someone who was fortunate or lucky to rep the league?

I suggest you get the best as proven over time not by compressing it and hoping you get the best. It isnt complicated.

(03-19-2014 01:05 AM)gobaseline Wrote:  How is an 18 game regular season sheltering anyone? Over an 18 game season how does a team not have the opportunity to prove itself?
Do it 18x your'e good. Do it 1x you could be darn lucky.

There's quite often a fair bit of luck to the difference between the 2 and 3 seed.

Indeed, why is it a double bye for 1 and 2, rather than a double bye for the regular season champion alone? Because the difference between 1 and 2 is often a matter of luck (or play calling, which may well be a "luck of the draw" thing as well).

And I never said the regular season was sheltering anyone, I referred to the tournament. The original argument for a double bye for 1 and 2 is quite obviously to shelter then more from the threat of an upset than 3 and 4. Which is fine for a conference that only aspires to have one or two tournament worthy teams per year.