I'm not sure the current format is really working both from a perspective of being fair to the players (the 5-12 seeds conceivably could play 6 games in 8 days if you count the last regular season game, that is excessive). Plus for the fans, I don't think you really get that tournament feeling with a coming together of several MAC fanbases, its just too choppy each day IMO. I do agree the top teams should be rewarded but I would propose this:

- Do not invite the 11 and 12 seeds, honestly what chance do they have.
- Eliminate the Monday campus site games, it would save these lower seeds the impossible travel schedules from their last regular season to the Monday game, and then to Cleveland.
- Start the tourney Wednesday in Cleveland with 4 games involving the 3-10 seeds.
- Maintain double byes for seeds 1 and 2.
- My bracket this year would look like the following:

I'm with you. Get 4 games in CLE on one day instead of the men's nightcap double header.

This year's tourney was a season-long event where playing for the top 4 slots has been going on all year.

The difference between the #4 and #5 seeds (playing 3 vs. 5 games) is simply too much.

I like it.

Drop the tournament all together. Regular season champion should get the auto bid. Otherwise the regular season is simply a pre-season.

The league wants greater representation in the tournament. Schedule up. Grow a pair, win some and let the #'s speak for themselves.

I understand the $ perspective. If they really do make $ or that much.
Hardly a reason to send your 6th place regular season finisher onward because they either got hot, lucky, both or those that performed and earned it through out 2 full two months sustain an injury or have an off game.

ACC was the primary driver of this because they had nothing else to offer. They were irrelevant. TV and the ACC saw $, they married and spawned a bunch of ugly off spring. The NCAA, the castrated irrelevant entity that it is needed be relevant shaped the dance to reflect $ the ACC.

In about 5 years with football going it's own way with a two tiered system basketball wont be far behind. The MAC and others with the same gravitas will simply become a vague shawdow of what it once was.

That increases the cost of the tournament, since you have to lease the arena for an extra day for the women's tournament to play four games on Tuesday.

As far as the cost of the trval by the #9-#12 seeds (since #4-#8 have no travel costs), the tournament reform seems to be trying to fix the part of the tournament that isn't broken ... the wwy it gives rewards to schools based on where they stand in the conference.

(03-15-2014 10:35 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  That increases the cost of the tournament, since you have to lease the arena for an extra day for the women's tournament to play four games on Tuesday.

As far as the cost of the trval by the #9-#12 seeds (since #4-#8 have no travel costs), the tournament reform seems to be trying to fix the part of the tournament that isn't broken ... the wwy it gives rewards to schools based on where they stand in the conference.

Ahh I see about the cost of the tournament, that's probably why it is what it is. Can't the women play during the overnight hours?

You wouldn't be complaining about the tournament format if you were a 1-4 seed. Kind of a self serving argument.

Bottom line, this format was put into place to try and maximize our chances of getting an at large bid and doing our best to showcase our best team on a national stage. That's what is best for our conference. Is it fair? Nope.

(03-15-2014 10:55 AM)EA3 Wrote:  You wouldn't be complaining about the tournament format if you were a 1-4 seed. Kind of a self serving argument.

Bottom line, this format was put into place to try and maximize our chances of getting an at large bid and doing our best to showcase our best team on a national stage. That's what is best for our conference. Is it fair? Nope.

Well if the desire is to just put the top regular season team in the tournament, then its probably best to go the route mentioned above about just doing away with the tournament, that probably makes the most sense. Why put these lower seeds through the meat grinder and put them in potentially physically dangerous situtations by having to play 6 games in 8 days. It really hit me last night in that Toledo/EMU game. EMU just physically ran out of gas, Toledo really wasn't the better team. EA3 Im all for the easier route for the top 2 seeds getting them byes, in my mind it comes down to a well-being and safety issue for the players. When players are exhausted, they are more prone to serious injuries. The whole tournament atmosphere is really not achieved in this piece-meal tournament approach anyway. Its just a blah blah experience.

All tournaments are inherently unfair to the team that played the best all year, especially in a one bid league.

...but they are fun and dramatic and help bring attention to the league.

(03-15-2014 02:14 PM)The Frisky Biscuit Wrote:  All tournaments are inherently unfair to the team that played the best all year, especially in a one bid league.

...but they are fun and dramatic and help bring attention to the league.

That isn't the case here though with the MAC tourney, the top 2 seeds have to win 1 game to get to the championship, that's more than fair I would say. My biggest concern would be just playing 6 games in 8 days for the lower seeds, it becomes a potential health issue. No college player should be asked to play that type of schedule. My second reason for a re-format was just because of fans, its not a great event for fan attendance. And again this proposed reformat doesn't really change the 2-win scenario for the top 2 seeds for a championship, it only makes it potentially less dangerous health-wise for the lower seeds.

(03-15-2014 11:38 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  Well if the desire is to just put the top regular season team in the tournament, then its probably best to go the route mentioned above about just doing away with the tournament, that probably makes the most sense.

But then once you are out of contention for the conference championship, what is there left to play for?

I'd be happy to cut it down to a single bye and two preliminary finals on campus, to give winning preliminary finalists one day rest if they pull off the upset, and the #5 & 6 seeds straight into Cleveland ...
Saturday: Championship
Friday: Semi1, Semi2
Thursday: QF#1, #3 v #6, QF#2, #4 v #5
Wednesday: QF3, #1 v winner PF#1, QF4, #2 v winner PF#2Monday: PF#1, #8 hosts #9, PF#2, #7 hosts #10

But the MAC Presidents probably like having all schools formally in the tournament, and the #5-#8 schools getting the consolation prize of an extra home game, given that they would very rarely include many serious tournament contenders.

(03-15-2014 02:14 PM)The Frisky Biscuit Wrote:  All tournaments are inherently unfair to the team that played the best all year, especially in a one bid league.

...but they are fun and dramatic and help bring attention to the league.

What attention has it got the conference in the last 10 years?

Zip, nada. Instead of utilizing strengths the MAC wants to be "like" the Jones's and plays right into the BCS hands. You expose the MAC's weakness.

And that's my point.

Better to schedule up, win those games, develop a resume and get multiple bids from the actual top teams in the conference. Save the drama and entertainment for soap operas.

(03-15-2014 02:27 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 11:38 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  Well if the desire is to just put the top regular season team in the tournament, then its probably best to go the route mentioned above about just doing away with the tournament, that probably makes the most sense.

But then once you are out of contention for the conference championship, what is there left to play for?

I'd be happy to cut it down to a single bye and two preliminary finals on campus, to give winning preliminary finalists one day rest if they pull off the upset, and the #5 & 6 seeds straight into Cleveland ...
Saturday: Championship
Friday: Semi1, Semi2
Thursday: QF#1, #3 v #6, QF#2, #4 v #5
Wednesday: QF3, #1 v winner PF#1, QF4, #2 v winner PF#2Monday: PF#1, #8 hosts #9, PF#2, #7 hosts #10

But the MAC Presidents probably like having all schools formally in the tournament, and the #5-#8 schools getting the consolation prize of an extra home game, given that they would very rarely include many serious tournament contenders.

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.

The focus should be on the MAC's teams being superior (having played and beaten some) that are actually who takes slots away from the MAC. Again, the tournament cements what the BCS types want. Water down the league by piling on some additional losses from it's own. It's a freakin circular firing squad and MAC fans want that? Did you graduate from Marshall or App State?

(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.

Those inside the MAC, who care about them and watch them.

Those who are susceptible to sneering insidious distinctions really aren't the MAC's core target audience in any event ... they are going to be following a "power conference" school ... so pandering to them does not offer much to the MAC as a dividend.

The two arguments for more rest for the middle of the table teams at the expense of the bottom two being left out of the tournament is that the supporters of the bottom two schools are probably already in "better luck next year" mode, and that the middle of the table teams will do less damage to the RPI of the top teams than a bottom of the table team that scored an upset in their Preliminary Final. And the second argument doesn't really kick in unless the MAC gets to the point where its regular season champion is on the bubble independent of winning the auto-bid.

JUST trimming out the #11 and #12 seeds from the current tournament format yields:

Monday: PF#1, #8 hosts #9, PF#2, #7 hosts #10, #11, #12 relegated
Wednesday: SR#1: #5 vs winner PF#1; SR#2: #6 vs winner PF#2
Thursday: QF#1: #4 vs winner EF#1, QF#2, #3 vs winner EF#2
Friday: SF#1: #1 vs winner QF#1, SF#2: #2 vs winner QF#2
Saturday: Championship: Winner SF#1 vs Winner SF#2

Where today the fight at the end of the regular season is to be 1/2, then 3/4, then 5-8, and 9-12 mostly being preliminary final visiting cannon fodder, that would make every second step up the ladder a distinctive improvement ... 9/10 better than relegated 11/12, preliminary final hosts 7/8 better than 9/10, second round seeds #5/6 a step batter, quarterfinal seeds #3/4 a step better, and of course the top two teams still two wins from the big dance.

Bottom line is, it has to change, this current format is not working for players or fans.

(03-15-2014 04:05 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  Bottom line is, it has to change, this current format is not working for players or fans.

Is that as someone who was cheering for a #1-#4 seed, or as someone who was cheering for a #5-#8 seed? The current system definitely gives a tougher road to those teams who have not earned any right to any easier road based on their regular season performance.

Irrelevant but interesting.

The NAIA used to do a 32 team tournament in Kansas City. 8 first round games the first day, 8 first round games the second day, 8 second round days the third day, then 4 games the fourth day, 2 games the fifth day and wrap it up on the sixth day.

I read a piece once about an NBA scout who said it was his favorite basketball event.

the format isn't bad, its the format PLUS the uneven 18 game schedule that's a problem.

Akron played #6 EMU and #7 NIU twice where Ohio played #1 WMU and #2 Toledo twice. Akron and Ohio had near identical records, they split their head to head, were 6-4 vs the MAC East, and the only games they lost vs the MAC West were against Toledo and WMU. The only difference was Akron was 0-2 vs UT and WMU, Ohio was 1-3.

That one extra loss against WMU was the only difference between Akron getting a 4 seed and resting until Wednesday and Ohio getting a 5 seed and playing 2 games in 3 days to get to Wednesday. Would Ohio have been able to hold on against Akron on Wednesday if they were equally rested?

If you're going to have a massive distinction between the 4 and 5 seed you can't have uneven schedules.

So a 22 game schedule? There never is balance unless you play each team home and away. In the 16 game schedule, one team might have played WMU and UT at home and their closest division competitor played them on the road. Those road/home splits were the critical factor when you looked at your schedule in the old format.

I think Ohio had bigger problems than the schedule that kept them from finishing a game behind Akron.

(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.