From Chuck Landon of the Huntington Herald Dispatch....

Top two teams get a double bye




">> Sitting down?

Good.

That's because here comes some more praise for decision-making by the oft-criticized leadership of Conference USA. Besides making a very wise move towards "pod scheduling" in men's basketball for the 2018-19 season, the C-USA brain trust made another smart decision.

Although the 2019 Conference USA Tournament again will be in Frisco, Texas (which I still question), there will be some important changes.

"They're looking to maybe get all 14 teams in the Conference USA Tournament," said Marshall coach Danny D'Antoni, referring to a decision made during the league's spring meets that were held recently in Destin, Florida.

"The way they would do that is take the bottom quandrant and they would play each other to get to the quarter-finals and, then, all go to the tournament."

That means the two schools occupying the cellar in the Conference USA standings wouldn't have to stay home. That wasn't the case in 2018. Both Rice (7-24 overall and 4-14 C-USA) and Charlotte (6-23 overall and 2-16 C-USA) weren't permitted to participate in the tournament.

I am not in favor of that premise. If a school is a member of a league, it should be allowed to participate in the conference tournament. Anything less is treating those members as second-class citizens.

Come one, come all."

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/sports/ma...e4059.html

"Second class citizens"? Come 'on ---at 2-16 they should not be in the conference tourney IMO.

I have no clue why I left corpshite 'murica.....

this is your conference.....

it's no longer mine....fk these dipshites.....

ju-ju needs a k-o by punch or JUDY :bangsheadintowall:.....

(05-29-2018 06:30 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  "Second class citizens"? Come 'on ---at 2-16 they should not be in the conference tourney IMO.

So 4-14 or 6-12 is that much better? Or 7-11 for that matter? So just the top 8 schools?

This is actually the best move for the conference by letting all in and giving the top 2 seeds a bye till the Semi Finials. Unless you just let schools with a .500 or above record play in it.

(05-29-2018 07:58 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 06:30 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  "Second class citizens"? Come 'on ---at 2-16 they should not be in the conference tourney IMO.

So 4-14 or 6-12 is that much better? Or 7-11 for that matter? So just the top 8 schools? Nope lets not stop there since you stated no team with a .500 or below conference record should get a NCAA bid. Then CUSA should only let those above .500 play in the conference tourney. So top 6?


This is actually the best move for the conference by letting all in and giving the top 2 seeds a bye till the Semi Finials

why???

I can easily argue additional expenses relative to revenue for the schools....

your turn on that one....

(05-29-2018 08:06 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 07:58 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 06:30 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  "Second class citizens"? Come 'on ---at 2-16 they should not be in the conference tourney IMO.

So 4-14 or 6-12 is that much better? Or 7-11 for that matter? So just the top 8 schools? Nope lets not stop there since you stated no team with a .500 or below conference record should get a NCAA bid. Then CUSA should only let those above .500 play in the conference tourney. So top 6?


This is actually the best move for the conference by letting all in and giving the top 2 seeds a bye till the Semi Finials

why???

I can easily argue additional expenses relative to revenue for the schools....

your turn on that one....

You can argue expense on any game played in any sport but that's not the point of a conference tourney. As I said if 2-16 is bad enough to leave out and make the #1 seed play against a poor record team in their first round game. Then 6-12 shouldn't be there either..

Do you think S. Miss added to the revenue vs expense to last years tourney? If all played and it let the #1 and #2 seed advance to the semi's that doesn't add a RPI killing game. Not unless one advanced that far.


Other words to your why....

it advances the top 2 seeds passed a RPI killing game

(edit) I have no problem leaving schools out but if you are going that route you leave more than just the one. Because that does nothing to help the conference get more than one bid.

(05-29-2018 08:14 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 08:06 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 07:58 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 06:30 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  "Second class citizens"? Come 'on ---at 2-16 they should not be in the conference tourney IMO.

So 4-14 or 6-12 is that much better? Or 7-11 for that matter? So just the top 8 schools? Nope lets not stop there since you stated no team with a .500 or below conference record should get a NCAA bid. Then CUSA should only let those above .500 play in the conference tourney. So top 6?


This is actually the best move for the conference by letting all in and giving the top 2 seeds a bye till the Semi Finials

why???

I can easily argue additional expenses relative to revenue for the schools....

your turn on that one....

You can argue expense on any game played in any sport but that's not the point of a conference tourney. As I said if 2-16 is bad enough to leave out and make the #1 seed play against a poor record team in their first round game. Then 6-12 shouldn't be there either..

Do you think S. Miss added to the revenue vs expense to last years tourney? If all played and it let the #1 and #2 seed advance to the semi's that doesn't add a RPI killing game. Not unless one advanced that far.


Other words to your why....

it advances the top 2 seeds passed a RPI killing game

there's other ways to do it to lighten the burden....

I understand you guys are hip deep into the hoops.....

however, from a business perspective relative to budgeting, it takes from one paul to suck another peter....

and I'm a hoops fan beggin' for ours to go lazuras

I really don't care about this conference at this point.......

it won't exist in less than 4 years as you know it today....

(05-29-2018 08:35 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 08:14 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 08:06 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 07:58 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 06:30 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  "Second class citizens"? Come 'on ---at 2-16 they should not be in the conference tourney IMO.

So 4-14 or 6-12 is that much better? Or 7-11 for that matter? So just the top 8 schools? Nope lets not stop there since you stated no team with a .500 or below conference record should get a NCAA bid. Then CUSA should only let those above .500 play in the conference tourney. So top 6?


This is actually the best move for the conference by letting all in and giving the top 2 seeds a bye till the Semi Finials

why???

I can easily argue additional expenses relative to revenue for the schools....

your turn on that one....

You can argue expense on any game played in any sport but that's not the point of a conference tourney. As I said if 2-16 is bad enough to leave out and make the #1 seed play against a poor record team in their first round game. Then 6-12 shouldn't be there either..

Do you think S. Miss added to the revenue vs expense to last years tourney? If all played and it let the #1 and #2 seed advance to the semi's that doesn't add a RPI killing game. Not unless one advanced that far.


Other words to your why....

it advances the top 2 seeds passed a RPI killing game

there's other ways to do it to lighten the burden....

I understand you guys are hip deep into the hoops.....

however, from a business perspective relative to budgeting, it takes from one paul to suck another peter....

and I'm a hoops fan beggin' for ours to go lazuras

I really don't care about this conference at this point.......

it won't exist in less than 4 years as you know it today....

I edited that post to include I dont have a problem leaving schools out but if you do that make it worth while. Make it a clean 8 schools and call it a day and that way you limit out the bottom feeders. Hell it might pressure a few to get better.

I remember a time when S. Miss cared a whole bunch about basketball. Still believe S.Miss can get back there....with the right budget hire. But that's the kicker in the nuts. Money

(05-29-2018 08:45 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 08:35 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 08:14 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 08:06 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 07:58 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  So 4-14 or 6-12 is that much better? Or 7-11 for that matter? So just the top 8 schools? Nope lets not stop there since you stated no team with a .500 or below conference record should get a NCAA bid. Then CUSA should only let those above .500 play in the conference tourney. So top 6?


This is actually the best move for the conference by letting all in and giving the top 2 seeds a bye till the Semi Finials

why???

I can easily argue additional expenses relative to revenue for the schools....

your turn on that one....

You can argue expense on any game played in any sport but that's not the point of a conference tourney. As I said if 2-16 is bad enough to leave out and make the #1 seed play against a poor record team in their first round game. Then 6-12 shouldn't be there either..

Do you think S. Miss added to the revenue vs expense to last years tourney? If all played and it let the #1 and #2 seed advance to the semi's that doesn't add a RPI killing game. Not unless one advanced that far.


Other words to your why....

it advances the top 2 seeds passed a RPI killing game

there's other ways to do it to lighten the burden....

I understand you guys are hip deep into the hoops.....

however, from a business perspective relative to budgeting, it takes from one paul to suck another peter....

and I'm a hoops fan beggin' for ours to go lazuras

I really don't care about this conference at this point.......

it won't exist in less than 4 years as you know it today....

I edited that post to include I dont have a problem leaving schools out but if you do that make it worth while. Make it a clean 8 schools and call it a day and that way you limit out the bottom feeders. Hell it might pressure a few to get better.

I remember a time when S. Miss cared a whole bunch about basketball. Still believe S.Miss can get back there....with the right budget hire. But that's the kicker in the nuts. Money

if I had my druthers, that would be my business plan....

the only reason I asked was b/c you understand more than the avg. bear.....

kudos and

Even though this move is better than doing nothing, I think my plan in post #22 of the Changes to CUSA Basketball Schedule thread makes more sense financially for the conference.

The first two rounds should be played at campus sites with at most only the last three rounds at the neutral site. And too bad for team #14 if they get left out. If a team can't dig itself out of the cellar with four games against teams #11-13 to close out the conference schedule, then it shouldn't be in the tournament.

I like the idea of having a double bye for the 1 and 2 seeds. But I think it's weird, because combined with the pod scheduling won't this mean that the bottom 4 schools play each other twice in 3 weeks? They play each other in the pods for jockying position for the tournament, and then play each other again immediately in the tournament. It just feels a bit off.

Isn't it technically a triple bye for seeds 1 and 2, a double bye for seeds 3 and 4, and a bye for seeds 5-8? I'm fine with whatever they come up with as long as they have some on-campus games (even if it's only the 11-14 and 12-13 games). Inviting all 14 to Frisco (or wherever) is just a bit too much.

No one has said whether this format would be for both men's and women's games but I guess we'll hear that answer soon enough.

Hell, even 8 is too many, the top four is enough, and maybe it should be the top four by RPI, not standings.

It is good for the student athletes to get to travel to a conference tourney and at least get to play 1 postseason game with the hope of going on a cinderella-made-for-tv run that gets them to the Big Dance. Don't forget about the experience for these young athletes that work year around and sacrifice to play a game that brings entertainment to thousands of fans and brief happiness for the fanbase that wins the game. I support all the teams being in the tournament because of the players.

This move seems like a participation trophy for those that clearly don't deserve any consideration for post season.

clt is fine with leaving the bottom four out. Win games

Every team not on probation deserves a shot. Even if they're winless, a spot in the tourney gives them a reason to keep grinding. And it gives them a taste of what they're trying to build towards.
Otherwise, you may have teams laying down towards the end of the season.
This is a win-win for everybody.
The lower seeds will probably be gone before the top seeds even begin play, so how does an extra day or two off hurt anyone?
If a low seed wins it, they will have to overcome extraordinary odds and win more games than the higher seeds.
Nobody hurt.

It’s now possible to face a team 4 times in the season....

If this had been in place last season, Marshall and WKU would have played twice in the first 14 games since they are travel partners. Then, because they were essentially #2 and #4 at that point, they would have played in the Top 5 pod. Then, if the tournament results held, they would have meet in the tournament.

I could see this move making some real rivalries, or strengthening some that already exist.
Even if you're mid-pack, playing the same school 3 or 4 times will get really interesting. Builds hate. That's good for ticket sales.