- Gerry McNamara is overrated
- Syracuse was last team out so expand the tournament
- The double bye in the Big East Tournament is unfair!
http://www.sportingnews.com/college-basketball/article/2010-03-12/fatal-flaws-not-double-bye-took-down-big-easts-elite (http://www.sportingnews.com/college-basketball/article/2010-03-12/fatal-flaws-not-double-bye-took-down-big-easts-elite)
Based on Boeheim's logic Georgetown, Marquette, and Notre Dame all should have lost their Wednesday game because they had to sit around.
Jim is a great coach but one of the biggest whiners in sports.
Why did he skip from the first, second, third, and fourth place teams to the eighth? Either he's a jackass or we have no fatal flaws!
Imagine what he'll say if 'Cuse doesn't get a #1 seed...
I have to agree with Boeheim. I'm not saying he isn't biased, but the BET is one of the hardest tournaments to explain to someone, which usually is followed up with a 'Why?' from the other party. Having a traditional 16 team bracket, I think, would be a solid move for the conference and not make it seem like they favor the top teams.
If they want more teams to make it into the tournament (8+), they have to even the playing field and give every team their fair shot. Making the 9-16 play 5 games to win the tourney but the 1-4 only 3 is not fair and biased.
Keith
But then if Syracuse were to make it through the standard 16 team tournament, it wouldn't be fair because it took too much out of his team to make a push in the NCAA's. You can make an arguement either for or against byes.
The whole point of the double bye is you have to only win 3 games to win conference. Other teams have to win 4 or 5.
But ESPN made the point yesterday that no team that's one-and-done in their conference tournament has ever won a national championship. So, is the rest really an advantage? idk, but it'd be interesting to at least try it.
Dumb argument, too much waiting around time is not a valid excuse in my book. You didn't see any of the 1 bye teams bitching about it.
Maybe he shoulda had his team practicing harder on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Quote from: krocheck on March 12, 2010, 02:17:26 PM
But ESPN made the point yesterday that no team that's one-and-done in their conference tournament has ever won a national championship. So, is the rest really an advantage? idk, but it'd be interesting to at least try it.
Maybe Kansas lit us up in 2003 because we lost to UAB in the conference tournament.
Quote from: krocheck on March 12, 2010, 02:10:31 PM
I have to agree with Boeheim. I'm not saying he isn't biased, but the BET is one of the hardest tournaments to explain to someone, which usually is followed up with a 'Why?' from the other party. Having a traditional 16 team bracket, I think, would be a solid move for the conference and not make it seem like they favor the top teams.
If they want more teams to make it into the tournament (8+), they have to even the playing field and give every team their fair shot. Making the 9-16 play 5 games to win the tourney but the 1-4 only 3 is not fair and biased.
Of course it's fair. Teams 9-16 didn't perform well enough during the regular season to earn a level playing field.
I'd rather have the double bye than not have it. Our deep run could end up costing us something later on, and I think Syracuse will end up just fine.
I think the double bye is ridiculous. 16 team league, standard tourney, couldn't be easier.
The #1 seed has it 'tough' because it has to win four games? But one of those would have been DePaul this year, you're not telling me that would have really taxed and worn out Cuse?
Easy format :
Tuesday's games: 1v16, 8v9, 4v13, 5v12
Wednesday's games: 2v15, 7v10, 3v14,6v11.
Thursday/Friday/Saturday then lays itself out.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 12, 2010, 02:40:11 PM
Of course it's fair. Teams 9-16 didn't perform well enough during the regular season to earn a level playing field.
I'd rather have the double bye than not have it. Our deep run could end up costing us something later on, and I think Syracuse will end up just fine.
I'm sorry, but I happen to feel the field should always be level. 13-16 clearly did not perform well during the regular season, but 9-12 I think should have had a fair shot. Some of them did have good seasons. The other thing you are admitting to with this double-bye system is that the cream puffs are actually good competitive teams that would give the 1-4's a run for their money and therefore we simply avoid that situation. I'd contend that DePaul is the only true cream puff in this league.
If their answer to the problem of "the conference tournament wears out our good teams for the NCAA's" is to create a biased system that the coaches don't agree on, that the conference is apparently holding on to in order to get more $$$ from ESPN to cover the additional game their star teams play, then yes, I'm going to say it isn't fair, it's biased, and that the BEAST is only in it for the money. (that was a horrible sentence)
If the conference tournament is such a problem, then we need a new system. As soon as I come up with one I will let you know, since I hate people that only state problems and don't offer solutions, which is exactly what I'm doing right now (aside from my point to switch to a traditional 16 team tournament). ;)
We need to bringt Deefendork back to iomprove our team, and give us more of a sluugger image!
Quote from: krocheck on March 12, 2010, 03:00:33 PM
I'm sorry, but I happen to feel the field should always be level. 13-16 clearly did not perform well during the regular season, but 9-12 I think should have had a fair shot. Some of them did have good seasons. The other thing you are admitting to with this double-bye system is that the cream puffs are actually good competitive teams that would give the 1-4's a run for their money and therefore we simply avoid that situation. I'd contend that DePaul is the only true cream puff in this league.
If their answer to the problem of "the conference tournament wears out our good teams for the NCAA's" is to create a biased system that the coaches don't agree on, that the conference is apparently holding on to in order to get more $$$ from ESPN to cover the additional game their star teams play, then yes, I'm going to say it isn't fair, it's biased, and that the BEAST is only in it for the money. (that was a horrible sentence)
If the conference tournament is such a problem, then we need a new system. As soon as I come up with one I will let you know, since I hate people that only state problems and don't offer solutions, which is exactly what I'm doing right now (aside from my point to switch to a traditional 16 team tournament). ;)
Well, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. The only issue that I can see with a 16 team tournament is that you will have one side of the bracket who has an extra day by the time the championship rolls around. IOW, they would have four games in five days, while the other one would be playing four straight.
Maybe once the Barclays Center is complete in Brooklyn, you could hold first round games there too.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 12, 2010, 03:18:42 PM
Well, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. The only issue that I can see with a 16 team tournament is that you will have one side of the bracket who has an extra day by the time the championship rolls around. IOW, they would have four games in five days, while the other one would be playing four straight.
Maybe once the Barclays Center is complete in Brooklyn, you could hold first round games there too.
That might help. I don't think it so much of 'one side of the bracket'. You can let the 1-16,2-15,3-14,4-13 games play on Tues then the rest of the tournament shakes out the same way it does now, except that 9-12 no longer have to play on Tues.
We are going to have to agree to disagree though.
Quote from: krocheck on March 12, 2010, 02:17:26 PM
But ESPN made the point yesterday that no team that's one-and-done in their conference tournament has ever won a national championship. So, is the rest really an advantage? idk, but it'd be interesting to at least try it.
I think the format of the BEast tournament makes this stat a non-issue. How many teams that have been one-and-done in their conference tournament were a potential 1 seed going up against a potential 5 seed? Only until recently teams like Syracuse and Nova would be getting at least 1 cupcake victory in their conference tournament. Now it's set up where their first game is much harder than that.
This is vintage Boeheim, he is whining when things don't go his way. After Syracuse won the tournament in 2002, they went a few yrs without getting in the tourney. What's Boeheims solution - expand the field to 96. He's among the leading advocates for that ridiculous idea.
For the BE tournament, its absolutely fair to have a double-bye. We can dispute which BE tournament schedule is best, but to say the double-bye set-up is unfair to those receiving the double-byes is asinine.
Next year Boeheim should trade in a double bye, or a single bye with DePaul so they can get their wish. That'll change the tude'.
Trade:
DePauls #16 seed
for
Syracuse's #1 seed
The disputes all stem from having a 16-team tourny. I suspect more money is generated from a 16 team format but I would much prefer either an 8 team or a 12 team format. I believe a "normal" 16 team format with no byes would be unfair to the top eight teams. Having byes is a reward to the better finishing teams - at least it should be considered a reward. ::)
What do other conferences with large number of teams do? Does every team in the Big Televen make the tourney, for example?
As the #1 seed, they should let Boeheim pick how the tourney should be set up. Does anyone think he'd rather face a lose-lose situation against DePaul (a team that should have beat Cuse earlier this season) as opposed to having 2 days of rest?
Let's face it, the conference tournaments are all about money. The BE gambles that the teams who get the byes will be the sexiest teams i.e. the teams they want playing at prime times. Cuse-Nova definitely would have gotten more attention than MU-Gtown.