Neutral site for HL Tourney?

[Big D]

You just hate the thought of it being owned by a high school.

Hell yes.  Perception is everything when it comes to marketing and promotion.  If you have ever been involved with the recruitment of a high school kid you will know something like that will be used to negatively recruit against every HL team.  Think about trying to recruit a kid vs. a MVC team.  They are going to sell the fact that they play their tournament in St Louis at the Scottrade Center while the HL hold their tournament in a freaking high school gym.  They are going to ask that kid do you want to be in a big time conference or a mickey mouse conference that plays in high school gyms.  It will be a million times worse when those games don't even sell out at that high school gym.  And those games won't sell out because HL teams do not travel well.  That is the whole reason the tournament was set up with the 1 seed hosting the finals.  We didn't want our conference final on ESPN looking like a high school game because the stands where empty.  Changing the conference tournament set up would be a huge step back for the HL.

[FWalum]

This argument has NOTHING to do with seating capacity.  It has to do with FLOOR length.  Come on people you all know that the length of a high school floor is 10' shorter than a college floor don't you.   

Great pictures ... now explain to me how you would make the court TEN FEET LONGER with those in ground goal posts and of course the court would extend into the bleachers!!!

[wh]

Tom Mieskoski ‏@CSUVikingsHoops  37m
Gary Waters said that the Horizon League Tournament could be moved to a neutral site as early as next year.


If the Mieskoski tweet is to be believed, it tells me that this issue is already in the discussion stage and is being seriously considered. Personally, I find that  troubling.  This is a major decision that should not be made without input from a variety of stakeholders (including fans), not just coaches with their own agendas and short term self interests.   

[LaPorteAveApostle]

If the Mieskoski tweet is to be believed, it tells me that this issue is already in the discussion stage and is being seriously considered. Personally, I find that  troubling.  This is a major decision that should not be made without input from a variety of stakeholders (including fans), not just coaches with their own agendas and short term self interests.   

Cosign.

Asking a college basketball player to play a major tournament in a HS gym (regardless of floor length, obviously) once he has played in major venues in college is like asking him to date a high school girl once he's seen college women.

[valpotx]

Would be one of the dumbest moves the HL can make.  You want your best team protected.  Unless you are a multiple bid league, you want your #1 or #2 seed to win this thing....

[FWalum]

I prefer things the way they are, but I think you can legitimately look at the current tournament format and ask "why hasn't it really worked in the last 6 years?"  Despite the HUGE advantages given to the #1 seed they have only won twice in the last 6 years.  Going back to the beginnings of the current format the #1 or #2 seed won the tournament each of the first six years.  The last six years those two seeds are only .500.  I am sure the coaches are thinking that if it is not going to make a difference in the conference NCAA representative why not have the tournament at a neutral site.

In the first 23 years of the conference tournament the #1 seed won 43.5% of the time.  In the last 12 years they won 50% of the time, most of those in the first 6 years of the current format. Playing devils advocate, what difference has it really made??

[valpotx]

Even if it hasn't made a big difference statistically, you still want to provide the best advantage to the team that WON the right to be given the best opportunity to represent the single bid conference. 

[justducky]

I prefer things the way they are, but I think you can legitimately look at the current tournament format and ask "why hasn't it really worked in the last 6 years?"  Despite the HUGE advantages given to the #1 seed they have only won twice in the last 6 years.  Going back to the beginnings of the current format the #1 or #2 seed won the tournament each of the first six years.  The last six years those two seeds are only .500.  I am sure the coaches are thinking that if it is not going to make a difference in the conference NCAA representative why not have the tournament at a neutral site.

In the first 23 years of the conference tournament the #1 seed won 43.5% of the time.  In the last 12 years they won 50% of the time, most of those in the first 6 years of the current format. Playing devils advocate, what difference has it really made??

Let me throw out one of my wackiest ideas yet because maybe it is so stupid that it is brilliant.   

We have nine teams so let us have the same opening round four games on Tuesday night with this option. Should the 1 seed decide they want to stay sharp they could elect to play the 9 seed instead of sit and get rusty. The choice to play or not to play the first round would then pass to the 2 seed who could then either play the 8 or sit and rest, and so on down the line until 4 games are set for opening night and 4 teams will be eliminated leaving 4 teams going to the highest seed home court to join the host team.

So that gives us 5 teams available for a Friday night 1 team elimination game with the highest seed again given the first choice as to the right to play rather than sit (maybe thrown in that they can pick any of the other 4 teams that they want). Almost certainly this would always mean that the Friday game would be between the 4'th and 5'th remaining lowest seeds but the choice would exist for some variation. In practice the #1 seed city would have to host the Saturday games even if the host team elected to play on Friday and then got beat.

[StlVUFan]

This has little to do with the idea of a neutral court and much to do with the current format (which again, I point out, no one has suggested changing), but @PantherU made an argument the other day that I think is valid.

The bottom line of the philosophy of the current format is actually *not* to protect the top seeds, it *is* to ensure that the best team wins the auto-bid.  Everyone assumes (knee-jerk-like) that this is equivalent to making sure one of the top seeds wins the tourney (which is something the current format and venue *cannot* guarantee, of course), but it's *not* equivalent.

It can be argued that the Milwaukee Panthers this year are the best representative the HL could put forward for the Big Dance, and the way you know that is that they won 4 games in a week, beating Detroit, Valpo, Green Bay, and Wright State -- all teams that finished with a better conference record than they did.  In other words, this is the "the hottest team is the best team" theory, and it is a worthy argument.

So, it can be argued that this format gives the HL the best possible chance of being well represented in the NCAA tourney.

The first -- and so far -- only fly in the ointment I can think of is that this "best" team got a 15 seed, whereas Green Bay would have gotten a better seed, but then again, Milwaukee was the better team *when it mattered* (arguably, they *are* the best team in the HL -- *right now*, which is what matters).  And in fact, Green Bay didn't make it into the Big Dance, so the what-if is pointless.

The UMAC is a high school gym, by the way, and not once in 3 years did I ever even notice the difference.  There are "high school gyms" and then there are High School Gyms.

[historyman]

Would be one of the dumbest moves the HL can make.  You want your best team protected.  Unless you are a multiple bid league, you want your #1 or #2 seed to win this thing....

The double bye is no guarantee. It really didn't help this year. That is why a 15 seed Milwaukee is playing in the NCAA tournament and Green Bay is playing in the NIT even with the double bye.

[historyman]

The UMAC is a high school gym, by the way, and not once in 3 years did I ever even notice the difference.  There are "high school gyms" and then there are High School Gyms.

I think that the key here is that high school gyms are not being recommended for the neutral site of the tourney but exceptional venues that are not truly like your typical high school gyms. The UMAC at Tulsa Union HS was a great facility that seated 5,600 and was great for the Mid-Con tournament. It was a lot like hosting the tournament at Valpo's ARC except probably slightly better. The real difference between a UMAC and a Kemper Arena is that it's farther to walk at Kemper, there are more empty seats around you and it's harder to make a lot of noise.

If you hate venues because of who owns them due to recruiting problems then you are not really looking out for the welfare of the student athletes who would be playing in these venues. You are more concerned with your reputations and not finding a really good venue. I have found the UMAC in Tulsa (owned by the Union School District) a much better venue for a tournament than the Nutter Center.

[/size]http://www.unionps.org/index.cfm?id=132

[historyman]

This argument has NOTHING to do with seating capacity.  It has to do with FLOOR length.  Come on people you all know that the length of a high school floor is 10' shorter than a college floor don't you.    Great pictures ... now explain to me how you would make the court TEN FEET LONGER with those in ground goal posts and of course the court would extend into the bleachers!!!

There is definitely room for 5 more feet on each side of the baselines to be added at New Castle. I'm sure the baskets could be moved back five feet and reanchored. It's actually either putting in a new floor like they do at the United Center or Bankers Life Fieldhouse or just adding some floor boards at the baselines that have different floor markings. It can be done. It might be a little more costly but it can be done and has been done in many venues that host both high school and college games. Even the ARC has hosted high school games. What did they do to the length of the court when they played the Region Roundball games at the ARC?

[LaPorteAveApostle]

It can be argued that the Milwaukee Panthers this year are the best representative the HL could put forward for the Big Dance, and the way you know that is that they won 4 games in a week, beating Detroit, Valpo, Green Bay, and Wright State

Or it can be plausibly argued that they just had a great week.

Which has really no bearing on how well they play two weeks later.

[crusaderjoe]

Here's what I would like to know.  Are we talking about neutral "sites" or "venues", neutral "cities" or both?  Or are the sites and the cities  mutually exclusive of one another?  Would the Gary Genesis Center be considered "neutral" given it's distance from VU even though it is in NWI?  What about the United Center?  Would this arena be considered as a "neutral" venue with UIC in the League?  Or does "neutral" mean any site other than the home venue of any HL team regardless of where that site may be located?

[motowntitan]

Seriously?

This has no teeth.  This is just Waters stirring up the pot.  If he says it was discussed by a few coaches, then name them.  The HL Championship is on ESPN.  The best advertisement is to have full venues when the team is playing to go to the NCAA Tournament.


Just because you guys are Lutheran and I'm Catholic doesn't mean we can't agree on one thing- This planet hasn't seen anyone Turn Water(s) into W(h)ine for 2,000 years.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Just because you guys are Lutheran and I'm Catholic doesn't mean we can't agree on one thing- This planet hasn't seen anyone Turn Water(s) into W(h)ine for 2,000 years.

hey, I'm Catholic too, but that was some really good wordplay there, man.  cheers.

[historyman]

Or does "neutral" mean any site other than the home venue of any HL team regardless of where that site may be located?

In my view it would be any venue that is not the home court of one of the conference schools is a neutral venue. OTOH the most optimal neutral venues for end of season tournaments are ones that are geographically in the middle of the conference schools and not in a town or city where one of the schools is located.

[a3uge]

The bottom line of the philosophy of the current format is actually *not* to protect the top seeds, it *is* to ensure that the best team wins the auto-bid.  Everyone assumes (knee-jerk-like) that this is equivalent to making sure one of the top seeds wins the tourney (which is something the current format and venue *cannot* guarantee, of course), but it's *not* equivalent.

It can be argued that the Milwaukee Panthers this year are the best representative the HL could put forward for the Big Dance, and the way you know that is that they won 4 games in a week, beating Detroit, Valpo, Green Bay, and Wright State -- all teams that finished with a better conference record than they did.  In other words, this is the "the hottest team is the best team" theory, and it is a worthy argument.

So, it can be argued that this format gives the HL the best possible chance of being well represented in the NCAA tourney.

But seeds in the dance are handed out based on overall resume, not just how well a team did in their conference tournament. It's why Michigan State is sitting at a 4 seed. A team that was below .500 in conference isn't going to be the best representation. A 15 seeded team that is -16.5 underdogs isn't the best representation. Especially in a year where there's been at-large talks from another team. A below .500 in conf HL team in a normal year would've resulted in a 16 seed. Enough 1 seeds lost their tourneys to bump them up by a seed. The difference between a 16,15,14,13, and 12 seed is substantial and the league can't pump out a 15 seed each year just so it makes everyone feel better.

Addressing switching...

Having the top sees host the tourney might not make a difference given a team peaks at the right time... But moving it to a central location isn't going to help anything either. Moving it to a neutral site surely isn't going to output strong 12 seeds to the Dance instead of 15 seeds that have a 3% success rate.

Statistically you have a better chance to win at home. Ignoring the odds based on 4 or 5 games is silly, especially given no real motivation to switch the current format from what it is now. It would be like taking a kicker in the 4th round because last year's WR pick got injured.

[valpotx]

Would be one of the dumbest moves the HL can make.  You want your best team protected.  Unless you are a multiple bid league, you want your #1 or #2 seed to win this thing....

The double bye is no guarantee. It really didn't help this year. That is why a 15 seed Milwaukee is playing in the NCAA tournament and Green Bay is playing in the NIT even with the double bye.

Right, it's not a guarantee, which makes it fair to the rest of the league, that they still have a chance to win the thing, but by playing more games (i.e. Milwaukee).  However, you want to give the best chance of winning the tournament to the team(s) that earned it through an exhausting regular season schedule.  As others have stated, we don't want a 15 seed representing us in the NCAA tournament, regardless of how 'hot' they got over a 4 game span.  You don't want your representative to be a team that had it clicking for a few games, and then reverts back to its true form that was shown throughout the conference season.  This is a big reason I understood why some sports in the Mid-Con (possibly HL as well?) limited the conference tournament to 4 teams (baseball, softball).

Cal Poly is a good example of what you don't want to happen in your league.  Congrats to them on their first tourney, but seriously, a 13-19 (now 14-19 after their 'round 1' victory over Texas Southern) team in the national championship tournament??  Then again, in another thread someone mentioned that a round 1 victory rewarded a league as much $ as a round 2 victory?  Maybe we should have teams tanking to get a 16 seed play-in game, to beat one of the crappy teams from the SWAC or MEAC each year.  We could also improve our all-time NCAA tournament record with this approach, a la Oakland's 'NCAA win'

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Ducky, btw, your idea was so crazy good it will never happen.

No one in sports really wants that much fun, but if we tried something like that everyone would be talking about us, and not in the "Wardle or two Oakland pervs" kind of way.

[FWalum]

This is just part of the big picture.  More important than the tournament format is the distressing trend regarding the lack of respect our conference is commanding in recent years.  Policies concerning OOC strength of schedule need to be enacted NOW.  We got out of the Mid-Con for a better conference and now we are right back to where we started. Since Butler left, the Summit League has received a higher seeding than the Horizon in each of the last three years... oh, and they have a traditional format tournament.  In my eyes getting this league into the top 10 conferences is more important than the tournament format.  This goal is part of the league's mission statement and right now we are going backwards!

Back to tournament format.  I somewhat agree with justducky, it seems that our format, which has the #1 seed almost guaranteed to play the #4 or #5 seed right out of the gate after a layoff, perhaps presents a higher risk for the #1 seed.  Some coaches may prefer a "warm up" game against the lowest seed so that the team is in a more natural game playing rhythm.  It would be interesting to do a statistical analysis of which preference carries a higher risk, the data for which I doubt is readily available.

[valpotx]

I don't see us going backwards at this point, as a league overall.  Our seeding has suffered in the last few seasons, but our conference RPI is basically the same.  The HL finished at #14, while the Summit moved up to #17, which was mainly because of NDSU.  If you take into account that a new conference was added (either new Big East or American), we would be #13.  The HL has traditionally been #11 to #14, even when Butler was in the conference.  I do agree with you that the conference needs a better SOS plan...cough...Wright State...cough cough

[a3uge]

This is just part of the big picture.  More important than the tournament format is the distressing trend regarding the lack of respect our conference is commanding in recent years.  Policies concerning OOC strength of schedule need to be enacted NOW.  We got out of the Mid-Con for a better conference and now we are right back to where we started. Since Butler left, the Summit League has received a higher seeding than the Horizon in each of the last three years... oh, and they have a traditional format tournament.  In my eyes getting this league into the top 10 conferences is more important than the tournament format.  This goal is part of the league's mission statement and right now we are going backwards!

Back to tournament format.  I somewhat agree with justducky, it seems that our format, which has the #1 seed almost guaranteed to play the #4 or #5 seed right out of the gate after a layoff, perhaps presents a higher risk for the #1 seed.  Some coaches may prefer a "warm up" game against the lowest seed so that the team is in a more natural game playing rhythm.  It would be interesting to do a statistical analysis of which preference carries a higher risk, the data for which I doubt is readily available.

A neutral site tourney will not benefit the top RPI team more than a format where the home team only has to play 2 games, with the first playing a team on 0 days rest. Statistically, teams do better at home than away. It's why RPI/BPI/KenPom/AP Poll take into account home and away games when ranking teams. Maybe it doesn't make that much of a difference, but there's no argument that the neutral site tourney would benefit the top couple teams more. The #1 seed playing a warmup game first is a complete overreaction based on this year's tournament. The fact is, since the format's existence, the top see has only lost that first game once. We've had 1 vs 2 five times. The top 3 seeds have won it every year except this year. There hasn't even been a seed higher than 3 in the championship game up until this year. Compare that with 10 years prior, and the top seed was in the championship game only half the time (5) and you saw 1 vs 2 only twice. The championship game featured 6 total 4+ seeds. 2002 featured UIC (6) vs Loyola (5), played in Cleveland of all places. How much sense does that make? The next year the format was changed and you had Butler (a Sweet 16 seed that year) and Milwaukee (12 seed that lost by 1 to ND) in the Dance. The game was in Milwaukee, which didn't make much sense because Butler had won the regular season.

Saying the Summit is catching up to the Horizon because of seeding is misleading as well. North Dakota State and South Dakota State were great teams because of Nate Wolters and Taylor Braun, but if you look at the bottom half of that league, it's pretty terrible. The teams in the Horizon are more tightly coupled together, and have a higher RPI/BPI/KP/EveryRankingEver than the Summit. Had Green Bay, the Horizon's top team, taken care of business, we'd have a 12 seed in the Dance. Even the years where we saw 3 seeds win, the gap between the 1 seed and the 3 seed wasn't that high. Detroit winning in 2012 produced a 15 seed, but Valpo's RPI would've netted them around a 15 seed as well. The 3 seeded Vikings in 2008 was a 13 seed in the Dance and actually upset Wake Forest in the first round (Norris Cole was on that team). Each other year had a 1 or 2 seed winner, and when the 2 seed won, the 2 seed had a good RPI from a good road win to end the season.

The tournament format isn't a problem that needs solving. This year was an anomaly, and had Green Bay been healthy in the semi-final game (god forbid they win facing adversity, smh, right?) we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

The tournament format isn't a problem that needs solving.

Thank you. 

Unless your team regularly blows in the tourney, of course.  Then squawking about the format distracts from what a terrible coach you are.

[a3uge]

The tournament format isn't a problem that needs solving.

Thank you. 

Unless your team regularly blows in the tourney, of course.  Then squawking about the format distracts from what a terrible coach you are.

I see we're on the same page, as always.