Just noticed this tweet on Paul Oren's twitter page:
Tom Mieskoski @CSUVikingsHoops 37m
Gary Waters said that the Horizon League Tournament could be moved to a neutral site as early as next year.
https://twitter.com/NWIOren
Paul suggests Indy as a possible site. Any thoughts?
Fort Wayne should be considered also. It would be a good, centrally located venue.
What we don't want is a 20,000 seat venue. I'm thinking 8-10,000 seats. Not sure where that would be, maybe Tulsa!! ;)
Oh, brilliant, a sports event in Indy. Talk about your untapped markets! And certainly no one ever does a conference tourney there.
THE HORIZON LEAGUE: THINKING THE BOX OUTSIDE
I think the home-court advantage for the top seed is the way to go. It's a reward for the fans as well as the team. And the HL was smart to build the escape valve in case of upset, and so not only did GB's fans get to watch games, so did WSU's.
(Fat lot of good it did them, but still. It's a reward. Your reward is: watching your team @#% the bed LIVE!
Hey, at least Ray McCallum didn't dunk on you.)
The home court is the last vestige of saying that the entire regular season means anything. Otherwise, it's just "who can get hot in Peoria for 72 hours and ruin everything for everyone?" (Sounds like there's a movie in there somewhere...)
Without the home-court, the HL tourney might as well be a blind Indiana high school sectional draw. "Uh-oh, YSU drew Oakland. And CSU doesn't have to play until Friday night."
That's the teams. As for the fans: the fans that will travel, are going to travel. Some fans MIGHT travel, and some will not. (Like Travis Bader's offense: TRIAGE)
Having the game in your gym is the only way to get all three groups. Only the first group and some part of the second will go to Indy, a town at least 2.5 hours from the nearest school. Hell, South Bend, Grand Rapids, Fort Wayne would at least be more convenient to people.
Bottom line: the soul of college basketball is in the gyms, not played in a Tri-County Conglomerate Soulless Multiplex. Take a look at this section of the COVER of the CIT media guide and it sums it all up.
(http://s3.postimg.org/3xlv415ar/Screen_shot_2014_03_17_at_10_23_01_PM.png)
As Steve Rosenbloom once wrote in the Trib, "good guys wear black. empty seats wear blue."
According to CSU beat writer Tom Mieskoski, Gary Waters mentioned that some HL coaches are pushing this and Chicago and Indianapolis are possible sites. I don't know if those locations are Waters' thoughts, or something more than that.
https://twitter.com/CSUVikingsHoops
Quote from: wh on March 17, 2014, 09:29:31 PMsome HL coaches are pushing this
well, admittedly, if i were coaching any one of a few of these teams, i'd know i was never going to host in my lifetime, and so rather than spend 3-4 out of every 5 years in valparaiso indiana...sure, i might look to get out of that.
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on March 17, 2014, 09:44:11 PM
Quote from: wh on March 17, 2014, 09:29:31 PMsome HL coaches are pushing this
well, admittedly, if i were coaching any one of a few of these teams, i'd know i was never going to host in my lifetime, and so rather than spend 3-4 out of every 5 years in valparaiso indiana...sure, i might look to get out of that.
You say that like UIC will make it past Tuesday.
Dumb. The neutral site mid major tourneys are the worst to watch on TV. The crowds are sparse and it's not as fun when the home team winds. A better solution would be for Valpo to eliminate that inane 2 week long spring break.
Absolutely moronic idea. Why the heck would you take away the fans for the conference tournament? I went to each of the conference tournaments while I was in school, and Valpo was the ONLY team who traveled well to Fort Wayne and Kansas City. It would be fairly similar for a neutral site tournament in the HL in either Chicago or Indianapolis, where it would still be mostly Valpo fans. While that would be good for us, it's looks terrible on any kind of TV. Taking away the #1 seed getting home court advantage is dumb for the league as well. Even though it didn't work out for GB this year, or us 2 seasons ago, it makes it much more likely that a 5 or below seed can win the tournament, and reward us with more 15 seeds each year...
I typically go to the semis and/or finals of the MAC tournament in Cleveland every year. Overall, the games are hit and miss, largely dependent on the programs playing. Naturally, Akron and Kent draw huge crowds...when they play each other, the crowd is absolutely electric. The league (and arena) are lucky that in 15 years the final has featured one or both of those schools 12 times (by my count). Ohio and Miami can pull in a decent crowd as well.
This year was an example of the bad side if that coin. Toledo played Western Michigan and the place was a ghost town. To make a neutral site tournament work, you need fanbases that travel well or are locally relevant in the market. Since most of the league members have uninvolved alumni and can't make a dent with the local media, I think our tourney would look more like this year's in Cleveland as opposed to the Akron/Kent showdown that can make the games so fun.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: a3uge on March 17, 2014, 11:58:42 PM
Dumb. The neutral site mid major tourneys are the worst to watch on TV. The crowds are sparse and it's not as fun when the home team winds. A better solution would be for Valpo to eliminate that inane 2 week long spring break.
You mean like when Green Bay "blew" it?? ;)
A few years ago Ghostofdylan said once you host the host the tourney you'll feel differently about the double bye setup. He was right. I think the same is true about holding the tournament at the site of the no. 1 seed. That said, I wonder if CSU has ever hosted the semis and finals? In other words maybe Waters is like we were before we hosted - just seeing the negatives because he's never experienced the benefits? Could the other coaches that are supposedly disenchanted with the current setup be in the same boat. Conversely, I would be surprised if Bryce would be interested in a neutral site, or any of the other coaches of teams that have hosted in the recent past - Donlon, Wardle, and Jeter.
I like the idea of the regular season champion hosting the second round and semis, with hopes of winning the semi-final game to host the final for your home fans, but doing a neutral site gets very costly, and can run into trouble trying to find hotel space close to the facility/arena in Indy or Chicago with all the B1G teams in town. I mean unless the intended host of Indy is IUPUI's gym, Banker's Life Fieldhouse is busy the entire week with both the women's and men's tourneys going on, and the same if it's in Chicago, so unless you want to rotate sites every other year between Indy and Chicago, you run the major risk of losing so much money and giving yourself more frustration trying to get hotel rooms and remembering which city is hosting a year before the tourney starts. Worst case scenario would be to rotate the host school, so each year a new HL school hosts the tourney at their place.
Quote from: wh on March 18, 2014, 10:31:26 AM
A few years ago Ghostofdylan said once you host the host the tourney you'll feel differently about the double bye setup. He was right. I think the same is true about holding the tournament at the site of the no. 1 seed. That said, I wonder if CSU has ever hosted the semis and finals? In other words maybe Waters is like we were before we hosted - just seeing the negatives because he's never experienced the benefits? Could the other coaches that are supposedly disenchanted with the current setup be in the same boat. Conversely, I would be surprised if Bryce would be interested in a neutral site, or any of the other coaches of teams that have hosted in the recent past - Donlon, Wardle, and Jeter.
You answered before I could ask the question ... you weren't a big fan a few years ago. ;) http://valpofans.proboards.com/thread/4269/double-bye-tournament#page=1 (http://valpofans.proboards.com/thread/4269/double-bye-tournament#page=1)
Not to derail the thread, but any chance the league would consider changing the format if they go to a neutral site? Also, playing the women's tourney at the same site would certainly lessen the stress on schools' administrative resources.
It's interesting to me that when I heard about this last night, changing the format was not part of the discussion. I realized that having a neutral site doesn't mean you can't still have the double-byes, etc.
From the conference's point of view, I have no idea why they would decide to do this after the huge selling job they've done over the years on how great this whole thing is. The draw of playing on as many home courts as possible is intuitively obvious. 3 times on Tuesday, once on Saturday, and once on Tuesday, you should be able to play in front of packed crowds that look good on TV, as opposed to Kemper Arena where the ESPN cameras have to work hard to create the illusion of a single deck venue.
All that seems so obvious to me that I hesitate there's any momentum to this idea yet, though I suppose if enough coaches convince enough presidents, momentum will come.
(by the by, if Gary Waters ever wants to figure out the 2-3 matchup, he could have hosted the championship game this year; last time he won that game as the 2 seed was 2008)
From my own perspective, as a fan of sports rather than sportz (http://www.midmajority.com/p/1400), I would love the idea of a neutral site on the order of the UMAC (capacity 6000, I think?) centrally located, have it host both mens and womens tournaments (and maybe change the women's tourney to use the men's format -- never understood why what was so great for the men was a bad idea for the women). As I did from 2002 through 2007, I would go every year and soak up 16 games of college basketball and have a ball mixing it up with fans from other teams. I miss doing that. Currently, the most I can see is 5 games, and for better or worse, the only way I think I'd be interested in attending the women's tourney is if Valpo were hosting both tourneys, which I don't see happening anytime soon.
And from that angle, I don't give a damn what it looks like on TV, nor do I care enough about resulting seed in NCAA tourney. I really don't. I'm perfectly fine (this *is* a change for me) with the double-byes, but I want to see all the games in person. ALL OF THEM. I want to hang out with Jimmy Lemke and Titan Reg and my CSU twitter friend and my friends at Oakland, etc.
Quote from: StlVUFan on March 18, 2014, 01:00:03 PM(by the by, if Gary Waters ever wants to figure out the 2-3 matchup, he could have hosted the championship game this year; last time he won that game as the 2 seed was 2008)
i ZING what you did there...
But STL, you're a fan of the first order--you would go/will go/have gone whether they hold it in Toledo, Reno, the Aleutian Islands, or Pluto the Non-Planet. So, and I mean this as nicely as possible, it might not mean as much what your group of fans think as much as much as what it will take to get the fence-sitters off and committed to attending.
It shows my age, but I've seen the HL (MCC1/MCC2) use a variety of approches ... pre-determined hosts (determined by rotation or bid process), neutral sites and the current. The big benefit of the current is a home crowd environment for your championship.
Most point to Butler losing in '02 as the sole impetus for the change, but that year also featured a UIC vs. Loyola championship game played in, where else, Cleveland. That doesn't make for an impressive show on ESPN and probably prompted moving the championship to a home site.
Have not other conferences in recent years followed the Horizon League's format for hosting tournament games? If that is the case, it says something about our current format being a good way to go, doesn't it?
If the HL does decide to go to a neutral site for the tourney might I suggest one of the big high school gyms in Indiana that is not being used as a regional or semi-state site. Such as New Castle, Anderson, Southport, Seymour, Marion, Michigan City, Huntington etc.
Quote from: historyman on March 18, 2014, 05:29:12 PM
If the HL does decide to go to a neutral site for the tourney might I suggest one of the big high school gyms in Indiana that is not being used as a regional or semi-state site. Such as New Castle, Anderson, Southport, Seymour, Marion, Michigan City, Huntington etc.
Would sound like a reasonable idea, but remember that unless the court is one that could be changed to college length this would not work. I think most if not all of those locations are fixed length high school courts.
Quote from: historyman on March 18, 2014, 05:29:12 PM
If the HL does decide to go to a neutral site for the tourney might I suggest one of the big high school gyms in Indiana that is not being used as a regional or semi-state site. Such as New Castle, Anderson, Southport, Seymour, Marion, Michigan City, Huntington etc.
I don't think it is possible to come up with an idea that is a worse message than playing your conference tournament in a high school gym. You might as well just give up and say that your conference is an irrelevant low major because all you can fill up is a freaking high school gym.
As much as it grieves me to have to do so, I must cosign Big D's post.
Twice.
Quote from: historyman on March 18, 2014, 05:29:12 PM
If the HL does decide to go to a neutral site for the tourney might I suggest one of the big high school gyms in Indiana that is not being used as a regional or semi-state site. Such as New Castle, Anderson, Southport, Seymour, Marion, Michigan City, Huntington etc.
Valpo has hosted the HL tourney already; therefore, the League has already held its tournament at a high school facility.
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/87/87daed089b13abc00efa584da44656af684e00e84b20a4d1c2f2ff74983cadfa.jpg)
New Castle is 9,000+ seat gym. It is a lot more than your typical high school gym. It is the largest high school gym in a state that has 9 of the 10 largest high school gyms in the country. It's almost twice as big as Valpo's ARC where the HL tourney has been held twice and very close to the size of Wright State's Nutter Center. It's certainly not a "normal" high school gym.
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2197/2144247079_0efb9f7f4b_o.jpg)
(http://images.maxpreps.com/site_images/editorial/article/e/4/0/e40d35cd-f35c-4db9-9c58-4b2f0181ea06/e6e0024a-1b7d-e211-a211-002655e6c126_original.jpg)
State City Venue Capacity
1 Indiana New Castle New Castle Fieldhouse 9,325[1]
2 Indiana East Chicago John A. Baratto Athletic Center 8,296[1]
3 Indiana Seymour Lloyd E. Scott Gymnasium 8,110[1]
4 Indiana Richmond Tiernan Center 8,100[3]
5 Indiana Marion Bill Green Athletic Arena 7,560 [4]
6 Texas Dallas Alfred J. Loos Fieldhouse 7,500[1]
7 Indiana Elkhart North Side Gymnasium 7,373[1]
8 Indiana Michigan City "The Wolves' Den" Gym 7,304[1]
9 Indiana Gary West Side High School Gym 7,217[1]
10 Indiana Lafayette Jefferson High School Gym 7,200[5]
11 Indiana Indianapolis Southport High School Gym 7,124[5]
12 Indiana Washington "The Hatchet House" 7,090[6]
13 Indiana Columbus Memorial Gymnasium 7,071[5]
14= Arizona Chinle Wildcat Den 7,000[7]
14= Kentucky Somerset Pulaski County High School Gym 7,000[8]
The Wright State University Nutter Center (originally Ervin J. Nutter Center and commonly Nutter Center) is a multi-purpose arena located at Wright State University in Fairborn, Ohio. In addition to hosting the Wright State Raiders basketball team, the Nutter Center serves as a music venue for touring concerts and shows. High schools in the area also commonly use the arena to host graduation ceremonies.
Capacity 10,400 (Basketball)
So the Nutter Center is used for high school events so I really don't see there is a big difference. You just hate the thought of it being owned by a high school.
Quote from: historyman on March 18, 2014, 10:08:23 PM
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.
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. :o
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!!!
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.
Quote from: wh on March 19, 2014, 09:14:45 AMIf 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.
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....
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??
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.
Quote from: FWalum on March 19, 2014, 02:10:40 PM
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. :o
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.
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.
Quote from: valpotx on March 19, 2014, 10:51:00 AMWould 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.
Quote from: StlVUFan on March 19, 2014, 05:53:20 PMThe 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
Quote from: FWalum on March 19, 2014, 07:37:22 AMThis 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?
Quote from: StlVUFan on March 19, 2014, 05:53:20 PMIt 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.
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?
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.
Quote from: motowntitan on March 19, 2014, 09:11:17 PMJust 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.
Quote from: crusaderjoe on March 19, 2014, 09:06:39 PMOr 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.
Quote from: StlVUFan on March 19, 2014, 05:53:20 PM
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.
Quote from: historyman on March 19, 2014, 07:45:24 PM
Quote from: valpotx on March 19, 2014, 10:51:00 AMWould 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' ;)
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.
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.
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
Quote from: FWalum on March 20, 2014, 09:34:52 AM
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.
Quote from: a3uge on March 20, 2014, 11:50:41 AMThe 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.
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on March 20, 2014, 12:12:39 PM
Quote from: a3uge on March 20, 2014, 11:50:41 AMThe 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.
Do we need to leave you two alone in the forum, for a few minutes? ;)
Quote from: FWalum on March 20, 2014, 09:34:52 AM
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!
Absolutely right. The fact that the HL promotes itself as a "Top 12" conference, yet has no system to enforce quality OOC scheduling, is an absolute joke. Can anyone possibly believe that an opportunist like Donlon, looking to build his resume in hopes of a better gig, is concerned about doing his part to improve HL OOC scheduling? Is anyone naive enough think a guy like Moore, who is trying to hang on the to the gig he has, is concerned about anything other than finding somebody - anybody - they can beat? The longer as HL Central continues to allow the inmates to run the asylum instead of taking control of this, the greater the risk that this year's 14 will be next year's 15 and the following year's 16.
It is beginning to sound like the HL Commish is floundering like his Butler buddies.
I don't even understand the incentive to have Wright State's schedule. I'm thinking teams just have a hard time finding good teams to schedule, especially at home.
Quote from: a3uge on March 20, 2014, 02:52:51 PM
I don't even understand the incentive to have Wright State's schedule. I'm thinking teams just have a hard time finding good teams to schedule, especially at home.
With their entire team returning and the added benefit of a terrible OOC schedule, the table was set for WSU to win 25 to 28 games this season - had they not underperformed. Imagine if WSU was 27-8 right now as they probably should be. Donlon's stock would be on the rise big time right now. It's all about wins and losses in the coaching profession. As to the lame "we just can't find any good teams that want to play us" excuse, look for a dramatic improvement nothing short of a miracle the second the conference establishes OOC scheduling standards similar to the A-10.
Quote from: wh on March 20, 2014, 05:47:02 PM
Quote from: a3uge on March 20, 2014, 02:52:51 PM
I don't even understand the incentive to have Wright State's schedule. I'm thinking teams just have a hard time finding good teams to schedule, especially at home.
With their entire team returning and the added benefit of a terrible OOC schedule, the table was set for WSU to win 25 to 28 games this season - had they not underperformed. Imagine if WSU was 27-8 right now as they probably should be. Donlon's stock would be on the rise big time right now. It's all about wins and losses in the coaching profession. As to the lame "we just can't find any good teams that want to play us" excuse, look for a dramatic improvement nothing short of a miracle the second the conference establishes OOC scheduling standards similar to the A-10.
You're probably right, but a bad ooc schedule leaves your RPI in shambles, especially if you end up losing to a team like, let's just throw one out at random, North Carolina A&T. RPI drives the 13-16 seeds, seeds drive winning percentages, and winning in the Dance drives coaching jobs. See FGCU. They didn't have a good record but were prepared to play - they actually had beaten Miami (FL) at the beginning of the year.
Quote from: wh on March 20, 2014, 02:42:01 PM
Absolutely right. The fact that the HL promotes itself as a "Top 12" conference, yet has no system to enforce quality OOC scheduling, is an absolute joke. Can anyone possibly believe that an opportunist like Donlon, looking to build his resume in hopes of a better gig, is concerned about doing his part to improve HL OOC scheduling? Is anyone naive enough think a guy like Moore, who is trying to hang on the to the gig he has, is concerned about anything other than finding somebody - anybody - they can beat? The longer as HL Central continues to allow the inmates to run the asylum instead of taking control of this, the greater the risk that this year's 14 will be next year's 15 and the following year's 16.
You guys really need to take a look at the way conference RPI works. SOS does not mean jack :censored: when it comes to conference rankings. WINNING PERCENTAGE is what really matters. The HL would actually be much better off in conference rankings if everyone dropped all of the D2/D3/NAIA games we played and scheduled the lowest possible ranked D1 teams AND won those games. Six of the 13 conferences ranked higher than the HL played a weaker OOC SOS than us (AAC, WCC, MWC, MVC, MAC, and Conf USA). The difference is they won most of their games. The HL was 51-60 in OOC play vs D1 teams giving us a 46% winning percentage. EVERY single conference ranked above us had a winning percentage better than ours. Every conference that finished below us had a lower winning percentage than ours except the Ivy league.
http://www.rpiforecast.com/live-conf-rpi.html (http://www.rpiforecast.com/live-conf-rpi.html)
I'm all for everyone in the HL playing a tougher OOC schedule, but we also need to schedule responsibly. We all need to try to play all D1 games so they count in our winning percentage and we need to try to schedule games we have a legit chance to win. Many fans would prefer that everyone schedule like Oakland did last year. If everyone in the HL took that approach, we would be a bottom 5 conference because we would never win any games.
Quote from: Big D on March 20, 2014, 07:41:17 PMI'm all for everyone in the HL playing a tougher OOC schedule, but we also need to schedule responsibly. We all need to try to play all D1 games so they count in our winning percentage and we need to try to schedule games we have a legit chance to win.
...yeah, but ultimately, we don't give a crap about conference rankings. we care more about our RPI.
non-D1s don't affect RPI. scheduling the likes of NC A&T does.
especially losing to them.
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on March 20, 2014, 07:57:59 PM
Quote from: Big D on March 20, 2014, 07:41:17 PMI'm all for everyone in the HL playing a tougher OOC schedule, but we also need to schedule responsibly. We all need to try to play all D1 games so they count in our winning percentage and we need to try to schedule games we have a legit chance to win.
...yeah, but ultimately, we don't give a crap about conference rankings. we care more about our RPI.
non-D1s don't affect RPI. scheduling the likes of NC A&T does.
especially losing to them.
If you care more about your RPI maybe you should have scheduled more teams you could beat. Our SOS might have stunk but we won more games than Valpo AND we finished with a better RPI than Valpo. ;D
Quote from: Big D on March 20, 2014, 08:18:11 PMOur SOS might have stunk but we won more games than Valpo
DUH. That's why you won more games. You were playing high school teams.
I agree with most of BigD's post, but would add to 2 of his comments:
I'm all for everyone in the HL playing a tougher OOC schedule, but we also need to schedule responsibly. We all need to try to play all D1 games so they count in our winning percentage and we need to try to schedule games we have a legit chance to win.
Part of the equation is scheduling games we have a legit chance to win. The other part is to elevate recruiting to where we can play better quality OOC opponents and still have a legit chance to win.
Many fans would prefer that everyone schedule like Oakland did last year. If everyone in the HL took that approach, we would be a bottom 5 conference because we would never win any games.
Again, the only way Oakland's approach would have any benefit is if they elevated their recruiting (like some Butler teams of the past, Gonzaga, etc.) to where they had a legitimate chance to win those games. As it stands, Kampe put together what was probably the most counterproductive, borderline irresponsible OOC schedule in D-1. They had an awful OOC record, they were on the road far too much, and their fans lost interest before the conference season even started. If the program's that desperate for money, they'd better get a new A.D.
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on March 20, 2014, 08:25:59 PM
Quote from: Big D on March 20, 2014, 08:18:11 PMOur SOS might have stunk but we won more games than Valpo
DUH. That's why you won more games. You were playing high school teams.
I think you are getting confused. I know Valpo plays in a high school gym, but both wins we picked up against you this year count as D1 wins.
Quote from: Big D on March 20, 2014, 08:31:14 PM
both wins we picked up against you this year count as D1 wins.
In the words of Ray Zalinsky:
Well, kid, you threw one by me.
Savor the flavor, because it sure as hell won't happen again.
In the meantime, good luck to you.(http://media.247sports.com/Uploads/Boards/465/45465/382101.jpg)
In the words of me:
wake me when you win the HL. i mean, assuming you will someday. hey, you were 2nd that one time! that's good, right?EDIT HEY 3K POSTS. not what I would've designed for for my 3Kth, but hey, stuff happens.
Quote from: Big D on March 20, 2014, 07:41:17 PMMany fans would prefer that everyone schedule like Oakland did last year. If everyone in the HL took that approach, we would be a bottom 5 conference because we would never win any games.
I don't believe anyone on this board agreed with the way Oakland was scheduling the OOC. Even Kampe has said he will tone it down now that the Grizz are in the HL. Where did you get the idea that many fans want to schedule their OOC the way OU does?
Quote from: Big D on March 20, 2014, 07:41:17 PM
Quote from: wh on March 20, 2014, 02:42:01 PM
Absolutely right. The fact that the HL promotes itself as a "Top 12" conference, yet has no system to enforce quality OOC scheduling, is an absolute joke. Can anyone possibly believe that an opportunist like Donlon, looking to build his resume in hopes of a better gig, is concerned about doing his part to improve HL OOC scheduling? Is anyone naive enough think a guy like Moore, who is trying to hang on the to the gig he has, is concerned about anything other than finding somebody - anybody - they can beat? The longer as HL Central continues to allow the inmates to run the asylum instead of taking control of this, the greater the risk that this year's 14 will be next year's 15 and the following year's 16.
You guys really need to take a look at the way conference RPI works. SOS does not mean jack :censored: when it comes to conference rankings. WINNING PERCENTAGE is what really matters. The HL would actually be much better off in conference rankings if everyone dropped all of the D2/D3/NAIA games we played and scheduled the lowest possible ranked D1 teams AND won those games. Six of the 13 conferences ranked higher than the HL played a weaker OOC SOS than us (AAC, WCC, MWC, MVC, MAC, and Conf USA). The difference is they won most of their games. The HL was 51-60 in OOC play vs D1 teams giving us a 46% winning percentage. EVERY single conference ranked above us had a winning percentage better than ours. Every conference that finished below us had a lower winning percentage than ours except the Ivy league.
http://www.rpiforecast.com/live-conf-rpi.html (http://www.rpiforecast.com/live-conf-rpi.html)
I'm all for everyone in the HL playing a tougher OOC schedule, but we also need to schedule responsibly. We all need to try to play all D1 games so they count in our winning percentage and we need to try to schedule games we have a legit chance to win. Many fans would prefer that everyone schedule like Oakland did last year. If everyone in the HL took that approach, we would be a bottom 5 conference because we would never win any games.
Maybe YOU need to look at how RPI works and realize that the strength of teams you play DOES affect RPI. Oakland finished 11-22 and Wright State is 18-14... Do you know how many spots separate Wright State and Oakland in RPI? SEVEN. A win over a 300+ RPI team will actually bring your overall RPI WORSE and not better. A loss to loss to a top 10 team will actually bring your RPI LOWER, not higher. I'm not advocating a schedule like Oakland. You still need to win a majority of your games. But scheduling too many teams like North Carolina A&T leaves absolutely no room to lose those games. I said it at the beginning of the season - if Wright State didn't have a win against Georgetown they'd have to win virtually all of their other games to even be close to a respectable RPI. I ran the RPI wizard and simulated all 200+ RPI losses as wins and it had Wright State as a 126 RPI, which is 15-16 seed territory. For kicks, I simmed all Wright State OOC games as wins, minus the Georgetown loss, and their RPI would've been EIGHTY STILL! 12-1 OOC... EIGHTY.
So don't lecture us on RPI and scheduling non D1 schools (which has nothing to do with RPI) when you have no clue what the hell you're talking about.
And sorry we don't have state funds to hire Tom Hanks for stadium advocation. Why don't you worry about your own school and figure out how you couldnt win against North Carolina A&T with a team full of seniors. Come in here and troll us about our stadium... Smh.
Quote from: a3uge on March 20, 2014, 10:26:18 PMCome in here and troll us about our stadium... Smh.
brothers don't shake hands,
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs4/3787000_o.gif)
brothers gotta hug.
Proof of concept:
(http://i.imgur.com/QkmLCGi.png)
The top simulates games without the 325+ RPI teams. The bottom simulates games with the 325+ RPI teams. As your team gets better, the bad SOS affects your RPI negatively, and in this case it's literally the difference between at large talks and a potential 14-15 seed.
Quote from: wh on March 20, 2014, 02:42:01 PMAbsolutely right. The fact that the HL promotes itself as a "Top 12" conference, yet has no system to enforce quality OOC scheduling, is an absolute joke.
Quote from: Big D on March 20, 2014, 07:41:17 PMI'm all for everyone in the HL playing a tougher OOC schedule, but we also need to schedule responsibly.
Is there enough agreement here that we can begin a rational discussion towards a phased-in implementation of strength of schedule standards? Something with sufficient financial penalty teeth that ambitious coaches will be held in restraint from above? Obviously this handshake, honor system "we will do our best" approach just ain't gonna cut it.
In retrospect this is something that should have started before Butler and Loyola left but it still is not too late. If this has to be a bottoms up movement by HL fans then lets get started.
Quote from: a3uge on March 20, 2014, 10:26:18 PM
Maybe YOU need to look at how RPI works and realize that the strength of teams you play DOES affect RPI. Oakland finished 11-22 and Wright State is 18-14... Do you know how many spots separate Wright State and Oakland in RPI? SEVEN. A win over a 300+ RPI team will actually bring your overall RPI WORSE and not better. A loss to loss to a top 10 team will actually bring your RPI LOWER, not higher. I'm not advocating a schedule like Oakland. You still need to win a majority of your games. But scheduling too many teams like North Carolina A&T leaves absolutely no room to lose those games. I said it at the beginning of the season - if Wright State didn't have a win against Georgetown they'd have to win virtually all of their other games to even be close to a respectable RPI. I ran the RPI wizard and simulated all 200+ RPI losses as wins and it had Wright State as a 126 RPI, which is 15-16 seed territory. For kicks, I simmed all Wright State OOC games as wins, minus the Georgetown loss, and their RPI would've been EIGHTY STILL! 12-1 OOC... EIGHTY.
You really have a reading comprehension skill problem. Go back and read my post again. I advocated playing a tougher overall schedule but more importantly I advocated playing an all D1 schedule because D1 wins matters much more than SOS. I also proved my point by showing the data that backs it up. Look at the American Athletic Conference as the perfect example. Their conference finished ranked 8th in conference RPI. Their overall OOC SOS was 26th. Compare that to the HL's conference ranking of 14th and SOS of 13th. The difference is the AAC went 88-35 in OOC play for a 72% winning percentage. The HL went 51-60 in OOC play vs D1 teams. I cannot remember off hand but I believe the HL played 19 non-D1 games this year. If all of those games would have been against low majors and we won all of those games the HL would have been 70-60 in OOC play and we would have finished in 12th place in conference RPI instead of 14th. If Oakland would have schedule 3-4 mid-majors they could have beaten instead of all of the BCS schools they lost to and my Raiders would have won the OOC games we should have won, than the HL would have finished in 10th or 11th place in conference RPI. Each individual HL team would have had a higher RPI too because we would have each had a higher winning %. That higher winning percentage affects all 3 parts of the RPI equation.
Quote from: Big D on March 22, 2014, 12:06:54 PM
Quote from: a3uge on March 20, 2014, 10:26:18 PM
Maybe YOU need to look at how RPI works and realize that the strength of teams you play DOES affect RPI. Oakland finished 11-22 and Wright State is 18-14... Do you know how many spots separate Wright State and Oakland in RPI? SEVEN. A win over a 300+ RPI team will actually bring your overall RPI WORSE and not better. A loss to loss to a top 10 team will actually bring your RPI LOWER, not higher. I'm not advocating a schedule like Oakland. You still need to win a majority of your games. But scheduling too many teams like North Carolina A&T leaves absolutely no room to lose those games. I said it at the beginning of the season - if Wright State didn't have a win against Georgetown they'd have to win virtually all of their other games to even be close to a respectable RPI. I ran the RPI wizard and simulated all 200+ RPI losses as wins and it had Wright State as a 126 RPI, which is 15-16 seed territory. For kicks, I simmed all Wright State OOC games as wins, minus the Georgetown loss, and their RPI would've been EIGHTY STILL! 12-1 OOC... EIGHTY.
You really have a reading comprehension skill problem. Go back and read my post again. I advocated playing a tougher overall schedule but more importantly I advocated playing an all D1 schedule because D1 wins matters much more than SOS. I also proved my point by showing the data that backs it up. Look at the American Athletic Conference as the perfect example. Their conference finished ranked 8th in conference RPI. Their overall OOC SOS was 26th. Compare that to the HL's conference ranking of 14th and SOS of 13th. The difference is the AAC went 88-35 in OOC play for a 72% winning percentage. The HL went 51-60 in OOC play vs D1 teams. I cannot remember off hand but I believe the HL played 19 non-D1 games this year. If all of those games would have been against low majors and we won all of those games the HL would have been 70-60 in OOC play and we would have finished in 12th place in conference RPI instead of 14th. If Oakland would have schedule 3-4 mid-majors they could have beaten instead of all of the BCS schools they lost to and my Raiders would have won the OOC games we should have won, than the HL would have finished in 10th or 11th place in conference RPI. Each individual HL team would have had a higher RPI too because we would have each had a higher winning %. That higher winning percentage affects all 3 parts of the RPI equation.
You say I have a reading comprehension skill problem and completely ignore proof that going 12-1 with 2 300+ RPI in the schedule was actually significantly worse than going 10-1 without those two games. It would have been better for Wright State to NOT play the games and play non D1 schools instead. Again, take CSU. They played Ball State. Terrible team. Had they played a D2 team instead, their RPI would have been 86 instead of 91. Oakland played 4 teams with a top 25 RPI. Dropping those games simulated their RPI to 195 instead of 181.
Whom you play has more of an effect on RPI than your W/L record. Wichita State is 4th in RPI. Kansas has 9 losses and is 3rd. North Carolina A&T has 9 wins but their RPI is actually worse than Cornell's, whom went 1-26. Pretending you can schedule in more NC A&Ts and Chicago States to achieve a higher RPI is inaccurate. Scheduling teams like that is really bad for the league, and it's even worse when you lose to them.
Scheduling like Oakland is irresponsible, but so is scheduling like Wright State. The league needs to step in and provide sanctions for a schedule like that. North Carolina A&T, Alcorn State, South Alabama, UMKC, HOUSTON BAPTIST? In the same year? None of those teams have been the least bit successful in the past couple of years. That's far more irresponsible than playing too many top 25 teams, which actually HELPS your RPI.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/590/marker_pwned.jpg)
Speaking of non conference schedules, Detroit will be hosting Wichita State next year.
Quote from: oklahomamick on March 23, 2014, 06:07:04 PMSpeaking of non conference schedules, Detroit will be hosting Wichita State next year.
shocker
...
ok, sorry. low-hanging fruit is often the tastiest.
Quote from: oklahomamick on March 23, 2014, 06:07:04 PM
Speaking of non conference schedules, Detroit will be hosting Wichita State next year.
Why would WSU want to play at Detroit Mercy (unless it's at a bigger venue)?
Quote from: VULB#62 on March 23, 2014, 09:41:35 PMWhy would WSU want to play at Detroit Mercy (unless it's at a bigger venue)?
very winnable road game vs. team that won't be horrible = nice RPI boost
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on March 23, 2014, 09:49:13 PM
Quote from: VULB#62 on March 23, 2014, 09:41:35 PMWhy would WSU want to play at Detroit Mercy (unless it's at a bigger venue)?
very winnable road game vs. team that won't be horrible = nice RPI boost
Actually, It is the return game from the Bracket Busted in 2012-2013. All return games have to be played by next season.
of course. gosh, skipping a year makes you forget like everything.
look out, eastern kentucky.
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on March 20, 2014, 12:12:39 PM
Quote from: a3uge on March 20, 2014, 11:50:41 AMThe 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.
Don't fix something that isn't a problem.
Quote from: VULB#62 on March 23, 2014, 09:41:35 PM
Quote from: oklahomamick on March 23, 2014, 06:07:04 PM
Speaking of non conference schedules, Detroit will be hosting Wichita State next year.
Why would WSU want to play at Detroit Mercy (unless it's at a bigger venue)?
They're still a Missouri Valley team.
Since SoS came up I figured I'd accumulate the post season OOC SoS's for the conference and run it through the A10's style of scoring the schedule. I hope you guys enjoy the comparing of what the preseason (RPI was based off the 2013 RPI) led to vs. the post season actually ended up.
| Team | Pre-RPI | Pre-Pts | Post-RPI | Post-Pts |
| Oakland | 79.2 | 2.8 | 68.1 | 3.2 |
| Green Bay | 192.4 | 0.8 | 139.1 | 1.9 |
| Cleveland State | 164.0 | 1.4 | 142.5 | 1.9 |
| Detroit | 158.3 | 1.3 | 168.1 | 1.8 |
| Valparaiso | 132.3 | 2.0 | 166.2 | 1.4 |
| Youngstown State | 174.5 | 1.7 | 187.1 | 1.4 |
| Illinois-Chicago | 180.3 | 1.2 | 199.7 | 1.0 |
| Wright State | 232.0 | 0.5 | 227.3 | 0.7 |
| Milwaukee | 198.7 | 1.0 | 208.5 | 0.7 |
Morale of the story: Schedule a really tough schedule and you'll probably get a tough end of the season schedule. Schedule a super easy schedule and you'll win the league.
Quote from: Kyle321n on March 24, 2014, 03:41:22 PM
Since SoS came up I figured I'd accumulate the post season OOC SoS's for the conference and run it through the A10's style of scoring the schedule. I hope you guys enjoy the comparing of what the preseason (RPI was based off the 2013 RPI) led to vs. the post season actually ended up.
| Team | Pre-RPI | Pre-Pts | Post-RPI | Post-Pts |
| Oakland | 79.2 | 2.8 | 68.1 | 3.2 |
| Green Bay | 192.4 | 0.8 | 139.1 | 1.9 |
| Cleveland State | 164.0 | 1.4 | 142.5 | 1.9 |
| Detroit | 158.3 | 1.3 | 168.1 | 1.8 |
| Valparaiso | 132.3 | 2.0 | 166.2 | 1.4 |
| Youngstown State | 174.5 | 1.7 | 187.1 | 1.4 |
| Illinois-Chicago | 180.3 | 1.2 | 199.7 | 1.0 |
| Wright State | 232.0 | 0.5 | 227.3 | 0.7 |
| Milwaukee | 198.7 | 1.0 | 208.5 | 0.7 |
Morale of the story: Schedule a really tough schedule and you'll probably get a tough end of the season schedule. Schedule a super easy schedule and you'll win the league.
Lol Wright State's average opponents RPI was that of James Madison (232).
yikes, if you couldn't beat JMU 9 times out of 10...
what's pre- and post-pts?
thanks for doing this--found this rumination of mine on the other thread--so thanks for bringing it to fruition
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on October 10, 2013, 03:28:16 PM
I no longer have the time to waste on number-crunching, gentlemen, but remember when assessing schedules at this point in time, I'd have two quotes for you.
One is Solon (in Herodotus): "Count no man happy before he dies".
The other is Small Print (in everything): "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."
Thus, a team with Wright on its schedule at this point last year would have been pre-kicking themselves, while a team with Milwaukee feeling pretty good about their non-con.
Obviously at the end of the year things have changed considerably. It would be interesting to note the end-of-year RPI ratings and see how they compare.
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on March 19, 2014, 08:25:44 PM
Quote from: StlVUFan on March 19, 2014, 05:53:20 PMIt 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.
The argument is they are the best team to represent the conference precisely because they had a hot week. It can also be argued that had Green Bay pulled out the win, they would have played Tuesday night without Sykes (as they did against Belmont). If they somehow won that game, they might well have been dog-meat for whatever 5 seed they drew precisely because they were struggling at less than 100%.
It didn't turn out to make any difference, but it's not clear Green Bay would have done any better ahd they won the auto-bid. And I shudder to think what Wright State would have done had they won the auto-bid.
Understand: *I'm* not making the argument. I'm simply entertaining it as plausible.
I don't like to argue with people who aren't invested in making the contrary argument, but you could also argue that perhaps GB doesn't play until Friday (or Thurs) not Tues, and maybe Sykes is good enough to go. (And maybe he'd be extra-motivated to go if it were the Prom instead of a sock hop, but I digress.)
Sykes' injury should be discounted entirely for the purposes of the argument, which is "is the conference tourney the best way of choosing the representative of the conference?" and I think that's a valid question.
What's harder to do--or more worthy of reward: what Michigan did (go 15-3 in a tough conference, winning on the road in Madison, East Lansing, and Columbus) or what Michigan State did (go 5-7 to finish the season, then win three games in three straight days)?
Begs the answer, surely, but perhaps injuries--or rather the specter thereof--make people worry about giving it to the regular season champion, if, say Team's Leading Scorer blew out a knee in their penultimate game.
But as a3uge put it so well, the smaller the conference, the more crucial the tourney.
I discount the "hot team" theory, since there were 10 days between Milwaukee's winning the tourney and them playing again.
I also think, what is the entire regular season good for--what does it ultimately mean, other than "a way to pass the time for a couple months"--if we can't even give the winner home court?
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on March 24, 2014, 07:37:22 PMwhat's pre- and post-pts?
Based on the A10's scoring of out of conference schedule based on the RPI. Each game gets a point and then you average your points.
Quote8.04 The following requirements must be met by all Atlantic 10 men's basketball teams. The penalty for non-compliance is outlined in the Conference Constitution and Bylaws.
A. Each men's team must maintain a 1.8 average for all non-conference games schedules. The RPI at the conclusion of the NCAA Tournament of the preceding season will be used for the pre-season analysis and the current season's pre-NCAA tournament RPI will be used for post-season analysis. The point values are as follows:
Ranked 1-50 in the RPI: 4 points
Ranked 51-100 in the RPI: 3 points
Ranked 101-125 in the RPI: 2.5 points
Ranked 126-150 in the RPI: 2 points
Ranked 151-175 in the RPI: 1 point
Ranked 176-200 in the RPI: 0.5 point
Ranked 201+ in the RPI: 0 points
B. Any Atlantic 10 institution playing a non-conference game against an opponent from the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC PAC-10 or Big East will receive no less than 2 points, regardless of the team's RPI.
C. Any Atlantic 10 institution playing a non-conference game against an opponent from Conference USA or Mountain West will receive no less than 1 point, regardless of the team's RPI.
8.05 An institution is permitted to fall short of the 2.0 requirement for women and a 1.8 for men twice in a 3-year period without being subject to the financial penalty. This exception is contingent on the overall conference scheduling average to being above a 2.3. The conference average will be determined entering the start of the season. If, at that time, it falls below a 2.3, the average will be calculated once more at the end of the season. When the final average is calculated, it shall then be determined if institutions which fell below a 2.0 /1.8 are subject to the financial penalties. Effective with the 2003-04 season.
As you can see in our conference, we had 4 teams over the 1.8 threshold. Valpo was able to start over 1.8, but fell short due to underachievement of our schedule.
oh, excellent! That's very helpful.
Obviously, post-points are not our fault, because we schedule the teams for future games, not past, but it's helpful and interesting to see where it all ended up.
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on March 25, 2014, 07:32:51 PMoh, excellent! That's very helpful. Obviously, post-points are not our fault, because we schedule the teams for future games, not past, but it's helpful and interesting to see where it all ended up.
The A-10 knocks you if your schedule fell below the 1.8 threshold through the season, but probably less than they would if you start with a sub 1.8 schedule.
Quote from: Kyle321n on March 26, 2014, 11:28:26 AMThe A-10 knocks you if your schedule fell below the 1.8 threshold through the season
wow, that's a tad harsh.
like, if you beat all your opponents, then they would all have another loss bringing them down, and then you almost get penalized for winning :/