|
Post by Jazzfan on Mar 9, 2008 9:08:25 GMT -5
What does everyone think of the current HL tournament format? Would you change it if you could?
|
|
|
Post by raiderguy06 on Mar 9, 2008 9:20:04 GMT -5
No, I love how it makes the regular season very important. Giving the best two regular season teams the double bye gives them a big advantage thus increasing the HL's chances of sending the best teams to the NCAA. It is awesome that the games are on campus sites as opposed to neutral sites because it brings the colleges more money and the games are better attended by the students and alumni. I think the format is good the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by Big D on Mar 9, 2008 9:30:41 GMT -5
I like the general format for the most part but I would tweak it a little to give the 3-4 teams a better chance to make a run in the tournament.
I like the double bye for the top 2 teams. It rewards you for a successful season and almost guarantees you some kind of post season play. What I would change is where the second round game is played and when the semifinals are played. I like the first round games being played on the higher seeds home court on Tuesday. The second round game should also be on the remaining higher seeds home court on Friday instead of the 1 seeds court. It rewards the 3rd and 4th place team for what they have done over the course of the year. The semifinals should then be played on Sunday. It gives the teams that played in the second round a chance to actually win the semifinals. It's not fair to make a team play Friday night and turn around and play Saturday vs a team that has been resting for a week. The championship game would still be on Tuesday giving both teams 1 day off to rest up between the semifinals and finals.
|
|
|
Post by Raider Fanatic on Mar 9, 2008 9:50:53 GMT -5
The only thing I don't like is how tie breakers are determined. We should have been the #2 seed.
|
|
|
Post by Raider Country on Mar 9, 2008 10:02:53 GMT -5
I like it the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by raiderrunt on Mar 9, 2008 11:45:09 GMT -5
I think it is pretty good as it is now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2008 14:33:04 GMT -5
I like the idea of rewarding regular season play, but if you’re going to give #1 and #2 such a huge advantage, you might as well forget about teams seeded #3 through #10, skip the first 3 rounds of the tournament, and go straight to the championship game. The two surviving teams from the #3 through #10 seeds are so out of gas for the semis, they stand very little chance against the well rested #1 and #2. It was obvious in the Butler and CSU semi-final games. Why even bother with this tournament if you’re a #3 though #10?
I’d modify the tournament by making it an 8 team tournament, with teams finishing 9th and 10th staying at home. Sure, it doesn’t give #9 and #10 a chance, but under the current format we’re not really giving #3 through #10 a chance either. I’d play the first round of games on Wednesday night instead of Tuesday, at the 4 sites of the 4 highest seeds (8 at 1, 7 at 2, 6 at 3, 5 at 4). I’d play the semis on Saturday and the finals on the following Tuesday, both rounds at the site of the highest remaining seeds (as we currently do). This way, you still reward teams for their play in the regular season, but teams that may be peaking near the end of the season (especially seeds #3 and #4) still have a worthwhile chance. This also eliminates the Friday night round of games that are played in an empty arena.
In summary, I'd eliminate # 9 and #10 from the tournament, make everybody play 3 games to win the championship, while still rewarding the #1 or highest remaining seed with home court advantage.
|
|
|
Post by raiderguy06 on Mar 9, 2008 17:15:02 GMT -5
I can see getting rid of 9 and 10. Not to be disrespectful but I don't think Detriot or Youngstown State added much to the tourney this year.
|
|
|
Post by Willie on Mar 10, 2008 10:43:50 GMT -5
I like the general format for the most part but I would tweak it a little to give the 3-4 teams a better chance to make a run in the tournament. I like the double bye for the top 2 teams. It rewards you for a successful season and almost guarantees you some kind of post season play. What I would change is where the second round game is played and when the semifinals are played. I like the first round games being played on the higher seeds home court on Tuesday. The second round game should also be on the remaining higher seeds home court on Friday instead of the 1 seeds court. It rewards the 3rd and 4th place team for what they have done over the course of the year. The semifinals should then be played on Sunday. It gives the teams that played in the second round a chance to actually win the semifinals. It's not fair to make a team play Friday night and turn around and play Saturday vs a team that has been resting for a week. The championship game would still be on Tuesday giving both teams 1 day off to rest up between the semifinals and finals. I completely agree.
|
|
|
Post by riceownz2 on Mar 10, 2008 16:19:14 GMT -5
For real. I thought we had the 2 seed. Oh well. its over now. I agree with Big D. The quarterfinal games should be on the high seed teams home floor. No one in another city is really going to watch a game that does not involve there team.
|
|
|
Post by bballraider on Mar 16, 2008 2:36:59 GMT -5
I posted this on RaiderRoundball, but thought I would post my thoughts here as well.
As far as the post season tourney goes, I believe the regular season should be something that really counts, so I like the current tournament format, (possibly with a day's rest bewteen quarters and semis playing Friday and Sunday). But one thing I defnitely would change would be the tie breaking scenario. First of course would be head-to-head, if that doesn't determine a winner, I would use a point system tie breaker.
The scoring would be based on performance against the ENTIRE league not just the top of the league as it is now. Every team would start with 90 points, the most you could get for going undefeated in league play, since there are 90 possible losses in games in the league. At the end of the season you go back, and everytime you lost to a team, you get points subtracted from your 90 points, equal to the number of losses that team has. So losing to a good team (which is likely) hurts you less than losing to a worse team (a team you should beat).
For example, Butler went 16-2 in conference, so you would get -2 points for each game you lose to Butler. And conversely Detroit finished last at 3-15, so you would subtract 15 points for each loss to Detroit.
For 2nd-3rd place (head to head was even bewteen CSU and WSU):
Wright State would have finished 2nd with 46 points. (see below for scoring) Butler (1-1) -2, CSU (1-1) -6, UIC (2-0) -0, UWM (1-1) -9, Valpo (0-2) -18, GB (1-1) -9, Loyola (2-0) -0, YSU (2-0) -0. Detroit (2-0) -0
Cleveland State would have finished third with 43 points. BU (1-1) -2, WSU (1-1) -6, UIC (1-1) -9, UWM (1-1) -9, VU (2-0) -0, GB (1-1) -9, LU (1-1) -12, YSU (2-0) -0, Det (2-0) -0
4th-7th place would look like this with 9-9 teams: 4. UIC (4-2 head to head with other 3) 5. Valpo (would have finsihed with 23 pts) 6. Milwaukee (would have finished with 20 pts) 7. Green Bay (2-4, head to head with other 3)
And if this point system doesn't break the tie, then you go to an average of the RPI and Sagarin ratings finishing position combined. I used these two since these seem to be the biggest players in the NCAA commitee selection process. Other ratings systems could be added in if a better average was wanted. Then, if still a tie after computer ratings, then it would go to the coin flip.
Any thoughts?
If this was in place last year, I think Butler would have won the tie-breaker against WSU, 54 to 50 out of 72 possible points.
|
|
|
Post by rock70 on Mar 16, 2008 14:25:05 GMT -5
This is a tough call for me. I like how the top two are rewarded for their regular season work but like Klinger posted earlier it is almost impossible for teams seeded 3-10 to win the tournament with its current format.
I like the idea of having the higher seeds host games until you get to the semi's then you can have the games at the highest remaining seed. I also like the idea of games being played Tuesday, Friday, Sunday, and Tuesday. It at least gives some other teams a slight chance to win the tournament.
bballraider, your tie breaker scenario is interesting. Does any other conference use your system? I like any tie breaker that favors the Raiders ;D.
|
|
|
Post by bballraider on Mar 16, 2008 15:52:57 GMT -5
bballraider, your tie breaker scenario is interesting. Does any other conference use your system? I like any tie breaker that favors the Raiders ;D. I do not know of any off hand, and there may not be any. And my suggestion might not be the best way to break the ties either. I just think the tie breaker should consider the league as a whole, not just how you did against the top few teams. Maybe there is a way of having a mini rpi system for the HL only, where you gain from beating the better teams and lose for losing to lower teams. The strength of schedule would be the same for all the teams, but the home and road bonus system would come into play.
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Mar 18, 2008 20:51:02 GMT -5
The only thing I don't like is how tie breakers are determined. We should have been the #2 seed. Just curious -- what procedure do you think SHOULD be used?
|
|