|
|
Post by crayzeeguy on May 23, 2013 21:28:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by a10champion15 on May 23, 2013 22:14:06 GMT -5
wow great decision on their part. This is what made the Big East tournament so good the past couple of years. With the A10 looking as though it could be the best mid major conference with multiple strong teams we will be in for a great tournament. Cant wait.
|
|
|
|
Post by crayzeeguy on May 24, 2013 6:07:17 GMT -5
Guess I need to wait a few months to see if I need a hotel on Thursday night!
|
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on May 24, 2013 6:48:18 GMT -5
For this year, with only 13 teams, I guess that's fine. Otherwise, you'd only keep 1 team out, which kind of seems unneeded. When they get up to 14, I'd like the bottom 2 to stay out again.
Tripleheader for one of the first day sessions sounds pretty cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by big5explorer on May 24, 2013 9:11:39 GMT -5
A team finishing 11th, 12th, or 13th should have no right to a shot at being A10 Champions, and certainly has no business getting an NCAA bid to play for a National Championship.
If a 12 seed wins the tourney it embarrasses the conference, may possibly knock one of its perennial bubble teams out of the tourney, and renders the regular season as absolutely meaningless.
Dumb move made only to grab a few extra dollars.
|
|
|
|
Post by durenduren on May 24, 2013 9:32:42 GMT -5
Okay move for a conference trying to reinvent itself in the wake of change, keeps more teams relevant all season in a competitive conference. Probably keeps the bottom feeders and the two newcomers happy, gets everyone a trip to the Barclay's which is great for mobilizing fan bases, especially for those teams transitioning.
When we even up at 14, bottom two shouldn't make it. And as Neumann said, a triple header sounds like fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltrain38 on May 24, 2013 10:07:15 GMT -5
I've seen some rumors (I can't find the source right now) of going to an 18-game conference schedule in the 2014-15 season. This worries me more than letting everyone into the tournament. Against last year's A-10, that would have been great, but it limits opportunities for scheduling out of conference, since we have three Big 5 games and usually 3-4 in a tournament. I don't worry about the conference tournament, the bottom teams in the A-10 have never really had a chance to win it.
|
|
|
|
Post by durenduren on May 24, 2013 10:21:56 GMT -5
I've read those rumors too. Not sure where they came from, or if they have any legs. I guess that goes with the North/South conference division talk.
The A10 has always rolled with the unbalanced schedule though, hoping it continues moving forward. But i'm not trying to buy into the talk quite yet, though I share your disdain for an 18 game schedule. Really boxes you in, especially with the loss of two Tourney regulars in Temple and Butler. Would miss their RPI in an 18 format.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2013 10:40:22 GMT -5
I've read those rumors too. Not sure where they came from, or if they have any legs. I guess that goes with the North/South conference division talk. The A10 has always rolled with the unbalanced schedule though, hoping it continues moving forward. But i'm not trying to buy into the talk quite yet, though I share your disdain for an 18 game schedule. Really boxes you in, especially with the loss of two Tourney regulars in Temple and Butler. Would miss their RPI in an 18 format. It's not a rumor. It was voted on and confirmed at the A10 meetings in Florida this week. www.atlantic10.com/genrel/052313aah.htmlNot sure how I feel about it. It's probably partly because putting an OOC schedule together is very hard on the coaches. That will be two less games they have to worry about scheduling. |
|
|
|
Post by vasalos on May 28, 2013 5:48:48 GMT -5
This is a good decision. It gives teams that are close to post season play an opportunity to get a win in the first round of the A10 tourney. Remember, the Selection Committee was very close to penalizing La Salle last year for getting a bye in the first round of the A10 tourney. That's a terrible precedent to set. Thankfully we played a team that had a high enough RPI that the result didn't carry as much weight. Put all the teams in the A10 tourney and now La Salle would have probably played a lower seed to get that extra win. Of course, they would have to win that game. www.explorertownbracketologist.com |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2013 11:15:28 GMT -5
This is a good decision. It gives teams that are close to post season play an opportunity to get a win in the first round of the A10 tourney. Remember, the Selection Committee was very close to penalizing La Salle last year for getting a bye in the first round of the A10 tourney. That's a terrible precedent to set. Thankfully we played a team that had a high enough RPI that the result didn't carry as much weight. Put all the teams in the A10 tourney and now La Salle would have probably played a lower seed to get that extra win. Of course, they would have to win that game. www.explorertownbracketologist.comRespectfully disagree. The regular season has got to mean more. I rather enjoyed 6 teams playing for last 4 spots last season. Gave them something to play for. Similarly, teams like Temple and VCU and Butler and La Salle were all vying for the last bye spot last season, and that was exciting. No way should a team with 1 win or no wins, or even 4 wins, be playing at the Barclay's Center. And getting to play Butler on no rest at all last season, after being banged up in St Louis and then playing someone like a Bonnies or Rhody team with everything to prove and nothing more to lose? That would not have been fun. |
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on May 28, 2013 11:36:07 GMT -5
I don't think it's the end of the world for just this year, We're in kind of a weird year with having 13 teams. Keeping 1 team out doesn't seem necessary. But once we get back to 14 (or more), I agree with hykos, you have to keep some teams home, otherwise the bottom of the league is playing for absolutely nothing down the stretch.
|
|
|
|
Post by vasalos on May 28, 2013 12:23:15 GMT -5
I see both sides. For those teams who are really close to making it into post season play, they'll be happy that they might be able to sneak one more win in before Selection Sunday comes.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck on May 28, 2013 14:49:45 GMT -5
I can see the argument for letting all teams in, but excluding the bottom feeders not only makes the regular season more meanigful but is also an incentive for those teams to improve.
|
|
|
|
Post by 20thandolney on May 28, 2013 17:14:33 GMT -5
This is a good decision. It gives teams that are close to post season play an opportunity to get a win in the first round of the A10 tourney. Remember, the Selection Committee was very close to penalizing La Salle last year for getting a bye in the first round of the A10 tourney. That's a terrible precedent to set. Thankfully we played a team that had a high enough RPI that the result didn't carry as much weight. Put all the teams in the A10 tourney and now La Salle would have probably played a lower seed to get that extra win. Of course, they would have to win that game. www.explorertownbracketologist.comThere will still have to be byes. |
|
|
|
Post by coqui900 on May 28, 2013 17:40:09 GMT -5
I just want to let it be known that I hate conference championships for the most part.
The best part about college basketball is the atmosphere. Aside from the really big conferences (and only the old Big East and ACC at that), conference basketball tournaments stink. I was up at Barclay's for our game against Butler. There was maybe 4,000 people in the crowd and most of them were VCU fans who got their early.
It's infinitely worse for smaller leagues. Who goes to see the NEC championships or MAAC semi's?
There's no way this makes the conference money, is there?
The A-10 format back before we joined was awesome. Games at the Palestra (a perfect size venue) with the finals being held on the home court of the highest remaining seed. Scheduling might not work anymore for that but can you imagine how great it would be to have a La Salle vs. St. Joe's championship game at TGA?
|
|
|
|
Post by vasalos on May 28, 2013 17:42:27 GMT -5
This is a good decision. It gives teams that are close to post season play an opportunity to get a win in the first round of the A10 tourney. Remember, the Selection Committee was very close to penalizing La Salle last year for getting a bye in the first round of the A10 tourney. That's a terrible precedent to set. Thankfully we played a team that had a high enough RPI that the result didn't carry as much weight. Put all the teams in the A10 tourney and now La Salle would have probably played a lower seed to get that extra win. Of course, they would have to win that game. www.explorertownbracketologist.comThere will still have to be byes. Of course. First 5 have a bye. 4 seed won't be playing a 5 as a first game which almost cost us last year. |
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on May 28, 2013 17:46:49 GMT -5
It's gonna be top 3 with byes. Top 5 with byes would give you 9 teams in round 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by vasalos on May 28, 2013 17:52:55 GMT -5
It's gonna be top 3 with byes. Top 5 with byes would give you 9 teams in round 2. Good point. Still don't have to play a 5 seed as a 4. |
|
|
|
Post by luhoopsfan on May 28, 2013 17:55:12 GMT -5
Double bye for 1st place and single bye for 2-5?
|
|
|
|
Post by vasalos on May 28, 2013 18:10:55 GMT -5
Double bye for 1st place and single bye for 2-5? That works. |
|
