Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox

Absolutely BORED by the start of CBkball

Avatar

Posted: 11/21/2008 2:43 AM

Absolutely BORED by the start of CBkball 


Wow.  Cbaseball has more appeal for me now.   Basketball has become an exhibition  merely awaiting the Big Dance.  
Be forwarned CFB fans.   Lenghty playoffs will destroy the value of the regular season.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/21/2008 1:49 PM

Re: Absolutely BORED by the start of CBkball 


First off, a disclaimer.  I don't like basketball.

One point that has been made about the regular season and playoffs is that the regular season does affect seeding.  So it is important.

But...

Because you can't see the affect of the season on seeding, it isn't so important to the fan I would guess.

In football you look at these last two games and you think, if we win them both we're going here and we lose one we go there but what if this other team wins or loses.  That's something a fan can get their head around.

In basketball, do fans think in terms of, "if we win this game we could be a 3 seed but if we lose we might drop to a 6 or 7 seed" ?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/7/2008 11:35 AM

Re: Absolutely BORED by the start of CBkball 


I love college basketball.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/26/2008 3:44 AM

Re: Absolutely BORED by the start of CBkball 


Unfortunately in CBkball seeds are determined based n what conference you come from and what your record in said conference is. 8-8 ACC will get more respect than a lot of 10-12 win teams from other conferences. 20 wins is the mark though. For the most part if you hit that mark, you are in the post-season.

I can understand how people say that the regular season doesn't mean anything in college basketball...see UGA and the SEC last year. There have been numerous regular season conference champs with 20+ win records not receive a bid because they didn't win the conference tourney. In theory, you can lose every game in the regular season and still get a bid to the playoffs by winning the tourney, and that is unfair to the teams that did it week in and week out. The Ivy League has no conference tourney, which is cool! Now they are talking about expanding the field to as many as 128? NO WAY!

College Sports just doesn't know how to do it... the FBS is one extreme and March Madness is the other...can we find a middle ground?
Ruck me... maul me... make me scrum!
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/23/2009 3:36 PM

Re: Absolutely BORED by the start of CBkball 


Two of my biggest complaints with CBkB are: 1)conf tourneys & 2) the "play-in" game for the 64th seed.

1) Conf tourneys are pure money makers. Beyond that, I don't like the fact a team can bust it's butt all season, deal with its ups and downs and then lose out to some else who gets hot and gets an automatic bid to the Big Dance. Seems to me this is really aimed at justifying all the seeds the big conf get and to exclude the little guys.

2) When the "play-in" game was announced many moons ago, I thought, "Great. This'll be an EVENT. We'll see two bubble teams play to see who gets in. How cool is that?" For example, this past year it could've been Arizona v. Wisconsin. (Weren't they 2 of the "bubble teams"?) Instead we get two conf champs battling to see who will play sacrificial lamb to a #1 seed. I know, I know, the little guys don't play as rugged a schedule, but then why are they in the mix to begin with?
DKR
1924-2012
“This is it, Edith — it’s the University of Texas!”
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/23/2009 7:06 PM

Re: Absolutely BORED by the start of CBkball 


Ah, but conference tourneys do serve one additional purpose.  For the better conferences the regular season champ is going to make the tournament no matter what.  So having a different team win the conference tourney and get the auto-bid gets your conference an extra team in.  Seems a bit slimy to me.

For example, would USC have gotten in if they had not won the Pac-10 tourney?  They seemed borderline, but I'm not CBkball expert.

And then there is also one semi-legitimate argument to the conference tourney.  Some teams get better throughout the season and some get worse.  A team may start bad and get way better by the end.  Their overall regular season stats may not be good enough by itself, but at the end of the season they are better than other teams making the tourney.  The fact they can take that hot streak and ride it to an auto-bid shows they do deserve to be in.

Just some thoughts.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/29/2010 4:26 AM

RE: Absolutely BORED by the start of CBkball 


It's a little easier to be a "big" conference because the field is so big - like when it was a big deal when Missouri Valley sent 4 teams. Shoot, this year the conference tournament might be the only way the Pac-10, a supposed "big" conference, gets two bids. Cal is the only team with a real shot at qualifying during the regular season (has to win 6 of 10 to get to 20 wins, OOC slate was pretty strong with most losses to teams that are at or near qualifying already, only worrisome feature is the finishing kick is a little road heavy). Nobody else in the conference has a realistic shot at 20 wins during the season. This can only mean one thing - tons of happy bubble teams on the East Coast.

The real deal is this - the selection committee gets to see many iffy teams during conference tournaments play the type of game that the tourney is known for - win or go home. During the regular season it is harder to measure which teams excel when the spotlight is brightest. Only the Ivy League doesn't give you such insights, which is fine considering how rare it is that anybody would consider sending more than one or two teams from that conference. Most of the wimpy conferences wouldn't send anybody competitive anyway, so nobody minds if a Cinderella wins their tournaments - it could be used for a ratings boost on the play-in game. (Example - Coppin State - it was great for one my pastor's wife with her son playing on team 65, but they ended up losing to #64 with desperation maneuvers settling in around 5 minutes from 0:00.)

Naturally, the selection committee can't give a hoot about tradition, because a single-elimination tournament doesn't leave much room for tradition.

I don't think single-elimination games make any sense for baseball or basketball. The fact the WNBA only has 3 game series tells you how much they're struggling to get butts in the seats.

I'd like to see conference tournaments limited to 4 teams that play in best-of-three series, and only regular season champions, conf. tourney champions, and conf. tourney runner-ups can be considered for a field of 32 that play in best-of-three series for a national title that seems a lot more earned. We could also cut the pretense of neutral sites for conference tournaments, have 4 sites for the rounds of 32 and 16 and 8, then have one site for the final four.

Of course, that would never catch on. Too many people would complain, including all these Benjamin Franklin look-alikes coming from Vegas.
Reply | Quote