|
Post by ugopher on Nov 25, 2014 12:19:08 GMT -5
Of course, the tournament would be held in either Omaha or Lincoln. Maybe take time to actually read the article before making ignorant statements. OK, read the article. Doesn't mean more ignorant statements are coming. So, I wasn't that far off, was I? I would rather see an 8 team or even a 4 team tournament vs. 1 playing 1, 2 playing 2, etc. 1 vs. 1 and 2 vs. 2 might be interesting but would we want to see 7 vs 7? I do agree with Cook in that since Nebraska may have introduced the idea it may have been met with resistance. But, that doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea. What I think we all agree on is that something needs to be changed. And, that upon further review, Michigan had a very hard schedule all year long! Penn State, Ohio State, Nebraska, Illinois, and Wisconsin twice while only facing Rutgers, Maryland, and Iowa once. And, their OOC scheduled was brutal, too.
|
|
|
Post by BigTenVball on Nov 25, 2014 12:35:21 GMT -5
Also from the article, John Cook ain't gonna make new friends in Madison: And, oh yeah, this thing needs to be played probably in Nebraska... Guessing he would have liked to worded that statement better, and certainly shouldn't be speaking for all coaches. No, bet that is what he meant to say.
|
|
|
Post by bucky415 on Nov 25, 2014 12:41:16 GMT -5
I don't like the idea. It is pointless, since teams have plenty of opportunity to get the wins needed for making the tournament, and it would mean one less home match most years.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 25, 2014 12:48:07 GMT -5
The only thing I don't like about this proposal is the geographic determination of the championship match location. Since the two teams would have already played each other during the regular season, I think it would make more sense to have it hosted by the team that did not host the first matchup. I don't like the idea. It is pointless, since teams have plenty of opportunity to get the wins needed for making the tournament, and it would mean one less home match most years. It makes sense given the rest of Cook's proposal. 19-game schedule means you play everybody in your division home and home and have SEVEN inter-division matches (so an uneven number of Home/Away matches). I'm assuming the proposal says that all seven members of one division have one less home match during the regular season, but they then get to host the crossover match. That way everybody gets 10 home and 10 away matches. It's also worth noting that conference tournaments do not count against match limits. So Big Ten members would have an extra date available to schedule a non-conference opponent (RPI+++). Although I'm not positive that the NCAA would consider a 1-match crossover a "tournament".
|
|
|
Post by cardinalvolleyball on Nov 25, 2014 12:56:10 GMT -5
With B1G Football/Basketball championships held in Indianapolis, IN would volleyball go neutral site and play there as well?
|
|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on Nov 25, 2014 12:58:28 GMT -5
I don't like the idea. It is pointless, since teams have plenty of opportunity to get the wins needed for making the tournament, and it would mean one less home match most years. I agree it is sort of pointless in terms of tournament berths. The season offers plenty of opportunity for a given team to make the NCAA tournament. Since the B1G tourney participants will have ostensibly already qualified for the tournament, a tournament won't change any of that. [Note: This assumes the tournament is 2 or 4 teams. If it's 8, then I guess there could be situations where the tournament propels a team into the tournament.] But, it is a somewhat fairer way (though not perfect) way to crown a conference champion.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Nov 25, 2014 13:00:14 GMT -5
Re whether there is a champion, this is the asterisk talk I feared. Season's not over yet, though. Let's talk seriously then.
At this point though, the issue is not UW going to Neb, but the lack of a second meeting between UW and PSU -- my big problem with the unbalanced schedule this year. PSU and UW schedules against the other teams have been pretty similar in strength so far and admittedly relatively weak compared to most other team's schedules. But, UW did beat the other challenger (IL) twice, and Neb did itself no favors by losing to OSU and UM, which basically took them out of the running.
That said, I can imagine real inequalities developing in the future if this isn't fixed. I still think it should be a 4 team tournament because not all teams in a division necessarily have the same strength of schedule if you consider home and away fixture with teams in the other division. A little lee-way in determing who would be included could fix that, although it would get in the way of getting everyone else a match.
I would rather the divisions were based on some seeding process, and would be fluid from year to year. In this scheme PSU, OSU and the Michigans get stuck playing 2 matches against Rutgers and Maryland each, who will take a while to come up to speed and will therefore hurt the RPI of teams in that division.
|
|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on Nov 25, 2014 13:01:01 GMT -5
With B1G Football/Basketball championships held in Indianapolis, IN would volleyball go neutral site and play there as well? I think it should just start at conference sites and go from there. Would the marketing/audience ever be good enough for a neutral site tournament. If it were, and I'd love to see it, something like St. Louis University's Chaifetz Arena would be a good size. But, that's just one example.
|
|
|
Post by ugopher on Nov 25, 2014 13:20:08 GMT -5
With B1G Football/Basketball championships held in Indianapolis, IN would volleyball go neutral site and play there as well? I think it should just start at conference sites and go from there. Would the marketing/audience ever be good enough for a neutral site tournament. If it were, and I'd love to see it, something like St. Louis University's Chaifetz Arena would be a good size. But, that's just one example. St. Louis wouldn't make sense as it isn't in B1G territory. Not sure a neutral site would work originally. I would prefer any tournament be held at a city with a connection to a B1G school. Tournament wouldn't need to be held on campus but rather at a venue of choice for the host school. Would I go see a 2 day tournament featuring Wisconsin, PSU, Illinois, and Nebraska in Mpls? Absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Nov 25, 2014 13:20:29 GMT -5
Re whether there is a champion, this is the asterisk talk I feared. Season's not over yet, though. Let's talk seriously then. At this point though, the issue is not UW going to Neb, but the lack of a second meeting between UW and PSU -- my big problem with the unbalanced schedule this year. PSU and UW schedules against the other teams have been pretty similar in strength so far and admittedly relatively weak compared to most other team's schedules. But, UW did beat the other challenger (IL) twice, and Neb did itself no favors by losing to OSU and UM, which basically took them out of the running. That said, I can imagine real inequalities developing in the future if this isn't fixed. I still think it should be a 4 team tournament because not all teams in a division necessarily have the same strength of schedule if you consider home and away fixture with teams in the other division. A little lee-way in determing who would be included could fix that, although it would get in the way of getting everyone else a match. I would rather the divisions were based on some seeding process, and would be fluid from year to year. In this scheme PSU, OSU and the Michigans get stuck playing 2 matches against Rutgers and Maryland each, who will take a while to come up to speed and will therefore hurt the RPI of teams in that division. How is the issue UW not going to Nebraska also? While Nebraska winning or losing wouldn't impact Nebraska's chances, it would Wisconsin's. Wisconsin will be a deserved champion, they played amazing all year and had the best record in the league given the schedule they had no say in. The fact of matter is, they did not have to play what most (if not all) would consider to be the two toughest matches in the League, PSU and Nebraska on the road. Having said that, if you recall Nebraska title two years ago, their schedule was also advantageous and most likely impacted the outcome. The bottom line is this, that given the current scheduling system, the schedule is going to play a DEFINITE role in the outcome of the league. If anyone doesn't believe that, they are kidding themselves. This isn't a slam on Wisconsin, its a slam on the schedule, they played brilliantly.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Nov 25, 2014 13:23:11 GMT -5
I think it should just start at conference sites and go from there. Would the marketing/audience ever be good enough for a neutral site tournament. If it were, and I'd love to see it, something like St. Louis University's Chaifetz Arena would be a good size. But, that's just one example. St. Louis wouldn't make sense as it isn't in B1G territory. Not sure a neutral site would work originally. I would prefer any tournament be held at a city with a connection to a B1G school. Tournament wouldn't need to be held on campus but rather at a venue of choice for the host school. Would I go see a 2 day tournament featuring Wisconsin, PSU, Illinois, and Nebraska in Mpls? Absolutely. You would go see that, and so would I. Would 5,000 people go per night? No they would not.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Nov 25, 2014 13:44:27 GMT -5
Of course, the tournament would be held in either Omaha or Lincoln. Well, wouldn't you like an arena full of fans? Where else would you have it? Madison. We pack it in.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Nov 25, 2014 13:51:42 GMT -5
Well, wouldn't you like an arena full of fans? Where else would you have it? Madison. We pack it in. When Wisconsin is playing, no question.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Nov 25, 2014 14:13:41 GMT -5
Re whether there is a champion, this is the asterisk talk I feared. Season's not over yet, though. Let's talk seriously then. At this point though, the issue is not UW going to Neb, but the lack of a second meeting between UW and PSU -- my big problem with the unbalanced schedule this year. PSU and UW schedules against the other teams have been pretty similar in strength so far and admittedly relatively weak compared to most other team's schedules. But, UW did beat the other challenger (IL) twice, and Neb did itself no favors by losing to OSU and UM, which basically took them out of the running. That said, I can imagine real inequalities developing in the future if this isn't fixed. I still think it should be a 4 team tournament because not all teams in a division necessarily have the same strength of schedule if you consider home and away fixture with teams in the other division. A little lee-way in determing who would be included could fix that, although it would get in the way of getting everyone else a match. I would rather the divisions were based on some seeding process, and would be fluid from year to year. In this scheme PSU, OSU and the Michigans get stuck playing 2 matches against Rutgers and Maryland each, who will take a while to come up to speed and will therefore hurt the RPI of teams in that division. How is the issue UW not going to Nebraska also? While Nebraska winning or losing wouldn't impact Nebraska's chances, it would Wisconsin's. Wisconsin will be a deserved champion, they played amazing all year and had the best record in the league given the schedule they had no say in. The fact of matter is, they did not have to play what most (if not all) would consider to be the two toughest matches in the League, PSU and Nebraska on the road. Having said that, if you recall Nebraska title two years ago, their schedule was also advantageous and most likely impacted the outcome. The bottom line is this, that given the current scheduling system, the schedule is going to play a DEFINITE role in the outcome of the league. If anyone doesn't believe that, they are kidding themselves. This isn't a slam on Wisconsin, its a slam on the schedule, they played brilliantly. My argument was 1) that a UW trip to Neb would not affect Neb position relative to either UW or PSU, and 2) if you raise the hypothetical trip of UW to Neb, you also have to raise a hypothetical trip of PSU to IL, a team they have lost against in a place that is also difficult. That second trade off is a wash on balance, IMO. Where the schedule most definitely failed us this year is in the lack of a UW trip to PSU. I can imagine, the unbalanced schedule could lead to worse inequities in the future though, especially with more teams. We're basically on the same page. We need some fix for the schedule.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 25, 2014 14:15:17 GMT -5
Schedule fix: Remove Rutgers and Maryland from the VB schedule
|
|