|
Post by slxpress on Mar 11, 2023 9:31:36 GMT -5
They certainly make a lot more sense now that the Conferences are too bloated for a full H-A round robin. And yet it's not like they're going to get rid of a regular season championship trophy. You just add another trophy. It's great for leagues who only have one qualifier. For leagues with multiple teams that get in when one of those teams will almost certainly win the conference tournament as well, it makes a whole lot less sense. It's not like volleyball has the same kind of parity that men's basketball has, where huge upsets happen all the time. Volleyball has upsets, but not like men's basketball. Not anywhere close, really. If someone wants to say they're fun, they create excitement, and they want to see more of them, I get that. I don't agree with it, but I get it. But for the big conferences that produce the national champions in the sport it doesn't make a lot of sense from the standpoint of producing some kind of conference tournament champion. There's just not that much of a point.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Mar 11, 2023 10:29:26 GMT -5
They certainly make a lot more sense now that the Conferences are too bloated for a full H-A round robin. And yet it's not like they're going to get rid of a regular season championship trophy. You just add another trophy. It's great for leagues who only have one qualifier. For leagues with multiple teams that get in when one of those teams will almost certainly win the conference tournament as well, it makes a whole lot less sense. It's not like volleyball has the same kind of parity that men's basketball has, where huge upsets happen all the time. Volleyball has upsets, but not like men's basketball. Not anywhere close, really. If someone wants to say they're fun, they create excitement, and they want to see more of them, I get that. I don't agree with it, but I get it. But for the big conferences that produce the national champions in the sport it doesn't make a lot of sense from the standpoint of producing some kind of conference tournament champion. There's just not that much of a point. so you're saying those big conferences should get rid of the regular season championship trophies as well? they don't serve any more relevance than conference tournaments
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Mar 11, 2023 10:48:18 GMT -5
When the Big Ten goes to 16 teams, assuming they continue to play 20 Conference matches, there will only be five opponents that appear twice on the schedule.
The odds of Nebraska/Minnesota/Wisconsin/Penn State/USC/UCLA playing three or four of the other teams from that group twice will be quite thin, unless you lock it into the annual schedule. If you do that, then a team like Illinois or Purdue might be able to rack up enough wins against cupcakes to squeak by the traditional powers, as they beat each other up.
If you dial it back to 15 matches, it would make for a pure "regular season" champion, as well as open up room at the end of the season for a fun and lucrative conference tournament; preparing them for the real tournament with a "one and done" format.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Mar 11, 2023 10:58:39 GMT -5
And yet it's not like they're going to get rid of a regular season championship trophy. You just add another trophy. It's great for leagues who only have one qualifier. For leagues with multiple teams that get in when one of those teams will almost certainly win the conference tournament as well, it makes a whole lot less sense. It's not like volleyball has the same kind of parity that men's basketball has, where huge upsets happen all the time. Volleyball has upsets, but not like men's basketball. Not anywhere close, really. If someone wants to say they're fun, they create excitement, and they want to see more of them, I get that. I don't agree with it, but I get it. But for the big conferences that produce the national champions in the sport it doesn't make a lot of sense from the standpoint of producing some kind of conference tournament champion. There's just not that much of a point. so you're saying those big conferences should get rid of the regular season championship trophies as well? they don't serve any more relevance than conference tournaments I’m not quite sure how I conveyed that. I’m saying the regular season trophies are going to exist regardless. The conference tournament won’t replace the regular season for conferences that are bloated and can’t do round robins. It will be an adjunct trophy. Again, I’m not saying it can’t or won’t be done. It’s simply not appealing to me. I don’t see the utility of it at all. I do actually feel like the regular season conference trophies have relevance. It’s a season long accomplishment, not a weekend accomplishment. I understand the argument that unbalanced schedules can mean unbalanced outcomes, but that’s okay. As long as everyone knows the criteria ahead of time, you work with what you’ve got. For something like football where the conference champion is crowned in a championship match it’s one thing. In a sport like volleyball where there would always be a trophy for the regular season regardless of whether or not there’s a tournament, I’m not a fan of adding a tournament. It has no appeal to me, regardless of how much appeal it might have for others.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Mar 11, 2023 11:03:10 GMT -5
When the Big Ten goes to 16 teams, ... If you dial it back to 16 matches, it would make for a pure "regular season" champion, so each team would play one of the other teams twice? and it still wouldn't be a "pure" champion, as it could still be unbalanced as far as who got home matches against other top teams compared to who had to go on the road
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Mar 11, 2023 11:08:40 GMT -5
When the Big Ten goes to 16 teams, assuming they continue to play 20 Conference matches, there will only be four opponents that appear twice on the schedule. The odds of Nebraska/Minnesota/Wisconsin/Penn State/USC/UCLA playing three or four of the other teams from that group twice will be quite thin, unless you lock it into the annual schedule. If you do that, then a team like Illinois or Purdue might be able to rack up enough wins against cupcakes to squeak by the traditional powers, as they beat each other up. If you dial it back to 16 matches, it would make for a pure "regular season" champion, as well as open up room at the end of the season for a fun and lucrative conference tournament; preparing them for the real tournament with a "one and done" format. I bet the coaches would gladly forgo the preparation for the one and done format in order to not play 4 matches in 4 days the weekend prior. A conference tournament would be for the fans and media, not for the benefit of the teams themselves. I have to admit the Big 10 is the one conference this could easily be a lucrative endeavor, but I don’t think it would be for anyone else unless it’s hosted by a school with a relatively rabid fan base. Does the Big East make money on their tournament? That would be the template to use IMO.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Mar 11, 2023 11:14:27 GMT -5
When the Big Ten goes to 16 teams, ... If you dial it back to 16 matches, it would make for a pure "regular season" champion, so each team would play one of the other teams twice? and it still wouldn't be a "pure" champion, as it could still be unbalanced as far as who got home matches against other top teams compared to who had to go on the road I don’t know about “could.” It WOULD inherently be unbalance. Anything but a round round by definition is going to be unbalanced. The only balance that could be achieved is over the course of 2 to 4 years balancing out who plays whom and where, but of course that doesn’t take into account the differences in teams from year to year. Sometimes life isn’t fair. I’d prefer every conference be able to go with a round robin schedule, but that’s not practical.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Mar 11, 2023 11:37:57 GMT -5
so you're saying those big conferences should get rid of the regular season championship trophies as well? they don't serve any more relevance than conference tournaments I’m not quite sure how I conveyed that. I’m saying the regular season trophies are going to exist regardless. The conference tournament won’t replace the regular season for conferences that are bloated and can’t do round robins. It will be an adjunct trophy. Again, I’m not saying it can’t or won’t be done. It’s simply not appealing to me. I don’t see the utility of it at all. I do actually feel like the regular season conference trophies have relevance. It’s a season long accomplishment, not a weekend accomplishment. I understand the argument that unbalanced schedules can mean unbalanced outcomes, but that’s okay. As long as everyone knows the criteria ahead of time, you work with what you’ve got. For something like football where the conference champion is crowned in a championship match it’s one thing. In a sport like volleyball where there would always be a trophy for the regular season regardless of whether or not there’s a tournament, I’m not a fan of adding a tournament. It has no appeal to me, regardless of how much appeal it might have for others. I understand your point, and I'm not really advocating for conference tournaments in the big conferences in volleyball. I'm probably closer to your position than the other side. That said, there are some other arguments in favor of them, even in the power conferences. One is that there are bubble teams that can play their way in by getting another good win or two in the conference tournament. Another is that there are teams in those conferences that can only get in by winning the tournament. That's always been one of the main arguments for the basketball tournaments--every team theoretically could win the national title by winning their conference tournament and then the NCAA Tournament (your point about differences in parity is fair, though). And even for the very best programs, seeding is on the line, as a team could play its way from a regional 2 seed to a regional 1 seed, which is a big deal, as they then get to host the regional.
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Mar 11, 2023 11:50:24 GMT -5
When the Big Ten goes to 16 teams, ... If you dial it back to 16 matches, it would make for a pure "regular season" champion, so each team would play one of the other teams twice? and it still wouldn't be a "pure" champion, as it could still be unbalanced as far as who got home matches against other top teams compared to who had to go on the road Yeah, my math was off by one, but you get the gist. Play each team once.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Mar 11, 2023 13:33:37 GMT -5
When the Big Ten goes to 16 teams, assuming they continue to play 20 Conference matches, there will only be four opponents that appear twice on the schedule. The odds of Nebraska/Minnesota/Wisconsin/Penn State/USC/UCLA playing three or four of the other teams from that group twice will be quite thin, unless you lock it into the annual schedule. If you do that, then a team like Illinois or Purdue might be able to rack up enough wins against cupcakes to squeak by the traditional powers, as they beat each other up. If you dial it back to 16 matches, it would make for a pure "regular season" champion, as well as open up room at the end of the season for a fun and lucrative conference tournament; preparing them for the real tournament with a "one and done" format. I bet the coaches would gladly forgo the preparation for the one and done format in order to not play 4 matches in 4 days the weekend prior. A conference tournament would be for the fans and media, not for the benefit of the teams themselves. I have to admit the Big 10 is the one conference this could easily be a lucrative endeavor, but I don’t think it would be for anyone else unless it’s hosted by a school with a relatively rabid fan base. Does the Big East make money on their tournament? That would be the template to use IMO. This just seems like backward thinking to me. I think it’s simply wrong that something “for the fans and media” isn’t also inherently “for the benefit of the teams themselves”. Doing things for the fans is how you grow the game. It seems like there is a segment of volleyball fans who would prefer to be a niche Olympic sport like field hockey.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Mar 11, 2023 14:04:27 GMT -5
I bet the coaches would gladly forgo the preparation for the one and done format in order to not play 4 matches in 4 days the weekend prior. A conference tournament would be for the fans and media, not for the benefit of the teams themselves. I have to admit the Big 10 is the one conference this could easily be a lucrative endeavor, but I don’t think it would be for anyone else unless it’s hosted by a school with a relatively rabid fan base. Does the Big East make money on their tournament? That would be the template to use IMO. This just seems like backward thinking to me. I think it’s simply wrong that something “for the fans and media” isn’t also inherently “for the benefit of the teams themselves”. Doing things for the fans is how you grow the game. It seems like there is a segment of volleyball fans who would prefer to be a niche Olympic sport like field hockey. I don't think it's necessary to play a large amount of conference tournaments with 4 matches in 4 days to grow the sport. I believe it's growing fine without it. I think it's fairer to say I'd prefer the team I root for not to be forced to play in a conference tournament. I'm not interested in it. I also don't think it's necessary in the top conferences. But if the smaller conferences want to do it, have at it. I don't think that's going to grow the sport one way or another, but I don't think those conferences are going to produce teams that go on deep runs for the most part anyway, or if they do, they're going to dominate in the conference tournament just like they did in the regular season. I don't know how much benefit conference tournaments actually give fans and media, either. How much benefit does it bring to the Big East? When I talk about being "for the fans and media" I'm not saying it's to their benefit necessarily. I'm saying that's the only potential benefit, since it is not to the teams' benefit, and it may not be to their benefit, either. It's not to my benefit as a fan. I know that. Again, I'd say the exception is the Big 10. I could see a conference tournament for them creating a lot of excitement. But I don't think it would move the needle much in the ACC, SEC, or Big 12. I don't know what to think about the PAC. There are some existential issues there.
|
|
|
Post by vergyltantor on Mar 11, 2023 14:08:32 GMT -5
When the Big Ten goes to 16 teams, assuming they continue to play 20 Conference matches, there will only be four opponents that appear twice on the schedule. The odds of Nebraska/Minnesota/Wisconsin/Penn State/USC/UCLA playing three or four of the other teams from that group twice will be quite thin, unless you lock it into the annual schedule. If you do that, then a team like Illinois or Purdue might be able to rack up enough wins against cupcakes to squeak by the traditional powers, as they beat each other up. If you dial it back to 16 matches, it would make for a pure "regular season" champion, as well as open up room at the end of the season for a fun and lucrative conference tournament; preparing them for the real tournament with a "one and done" format. I bet the coaches would gladly forgo the preparation for the one and done format in order to not play 4 matches in 4 days the weekend prior. A conference tournament would be for the fans and media, not for the benefit of the teams themselves. I have to admit the Big 10 is the one conference this could easily be a lucrative endeavor, but I don’t think it would be for anyone else unless it’s hosted by a school with a relatively rabid fan base. Does the Big East make money on their tournament? That would be the template to use IMO. One thing I don't like about having a conference tournament after the LA teams join is that the B1G can expect to possibly get as many as 9 to 10 teams in the NCAA's as it is. Bubble teams that lose in the first round of the tournament may be denied a berth.
A better solution might be to have a round-robin tournament of sorts the last 2 weeks of the season. 1-5 play each other 6-10 and 11-16 as well. Teams in the 11-16 group would play all but one team.
This setup might limit burnout going into the NCAA's, also teams in the 11-16 group would still be able to play a full 20 game schedule.
Disclaimer: I actually haven't given this much thought. I'm sure there are major faults with this system, so let me have it, I would be glad to hear them. (especially because I'm not a fan of a B1G tournament in the first place)
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Mar 11, 2023 14:44:04 GMT -5
I bet the coaches would gladly forgo the preparation for the one and done format in order to not play 4 matches in 4 days the weekend prior. A conference tournament would be for the fans and media, not for the benefit of the teams themselves. I have to admit the Big 10 is the one conference this could easily be a lucrative endeavor, but I don’t think it would be for anyone else unless it’s hosted by a school with a relatively rabid fan base. Does the Big East make money on their tournament? That would be the template to use IMO. One thing I don't like about having a conference tournament after the LA teams join is that the B1G can expect to possibly get as many as 9 to 10 teams in the NCAA's as it is. Bubble teams that lose in the first round of the tournament may be denied a berth.
A better solution might be to have a round-robin tournament of sorts the last 2 weeks of the season. 1-5 play each other 6-10 and 11-16 as well. Teams in the 11-16 group would play all but one team.
This setup might limit burnout going into the NCAA's, also teams in the 11-16 group would still be able to play a full 20 game schedule.
Disclaimer: I actually haven't given this much thought. I'm sure there are major faults with this system, so let me have it, I would be glad to hear them. (especially because I'm not a fan of a B1G tournament in the first place)
The main fault I'd have with it is flexible scheduling made at the last minute is not realistic. Schools allow it for football for television because they're paid so much to be accommodating, but even then there's griping all the time about the TV window that was picked. Not knowing if a venue is going to used or not, whether a team will travel or won't, nor knowing where they'd be travelling to, is a logistical nightmare. It's not an apples to apples comparison, but I remember having arguments with people who would say a conference championship game in football should only be scheduled if it can't be determined through the regular season results who it should be. But it doesn't work like that. Now, scheduling a football game within a week at a neutral site is completely different than a volleyball match on a home court, but there are still logistical issues. Especially at the many schools that have to share the volleyball court with other sports. And not every school is going to sell out a game within minutes of the tickets going on sale like Nebraska will. I love the concept. Heck, there are a lot of concepts I love. I love the English soccer (football) concept of promotion and relegation. I'd love to see something like that in American college sports. But colleges really need stability in their scheduling in a way that this does not provide, IMO. It's not just bubble teams that can be affected, either. Teams that have a #1 seed secured prior to a tournament have nothing to gain from a conference tournament. You get tired legs, or even worse, a critical player suffers an injury playing 4 matches in 4 days, what was gained? Especially if you lose somewhere along the way.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Mar 11, 2023 14:52:15 GMT -5
I bet the coaches would gladly forgo the preparation for the one and done format in order to not play 4 matches in 4 days the weekend prior. A conference tournament would be for the fans and media, not for the benefit of the teams themselves. I have to admit the Big 10 is the one conference this could easily be a lucrative endeavor, but I don’t think it would be for anyone else unless it’s hosted by a school with a relatively rabid fan base. Does the Big East make money on their tournament? That would be the template to use IMO. One thing I don't like about having a conference tournament after the LA teams join is that the B1G can expect to possibly get as many as 9 to 10 teams in the NCAA's as it is. Bubble teams that lose in the first round of the tournament may be denied a berth. Bubble teams can also play their way in by getting a good win or two in a conference tournament. This happens all the time in basketball and would happen in volleyball too. As I said before, I'm not really an advocate of conference tournaments in volleyball at this point (though I think the Big Ten would probably lead the way if and when it does happen), but there are definitely arguments in favor of them that I don't think can just be dismissed out of hand. From a basketball perspective, my New Mexico Lobos played themselves onto the wrong side of the bubble in the last couple months of the season to the point that I felt like they needed at least a couple good wins in the Mountain West Tournament if not win the whole thing to get into the NCAA Tournament. But they did have the talent to do it. They ultimately lost and won't be getting their named called tomorrow, but I'm glad they at least had the chance instead of just being done.
|
|
|
Post by vergyltantor on Mar 11, 2023 15:37:34 GMT -5
One thing I don't like about having a conference tournament after the LA teams join is that the B1G can expect to possibly get as many as 9 to 10 teams in the NCAA's as it is. Bubble teams that lose in the first round of the tournament may be denied a berth.
A better solution might be to have a round-robin tournament of sorts the last 2 weeks of the season. 1-5 play each other 6-10 and 11-16 as well. Teams in the 11-16 group would play all but one team.
This setup might limit burnout going into the NCAA's, also teams in the 11-16 group would still be able to play a full 20 game schedule.
Disclaimer: I actually haven't given this much thought. I'm sure there are major faults with this system, so let me have it, I would be glad to hear them. (especially because I'm not a fan of a B1G tournament in the first place)
The main fault I'd have with it is flexible scheduling made at the last minute is not realistic. Schools allow it for football for television because they're paid so much to be accommodating, but even then there's griping all the time about the TV window that was picked. Not knowing if a venue is going to used or not, whether a team will travel or won't, nor knowing where they'd be travelling to, is a logistical nightmare. It's not an apples to apples comparison, but I remember having arguments with people who would say a conference championship game in football should only be scheduled if it can't be determined through the regular season results who it should be. But it doesn't work like that. Now, scheduling a football game within a week at a neutral site is completely different than a volleyball match on a home court, but there are still logistical issues. Especially at the many schools that have to share the volleyball court with other sports. And not every school is going to sell out a game within minutes of the tickets going on sale like Nebraska will. I love the concept. Heck, there are a lot of concepts I love. I love the English soccer (football) concept of promotion and relegation. I'd love to see something like that in American college sports. But colleges really need stability in their scheduling in a way that this does not provide, IMO. It's not just bubble teams that can be affected, either. Teams that have a #1 seed secured prior to a tournament have nothing to gain from a conference tournament. You get tired legs, or even worse, a critical player suffers an injury playing 4 matches in 4 days, what was gained? Especially if you lose somewhere along the way. Pulling it off might take some creative scheduling. Predetermined sites could have issues if, for example (god forbid) Nebraska would slip from group #1 to group #2 in a given year with the Huskers having to play all 4 matches on the road. Also, 2 matches at a venue that doesn't have a home team would cause problems with ticket sales, particularly in places like Minneapolis, Madison, and Lincoln that would fully expect to sell out home matches that time of the year.
So like I stated in an earlier post, I have faith that the B1G can schedule compelling matches to end the season with the current system and no tournament is necessary.
|
|