|
|
Post by Fadunk on May 23, 2004 10:14:59 GMT -5
If the MPSF can change their playoff format why cant the NCAA make it more than a 4 team tournament? Anyone think this decision will inspire change to the NCAA? uhathletics.hawaii.edu/news.html?p=13003 |
|
|
|
Post by Mac on May 23, 2004 12:32:53 GMT -5
This is great... PROVIDING the top seed knows how to market, and takes advantage of the time to properly do it! If the top seed has a lazy mareting staff it won't make any difference. I'd hope the MPSF in general would form a marketing staff to help the member schools market better. The collective wisdom of the whole is far better than that of the individual institutions.
Regarding the so-called "Final Four." Having only 4 teams in the finals is something that just eats at me, especially when two of the final four teams are automatically assigned, regardless of their rankings or record against better teams. It's obvious to me that this sport is not interested in having the undeniably best 4 teams in the finals, and they do it to spread the interest in the sport toward the East. While that is an admirable intention, denying deserving players the opportunity to vie for the very championships they've strived all their careers to earn is tentamount to a conspiracy to place undeserving teams in the position to win when they may not have earned that right. I know to some of you those are strong words, but this year, more than most, really points out the injustice of automatic bids when there are only 4 slots.
The only solution to all the issues is to have an 8 team tournament. As far as expense goes, the teams could cut out one pre-season trip and move that expense to post-season play. Then, having true seedings for the Final Eight would allow an accurate determination of the deserving Final Four and the crowning of the national champion. Officials have been around so long their habits cloud their thinking. It's time for change.
|
|
|
|
Post by vierra on May 23, 2004 12:56:20 GMT -5
It's already a huge tournament if you think about it. MIVA tournament + EIVA tournament + MPSF tournament. It's like a 18+ team tournament already. The problem is the disparity in talent. All the better teams are in the MPSF (west coast), so in effect, this "huge" tournament is very regionalized.
It will be difficult to persuade the NCAA to do adopt a format comprising more than 4 teams, esp. in a sport that's a money-loser. However, if the NCAA were to adopt a new playoff structure, there are many formats you can choose from:
Single-elimination:
5 teams -- 3 teams get first round byes
6 teams -- 2 teams get first round byes
7 teams -- 1 team gets first round bye
8 teams -- no first round bye
9 teams -- 7 teams get first round byes
|
|
|
|
Post by Mac on May 23, 2004 13:20:03 GMT -5
It's not a tournament. It's 3 different tournaments. The best teams knock each other out before getting to the final four. The final four was nothing more than a final 2 this year. People who want to get things done get things done.
|
|
|
|
Post by vierra on May 23, 2004 14:28:59 GMT -5
It's not a tournament. It's 3 different tournaments. The best teams knock each other out before getting to the final four. The final four was nothing more than a final 2 this year. People who want to get things done get things done. Hey, I know it's three different tournaments. I'm saying, if you read my post carefully, that it's essentially one big tournament. As each team knocks each other out, winners advance, losers get tossed. How is this any different from a 64-team NCAA basketball tournament? Winners advance, losers do not. In the end, same deal. It's of course flawed because of the "regionalized" bracketing; that is, all the talented teams are in one bracket -- the MPSF bracket. Some people see three tournaments -- EIVA, MIVA, MPSF. I see one big tournament culminating in the NCAA Final Four. Of course, one at-large is chosen for the Final Four. I agree that "people who wants things done get things done." However, for men's vb, I'm not sure those people are strong enough to persuade the NCAA to change the format. Maybe they'll surprise. Now, if you are one of those people who get things done, then by all means, I hope you accomplish your goal. |
|
|
|
Post by Mac on May 23, 2004 14:47:40 GMT -5
Your format is not a true tournament format. It's nothing like the basketball 64 team tourney. That's a seeded tournament. You'd never have UCon playing Duke in the first round. A true format would have all those best teams in one tournament, and have seeds where the best teams are not elliminating each other before they get to the finals. One eight team tournament where the #1 rank plays the #8 ranked team; where the #2 plays the #7; where the #3 plays the #6; etc. Anything else doesn't get the 4 best teams into the final 4 slots.
|
|
|
|
Post by vierra on May 23, 2004 14:55:06 GMT -5
I already said it was a flawed tournament. But I still see it as one big tournament. yeah, the individual conferences sponsor the early rounds and the NCAA sponsors it at the Final Four, but in fact, it's one big tournament. This is a minor point. You see it as three tournaments plus the NCAA Final Four, and I'm saying it's one big tournament, regardless of who sponsors it. Let it rest at that.
I already also mentioned several single elimination playoff formats, the main topic. Double elimination or pool play would be great, esp. the latter, but the NCAA won't put up with that nonsense.
Besides, in the 1980s, women's volleyball had a large bracket. I can't remember if it was seeded or not, but it was so regionalized that all the best teams were in one bracket. And this was sanctioned by the NCAA! It looked like todays' MIVA-EIVA-MPSF field.
|
|
|
|
Post by vb on May 23, 2004 15:01:31 GMT -5
How about a college-age bracket...and a bracket for over-21?
How about a USA bracket and a Foreign bracket?
How about a under/over 6'3" bracket?
These ideas are about as stupid as the above. Eventually, the talent pool will be spread out even across the country, due to talent base, scholarship, and PT. Leave well enough alone...and instead work on the logical changeable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mac on May 23, 2004 16:56:17 GMT -5
What is so freak'n hard to get that an 8 team tourney is the only fair way to do this? And, it would benefit the sport since there are 4 more programs in post-season glory, including more teams from the very Eastern conferences that like it the way it is. The current system, which is unfair (but OK, gets all the little leaguers into the game), will never be fair. Fair and true competition will only be achieved when the better teams get to prevail over the weaker teams on the court, not by automatic bids that, in the example of this year, leaves better teams out when weaker and undeserving teams scate in. Those who support those teams will justify the current system because it benefits them.
|
|
|
|
Post by midwestfan on May 23, 2004 21:48:58 GMT -5
You know what Mac, it's not a fair world ... get over it because the east and the midwest have had to for years!  |
|
|
|
Post by Mac on May 23, 2004 22:26:06 GMT -5
Well it's good to see at least you agree it's unfair. So midwestfan, seriously, enlighten me on why you made that comment. What has been unfair for you? |
|
