|
|
Post by pelagius on Apr 6, 2021 1:30:22 GMT -5
Also, it's been talked about in the WCC thread -- what are they going to do if BYU beats UCLA? Very possible. BYU will not play on Sunday. Doubleheader on Monday, or the only match played on Saturday? I'd be OK if they just forfeited. But I expect the NCAA would accommodate them with a date change. There was a brief period (if I remember correctly) in the late 90s (98 based on revision dates of the bylaw) when the NCAA felt as you do and acted on it. They removed the "BYU Rule" from the NCAA bylaws. They reinstated it pretty quickly. Like period of a few months. A lot of universities supported BYU's plea for continued accommodation. So these days you see stuff like this in the NCAA tournament manual:
So BYU will get the accommodation if they beat UCLA. It seems like Saturday is really the only day that makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by huskersrule95 on Apr 6, 2021 1:31:11 GMT -5
OP is updated with tentative links. The courts are subject to change.  |
|
|
|
Post by redcard🏐 on Apr 6, 2021 13:50:30 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2021 13:51:54 GMT -5
kinda hate this given Stanford’s situation |
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Apr 6, 2021 13:53:40 GMT -5
I guess they're actually right with this one, but it reminds me of the Penn State super bowl tweet...
|
|
|
|
Post by vballvball on Apr 6, 2021 14:05:52 GMT -5
What’s the deal with streaming? I have ESPN by signing in with my TV provider. You'll have to use your TV provider to log into Watch ESPN either on the website or app on your phone/tv. The first three rounds will all be online-only. you’ll need to send out a mailer to all the Nebraska fans’ kids to help their parents watch the games. |
|
|
|
Post by vballvball on Apr 6, 2021 14:08:48 GMT -5
this is shady. I hope they get swept by Rice |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 6, 2021 14:10:26 GMT -5
Also, it's been talked about in the WCC thread -- what are they going to do if BYU beats UCLA? Very possible. BYU will not play on Sunday. Doubleheader on Monday, or the only match played on Saturday? I can't imagine they would do a doubleheader on Monday. Saturday night wouldn't be that much different than Sunday morning. Having the entire Sweet 16 played on one day is kind of weird anyway. I can't imagine they would ever do that in basketball, as it's always across two days. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 6, 2021 14:17:09 GMT -5
kinda hate this given Stanford’s situation I know. I'm not a Stanford fan, but this is like celebrating because your rival got cancer. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 6, 2021 14:40:51 GMT -5
kinda hate this given Stanford’s situation I feel for Stanford's players and coaches. I wish their administrators had supported them the way they did their national championship women's basketball team. I guess at least they still have a team, which is more than can be said for the men's volleyball team after this season is over. |
|
|
|
Post by carsonvega on Apr 6, 2021 14:45:08 GMT -5
That window is now gone. So, anyone who can't come, the other team advances. If a top seed pulls out, then that first round winner gets a sweet 16 berth.
I really, really hope that no team advances because their would-be opponents get COVID-ed out.
But I want to say this before any potential match default occurs: any team that cancelled a match during the last week of the season and still got into the tournament had better NOT have to default. At this point, enough about the spread and contact tracing of COVID is known that all teams that had to cancel in the last week should be able to tell whether they will realistically have enough healthy players to compete in 10 days. With the smaller tournament field this year, a team taking a slot from another team that could have actually played but then that team not being able to actually play when that team had a known problem recently would be exceptionally unfair.
*gets down off of soapbox*
|
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Apr 6, 2021 14:48:55 GMT -5
kinda hate this given Stanford’s situation I feel for Stanford's players and coaches. I wish their administrators had supported them the way they did their national championship women's basketball team. I guess at least they still have a team, which is more than can be said for the men's volleyball team after this season is over. Even Stanford cant afford to house all 33 spring teams in hotels for an indefinite duration, which is what they probably needed to do if they wanted to house the WVB team. How can you say you'll do it for WVB but not women's/men's soccer, softball, baseball, etc.? |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 6, 2021 14:56:35 GMT -5
I feel for Stanford's players and coaches. I wish their administrators had supported them the way they did their national championship women's basketball team. I guess at least they still have a team, which is more than can be said for the men's volleyball team after this season is over. Even Stanford cant afford to house all 33 spring teams in hotels for an indefinite duration, which is what they probably needed to do if they wanted to house the WVB team. How can you say you'll do it for WVB but not women's/men's soccer, softball, baseball, etc.? I knew someone would make this claim, but I'm sorry. I just don't buy it. If they couldn't do it themselves, they could have raised the money. The cost of relocating the teams for a couple months would not have been that great, and Stanford has more money than basically anyone. Stanford claimed it was cutting sports for budgetary reasons, but when the wrestling team raised enough to fund their program into perpetuity, Stanford is still cutting them. I know they're you're team, and you certainly don't have to agree with me on this. But there is just no possible argument that will get me to change my mind on this. |
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Apr 6, 2021 15:18:32 GMT -5
Even Stanford cant afford to house all 33 spring teams in hotels for an indefinite duration, which is what they probably needed to do if they wanted to house the WVB team. How can you say you'll do it for WVB but not women's/men's soccer, softball, baseball, etc.? I knew someone would make this claim, but I'm sorry. I just don't buy it. If they couldn't do it themselves, they could have raised the money. The cost of relocating the teams for a couple months would not have been that great, and Stanford has more money than basically anyone. Stanford claimed it was cutting sports for budgetary reasons, but when the wrestling team raised enough to fund their program into perpetuity, Stanford is still cutting them. I know they're you're team, and you certainly don't have to agree with me on this. But there is just no possible argument that will get me to change my mind on this. I know there's not but I strongly disagree so if I see you say something like that, I'm going to disagree about it. There are a lot of players and IMO it would be unfair to just pay for a few of the teams. (Your earlier suggestion had been for Stanford to just fund WVB and maybe a couple of others but you seem to have dropped that.)
Did the teams even try to raise the money to live outside of Santa Clara County? I don't think WVB did bc MVB did live out of state for a while. Stanford didn't object but it wasn't going to fund it. Maybe WVB did try to raise the money but wasn't successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 6, 2021 15:21:53 GMT -5
I knew someone would make this claim, but I'm sorry. I just don't buy it. If they couldn't do it themselves, they could have raised the money. The cost of relocating the teams for a couple months would not have been that great, and Stanford has more money than basically anyone. Stanford claimed it was cutting sports for budgetary reasons, but when the wrestling team raised enough to fund their program into perpetuity, Stanford is still cutting them. I know they're you're team, and you certainly don't have to agree with me on this. But there is just no possible argument that will get me to change my mind on this. I know there's not but I strongly disagree so if I see you say something like that, I'm going to disagree about it. There are a lot of players and IMO it would be unfair to just pay for a few of the teams. (Your earlier suggestion had been for Stanford to just fund WVB and maybe a couple of others but you seem to have dropped that.)
Did the teams even try to raise the money to live outside of Santa Clara County? I don't think WVB did bc MVB did live out of state for a while. Stanford didn't object but it wasn't going to fund it. Maybe WVB did try to raise the money but wasn't successful. That's all fair enough. I really respect you as one of the better posters on this board. I just disagree on this particular issue, which is fine. |
|
