Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SniperSB23
Believe me, I agree 100% on you with Stanford.
http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10751
I just don't think a 20 game minimum is a good idea since you could easily have a 19-11 team be a lot better than a 20-14 team some year. There actually are rules preventing teams from playing so many games. You are only allowed 2 exempt tournaments every 4 years or something like that where the games only count as 2 towards your total even if you play 4. So getting more than 30 games isn't something every team is allowed. It would also create a situation where you had a 10 team league and the 6th and 7th place team both have 19 wins overall. The 7th place team gets to play the 10th place team in the opening round and gets their 20th win before losing to the 2 seed. The 6 seed loses opening round to the 3 seed. Now you are saying the 7 seed has become eligible by finishing lower in the leauge than the 6 seed. Getting a bye in your tournament would become a detriment. |
I just read where the chair of the committee said that Syracuse was hurt by the unbalanced league schedule. What are they suppoed to do about that? I am far from a Syracuse fan but to hold the way a conference is set up against a team is stupid. I know that its a hard job and its impossible to make everyone happy but I think that more of the criteria should be required. You should have to have a winning conference record, SOS must be under 100 for power conferences, higher for midmajors, win at least 20 games or 66% of your games. If you do all these things then you are eligible to play in the tourney. If not then you better win the conference tourney. Having mid majors makes the tourney special, not the Stanfords or Illinois of the world.