Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,084 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
Please I hope this happens. Could you imagine if a BYU or VCU had to come play at Patrick what the crowd would be like. Also it would give the opportunity to add another piece toward maybe earning a 12 seed (if we won both games).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,218 Posts
Why wouldn't the AE want to join this? What's the downside? If you can afford to take a road game, I can't see why the AE may not want to join this.

I've heard other coaches besides Becker talk about how hard it is to schedule games at our level, it seems like a win/win.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,691 Posts
Why wouldn't the AE want to join this? What's the downside? If you can afford to take a road game, I can't see why the AE may not want to join this.

I've heard other coaches besides Becker talk about how hard it is to schedule games at our level, it seems like a win/win.
I don't see a downside and from what I read, each team from each conference would get both a home and away game during that week. I'm a hoops fan anyway so I love good matchups, but man, the options are almost limitless.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,909 Posts
…the pitch has been sent to the 26 leagues outside of the six biggest conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC). The six biggest leagues are not involved for practical reasons: 20-game leagues schedules, rigid TV contracts, and a sense that they wouldn't embrace this outside-the-box concept, as it wouldn't stand to benefit many teams in those leagues the way that it would for all others.
This is why I’m skeptical that this will have an impact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,218 Posts
Yeah, not having the power conferences probably hurts TV ratings/interest, but wasn't Bracket Busters pretty much just mid-majors? If you take the best team or two from all the remaining conferences and match them up based on metrics and put it on CBS's sports streaming service, I think that it could get some traction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,722 Posts
I finally had a chance to read through this. As a fan, love it. Because what's not to like about getting deceptively good under-the-radar match-ups in February?

Trying to view it as programs would: I see how it benefits some programs. Or at least, I see why it's probably a big "Hey, why not?" for a lot of programs. I'm not sure though that the benefit for the programs it's supposed to most benefit isn't being overstated a little. It does take two games that you were theoretically already playing in November and moving them to February, thus taking some of the guesswork out of "Is this opponent going to be any good by the time we play them?" But as we saw at times with the original BracketBusters, there can be a bit of a cannibalization effect with games like this. "Oh cool, two potential non-power bubble teams meeting in February" we all say. But how is a loss (much less, a sweep!) in those games going to affect their chances as opposed to the normal scheduling format: run through your non-con, build some buzz, take minimal damage in your league, watch bloated mediocre power teams kill each other to the tune of 8-10 conference records, grab that 10-seed!

Honestly, I think Norlander was just super giddy about the use of an algorithm. Also, while this would certainly be larger if 22 entire leagues were involved, I think he forgot just how bloated the BracketBusters event was by the end. There were teams involved who hadn't seen a bracket since they moved up from the NAIA in the 70s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,281 Posts
I like the general concept as well, but let's be honest scheduling games vs. mid-majors in your Quad just isn't going to improve anyone resume that much. I think the potential benefits are way overstated and like the old Bracket Busters, will result in just a few marquee matchups.

Second, for almost all of these leagues, this has to be regionalized. Santa Barbara isn't coming to Vermont on late notice in February. I just think the logistics of determining matchups midseason, for low-budget bus leagues is going to be more complex and costly than most leagues/schools are willing to commit.

Sure, would a Bryant-Vermont, or Wagner-Iona matchup last year would have been great - of course! But if Vermont can't get a sign a home/home with a Colgate, Wagner, Yale, Iona, or Delaware - what problem is this solving? CCSU already had games scheduled with similar rated programs (Holy Cross and Maine) so how does this model do something that most coaches can't do within their networks - schedule games.

I just don't buy some of this scheduling crap. Next season the NEC and AE each have 9 teams and will play a 16-game schedule. If each school doesn't have 4 opponents (2 home/2 away) from the other league - what is the problem? Too many coaches just want to home games with D-III wins. Again, I'm all for the concept, but definitely need to see more details before we can say this is some great idea,
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top