Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2814
Reg: 11-23-04
|
03-22-17 01:40 PM - Post#227904
In response to bradley
I feel the momentum shifting (about the tourney and its many problems). (Welcome aboard MR James!). This discussion has been going on in at least two threads. Forgive me for repeating from the other thread, where there is much talking and little listening,
I am hearing many issues:
-Cost of Tourney
-Location (fairness and accessibility to fans of all schools)
-Reasonable reward to regular season champ
-Joint locale for M and W.
-Cost to the IL, joint locale and fairness to finalists can be addressed by scheduling only the M and W. finals in a neutral arena as a double header.
-Accessibility to all suggests a location in the NYC metro area.
-Reasonable reward to champ and to higher seeds is to locate semis in gyms of higher seeds. This also helps keep costs down.
-Reasonable reward to reg champs is problematic. In part the location of semis addresses this concern. But, I still believe the big prize, NCAA bid, belongs to champ. Tourney should be an inducement for the also-rans, but to a lesser prize I.e. NIT. Some folks, notably Go Green and PennFan, think that the Ivies have 0 say with the NIT and NCAA and we should behave ourselves and do whatever they tell us to; i.e. copy the sorry pecedent that other one bid conferences have set.
I disagree. Ivies are better than that. We owe the big prize to the champ. If the Tourney winner (if not the reg season champ) doesn't rate an NIT bid, that is the NIT's oversight, not ours. The NIT bid is not worth potentially depriving the 14 game champ of a field of eight teams the NCAA bid in favor of a two game season winner over a field of four. THE NIT IS A CONSOLATION PRIZE FOR RUNNERS-UP, NOT FOR CHAMPIONS. Ask any team which tournament it would rather be in.
|
