Bring Back the Double Bye?

[UAZip0510]

 

I'm a big proponent of mid-major conferences making the regular season more important given the lack of at-large berths.  It seems the double-bye helped make that happen.  The argument against it was that there was often not a big difference between #4 and #5, or even #2 and #3, but personally, I'd rather deal with that and get the best regular season teams in more often. 

 

Thoughts?

 

Edited March 16, 2017 by UAZip0510

[Blackburn]

 No. In my eyes, the double bye was not beneficial.  Teams struggled their first game at the Q while the lesser seeds already had a game under their belt on the Q floor. Maybe if the games at the Q didn't start till after the double bye, but the MAC wouldn't do that. 

[skip-zip]

Here's a few thoughts:

1) If you only have to play 1 extra game, 3 days before the Quarterfinal games, that's not much of a penalty for being outperformed by the top teams in your league throughout the season.

2) No league champ, especially ones who dominated (2016 and 2017 Zips, for example), should suffer all-or-nothing consequences by losing the 21st conference game of the season, when the first 20 games demonstrated superiority over the rest of the league. 

3) There's a reason why they play a SERIES in the NBA.  It'll never happen in college basketball, but I think anyone can agree that one designated game can't possibly be a true indication of the difference between 2 teams.  

 

[gozips19]

How abut the 1 seed losing 5 of the last 7 finals with Akron playing in 4. 

[zippy5]

22 minutes ago, Blackburn said:

 No. In my eyes, the double bye was not beneficial.  Teams struggled their first game at the Q while the lesser seeds already had a game under their belt on the Q floor. Maybe if the games at the Q didn't start till after the double bye, but the MAC wouldn't do that. 

How do you figure? The finals were 1 vs 2 each year it was in effect

[Blackburn]

6 minutes ago, zippy5 said:

How do you figure? The finals were 1 vs 2 each year it was in effect

I think it had more to do with how they did the seeding... wasn't that also changed?

[skip-zip]

32 minutes ago, gozips19 said:

How abut the 1 seed losing 5 of the last 7 finals with Akron playing in 4. 

 

Does that support the need to give the #1 seed more of an advantage?  Or, are you saying you're fine with that?

The #1 has actually only WON 2 of the last 9 titles.  That's surprising.  

 

To clarify where Akron was in all title games:

Akron has won as a #5, #6 and #1

Akron has lost as a #2, #3, #3, #1, #1 and #1

Akron was eliminated in Semi-Finals as a #4 and #7

Edited March 16, 2017 by skip-zip

[clarkwgriswold]

Three games in three nights shouldn't be a problem for college players.   Playing in that setting, I'm not sure that fewer games are any great benefit and the sample size is way too small to reach any strong conclusions.

 

In the end, there's no perfect answer.  The tournament winner getting the NCAA bid rewards the hot team, maybe the best team to go because they are peaking.  The regular season winner would send the team with the more impressive body of work.   

[kreed5120]

This year the double bye would have been a mess with 4 teams tied for 2nd place.

[UAZip0510]

The double bye effectively makes it incredibly difficult for seeds 5-12 to win the tournament.  I'm perfectly ok with that and think that's the way it should be.  Sure, you'll have years like this year where you have multi-team ties, but ultimately one of your top 4 teams is going to probably win it.  This year Akron was 4 games better than Kent in the MAC - a significant difference in conference play - and Kent only had to play one more game, with 2 days rest in between.  I fear the MAC will never have continued tournament success if we're sending lower seeds (which, in turn, get crap NCAA seeds).  Just my two cents.

[Valpo Zip]

Limit the number of teams that make the tournament. Only top 4 teams go to the Q. This way, you make sure that one of the best 4 teams will represent the conference and most importantly, the regular season becomes important.

Look at the NBA, they play 82 regular season games and it seems like every team that is halfway decent will be in the playoffs. Even though better teams get rewarded with home court advantage, it seems like everybody just wants to fast forward to the playoffs already.

On the other hand, in the MLB (where a team plays a whopping 162 games a season), the regular season matters because only 4 (or 5 if you count the play-in) teams per league will make the playoffs.
In the MAC where every team gets to play in the tournament and where being the better seed doesn't get you any home court advantage, what is the motivation to work hard in the regular season?   

[LZIp]

I was trying to think of a reason why I disagree with it and I can't. I mean the top 4 teams already DO get an advantage based on how the play in the regular season. Trying to keep bias out of it, I think it is probably fair to give the regular season champ, top 2 teams, or whatever baseline you want to set as much as an advantage as possible when we play in a one bid league. There are also other benefits that come from your best team(s) winning....best team representing the conference, hopefully more respect gained by playing teams close/winning, and better atmospheres at the Q for the conference tournament.

 

It really does suck that a great season can all be a waste if you don't bring it every game in the conference tourney. But there are teams in better conferences also feeling the same sting (Illinois State) that realize they are at a disadvantage and are going out and doing something about it.

 

I saw Brad Bournival making a point on twitter during Selection Sunday. Basically saying why not put another MAC team in over some of these horrible 15 or 16 seeds. Its a good point, but also a dangerous game to play as we are one of the little guys and are constantly at fight for at least a chance in every major sports championship.

[zippy5]

To play devil's advocate, the thinking of not rewarding the top 2 seeds too  is that the hottest team gets in the tournament, not necessarily the best. Sometimes the hotter team has the better chance of an upset. See OU's run

Edited March 17, 2017 by zippy5

[UAZippers]

I strongly believe in the winner of a conference tournament getting the bid to the big dance. If the favorite can't even beat the teams that they have been facing all year, how can you expect them to perform well in a tournament with much better teams. Give the hot team the bid.

 

Us Zips fans are obviously biased, as Akron has had some incredible success in the regular season, but it is good that a team that had a rough year still has something to play for throughout. How boring would this season have been if Akron had already locked up the bid in mid-January when they had a 4 game lead about 7 games into the conference season? I actually really like that Miami always seems to make a little run at a better seed in the last few weeks and that everyone hates playing Buffalo in the tournament because of what they did in the 2 seasons prior to this one. It is these kinds of story lines that make college sports exciting. 

[UAZip0510]

5 hours ago, UAZippers said:

I strongly believe in the winner of a conference tournament getting the bid to the big dance. If the favorite can't even beat the teams that they have been facing all year, how can you expect them to perform well in a tournament with much better teams. Give the hot team the bid.

 

Us Zips fans are obviously biased, as Akron has had some incredible success in the regular season, but it is good that a team that had a rough year still has something to play for throughout. How boring would this season have been if Akron had already locked up the bid in mid-January when they had a 4 game lead about 7 games into the conference season? I actually really like that Miami always seems to make a little run at a better seed in the last few weeks and that everyone hates playing Buffalo in the tournament because of what they did in the 2 seasons prior to this one. It is these kinds of story lines that make college sports exciting. 

 

I understand your viewpoint, but my counterpoint is simply this:

 

Each team plays 18 conference games.  Team A could go 18-0 and Team B could go 0-18, and the only current advantage Team A has is playing one less game.  I understand wand even agree that a #1 seed should take care of business, but it's also basketball - any team can have a bad night.  The double bye doesn't eliminate that possibility, but it builds a much stronger advantage - a week to rest (and less rest for lower seeds) and only one win needed to reach the final.  

 

Make the regular season matter.  Why is attendance so low or average at most MAC schools?  Because aside from pride, the games don't really matter a ton.  All that matters is one week at The Q, and everyone knows it.  Heck, if I had my way, the regular season champ would get the auto bid and the conference tournament would be for the NIT auto bid.  That's how strongly I feel about making the regular season count for more.  

[UAZippers]

6 minutes ago, UAZip0510 said:

 

I understand your viewpoint, but my counterpoint is simply this:

 

Each team plays 18 conference games.  Team A could go 18-0 and Team B could go 0-18, and the only current advantage Team A has is playing one less game.  I understand wand even agree that a #1 seed should take care of business, but it's also basketball - any team can have a bad night.  The double bye doesn't eliminate that possibility, but it builds a much stronger advantage - a week to rest (and less rest for lower seeds) and only one win needed to reach the final.  

 

Make the regular season matter.  Why is attendance so low or average at most MAC schools?  Because aside from pride, the games don't really matter a ton.  All that matters is one week at The Q, and everyone knows it.  Heck, if I had my way, the regular season champ would get the auto bid and the conference tournament would be for the NIT auto bid.  That's how strongly I feel about making the regular season count for more.  

My argument is that playing for the tournament is the only thing saving attendance towards the end of the season. Imagine the roles were reversed and OU or Kent gained a huge lead in the conference standings early in the season. Do you think anyone at all will show up to watch Akron play Toledo or Miami late in the year if the only hope was to get a higher seed in a meaningless tournament? There is a reason that the JAR always has a bit more of a buzz during games late in the year. Right now every team has a chance to make a run and that is keeping interest alive, even if it is only on life support anyway, for the majority of MAC schools.

[skip-zip]

7 hours ago, UAZippers said:

Us Zips fans are obviously biased, as Akron has had some incredible success in the regular season,

 

That's because we're also the most successful MAC team ever in tournament play as well, thanks to the enormous success in the Dambrot era.  It's only the few championship games that we didn't play well and didn't win, and could have easily gone the other way, that's even prompted any of these discussions. 

 

Dominant regular season play.  League-best tournament play, but a few falters in tournament finals.  It just seems like only 3 NCAA tournament bids for all of that success is a pretty small reward.  

[UAZip0510]

1 hour ago, UAZippers said:

My argument is that playing for the tournament is the only thing saving attendance towards the end of the season. Imagine the roles were reversed and OU or Kent gained a huge lead in the conference standings early in the season. Do you think anyone at all will show up to watch Akron play Toledo or Miami late in the year if the only hope was to get a higher seed in a meaningless tournament? There is a reason that the JAR always has a bit more of a buzz during games late in the year. Right now every team has a chance to make a run and that is keeping interest alive, even if it is only on life support anyway, for the majority of MAC schools.

 

It seems extremely rare for a team to clinch the regular season title early in the MAC.  Even this year, Akron didn't do it until late.  Also the tournament wouldn't be meaningless for anyone - it would just give a more significant advantage to top seeds.

[OU Dude]

Trivia Question: When was the decision made to change the format to the Double Bye?

 

Answer: After the 2010 season when the 9 seed beat the 1 seed in the Quarterfinals. Afterwards, fans of the 1 seed complained that it wasn't fair that they didn't get a bigger advantage for winning the regular season. Sound familiar?

[K92]

No matter what the format, people gonna bitch.

[skip-zip]

1 hour ago, OU Dude said:

Trivia Question: When was the decision made to change the format to the Double Bye?

 

Answer: After the 2010 season when the 9 seed beat the 1 seed in the Quarterfinals. Afterwards, fans of the 1 seed complained that it wasn't fair that they didn't get a bigger advantage for winning the regular season. Sound familiar?

 

And back then, they played the 1st round campus-site games on SUNDAY.  With those "play-in" games occurring 4 days before the Quarterfinals, do you think that really gave any advantage at all to the higher seeds?

[clarkwgriswold]

11 hours ago, K92 said:

No matter what the format, people gonna bitch.

 

Exxxxaaaaccccccttttlllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!  Somebody's ox is getting gored either way.

[OU Dude]

I'm not opposed to the Double-Bye format in theory but what killed it was when the MAC went from 16 conference games to 18. At 16 games its even- every team plays all 5 teams in their division twice, and all 6 teams in cross-division once. Adding 2 more games makes it uneven, you get 2 more random cross-division games.

 

In 2014 Ohio and Akron split their head to head series 1-1. They both shared the same division record of (6-4) but Akron(6-2) edged Ohio(5-3) in cross division play. By random scheduling Akron got to play the #12 seed and #6 seed twice and went 4-0, Ohio played those teams once each and went 2-0. On the other end, Ohio had to play the #1 and #2 teams twice and Ohio went 1-3 against them, Akron went 0-2. As a result Akron ended up the #4 seed and Ohio was #5.

 

This slight difference over 18 games resulted in Ohio having to play a campus game on Monday, travel Tuesday, then play another game on Wednesday, just for the chance to play a well rested Akron on Thursday. Ohio lead the Zips for the first 37 minutes and then looked like they ran out of gas.

 

There's an argument for whether the regular season champ or tournament champ should get the auto-bid, but when it comes to the tournament format design, the current design is the best fit.

[zippy5]

There isn't a purpose to divisions any more