I noticed the MWC has changed the format and bracket for the 2009 Basketball Championships. Is it just me or is the MWC trying to ruin the Women's Basketball side of the tournament? I wonder what triggered this change? Could it be Utah's Elaine Elliot's ego after losing to CSU last year.
The first two days of the tournament may be affected negatively. Especially since the women's tournament is a lowly-attended event especially when UNM and Wyoming are not playing. Most of the action of the Women's MWC involves the participation of the top half.
Although I'll admit the top 2 teams of the women's MWC will have it made since they have a bye until Friday. Pretty much two wins is all the top 2 teams in the MWC need in order to win the MWC.
NEW LOBO ORDER
WE ARE NEW MEXICO
Interesting. Why are they doing that? Men's format remains the same.
Good catch on the tourney. I would have never noticed until tourney time.
I like the idea of rewarding the teams that work hard during the regular season to garner a top 2 seed. It also helps ensure one of the top 2 seeds doesn't play a really low RPI team that could kill their RPI.Although I'll admit the top 2 teams of the women's MWC will have it made since they have a bye until Friday. Pretty much two wins is all the top 2 teams in the MWC need in order to win the MWC.
First off, Utah can only blame themselves for losing to CSU. However, their NCAA seeding dropped big-time, by that one loss to CSU in the tourney and put them in a bad way in the NCAA's as a result. This may help offset those things happening.
It could also be for TV purposes?
So much for major upsets. Seems more like a coronation and NCAA warm-up. They should just make the regular season champ the auto bid winner if they are going to mess with the tournament this way.
One At A Time . . .
Who the hell came up with this stupid idea?!?!?! :Boxer
I can't believe that they're messing with the tournament bracket in such a way. It's blatantly obvious to me that this is a result from what happened last year to Utah (and, to a certain extent, to TCU and Wyoming). Like ThickLobo said, they may as well just reward the regular season champ with the auto bid than to screw around with the tournament. Half the fun of the tourney is seeing the upsets occur and how that shifts strategy, etc in order to adapt (which, btw, is where Coach Flanagan shows his SUPERIOR coaching ability over his peers :NW).
However, just my $.02 here, but if the 16-0 regular season champ can't get motivated to beat the 0-16 doormat in the conference tournament, then they don't deserve to be the auto-bid representative!
Had this been the format last year, our gals would have had to win four games ---- CSU, BYU, Utah (who wouldn't have had to play a game in the tourney until this point), and either TCU or Wyoming --- in order to win the tournament. In essence, the top 2 regular season finishers get a major advantage, 3rd place gets an advantage, while 4rth (UNM last year) and below get hosed!!! EmotWOW
Off the soap box now.....
As much as I would like to start conspiracy theories about Elaine Elliot, I suspect the primary reason for change is money. Let's face it - the tournament is primarily about making big bucks for the conference. If it was about fairness, it wouldn't be in Vegas every year (a subject we've beaten to death).
The pig-tail games on Tuesday have never been an attractive draw. Now there are 3 semi-competitive games on Tuesday and the men get to play their pigtail game on Wednesday like they've always wanted.
I'm not crazy about the change. It could hurt the Lobos chances of winning the tournament this year. But everyone starts the regular season 0-0 and plays every team home and away. Rather than complain, perhaps we should concentrate on getting back into the top 3 where we used to be on a regular basis.
There is a LOT I do not like about this change, starting with the fact it is for the women only. I would like to see a single logical basketball related reason for that. I am a reasonably creative individual but I can’t come up with one.
Other things I do not like about it:
--It goes counter to the whole argument about giving the tournament winner the automatic NCAA bid--that argument is to send the team that is peaking at the end of the season yet this approach penalizes the team that gels and improves over the season. As several have stated, if you want to reward consistency (not an evil thing) then do not pretend, just anoint the regular season winner.
--If we believe it is in the best interest of the league to win games in the NCAAs, then the league should want to send their hottest March team. Since the new format is LESS likely to do this I think it will hurt the league more often than not.
--Yes, it might penalize a regular season team by having them play a weak SoS first opponent, but I refuse to believe that is a big penalty hit (unless they lose)—it is the norm for every top seeded team in every conference. The teams it DOES hurt are the 4th seeded teams who are likely to be NCAA bubble teams. Now get the bad SoS opponent (the #9 seed instead of the #5 seed in the 1st round, the 5th seed instead of the 1st seed in the second round). For the MWC 4th-seed this SoS hit is more damaging than for the #1 seed. If we believe more teams in the tournament is good for the league then this new format is again bad.
--It rewards a coach who cannot get their team up for an 0-16 CSU by not having to play them.
--In years where we (or any other school) does well it penalizes the fans by limiting them to seeing their team only twice in the tournament.
I don’t know that this was Sinister Utah Plot rule change, but whatever the reasoning it does help a Utah approach to the season (play fewer people, play at peak performance all year, often look a little worn out at the end of the season) over the UNM approach (do a bit more player development, build to the tournament as the most important week). If the change were made for both the men and women it would be a lot harder to see it as a biased adaptation.
So back to my opening point, WHY was it only changed for the women? If the whole thing is about selling more tickets to the first day's games, it is both sad and very short sighted.
BTW, when we played Air Force last year, we beat them by 20+ up in their gym and our RPI dropped by more than 10 spots, so I have no doubt it is a HUGE penalty for the top team to play the spare from the play in game.Yes, it might penalize a regular season team by having them play a weak SoS first opponent, but I refuse to believe that is a big penalty hit (unless they lose)—it is the norm for every top seeded team in every conference
Now that I've had a chance to actually walk thru the tourney, it is a little ridiculous to force a #4 seed to play 4 games to win the tourney, when the top 2 seeds only need to win 2 games???????
Sure seems like a knee jerk reaction both to what happened with Utah and us winning from the #4 seed. Have a hard time coming up with any type of justification for this, as you still have 8 games in the tourney???????
I have no problem with lower seeds having to play 1 more game than the top seeds, but 2 more is a joke!!!
It'll be funny to see what happens to this format next year after Utah finishes 4rth in the league this year and they have to deal with the 4-game scenario..... LOL!!! :Afun) :Afun) :Afun)
The MWC nightmare scenario under this new tourney format:
Just take a look at the regular season 06-07 standings:
BYU 12 4 .750
Wyoming 11 5 .6875
New Mexico 11 5 .6875
TCU 11 5 .6875
Utah 10 6 .625
UNLV 8 8 .500
San Diego State 5 11
Colorado State 3 13
Air Force 1 15 .063
3 teams tie for second place in the regular season. Under this new format, one team needs 2 wins to win the tourney, one team needs 3 wins to win the tourney and one team will need 4 wins to win the tourney!!!!!
So a stupid tiebreaker gives a completely different tourney for three teams that tied for the regular season MWC play at 11-5?
I can't believe all of the coaches but NM and SDSU voted for the change. What are they thinking? All tournaments of this kind are based on your success during the regular season. The reward in being in first is a possible bye or getting the lowest possible seed in your league. Not "special" treatement. Level the playing field for all of the teams. The lower seed teams have it tougn enough without having to play twice as many games to get to the championship. If you can't beat the lower seed, you get what you get. This is one change I really don't like, not even taking into account some of the astute observations from others.
one thing it does do is allow the lower teams more of an opportunity to win a game...maybe that's why the bottom feeders voted in favor...another thing...it will put more pressure on the lobos to get it together earlier in the season...
'...the Pit is just God awful uncomfortable for a visiting team.'
...he yells, "No one comes to the hoop now, Melvin. No one!", Harv Schmidt to Mel Daniels
“They’re loud and they get on you. They know everything about you. They know your mom’s name.”, jimmer fredette.
...Bobby Knight was screaming at his starters for being late. "We're getting our #!&$@$ kicked! Because you were late!".
If this is such a good idea, why is it just for the women's tournament?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)