Jump to content

2023 A-10 Tourney


Recommended Posts

I would like to propose an idea for the upcoming A-10 tourney...

Have a 15 team , 4 round tournament with the A10 champ drawing a first round bye.  Make it meaningful to win the A10.

As for league officials who may argue about the lost 5th game PIG revenue, I say that revenue and then some will be made up in the better 1st round games which will now feature 3 of the 4 top A10 teams. For those who don't want to say bye to the double bye , I say get ready to say bye to all byes. Once the A-10 adds 1 more team (this is a when not if proposition) there likely will be no more byes.  It will be just a straight 4 round 16 team tourney.  Why not start the transition to that 4 round tourney now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Wiz said:

Have a 15 team , 4 round tournament with the A10 champ drawing a first round bye.  Make it meaningful to win the A10.

Do you think this would almost guarantee that we're not a Juan bid anymore? The A10 Champ would likely get an autobid and then knowing how the A10 eats itself, the Tourney winner would get an autobid having a stronger field to face?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BrettJollyComedyHour said:

Do you think this would almost guarantee that we're not a Juan bid anymore? The A10 Champ would likely get an autobid and then knowing how the A10 eats itself, the Tourney winner would get an autobid having a stronger field to face?

Guarantee is a strong word...remember we are talking about the NCAA Selection Committee that has it's favs to take care of.  While I wouldn't say guarantee,  I would say it improves the A-10's chances of getting  extra bids. 

I have written in previous posts about how the NET is calculated. I know people like to talk about the  quad wins.  Quad wins are an important factor in determining bids BUT they are  not the most important factor.  Margin of victory is the most important. ...what I referred to as the Colgate factor.  In a years earlier thread,  I talked about how Colgate finished 9th ITN in the NET...Not many Q1 opponents ...not a great SOS... but they won  the vast majority of their games (in a weak league) by 10 pts(the threshold ) or more. Margin matters.

Bottom line...A tourney with 3 of the 4 top teams (in future years all 4 teams) in the 1st round playing a weaker opponent not only adds another win to the resume...but a good chance for a 10 pt win which will help the NET score which will increase the chances for more bids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now, Lunardi has the Aq10 as a two bid league with Loyola the first four out.  Dayton is a 5 and we are a 7.  VCU was in that projected group out but have now disappeared.  Which means all four of our preseason top four are in the running. This is far from a Juan Bid League but you have to perform and rack up wins.  

Yes, you coudl argue another game gets you another win.  But what if #1 loses to #16?  I think 5 through 16 can play and then bring the top four in to face the leftovers.  I like a reward for winning the league and then some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

Guarantee is a strong word...remember we are talking about the NCAA Selection Committee that has it's favs to take care of.  While I wouldn't say guarantee,  I would say it improves the A-10's chances of getting  extra bids. 

I have written in previous posts about how the NET is calculated. I know people like to talk about the  quad wins.  Quad wins are an important factor in determining bids BUT they are  not the most important factor.  Margin of victory is the most important. ...what I referred to as the Colgate factor.  In a years earlier thread,  I talked about how Colgate finished 9th ITN in the NET...Not many Q1 opponents ...not a great SOS... but they won  the vast majority of their games (in a weak league) by 10 pts(the threshold ) or more. Margin matters.

Bottom line...A tourney with 3 of the 4 top teams (in future years all 4 teams) in the 1st round playing a weaker opponent not only adds another win to the resume...but a good chance for a 10 pt win which will help the NET score which will increase the chances for more bids.

More A10 tourney games, a marginally better chance of a bid, and making winning the A10 more meaningful? I'm sold.

Also, last year was the first in which almost every game of the A10 tourney was on a streaming platform. Offering more run-up-to-the dance "play-off" games, especially with potential NCAA tourney teams (A10 #2-4), even if in the first round, will only bolster the marketing of the conference's broadcast rights going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BrettJollyComedyHour said:

Do you think this would almost guarantee that we're not a Juan bid anymore? The A10 Champ would likely get an autobid and then knowing how the A10 eats itself, the Tourney winner would get an autobid having a stronger field to face?

I feel like this would do the opposite because giving only the A10 winner an advantage with a 1st round bye makes it more likely that they would go on to win the tournament as well.  That would very likely happen more frequently than it has in the past with the new format Wiz proposed.  In that scenario, you'd end up with the A10/tourney winner being the only bid in certain years.  I prefer a format that gives an advantage to the top X number of teams, but no special advantage to the top 1 or 2 to make it more likely a team below 1 or 2 wins the tournament.  I think this makes it more likely for the A10 to wind up with 2 or more bids.

Honestly if the A10 was smart, they should wait until later in the season to announce the tournament format that year.  Adjust the format accordingly to try to maximize the # of bids by making it easier for a team unlikely to get an at-large to nab the auto-bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has the new bracket format been determined already? I can't find it, if so.

The ACC's 15-team bracket looked like this in 2022. I think that was the only 15-team league, so there's no other available basis for comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Pistol said:

Has the new bracket format been determined already? I can't find it, if so.

The ACC's 15-team bracket looked like this in 2022. I think that was the only 15-team league, so there's no other available basis for comparison.

Interesting that there are five rounds.  Nearly impossible for a team to win five games in five days, but I guess that's why you have to perform better in the regular season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

Interesting that there are five rounds.  Nearly impossible for a team to win five games in five days, but I guess that's why you have to perform better in the regular season.

It's a different calculation for the ACC, too, because the conference is going to get about half of those 15 teams in the NCAAT. Those stronger-seeded teams don't need more wins to pad their profile and they're more interested in protecting seed position in the NCAAT.

The A10 is trying to get as many teams in the NCAAT as possible. I guess it can be argued both ways - do you want to protect your best teams from a potential embarrassing loss in the first round, or do you want to give them a shot at 1-2 more wins?

cgeldmacher likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-the ACC model looks okay to me,  I don't think making a top 4 team win 4 in 4 then travel for perhaps a Thursday Tourney game is the best recipe for success

-lesson being don't finish bottom 6 so you avoid the PIGS

-would we have been a PIG under our former coach if it was bottom 6?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pistol said:

It's a different calculation for the ACC, too, because the conference is going to get about half of those 15 teams in the NCAAT. Those stronger-seeded teams don't need more wins to pad their profile and they're more interested in protecting seed position in the NCAAT.

The A10 is trying to get as many teams in the NCAAT as possible. I guess it can be argued both ways - do you want to protect your best teams from a potential embarrassing loss in the first round, or do you want to give them a shot at 1-2 more wins?

MTg3ODgzMzI4Nzk0MjcyODE5.thumb.webp.8dcaff1b6658b3ae3774dad0d04c1649.webp\

Isn't another reason to do it this way simply logistics? I like the idea, but a 15-team format with only 1 bye or 16-team format would result in either 7 or 8 games on day one or multiple first-round days, neither of which seem practical.

Bills By 40 likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...