Time to have top teams in the Regional

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Nov 16
    Posts
    51

    Time to have top teams in the Regional

    I think the best teams should be in the region tournaments. The way it is now if a district is loaded with 3 or 4 of the better teams they still only get two teams in. A weak district gets two no matter how bad they are. It just isn't very fair for some teams.
    Why not take all teams to the regional with 1's playing 4's and 2's playing 3's from opposite districts. You could still play a district tournament or use the season district games to seed it.
    If you argue the season is too long drop the season games to 26 or 28.
    What's everyones opinion on this?
    Advertisement

  2. #2
    Getslow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 01
    Location
    In Lothlorien, where the trees bore flowers of gold and no evil thing ever dared come.
    Posts
    23,231

    If everyone wasn't able to play in the tournament, I'd agree with you. If only two teams made the post season from a district and everyone else stayed home, sure.

    But that's not how it is.

    Every team gets a chance to made a run. It's a really, really, really tough thing to string together enough consecutive wins to win a title in a single-elimination format.

    That weak district will get their two teams in and probably be out on the first day of regionals... but everyone gets that shot.

  3. #3
    Nathaniel Bryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 15
    Location
    @NateInSports
    Posts
    967

    Quote Originally Posted by EKYkibitzer View Post
    I think the best teams should be in the region tournaments. The way it is now if a district is loaded with 3 or 4 of the better teams they still only get two teams in. A weak district gets two no matter how bad they are. It just isn't very fair for some teams.
    Why not take all teams to the regional with 1's playing 4's and 2's playing 3's from opposite districts. You could still play a district tournament or use the season district games to seed it.
    If you argue the season is too long drop the season games to 26 or 28.
    What's everyones opinion on this?
    There are many districts with 5 teams. Haven't checked recently, but there used to be six-team districts.

    And some of those 5s could (and did) beat 4s or 3s from another district.
    So you can't argue we're trying to include the best and then not (because a 5-seed plays in a loaded district).

    Also, how are you determining the 3-4 seeds? Are we going back to a consolation/third-place game? If you do that, teams could lose three straight postseason games (district semis, district consolation, region opener).

    Furthermore, spreading out your round of 16 and round of 8 super region games weakens your officials pool (remember, most regions swap refs with other regions) and weakens your media coverage (because you're at separate sites).

    If you force everyone to play everyone in the region to seed, you are hurting teams' chances in the national rankings (because you are forcing them to play bottom feeders), you're probably not drawing flies at those games (instead of playing a longtime rival from another region or a high-quality opponent from another region) and you're making for some really late nights across geographically-huge regions (or forcing them to play a game they don't want to play on Saturday when they could play a neutral-court showcase against a better team).

    Too many logistics to work out before I would even say "maybe" to this idea.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 20
    Posts
    54

    We could do like Ohio and have each region vote on where each team would be ranked then they can bracket it out that way.

  5. #5
    Jumper_Dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Location
    To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible
    Posts
    51,047

    It's no different than the current football format. For example Somerset, Danville and Lex Christian are all in the same district...after round 2 only one is left. There will always be loaded districts and weak districts, but if you still have to beat a strong team at some point to advance. Does it really matter if it's in the first round of the district or the first round of the region?

  6. #6
    Nathaniel Bryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 15
    Location
    @NateInSports
    Posts
    967

    Quote Originally Posted by HSBballfan1212 View Post
    We could do like Ohio and have each region vote on where each team would be ranked then they can bracket it out that way.
    There's a flaw in that.

    Say Podunk and Cowtown are the two best teams.
    Other coaches, before the tourney, get together without Podunk/Cowtown and in a voting block, vote Podunk first and Cowtown last. Therefore knocking out half your main competition in Round 1.

  7. #7
    ColonelMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 08
    Location
    Pegasus Sports Network - Oldham County, KY
    Posts
    6,906

    The bottom line is this:

    You are allowing each district to send their "champions" to represent the district in the big dance.

    Just like each region gets to crown its "champion" to go and do battle under the region's flag in the Sweet 16.

    We all know that some better teams are on the sidelines; eliminated earlier. But that's not what the big tournaments are about. They are about giving each part of the state to send up their best to challenge the others' best.

    CM

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 16
    Posts
    51

    Let's use the 10th region as an example, Bourbon would not be playing #3 in the region, they would be playing a #3 from another district.
    Possibly Clark, Bourbon, and Montgomery would be in the semis of the regional format if changed but that is impossible now.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 16
    Posts
    51

    You aren't understanding some of the scenarios I listed.
    A #4 in a district would play a #1 from another district.
    As mentioned you could shorten season or seed by regular season district games or play the district tourney and seed that way.
    No one said anything about separate sites, 1st round on a Friday and Saturday and then go to the normal 8 game tournament the following week.

  10. #10
    The Double Deuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 18
    Posts
    1,982

    Quote Originally Posted by EKYkibitzer View Post
    I think the best teams should be in the region tournaments.
    I think the best teams should be in the Sweet 16. So let's eliminate the district and regional system, let the 6th, the 7th, the 9th, the 11th, and a few others compile the 16 best teams in the state, and let's really figure out who #1 is.

    You sold me!

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 17
    Posts
    1,717

    Quote Originally Posted by The Double Deuce View Post
    I think the best teams should be in the Sweet 16. So let's eliminate the district and regional system, let the 6th, the 7th, the 9th, the 11th, and a few others compile the 16 best teams in the state, and let's really figure out who #1 is.

    You sold me!
    Yeah, everyone wants changes, why not your game plan.

  12. #12
    mcpapa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 05
    Location
    Home of a proud papa
    Posts
    62,036

    Quote Originally Posted by EKYkibitzer View Post
    Let's use the 10th region as an example, Bourbon would not be playing #3 in the region, they would be playing a #3 from another district.
    Possibly Clark, Bourbon, and Montgomery would be in the semis of the regional format if changed but that is impossible now.
    Not to be a "get off my lawn" guy, but Bourbon had their chance to get to the regional tournament. They fell a little short.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 14
    Posts
    1,404

    Quote Originally Posted by The Double Deuce View Post
    I think the best teams should be in the Sweet 16. So let's eliminate the district and regional system, let the 6th, the 7th, the 9th, the 11th, and a few others compile the 16 best teams in the state, and let's really figure out who #1 is.

    You sold me!
    This is the point I was about to make. Male and Ballard are among the top 16 teams in the state this year, yet at most only one will make it to the state tournament. That's not fair, is it? So to make sure that the best teams get to the state tournament, we need to reconfigure the system to maximize the chances of both of them getting to the state tournament. In most years, that would greatly benefit Louisville, which in most years will have multiple teams in the state tournament, and work to the detriment of some of the less populated regions who may go years without having a team play in the state tournament. Now, that's a plan everyone will support, right?

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Posts
    292

    Quote Originally Posted by EKYkibitzer View Post
    I think the best teams should be in the region tournaments. The way it is now if a district is loaded with 3 or 4 of the better teams they still only get two teams in. A weak district gets two no matter how bad they are. It just isn't very fair for some teams.
    Why not take all teams to the regional with 1's playing 4's and 2's playing 3's from opposite districts. You could still play a district tournament or use the season district games to seed it.
    If you argue the season is too long drop the season games to 26 or 28.
    What's everyones opinion on this?
    No need to re-invent the wheel- Here's some issues I see with the above. Remember this is just my opinion.
    Re:"I think the best teams should be in the region tournament"
    What makes them the best teams ?? their record?? or if they play a tough schedule and they are perceived to be a "good team" - too many variables for me.
    RE:Why not take all teams to the regional with 1's playing 4's and 2's playing 3's from opposite districts. You could still play a district tournament or use the season district games to seed it.
    Sounds like a nightmare- why would you want all the teams in a region tournament - that's what makes what we have now work- you can be from a weaker district and still get to play in the regional tournament.
    What if your district is somewhat "weaker" and you get paired with a district that's a "loaded" district each year- that's not fair either.
    Every year there are teams that "should be in the regional or state tournament" that are not and teams that are in that are unexpected- that's what makes it exciting ( again, in my opinion)
    Re:It just isn't very fair for some teams.
    Need I remind you about life??

    I like the current system. I also do not want a shot clock!! Play defense and no one holds the ball.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 17
    Posts
    1,717

    Quote Originally Posted by BiggestFan View Post
    No need to re-invent the wheel- Here's some issues I see with the above. Remember this is just my opinion.
    Re:"I think the best teams should be in the region tournament"
    What makes them the best teams ?? their record?? or if they play a tough schedule and they are perceived to be a "good team" - too many variables for me.
    RE:Why not take all teams to the regional with 1's playing 4's and 2's playing 3's from opposite districts. You could still play a district tournament or use the season district games to seed it.
    Sounds like a nightmare- why would you want all the teams in a region tournament - that's what makes what we have now work- you can be from a weaker district and still get to play in the regional tournament.
    What if your district is somewhat "weaker" and you get paired with a district that's a "loaded" district each year- that's not fair either.
    Every year there are teams that "should be in the regional or state tournament" that are not and teams that are in that are unexpected- that's what makes it exciting ( again, in my opinion)
    Re:It just isn't very fair for some teams.
    Need I remind you about life??

    I like the current system. I also do not want a shot clock!! Play defense and no one holds the ball.
    I'm with you, if it isn't broke, don't fix it.

Top