Posted by ike1024 on 5/17/2013 10:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by namshub on 5/17/2013 10:16:00 PM (view original):The "learn how to schedule better" argument is equally weak.
If you can't win half your games you shouldn't be in the post-season unless you win your conference tourney. Realistically, if you can win 7 non-conf. games you still don't have to finish .500 in your own conference to reach .500 overall. If you can't do that you either don't know how to schedule or you're not good enough to play in the post-season. If you know your in some mega-conference then schedule 9 or 10 wins so you only have to win 4 or 5 conference games. The arguments put up against a .500 requirement that have been posted so far are very weak imo, especially at the DI level. The benefit to mid-majors getting into the PIT at the DI level surely outweigh the Big 6 getting more post-season teams then they already do in the NT.
Actually seems like a no-brainer.
The PIT should be for the best remaining teams, not the teams that did the best to game their way into the NT through scheduling, but were bad enough that they not only failed to game their way into the NT, but actually put themselves on the PIT bubble.
If you find yourself on the outside of the PIT bubble, I don't know that there's much room to complain about anything.
I disagree about the purpose of the PIT. I think it should be a "little dance" that gives all teams something to play for, regardless of what conference they are in. It should be more than just a consolation prize, and should NOT be a tool for power conferences to pad their recruiting budgets as a reward for fielding a full-human conference.
I could live without the .500 requirement (though I certainly support it) if all regular season champs were guaranteed a slot in the PIT if they're upset in the conference tourney. It's extremely unrealistic for any sub-.500 team to make the PIT, much less 6 or 7 as DI Allen had this season, so I'm not overly concerned if it makes it harder for the bottom 1/3 of any particular conference to play in the postseason.
ETA - also wanted to highlight the most important thing said so far in the thread, IMO: "The benefit to mid-majors getting into the PIT at the DI level surely outweigh the Big 6 getting more post-season teams than they already to in the NT."
It's a mistake to assume support for this kind of measure has anything to do with "butt-hurt". I think it will be an overall positive in terms of game satisfaction for most players.