BB: SCIAC: Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Bishopleftiesdad]

I think it would be fun for a full blown conference tourney  (though it would make the regular less meaningful and it would mangle chances for NCAA postseason longevity)

Round 1
Play In Round - one game
8 v 9

Round 2
Semi-Super Regionals - best 2 of 3 lower seed is home/host team
1 v winner 8-9
2 v 7
3 v 6
4 v 5

Round 3
Championship Double Elimination - re-seed based on outcome above
G1: 1 v 4
G2: 2 v 3
G3: WG1 v WG2
G4: LG1 v LG2
G5: LG3 v WG4
G6: WG3 v WG5; WG3 is Tourney Champ if winner
G7: (If necessary - WG5 wins G6)  Winner is Tourney Champ


That it makes the whole season come down to the best of three is not great - but that would get some juices flowing wouldn't it?  It does give 5-9 a chance to get hot one weekend and sneak into the 3rd round as opposed to getting it done in the 1st 24 games.  Good points/bad points.  If I'm a 1 or 2 seed would I really be at that much risk?  3 and 4 might need to watch out though.

I like it ......then only conference tourney winners move on to regionals. MAY MADNESS for D3. DONE on the field and not in committee for Pool C bids

How many weeks do you see this taking. It would be hard for Northern teams to get enough conference games in to get an accurate seeding. I like the idea, but a lot would still need to be worked out. 

[Purple Heys]

I think it would be fun for a full blown conference tourney  (though it would make the regular less meaningful and it would mangle chances for NCAA postseason longevity)

Round 1
Play In Round - one game
8 v 9

Round 2
Semi-Super Regionals - best 2 of 3 lower seed is home/host team
1 v winner 8-9
2 v 7
3 v 6
4 v 5

Round 3
Championship Double Elimination - re-seed based on outcome above
G1: 1 v 4
G2: 2 v 3
G3: WG1 v WG2
G4: LG1 v LG2
G5: LG3 v WG4
G6: WG3 v WG5; WG3 is Tourney Champ if winner
G7: (If necessary - WG5 wins G6)  Winner is Tourney Champ


That it makes the whole season come down to the best of three is not great - but that would get some juices flowing wouldn't it?  It does give 5-9 a chance to get hot one weekend and sneak into the 3rd round as opposed to getting it done in the 1st 24 games.  Good points/bad points.  If I'm a 1 or 2 seed would I really be at that much risk?  3 and 4 might need to watch out though.

I like it ......then only conference tourney winners move on to regionals. MAY MADNESS for D3. DONE on the field and not in committee for Pool C bids

How many weeks do you see this taking. It would be hard for Northern teams to get enough conference games in to get an accurate seeding. I like the idea, but a lot would still need to be worked out.

I have given this no thought, other than to be reasonable on pitching arms...I had my little leaguers on on Inning/Pitch count limits years before they formally did it.  I don't think college kids should have their arms fall off either.
Week 1:  Round 1 and 2
Week 2:  Round 3

[Purple Heys]

I think it would be fun for a full blown conference tourney  (though it would make the regular season less meaningful and it would mangle chances for NCAA postseason longevity)

Round 1
Play In Round - one game
8 v 9

Round 2
Semi-Super Regionals - best 2 of 3 lowest seed is home/host team
1 v winner 8-9
2 v 7
3 v 6
4 v 5

Round 3
Championship Double Elimination - re-seed based on outcome above
G1: 1 v 4
G2: 2 v 3
G3: WG1 v WG2
G4: LG1 v LG2
G5: LG3 v WG4
G6: WG3 v WG5; WG3 is Tourney Champ if winner
G7: (If necessary - WG5 wins G6)  Winner is Tourney Champ


That it makes the whole season come down to the best of three is not great - but that would get some juices flowing wouldn't it?  It does give 5-9 a chance to get hot one weekend and sneak into the 3rd round as opposed to getting it done in the 1st 24 games.  Good points/bad points.  If I'm a 1 or 2 seed would I really be at that much risk?  3 and 4 might need to watch out though.

If a conference has more teams then you add more Round 1 Play-ins...e.g. 7 plays 10.  In Round 2 the highest numeric seed plays 1 seed, next highest numeric plays 2 seed...

[Ralph Turner]

I think it would be fun for a full blown conference tourney  (though it would make the regular less meaningful and it would mangle chances for NCAA postseason longevity)

Round 1
Play In Round - one game
8 v 9

Round 2
Semi-Super Regionals - best 2 of 3 lower seed is home/host team
1 v winner 8-9
2 v 7
3 v 6
4 v 5

Round 3
Championship Double Elimination - re-seed based on outcome above
G1: 1 v 4
G2: 2 v 3
G3: WG1 v WG2
G4: LG1 v LG2
G5: LG3 v WG4
G6: WG3 v WG5; WG3 is Tourney Champ if winner
G7: (If necessary - WG5 wins G6)  Winner is Tourney Champ


That it makes the whole season come down to the best of three is not great - but that would get some juices flowing wouldn't it?  It does give 5-9 a chance to get hot one weekend and sneak into the 3rd round as opposed to getting it done in the 1st 24 games.  Good points/bad points.  If I'm a 1 or 2 seed would I really be at that much risk?  3 and 4 might need to watch out though.

I like it ......then only conference tourney winners move on to regionals. MAY MADNESS for D3. DONE on the field and not in committee for Pool C bids

Do you understand that there are only about 32 Pool A (AQ) conferences in D-1 March Madness?  More than half of the field is "Pool C".

[Purple Heys]

I think it would be fun for a full blown conference tourney  (though it would make the regular less meaningful and it would mangle chances for NCAA postseason longevity)

Round 1
Play In Round - one game
8 v 9

Round 2
Semi-Super Regionals - best 2 of 3 lower seed is home/host team
1 v winner 8-9
2 v 7
3 v 6
4 v 5

Round 3
Championship Double Elimination - re-seed based on outcome above
G1: 1 v 4
G2: 2 v 3
G3: WG1 v WG2
G4: LG1 v LG2
G5: LG3 v WG4
G6: WG3 v WG5; WG3 is Tourney Champ if winner
G7: (If necessary - WG5 wins G6)  Winner is Tourney Champ


That it makes the whole season come down to the best of three is not great - but that would get some juices flowing wouldn't it?  It does give 5-9 a chance to get hot one weekend and sneak into the 3rd round as opposed to getting it done in the 1st 24 games.  Good points/bad points.  If I'm a 1 or 2 seed would I really be at that much risk?  3 and 4 might need to watch out though.

I like it ......then only conference tourney winners move on to regionals. MAY MADNESS for D3. DONE on the field and not in committee for Pool C bids

Do you understand that there are only about 32 Pool A (AQ) conferences in D-1 March Madness?  More than half of the field is "Pool C".

I imagined this as a League/Conference level tourney thing - as in I thought it would be fun for the SCIAC to try.  Looking at it as a format for a Regional thing holds up too.  The Regional rankings - irrespective of League standings - would be used to place the teams...after the League Tourney champs are placed...that could kick somebody out - possibly the highly seeded team that could not win its tourney, but that happens now.  That would take Pool C out of it - if I understand the Pool C thing, which I don't claim to actually understand.

Could a team (or 2) sneak in - yes.  That is the "Madness" part...but really, my read is that most folks find the biggest problem with the current playoffs is who is left out.  Do it this way and everybody - technically speaking - is in.  Who gets eliminated is decided on the field, not in a conference room.

I think the subjectivity the Pool C is what drives my thought to a way to truly "play it off".  In this format the 10th (or 11th...) team is the last team out.  If the seeds are honest

[CrashDavisD3]

I like some change to the current system. Pool B/C system I have never liked

I like the system above that is described. Win it on the field and eliminate regional rankings and committee's choosing Pool B/C.


Round 1 2/3 Series

Round 2 Pool Play

Round 3 Double Elimination

[Bishopleftiesdad]

So every conference would get an auto bid? Or would a conference still need 7 teams for an auto bid?

[Jim Dixon]

I like some change to the current system. Pool B/C system I have never liked

I like the system above that is described. Win it on the field and eliminate regional rankings and committee's choosing Pool B/C.


Round 1 2/3 Series

Round 2 Pool Play

Round 3 Double Elimination

I do like the current system.  Every team has a chance to win it on the field but sometimes fate will take away a legitimate playoff team.  There is at least one who had a great season but failed in the conference tourney every year.  If an automatic bid is the only way in, play a couple of games to set the seedings then a two of three to advance in each round.

[SoCalSoxFan]

In the major series this weekend,

Congrats to PP for taking 2 out of 3 against Chapman.  Sat am come from behind win, which proceeded a Sat sweep, was impressive.
I had picked Chapman to win 2.

Congrats to CLU for taking 2 out of 3 against first place LaVerne.   Pitching was impressive with only 4 earned runs allowed in 3 games.
I had picked CLU to take 2 this weekend.

Redlands took care of business against CMS and Oxy played out of conf games.


Great competition going into last regular series (before 4 game round robin)

LV 15-6 against Chapman 14-7
Redland 16-8 is done until round robin
CLU 14-7 against Oxy 14-7
PP 14-7 against Cal Tech
Whittier 6-15 against CMS 3-18


Redlands can only move higher prior to Round robin, as those ahead of them are certain to lose.
PP, play Cal Tech, should finish 17-7.

Early predictions
LV 2-1 against Chapman
CLU 3-0 against Oxy
PP 3-0 against Cal Tech
Whittier 3-0 against CMS

Predicted Standings prior to Round Robin:

CLU 17-7  or 16-8 if they only take 2 against Oxy
LV 17-7    or 16-8 if Chapman ends up taking 2
PP 17-7
Redlands 16-8
Chapman 15-9   or 16-8 of Chapman ends up taking 2
Oxy 14-10    or 15-9 if CLU only takes 2
Whittier 9-15
CMS 3-21
Cal Tech 0-24

[CrashDavisD3]

Wow. SCIAC with any 6 of the top teams could win the Pool A Bid. Only 1 loss separates the teams in the loss column. 

[Richard Hamstocks]

I was curious how the different schedules for the round robin would shake out this year with the rather strange 6 team race we are seeing this year, and if there were any clear advantages for different placings (and perhaps some arbitrage opportunities for teams to throw games based on "bracketology").  Clearly, conference schedules are now unbalanced since Chapman joined the conference.  Ultimately, I'd prefer for teams that are bubble teams for the conference tourney to all play each other, but this year, that would require a round robin of 5 games (with 1-6 all playing each other once) and that isn't in the cards.  I wasn't convinced that the set up would result in fairness this year, but it's actually not bad.  I'll assume the final weekend plays out as follows (PP sweeps, CLU sweeps, ULV wins 2, WC wins 2).  The final league standings then are a 3 way tie for first (CLU, ULV, PP in that order based on tie breakers each with 7 losses), UR in 4th with 8, CU with 9 in 5th and Oxy in 6th with 10. 
Based on this outcome, we have the following, with my metric being total conference wins over the 4 teams played in the round robin:

1. CLU vs 33 total SCIAC wins
2. ULV vs 39
3. PP vs 43
4. UR vs 38
5. CU vs 42
6. Oxy vs 46

You might think "not bad".  Clearly, this metric is somewhat arbitrary and open for conversation.  It's unlikely that in a given year, one could construct a round robin schedule such that every team has an equal value.  If a metric could be agreed on, I'd feel better about a round robin assignment of the form: consider all possible round robin schedules, choose the one that has the least variation in the chosen metric, subject to it being monotone in the ranking (finishing the "regular season" with the better record should be worth something). 
If you buy this metric, there is motivation for PP to go 1-2 vs Cal Tech, but I don't think it's terribly strong. 
The real problem here is that rather than let these teams fight it out for the final 4 spots over 4 games, it's actually done over two games.  Every one of the top 6 teams plays (exactly) two games over two of CMS, CIT or WC (who admittedly have proven to be dangerous).  This seems antithetical to what the conference tourney is set up to do, which is to let it play out on the field as much as possible. 
My proposal for this year:
1 and 2 play 3,4,5,6, 3 and 4 play 1,2,5,6, 5 and 6 play 1,2,3,4.   Oh well. 

[CrashDavisD3]

I like the idea of pool play for the Round Robin phase. Incentives to be a 1 seed. Top 4 conferences records go to Conference tourney.

1,8,7,6 in Pool A

2,5,4,3 in Pool B

Everyone plays 9

[Richard Hamstocks]

I like the idea of pool play for the Round Robin phase. Incentives to be a 1 seed. Top 4 conferences records go to Conference tourney.

1,8,7,6 in Pool A

2,5,4,3 in Pool B

Everyone plays 9

And incentives to be the 6th seed! Why does Cal Tech play twice as many games as everyone else in this set up?

[108 Stitches]

Why does the whole conf have to play? Why not just top 6 teams ? The point is to select a team for regionals, why even mess with the bottom teams, especially when you have teams like Caltech?

[Purple Heys]

Why does the whole conf have to play? Why not just top 6 teams ? The point is to select a team for regionals, why even mess with the bottom teams, especially when you have teams like Caltech?

I would say why not.  Use the season to seed the whole shootin' match then let everybody fight it out.

Just a thought...March Madness provides that tiny, tantalizing, tidbit of playoff hope almost all the way to the bottom.  It is what we love (and love to hate) about that tournament.  Taking the top 4 is boring.

I admire Cal Tech for their effort - but they do not have a legitimate chance to compete in a season schedule format and qualify for playoff competition with a cut-off Round Robin.  These kids know going into a season that the best outcome is to sneak a game from #8 or #7 and that's it.  They never really play a game with higher stakes.

I am not a trophy for everybody type, but, I thought it would be fun to extend it...imagine a nothing to lose Cal Tech getting a playoff taste and in one parallel universe of infinite parallel universes, they upset the first place team...Not saying it ever would happen, but you can't say it can't ever happen.

I bet some of those boys at Cal Tech could write the mathematical proof to that...

How many times has the 16th seed beat the 1 seed?  Now, how many times has a 15th seed beat a 2 seed?  Things get squishing pretty quick.