cwinslow22 wrote:
Viper, why are you referring to my team as being in second place? Also, just so i understand correctly, you are asking that a game you lost fair and square be voided? Is that correct? Not sure i follow your logic.
After I won my final game I was 15-3. You were 14-3 with your final game to be played (which was then forfeited). And had I received a forfeit to that team, I'd be 16-2 and still in first place.
agentcom wrote:
Your first proposal is to make Wichita State actually play out this game either against the original coach or against a replacement. The problem I see with this is that the original coach seems to be gone and doesn't intend on playing any more games. Hence, the forfeits. So you'd have to find a replacement coach. But as flex stated, there aren't any more reserves. I'm not sure if E. Illinois qualifies for any post-season tournies, but if not, I doubt that anyone would be willing to step into this tourney as a reserve knowing that they can only play one game. Further, if that team wins, I would be pissed if I was Wichita State that I had to play a different (and perhaps better) opponent in one of the two games against E. Ill. than you did. So I think you'd potentially replace one controversy with another. So, I would still be against this proposal.
The way it was explained to me, the E. Illinois coach requested a leave (not just a simple deadbeat no contact). I believe he could've been asked to play his final game if that was the case.
As far as replacement coaches go, that's something that happens often in regular conference play anyways. The fact that it's the very last game is irrelevant. Sure, one team could feel annoyed if it was a worse coach or the other team could feel annoyed if was a better coach; but that's the nature of replacing coaches. It's a legitimate procedure and there should be no argument not to follow that legitimate procedure.
agentcom wrote:Your second proposal is less clear. Do you want to play a head-to-head match to determine who is the #1 seed in your conference tournament? If so then, you have basically replaced Wichita State's final season game, which was at home against a not-so-great opponent with a game against you (a skilled player) on a neutral site.
I proposed that a potential tournament championship game between us be held on a neutral site since I had the better actual record and am now unfairly relegated to the two seed. But there's a chance that either of us won't be in that game (especially me at the moment).
If it was what you interpreted though, I wouldn't have a problem with what you're saying if WS agreed to it. My point was much more geared to settling the matter on the court rather than let deadbeats dictate who won the number one seed.
agentcom wrote:Or is your proposal that IF you and Wichita State meet in the conference championship that you should play on a neutral site? This proposal makes more sense to me.
However, I would still oppose it because the tournament has been run one way from the start and this takes away a potential Wichita State home game, even though they very well might have clinched the title in the conference anyway.
Yes. Odds were with W-State win a share of the conference title and clinch the one seed (via a tiebreaker) and I'm not trying to take anything away from his great season. I just wanted it decided on the court and to have a deadbeat/forfeit policy that didn't reward one team going for the championship and punish another team going for the championship.
Actually, if E. Illinois forfeited all their games, it would have converted one of my losses into a win and gave me the title and the one seed. In that event, Wichita State could have a beef. That's why I was especially pressing for the replacement coach to just let it be decided on the court. I can't blame flex for not changing his forfeit policy mid season. I think I was more building the rationale for next season that a team should play all conference games or forfeit all conference games. I think people would find that fair if they knew it going into it.
But I also think that when one game decides a conference title then any and all efforts should be made to find a replacement coach. That was not done. And I sympathize with flex if he didn't want to take the time. Perhaps I should have taken my lumps. But for me, this tournament is a great source of pride. I would have really let it go in probably any other tournament.
agentcom wrote:What I do know, is that if I was Wichita State, I wouldn't be too happy with any changes at this point. I would say, "Hey, I would have probably won that game and clinched the title. Why are you taking that away from me?"
Lol. I've never advocated taking anything from Wichita State. And btw, I won a share of the conference title anyways. But I did lose the one seed in the conference tourney in a tie breaker scenario (despite having won one more actual match-up played). And had I had one more loss than this would have cost me a shot at the regular conference title so I am making the arguments so that in the future we could avoid such a scenario.
agentcom wrote:As for some of the other ideas ...
I like the idea for neutral courts for certain playoff and championship games that reflect the actual NCAA or conference structure. There are a ton of ways of doing this and I have some suggestions, but don't feel like writing a ton more in this forum right now given these last 2 posts
There have been calls for neutral court championships in general. I'm fine with home court for the one seeds generally but the idea is growing on me. Of course I was only arguing for the exception in this case in which the waters were muddied (basically a compromise).
dwilhelmi wrote:I'm gonna disagree with the idea of a deadbeat forfeiting all of the conference games. If a player, instead of deadbeating, decides to intentionally lose (attack nothing but neuts, play stupid, never attack, whatever) would you say that anybody they beat before should now get a win? Deadbeating is really just a form of intentionally losing. It sucks when somebody does it, but I just don't see how that constitutes changing the result of previously decided games.
Finals on a neutral court I could get behind, though, at least for future seasons. I don't see a pressing need to change the current rules, though.
First off, deadbeating isn't just trying to lose on purpose. Most (or all) deadbeats try to win the games they play. Deadbeating is forfeiting games b/c he doesn't accept his invitations. I'm not arguing that any games played were lost on purpose so you're totally trying to change the scope of the argument.
And yes, in a way it sucks to have previously decided games overturned. But I think it's the fairest solution to insist that a team finish all of its scheduled games for all of the results to count. If we all understood that concept going into it, we could be happy with that standard. Otherwise you allow a team an opportunity to screw over some teams and give free wins to other teams. How is that supposed to be more fair?
Benzorrr wrote:I understand what Viper is saying and I think he has a very valid point. It's not fair that some teams get a free win via a forfeit while other teams had to actually play that team, and in some cases, might have actually lost to that team. I think that if someone deadbeats and forfeits some of their conference games, they should forfeit all of them and be stripped of any wins they might have had. It's just not fair to the teams that were unlucky enough to draw the deadbeat early in their schedule before they could reap the rewards of the forfeits.
Thank you.
