Game Thread Lady Vols vs Auburn in the SEC Tournament

#1
governmentmule

governmentmule

as always Go Lady Vols :clapping:
Joined
Aug 27, 2007
Messages
28,234
Likes
5,076
#1
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2
#2
If we beat Auburn which we should we'll be at a decide disadvantage against SC with them fully rested and us playing our second game in two days. It would be great if there was someway Holly could limit minutes but know our team we'll probably be in a tough fight just to win against Auburn and will need to play the starter 30 plus minutes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3
#3
The two bye system is just ridiculous. It's like something I'd expect to see school children design because they don't know how a bracket works. There is no competition that should ever allow 2 byes. The 1 bye is ALREADY a huge advantage and something you really don't want to have at all. The ONLY reason to have a bye is because mathematically not every team can play the first round. The teams that have the worse seeds obviously earned them and will have a tough time winning as it stands without giving the better seeds extra advantages.

This is what a 14 team bracket should look like:

hRIIFaT.png


Only the top 2 teams should get a bye, NOT 4. The way it's designed now, it'll be damn near impossible for the 11 - 14 seeds to ever win the bracket. Their first THREE rounds will all be against teams that haven't played a game. It's understandable for TWO rounds, but having to do it a THIRD time is just unfair. If, against all odds, they win that game, their FOURTH game will likely be against a team who has only played ONE game and similarly if they make it to the championship FIFTH game, it'll be against a team who likely only played 2 games.

Fortunately the Lady Vols aren't one of the 4 team seeded 11-14 so they will never have more than a 1 game rest disadvantage, but they are potentially indirectly affected if a team like Georgia or LSU advances because they ended up with a bye and rest they shouldn't have been given otherwise.

For reference, here's what the bracket CURRENTLY looks like:

5a9342a87bcd1.preview.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4
#4
Your very reasonable suggested bracket, unfortunately, butts up against the reality of available/reasonably costly venue and television time slots. There just aren't enough hours to play six 2+ hour games with the necessary waiting time between games for warm-ups, etc. in one day.

So, more fair, but logistically infeasible.

Jim
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5
#5
Volfan2012 said:
If we beat Auburn which we should we'll be at a decide disadvantage against SC with them fully rested and us playing our second game in two days. It would be great if there was someway Holly could limit minutes but know our team we'll probably be in a tough fight just to win against Auburn and will need to play the starter 30 plus minutes.
Click to expand...


Wilson is rusty? But we may lose to Auburn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6
#6
Doubt the LVs lose to Auburn. Their press and ability to generate TOs likely will force Nared to play 40 minutes and Russell to play as many minutes as she can. Our starters will be tired for game 2. SCAR will keep it quiet on Wilson until Friday, but it'll be shocking if she doesn't play in the tourney. SCAR wants to get to the championship game and they won't do it without her.

That Bama loss was mental and very costly. You'd think they'd have learned from last year. The LVs would be the 2 seed without it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7
#7
CannonVol80 said:
Your very reasonable suggested bracket, unfortunately, butts up against the reality of available/reasonably costly venue and television time slots. There just aren't enough hours to play six 2+ hour games with the necessary waiting time between games for warm-ups, etc. in one day.

So, more fair, but logistically infeasible.

Jim
Click to expand...

Show your work. Both brackets are 13 games. Both brackets include 6 games before the field gets narrowed to 8 teams. With my bracket you can play 3 or 2 games today and you can play the other 3 or 4 games tomorrow. There is no logistical reason I can see against it. If I'm wrong, specifically, not vaguely explain.
 
#8
#8
clkou said:
The two bye system is just ridiculous. It's like something I'd expect to see school children design because they don't know how a bracket works. There is no competition that should ever allow 2 byes. The 1 bye is ALREADY a huge advantage and something you really don't want to have at all. The ONLY reason to have a bye is because mathematically not every team can play the first round. The teams that have the worse seeds obviously earned them and will have a tough time winning as it stands without giving the better seeds extra advantages.

This is what a 14 team bracket should look like:

hRIIFaT.png


Only the top 2 teams should get a bye, NOT 4. The way it's designed now, it'll be damn near impossible for the 11 - 14 seeds to ever win the bracket. Their first THREE rounds will all be against teams that haven't played a game. It's understandable for TWO rounds, but having to do it a THIRD time is just unfair. If, against all odds, they win that game, their FOURTH game will likely be against a team who has only played ONE game and similarly if they make it to the championship FIFTH game, it'll be against a team who likely only played 2 games.

Fortunately the Lady Vols aren't one of the 4 team seeded 11-14 so they will never have more than a 1 game rest disadvantage, but they are potentially indirectly affected if a team like Georgia or LSU advances because they ended up with a bye and rest they shouldn't have been given otherwise.

For reference, here's what the bracket CURRENTLY looks like:

5a9342a87bcd1.preview.jpg
Click to expand...


I agree completely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#9
#9
clkou said:
Show your work. Both brackets are 13 games. Both brackets include 6 games before the field gets narrowed to 8 teams. With my bracket you can play 3 or 2 games today and you can play the other 3 or 4 games tomorrow. There is no logistical reason I can see against it. If I'm wrong, specifically, not vaguely explain.
Click to expand...

Your initial post makes no mention of splitting up the large 1st round into two days, which is what his comment was about - holding that large 1st round in one day.

Splitting it up solves that problem, but it also creates another one. One of fairness. Some teams will get an extra day of rest before playing their next game that other teams won't get. Say the top half of your bracket plays Wednesday and the bottom half on Thursday. The quarterfinals are on Friday. The teams that played Wednesday would have an extra day of rest over the teams that played Thursday. The Bama-UK winner would have a full day to rest and prepare before facing State and the UT-Auburn winner would have to face SC the next day. So there would still be some unfairness.
 
#10
#10
xanamanax said:
Your initial post makes no mention of splitting up the large 1st round into two days, which is what his comment was about - holding that large 1st round in one day.

Splitting it up solves that problem, but it also creates another one. One of fairness. Some teams will get an extra day of rest before playing their next game that other teams won't get. Say the top half of your bracket plays Wednesday and the bottom half on Thursday. The quarterfinals are on Friday. The teams that played Wednesday would have an extra day of rest over the teams that played Thursday. The Bama-UK winner would have a full day to rest and prepare before facing State and the UT-Auburn winner would have to face SC the next day. So there would still be some unfairness.
Click to expand...
I made no mention of splitting it up because it works almost the same way as before but it is MUCH more fair. 3 games would be played today. 3 games would be played tomorrow. Everyone left (8 teams) plays Friday. Easy as pie and MUCH more fair.

In my scenario, if the #11 or #12 or #13 or #14 seed wins their first game, they are in the round of 8 and they get a day of rest if they play today. In the current scenario they play every damn day and if they make it to the round of 8, their opponent has played 2 less games. There's not one thing fair by comparison of those two brackets. Use REAL examples if you're going to refute it. My guess is none of you will because when you try you'll see, like I have, the current way is awful.
 
Last edited:
#11
#11
clkou said:
I made no mention of splitting it up because it works almost the same way as before but it is MUCH more fair. 3 games would be played today. 3 games would be played tomorrow. Everyone left (8 teams) plays Friday. Easy as pie and MUCH more fair.

In my scenario, if the #11 or #12 or #13 or #14 seed wins their first game, they are in the round of 8 and they get a day of rest if they play today. In the current scenario they play every damn day and if they make it to the round of 8, their opponent has played 2 less games. There's not one thing fair by comparison of those two brackets. Use REAL examples if you're going to refute it. My guess is none of you will because when you try you'll see, like I have, the current way is awful.
Click to expand...

I did use a real example. The 8-9 (Bama-UK) winner the first day gets a day of rest and the 7-10 (UT-Auburn) winner the second day doesn't. That's certainly not fair to the 7 seed if they win. Never said the current way was great. Your proposal isn't great either. Under your scenario, a low seed who wins the first day will get a day of rest while a higher seed who wins the second day of the same round will not get a day of rest. Why should a lower seed have an advantage a higher seed doesn't get?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
The earlier game with Auburn, Nared and Westbrook had good offensive games. If they lose the game they deserve no higher than a 4 seed in the Albany region.

I say Tennessee wins a close one.
 
#13
#13
xanamanax said:
I did use a real example. The 8-9 (Bama-UK) winner the first day gets a day of rest and the 7-10 (UT-Auburn) winner the second day doesn't. That's certainly not fair to the 7 seed if they win. Never said the current way was great. Your proposal isn't great either. Under your scenario, a low seed who wins the first day will get a day of rest while a higher seed who wins the second day of the same round will not get a day of rest. Why should a lower seed have an advantage a higher seed doesn't get?
Click to expand...

That's a pretty WEAK example because the teams you are referencing don't even play each other. The winner of the Alabama/Kentucky game plays Mississpi State (not Tennessee or Auburn) who hasn't played a game yet. The winner of the Tennessee/Auburn game plays South Carolina (not Kentucky or Alabama) who also hasn't played a game yet.

The winners of BOTH the 8/9 game and the 7/10 game play a rested team with a bye. It's the SAME. No advantage for either team EXCEPT the 7 seed, if they win plays an easier seed, which they EARNED.

If you want to split hairs, the 8/9 game could be played day 2 so the #1 seed gets an unrested team and the 7/10 game could be played on day 1 so the #2 seed gets the rested team. It's a slight EARNED advantage for the #1 and #7 seed and a slight disadvantage to the #2 and #8 seed.
 
#16
#16
clkou said:
That's a pretty WEAK example because the teams you are referencing don't even play each other. The winner of the Alabama/Kentucky game plays Mississpi State (not Tennessee or Auburn) who hasn't played a game yet. The winner of the Tennessee/Auburn game plays South Carolina (not Kentucky or Alabama) who also hasn't played a game yet.

The winners of BOTH the 8/9 game and the 7/10 game play a rested team with a bye. It's the SAME. No advantage for either team EXCEPT the 7 seed, if they win plays an easier seed, which they EARNED.

If you want to split hairs, the 8/9 game could be played day 2 so the #1 seed gets an unrested team and the 7/10 game could be played on day 1 so the #2 seed gets the rested team. It's a slight EARNED advantage for the #1 and #7 seed and a slight disadvantage to the #2 and #8 seed.
Click to expand...

A full days rest is not an advantage? Are you kidding? One group would have to play 4 games in 4 days if they get in the title game and the other group would get to play 4 games in 5 days. Every coach not in the top 2 would say they want to play that first day to get that extra day off. Teams starting the second day would have a built-in penalty.
 
#17
#17
xanamanax said:
A full days rest is not an advantage? Are you kidding? One group would have to play 4 games in 4 days if they get in the title game and the other group would get to play 4 games in 5 days. Every coach not in the top 2 would say they want to play that first day to get that extra day off. Teams starting the second day would have a built-in penalty.
Click to expand...

I see you didn't use any specific examples and instead used a blanket, vague generality that doesn't apply. So, I'll walk you through the games both ways assuming the best seed wins with a few comments if a worse seed advanced. You'll notice I don't use the word "UNFAIR" at all in the correct way to do a 14 person bracket. I use the word "UNFAIR" 9 times with the current system. It's pretty obvious one method is fair and one is UNFAIR. This ain't rocket science.

1 bye method
Day 1, Game 1: 7 vs 10 - 7 wins - both teams had equal rest/games
Day 1, Game 2: 6 vs 11 - 6 wins - both teams had equal rest/games
Day 1, Game 3: 3 vs 14 - 3 wins - both teams had equal rest/games

Day 2, Game 1: 8 vs 9 - 8 wins - both teams had equal rest/games
Day 2, Game 2: 4 vs 12 - 4 wins - both teams had equal rest/games
Day 2, Game 3: 5 vs 13 - 5 wins - both teams had equal rest/games

Day 3, Game 1: 4 vs 5 - 4 wins - both teams had equal rest/games
Day 3, Game 2: 3 vs 6 - 3 wins - both teams had equal rest/games
Day 3, Game 3: 2 vs 7 - 2 wins - Seed #2 has played no games BUT they EARNED the bye
Day 3, Game 4: 1 vs 8 - 1 wins - Seed #1 has played no games BUT they EARNED the bye

Day 4, Game 1: 2 vs 3 - 1 wins - Seed #2 has played 1 LESS game BUT they EARNED the bye
Day 4, Game 2: 1 vs 4 - 1 wins - Seed #1 has played 1 LESS game BUT they EARNED the bye

Day 5, Game 2: 1 vs 2 - 1 wins - both teams had equal rest/games

Notice in EVERY game, the teams have played the exact same # of games and same # days of rest. Now, let's say hypothetically the championship game ends up being the #10 seed Auburn versus the #8 seed Alabama. In that case, BOTH teams have played the same # of games and they have both played on the SAME day the last TWO games. There IS a discrepancy on the day they played their first game HOWEVER I think the "rest" that the #10 seed got on day 2 doesn't give them any significant advantage on Day 5 because the #8 team "rested" on Day 1. Both teams got a day off. One team just had it a day later and one a day sooner, but it was 3 days ago. It's arguably not an advantage at all and it's negligible at best. That situation would ONLY arise in the championship game and ONLY if it was two teams less than #2 seed and ONLY if the better seed played day 2 and the worse seed played day 1 - a LOT of IF's for a situation that's not really unfair.

Now, look at the CURRENT method which is RIDDLED with obvious UNFAIRness in almost every game:

Day 1, Game 1: 12 vs 13 - 12 wins - both teams had equal rest/games
Day 1, Game 2: 11 vs 14 - 11 wins - both teams had equal rest/games

Day 2, Game 1: 8 vs 9 - 8 wins - both teams had equal rest/games
Day 2, Game 2: 7 vs 10 - 7 wins - both teams had equal rest/games
Day 2, Game 3: 6 vs 11 - 6 wins - Seed #6 has played no games giving them rest they don't deserve for a 14 person bracket which is UNFAIR
Day 2, Game 3: 5 vs 12 - 5 wins - Seed #5 has played no games giving them rest they don't deserve for a 14 person bracket which is UNFAIR

Day 2, Game 1: 4 vs 5 - 8 wins - Seed #4 has played no games giving them rest they don't deserve for a 14 person bracket which is UNFAIR
Day 2, Game 2: 3 vs 6 - 4 wins - Seed #3 has played no games giving them rest they don't deserve for a 14 person bracket which is UNFAIR
Day 2, Game 3: 2 vs 7 - 5 wins - Seed #2 has played no games BUT they EARNED the bye which is fine THIS round
Day 2, Game 3: 1 vs 8 - 5 wins - Seed #2 has played no games BUT they EARNED the bye which is fine THIS round

Day 4, Game 1: 2 vs 3 - 1 wins - Seed #2 has played 1 LESS game BUT they EARNED the bye which is fine against #3 or #6 seeds but UNFAIR if they play #11 or #14 because they shouldn't have TWO byes
Day 4, Game 2: 1 vs 4 - 1 wins - Seed #1 has played 1 LESS game BUT they EARNED the bye which is fine against #4 or #5 seeds but UNFAIR if they play #12 or #13 because they shouldn't have TWO byes

Day 5, Game 2: 1 vs 2 - 1 wins - both teams had equal rest/games BUT UNFAIR if either team faces a #11, #12, #13, or #14 seed

There's also a TON of other UNFAIR combinations not listed if some worse seeds advance. For example, if the #6 seed plays the #13 seed in the championship. The #6 seed would have UNFAIRLY played 1 less game than #13.

Again, IMO it's just ridiculous and completely unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top