How do people feel about the BE banning UConn from the BET next year?

[Vuce]

why the hell would the big east let us play in the BET? the only thing we can do is hurt the other teams in the league. fairly obvious decision by the BE if you ask me.​

Then, using your logic, why let Uconn play in the regular season? All they can do is hurt the other teams in the league.

 

[champs99and04]

I think it's bull , obviously, and I don't buy the whole "it is unfair to other teams" argument. I can understand why the Big East would do it, but it would be nice if the conference would sack up and allow one of their flagship programs to compete in what might be the final Big East tournament before it isn't really the Big Eat anymore. Why is it unfair that an ineligable team beat somebody competing for a bid in the Big East Tournament? As another poster said, why even allow UConn to have a season if that's your logic? Surely UConn will beat somebody in the regular season, so why is that fair but this wouldn't be? Was it unfair to Oregon when USC beat them last season?

If the Big East published a statement along the lines of, "In the case of an ineligable member winning the tournament, the Automatic Bid will go to the runner-up", I'm sure everybody would understand. Instead, they have chosen to d*ck around one of their most loyal members. *k them.

 

[zls44]

If the the players feel this is unfair, they can talk about out with the people around the program who were part of the problem- the members of the coaching staff who threw academic accountability out the window.

 

[Gregory Koch]

I think it's bull ****, obviously, and I don't buy the whole "it is unfair to other teams" argument. I can understand why the Big East would do it, but it would be nice if the conference would sack up and allow one of their flagship programs to compete in what might be the final Big East tournament before it isn't really the Big Eat anymore. Why is it unfair that an ineligable team beat somebody competing for a bid in the Big East Tournament? As another poster said, why even allow UConn to have a season if that's your logic? Surely UConn will beat somebody in the regular season, so why is that fair but this wouldn't be? Was it unfair to Oregon when USC beat them last season?

If the Big East published a statement along the lines of, "In the case of an ineligable member winning the tournament, the Automatic Bid will go to the runner-up", I'm sure everybody would understand. Instead, they have chosen to d*ck around one of their most loyal members. *k them.

I'm not sure the NCAA would allow them to do that. The Tournament (NCAA Tournament) rules specifically say tournament winners will get the auto-bids, unless the conference chooses not to have a tournament (like the Ivy League) in which case the regular season winner gets in. That really isn't the Big East's fault. And even if that were possible, it would essentially render the championship game meaningless, if we made it.
And as for USC-Oregon: it was for one reason - the Ducks had to run the table to make the national championship game. Football doesn't have a tournament. One loss out of 30 games wouldn't really hurt Syracuse (or whoever) in terms of the NCAA tournament, but one loss in the BET would hurt their seeding, and in turn how well they do. In 2011, we improved from about a 7 or 8 seed to a 3 seed via the NCAA tournament. Look what we did. And look what we did this year as an 8 seed since we lost in the BET quarterfinals.
Here's a question - USC won the Pac-12 South this year. Suppose (assuming this were allowed), the Pac-12 were to put USC in the championship game against Oregon, with the rule that "If the championship game winner is ineligible, the loser will go to the Rose Bowl, unless they are one of the Top 2 BCS teams, in which case they go to the National Championship Game" (pretty much the equivalent of what you proposed, allowing for the NCAA's weirdness in football). Does the game even matter? Oregon at that point had no chance to go to the championship game. If they won, they would to to the Rose Bowl. If they lost, they would go to the Rose Bowl. Plus, UCLA wouldn't get a chance to compete for a Rose Bowl berth (presumably whoever would get in instead of UConn would be better than .500, since the Big East doesn't have divisions, so the unbalanced thing doesn't matter). Had the Bruins actually been deserving of a Rose Bowl berth, they would have been robbed too. Also, let's hypothetically suppose that like the BE, the Pac 12 did not have divisions, and the top 2 teams in football played in the championship game. And let's pretend that USC beat Stanford in triple OT instead of losing. Everything else is unchanged. Stanford is now 10-2 after the regular season and 7-2 in conference (since they lost to USC, we're pretending), USC is 8-1 and 11-1, and Oregon is still 8-1 and 10-2. So, USC and Oregon are tied for first (USC would be the home team since they won head-to-head) and Stanford is a game back. So USC gets to host a meaningless game against Oregon, who is going to the Rose Bowl one way or the other, and Stanford loses the opportunity to play in the Rose Bowl. That's pretty much what would happen if UConn made the Big East Final next year. It could (depending on whether we were the first or second semifinal) render the other semifinal the equivalent of the championship game. That's all assuming the NCAA allowed this rule you're suggesting, which I'm pretty sure they wouldn't. Otherwise, conferences could set whatever rules they wanted for the auto-bid, including holding a completely meaningless tournament for the fun of it, then giving the auto-bid to whoever won the regular season, or even whoever the conference commissioner felt like. For that matter, there would be no rule against picking the auto-bid out of a hat. So there is no chance of the NCAA repealing that rule, nor should they. That's been well established for years.

 

[prankster]

Then, using your logic, why let Uconn play in the regular season? All they can do is hurt the other teams in the league.

Many people can see a difference between single elimination tournaments and the rest of the season...

 

[Gregory Koch]

Many people can see a difference between single elimination tournaments and the rest of the season...

Exactly.... Transitioning Division I universities (those that just upgraded) are ineligible for the NCAA Tournament, so conference tournaments don't let them in either. But they still play a regular season, even though they can only hurt teams they play, as you say. Plus, a loss to Nebraska-Omaha or Bryant is a lot more humiliating than a loss to UConn. Even if half our players ditch us, we'd still at least be fairly decent, considering we're Big East. Even our last place team, DePaul, is essentially a top mid-major trapped in the bottom of a high-level conference. Put them in the Horizon League, and they'd probably win it easily.

 

[willie99]

I think they should let their member schools participate. Why impose additional punishment on current players, give them something more to play for.

Every BEAST school that plays on Saturday goes to the dance. I think every school that plays on Friday gets in under the current format. If a bad team needs to win the tournament to get in, then make them win the tournament to get in. Don't need to weaken the field for them.