(1) Thurs. Game/ Butler @ St. John's 12/23/21

[stever20]

Once they rescinded the forfeiture terms, what’s the incentive for St Johns to try and play considering they were going to be without multiple significant players? Much easier for them to ask for a no contest.

sounds like if you have 7 or more scholarship players you have to play- no wiggle room at all on that it sounds like it. No matter if they are significant or not.

What if players are out for the season, or even just injured and unable to play that game, or maybe redshirting? By definition, are they available? Possible that a coach could bend the rules and state that players are unavailable for reasons that push them below the seven player threshold.

I would guess that things like that would be monitored by the league and if a team were proven to be lying about that could then be charged with a forfeit. Also- I'd guess all positives would be tracked by the league along with vaccine status.

[Jet915]

Once they rescinded the forfeiture terms, what’s the incentive for St Johns to try and play considering they were going to be without multiple significant players? Much easier for them to ask for a no contest.

sounds like if you have 7 or more scholarship players you have to play- no wiggle room at all on that it sounds like it. No matter if they are significant or not.

For example what if Freemantle, Nunge and Scruggs tested positive and couldnt play (choose star players from any team). Do you think the coach will want to try to play or find a way to cancel? Ie i dont have enough players because others are "hurt" as well. Teams will now pick and choose what games they want to play....not sure the Big East will be able to police this.

[stever20]

Once they rescinded the forfeiture terms, what’s the incentive for St Johns to try and play considering they were going to be without multiple significant players? Much easier for them to ask for a no contest.

sounds like if you have 7 or more scholarship players you have to play- no wiggle room at all on that it sounds like it. No matter if they are significant or not.

For example what if Freemantle, Nunge and Scruggs tested positive and couldnt play (choose star players from any team). Do you think the coach will want to try to play or find a way to cancel? Ie i dont have enough players because others are "hurt" as well. Teams will now pick and choose what games they want to play....not sure the Big East will be able to police this.

It's definitely a pandoras box that is open now for sure.

Of course if 3 guys tested positive probably going to have some unvaccinated close contacts and won't have 7 anyways.

[kayako]

Once they rescinded the forfeiture terms, what’s the incentive for St Johns to try and play considering they were going to be without multiple significant players? Much easier for them to ask for a no contest.

sounds like if you have 7 or more scholarship players you have to play- no wiggle room at all on that it sounds like it. No matter if they are significant or not.

For example what if Freemantle, Nunge and Scruggs tested positive and couldnt play (choose star players from any team). Do you think the coach will want to try to play or find a way to cancel? Ie i dont have enough players because others are "hurt" as well. Teams will now pick and choose what games they want to play....not sure the Big East will be able to police this.

No idea why people were even bitching about forfeits to begin with. It doesn’t affect NCAAT resume. Find a way to play BE games if you want to win the BE.

[stever20]

yeah makes sense to me. Takes the gamesmanship out of things, which is a good thing. I bet end of the year we're going to find that the games that would be forfeited are pretty close to even.

[admin]

It would be my preference that if a team has 5 eligible players - not necessarily scholarship players - the game goes on. Each team has plenty of walk-ons who are capable of playing if an emergency.

[gtmoBlue]

Good question from the Butler Board: Who pays for the charter plane? How about the hotel rooms? Is the Big East working with schools on that or is it just "too bad?"

I think that is my question about the "reschedule" rule that has been changed. It made more sense if the visitor paid to travel and was able to play, and if the home team became unable to play, especially on day-of, for it to be a forfeit. Not sure how you square the two up. Travel to St. John's now will cost double what it normally does, and it wasn't caused by Butler. Also, a reschedule messes up the visiting team's schedule much more than a home team.

Excellent points here by Butlerguy03. Seems that the redo of policy was more of a kneejerk reaction to popular opinion, media influence, and 'lemming nature' (following what the others are doing) than a well thought our policy shift. Changing the forfeiture piece brings in/creates more issues than it solves.

The league needs to now establish a minimum game level for consideration for the RS championship. 75% of games played (15 gms), 80% of games played (16 gms). Even with this, the way the schedule is set, teams with end of year home stretches will have an advantage.

"Oh...crowning the champs based on winning percentage is fair." Nova played 15 games, while lil Cr8n played the full 20-game slate. Nova 'wins' on micro percentages? Percentages are equitable, when an equal amount of games is played. With an unbalanced schedule, a better way is to weight wins & losses, with the resulting math total determining the best team. Just saying...

[butlerguy03]

Why not just do games back?

16-4 -
14-4 1
13-7 3
13-6 3.5

[Omaha1]

Why not just do games back?

16-4 -
14-4 1
13-7 3
13-6 3.5

Perfect. Let’s redo last year:

Creighton 14-6
Villanova 11-4 (0.5 GB)
UConn 11-6 (1.5 GB)

[butlerguy03]

Makes sense to me, Creighton should've earned something by playing more games.