Post by ptctitan on Mar 4, 2021 9:01:38 GMT -5
Conference tournaments are the way to some meaningful ESPN money that each school then uses to produce its in-season broadcasts on ESPN+ and ESPN3. The actual in-person event for the HL usually loses money because there is not enough fan engagement throughout the league to cover the costs. But that loss is exceeded by the rights revenue from ESPN. So, it's a net win financially for the league and the member schools.
My criticism of the HL tourney this year goes to its COVID-prompted seeding formula that ended up penalizing its two most highly rated teams. First, due to COVID, the league decided not to play a round robin schedule of 22 games and it decided to play 2-game series against the same teams on the same weekend at the home team's arena. Second, the league established a 53 page set of rules dealing with testing and when teams and players can play. The league controlled the schedule and the league controlled all schedule changes.
The league also imposed a rule that no fans would be permitted to attend any HL game even if the game was held in a State that permitted certain numbers of fans to attend; e.g., Ohio. The league did this to make all road games equal. But then the league implemented a seeding formula that gave great weight to road victories even after the league mandated no home court advantage with fans. The reason that CSU was given the #1 seed over WSU was that it beat WSU 66-64 at the Nutter in the first of the two-game series. Even though WSU came back the next day and destroyed CSU on the same floor 85-49. The prior day's two-point win was deemed more important to the seeding than the next day's 36 point rout. Why? WSU had no significant home court advantage. The teams split their games. IMO, the deciding factor for seeding should have been that WSU was ranked #60 in the NET and CSU was ranked #160 in the same index.
Likewise, for us, if the fan-less home court has such a great advantage that a road win determines seeding, then we should have played YSU at Calihan and Oakland should have travelled to NKU. Why? Because we had the higher NET rating over NKU and NKU had the higher NET rating over Oakland. And, the home team won 3 of the 4 games. Only WSU lost after a collapse of epic proportions that makes me wonder if we will see Scott Nagy's name in the transfer portal - especially given the financial issues at that school.
As udballer noted, the league was one 27 foot desperation bank shot away from having none of its top-rated teams reach the tournament semifinals. The loss by WSU is a huge negative for the league. But remember that Milwaukee had always been ranked solidly in Quad 3 for the entire season. PFW bounced between low Quad 3 and a mid Quad 4 all year. But the league decided that CSU's 2-point win on a Friday night at Nutter was the deciding factor between the two teams in the seeding. Decisions like this one are why the HL will never retain any school that becomes capable of competing in a stronger conference. Hopefully, we can reach a point in the near future when we can join the long line of schools (mainly private) that leave for more competently run leagues.
My criticism of the HL tourney this year goes to its COVID-prompted seeding formula that ended up penalizing its two most highly rated teams. First, due to COVID, the league decided not to play a round robin schedule of 22 games and it decided to play 2-game series against the same teams on the same weekend at the home team's arena. Second, the league established a 53 page set of rules dealing with testing and when teams and players can play. The league controlled the schedule and the league controlled all schedule changes.
The league also imposed a rule that no fans would be permitted to attend any HL game even if the game was held in a State that permitted certain numbers of fans to attend; e.g., Ohio. The league did this to make all road games equal. But then the league implemented a seeding formula that gave great weight to road victories even after the league mandated no home court advantage with fans. The reason that CSU was given the #1 seed over WSU was that it beat WSU 66-64 at the Nutter in the first of the two-game series. Even though WSU came back the next day and destroyed CSU on the same floor 85-49. The prior day's two-point win was deemed more important to the seeding than the next day's 36 point rout. Why? WSU had no significant home court advantage. The teams split their games. IMO, the deciding factor for seeding should have been that WSU was ranked #60 in the NET and CSU was ranked #160 in the same index.
Likewise, for us, if the fan-less home court has such a great advantage that a road win determines seeding, then we should have played YSU at Calihan and Oakland should have travelled to NKU. Why? Because we had the higher NET rating over NKU and NKU had the higher NET rating over Oakland. And, the home team won 3 of the 4 games. Only WSU lost after a collapse of epic proportions that makes me wonder if we will see Scott Nagy's name in the transfer portal - especially given the financial issues at that school.
As udballer noted, the league was one 27 foot desperation bank shot away from having none of its top-rated teams reach the tournament semifinals. The loss by WSU is a huge negative for the league. But remember that Milwaukee had always been ranked solidly in Quad 3 for the entire season. PFW bounced between low Quad 3 and a mid Quad 4 all year. But the league decided that CSU's 2-point win on a Friday night at Nutter was the deciding factor between the two teams in the seeding. Decisions like this one are why the HL will never retain any school that becomes capable of competing in a stronger conference. Hopefully, we can reach a point in the near future when we can join the long line of schools (mainly private) that leave for more competently run leagues.