• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

MVC Tie-Breaker

R

Rick LeHew

New member
When SIU beat MSU in the final game - It created a 3-way tie for 7/8/9. The current MVC tie-breaking system calls for results from the 3 teams in a "Round-robin" format:
7 - MSU = 3-1
8 - BU = 2-2
9 - DU = 1-3

If MSU beats SIU in the final game, the tie-breaker goes head to head play (tie @ 1-1), then the Non-Conference SOS's - (BU last in the conference):
8 - Drake
9 - Bradley

Since MSU beat Drake twice -Bradley wins the tie-breaker over Drake. Why should Bradley win a tie-breaker based on how MSU/Drake played each other? I understand it's for the 8/9 seed... but if it were the 5/6/7 seed, the losing team is in the play-in game.

I propose the tie-breaker system goes directly to the 3 Non-Conference SOS's. Doug Elgin wants all MVC teams playing a tougher schedule, this would encourage that even more.

Either way... 8/9 or 9/8 - GO BEAT DRAKE !!
 
also - remember that bank-in 3-pointer that Walt threw in to win the Missouri State game?
That's what kept us from being 10th seed - yes - we were rescued by Walt's amazing game winner from a 3rd straight 10th place seed
 
Here is the official MVC rule regarding tiebreakers to determine seeding position-
http://www.mvc-sports.com/mbasketball/tiebreaker/

For 2-way ties, the MVC uses the non-conference strength of schedule as the second tiebreaker. The first tiebreaker is the same as it always has been- head-to-head record.

The primary tiebreaker for ties with 3 or more teams involved is also the same one it's been for many years- the "round robin" records of the teams. But the secondary tiebreaker has been changed to the non-conference strength of schedule.
 
tornado said:
also - remember that bank-in 3-pointer that Walt threw in to win the Missouri State game?
That's what kept us from being 10th seed - yes - we were rescued by Walt's amazing game winner from a 3rd straight 10th place seed
Click to expand...

Also remember if Drake hadn't had a statistically unconscious FT shooting night and we inbound the ball to the right player, we're a 6 seed. Bottom line, 6 or 10 doesn't matter much this year, the play on the court was huge improvement, need to be able to say the same next year.
 
alczervik75 said:
Also remember if Drake hadn't had a statistically unconscious FT shooting night and we inbound the ball to the right player, we're a 6 seed. Bottom line, 6 or 10 doesn't matter much this year, the play on the court was huge improvement, need to be able to say the same next year.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that could make us a 6 seed. Am I missing something? Even if we beat Drake and end up 8-10 in a tie with Illinois State for 6th, we lose the tiebreaker to them and would be the 7th seed. 7th is better than 9th, I guess, but we'd still be playing Thursday.

I also suspect Missouri State might be thinking "if Walt Lemon hadn't hit that miracle shot at the buzzer", maybe they could have won that game and they would be tied for 6th.
 
Da Coach said:
I don't see how that could make us a 6 seed. Am I missing something? Even if we beat Drake and end up 8-10 in a tie with Illinois State for 6th, we lose the tiebreaker to them and would be the 7th seed. 7th is better than 9th, I guess, but we'd still be playing Thursday.

I also suspect Missouri State might be thinking "if Walt Lemon hadn't hit that miracle shot at the buzzer", maybe they could have won that game and they would be tied for 6th.
Click to expand...

A tie at 6 just sounds better, we basically tied for 7th this season even though we ended up with the 8 seed, no doubt team showed good improvement from the last 2 seasons, personally I was not happy with the way we finished the season as in my opinion we should have beaten UNI at home and Drake on the road, next year will be season 3 under Geno and with most the teams in the Valley losing key personnel I fully expect Bradley to make their move to the top 4 , who we sign this spring will be the key in determining this factor as we appear to have better outside shooters on next seasons roster but we still need 2 6-7 or bigger inside players .
 
Da Coach said:
I don't see how that could make us a 6 seed. Am I missing something? Even if we beat Drake and end up 8-10 in a tie with Illinois State for 6th, we lose the tiebreaker to them and would be the 7th seed. 7th is better than 9th, I guess, but we'd still be playing Thursday.

I also suspect Missouri State might be thinking "if Walt Lemon hadn't hit that miracle shot at the buzzer", maybe they could have won that game and they would be tied for 6th.
Click to expand...

You are right, 7 seed, tied for 6th. That was my mistake.

My point was in response to T's point about Walt Lemon. Big picture, 7 seed or 10 seed doesn't really change much this year. We improved drastically either way and need to continue that. Small picture, we had two games this year in conference that were decided in the last 30 seconds.

In one game, had we not made a last second three we go to overtime against a team that is close to our equal at home. Even though they had the momentum, statistics would say the home team wins those games 65% of the time.

In the other game, we held a 5 point lead with under 30 seconds. Statistics put the odds of winning that game at 97% (after the three, and still near 85% after they made their 3 point play). So in total, we were unfortunate to have 7 wins, because if you go back and play and replay the final 15 seconds of both those games, you would go 2-0 about 50% of the time, 1-1 about 45% and lose both about 5%.

T's post both omitted that we don't know what the outcome would have been with Missouri State had the basket not been made (maybe and oversight), and could be misleading, imo, regarding the impression it gives about our overall season. That is why I brought Drake into it, to offset the implication that we were one fortunate shot away from being unimproved. That said, if we don't show improvement next year, the near future starts to get a little ominous.
 
tornado said:
also - remember that bank-in 3-pointer that Walt threw in to win the Missouri State game?
That's what kept us from being 10th seed - yes - we were rescued by Walt's amazing game winner from a 3rd straight 10th place seed
Click to expand...

Don't let the facts get in the way of making your argument, but...

1. If Walt doesn't make the 3 pt shot, we go to overtime. No way to know what would have happened in that situation.

2. If we had finished tied with SIU at 6-12, because of the head-to-head record, we would have been slotted as the 9th seed, not the 10th.

As it stands, we tied for 7th and have the 8th seed in the tournament. Those are the facts.
 
yeah - ;) that shot was a lock so we were a lock to stay solidly out of 10th and we all know that no 10th seed has ever advanced past Friday...
 
Talk about a topic going absolutely nowhere!
Why aren't we talking about the Drake game coming up instead of trying to change what's already been done?
Carry on, carry on...if you must.
 
We would have had to lose to SIU to be the 10th seed.

But had Eastman hit the 3 in the final 30 seconds against WSU, and had we not melted down at Drake late, and had we forced our normal number of turnovers at MSU, then we'd be in the 2:30 Friday game that some here were very happy with being our ceiling. I expect us to break through that ceiling within the next 2-3 years, and set a new higher bar for the program, above that which a few here were perfectly content with.
 
Tulsa Brave said:
We would have had to lose to SIU to be the 10th seed.

But had Eastman hit the 3 in the final 30 seconds against WSU, and had we not melted down at Drake late, and had we forced our normal number of turnovers at MSU, then we'd be in the 2:30 Friday game that some here were very happy with being our ceiling. I expect us to break through that ceiling within the next 2-3 years, and set a new higher bar for the program, above that which a few here were perfectly content with.
Click to expand...

For me, breaking through that in 3 years may not be enough... I don't want to play on Thursday for 2 more years... I can stomach one more year, but after 4 it may be time to evaluate. I don't think it should be hard and fast, if we have good recruits coming, we're trending the right direction, no academic/major-off-court issues, then maybe Geno gets a little more lee-way, but if we don't look after 4 years, to be considerably better in year 5, then re-evaluation is necessary. I think that we'll be top 3 in year 4 however, so hopefully it's a moot point. ;)
 
amckillip said:
For me, breaking through that in 3 years may not be enough... I don't want to play on Thursday for 2 more years... I can stomach one more year, but after 4 it may be time to evaluate. I don't think it should be hard and fast, if we have good recruits coming, we're trending the right direction, no academic/major-off-court issues, then maybe Geno gets a little more lee-way, but if we don't look after 4 years, to be considerably better in year 5, then re-evaluation is necessary. I think that we'll be top 3 in year 4 however, so hopefully it's a moot point. ;)
Click to expand...

Honestly, next year needs to be off Thursday. Depending on who we add, next year's success may be more secure than 2015. While we would all like more inside presence, we do have Lemon and Pickett next year, along with a 5th year post who can score.

With the two transfers, along with Shayok, Bell and Tucker, that needs to be enough to move us to at least .500 in conference, because if we aren't getting enough from the non-seniors next year to boost those three to .500, it's going to be hard to get there the next (I may reconsider if Mike Shaw and Tommie Hamilton are here and the underclassmen carry the load next year).
 
alczervik75 said:
Honestly, next year needs to be off Thursday. Depending on who we add, next year's success may be more secure than 2015. While we would all like more inside presence, we do have Lemon and Pickett next year, along with a 5th year post who can score.

With the two transfers, along with Shayok, Bell and Tucker, that needs to be enough to move us to at least .500 in conference, because if we aren't getting enough from the non-seniors next year to boost those three to .500, it's going to be hard to get there the next (I may reconsider if Mike Shaw and Tommie Hamilton are here and the underclassmen carry the load next year).
Click to expand...

The two transfers will likely start along side Lemon, Prosser and Pickett. Tucker will hopefully bring scoring off of the bench as the sixth man. Shayok will back up Tyshon at the PF spot. The big wild card is who will play behind Prosser at center, and who else can Geno bring who will contribute next year as a scorer. I'm not very high on Bell or Crawford. Keep in mind, if Mike Shaw transfers to Bradley, he can't play until 13-14.
 
Old Coach said:
The two transfers will likely start along side Lemon, Prosser and Pickett. Tucker will hopefully bring scoring off of the bench as the sixth man. Shayok will back up Tyshon at the PF spot. The big wild card is who will play behind Prosser at center, and who else can Geno bring who will contribute next year as a scorer. I'm not very high on Bell or Crawford. Keep in mind, if Mike Shaw transfers to Bradley, he can't play until 13-14.
Click to expand...

Right, the Mike Shaw reference was to the 2014-2015 season not being "down" from 2013-2014.

I agree I'd feel a lot better with a more proven backup C (or any backup C), and while Nate Wells doesn't do anything to excite me, it's not like many other Valley Schools are deep at that position. There are also examples this year of teams finishing in the top half without one true post, let alone two.

Also, I believe the addition of Fields gives Lemmon more open threes and less forced, and the addition of Grier provides one true threat that a ball screen offense needs.

It's not perfect, or a finished product, but it should be top half, imo. Anything less would signal we're probably waiting for year 5, which is a scary proposition.
 
Old Coach said:
The two transfers will likely start along side Lemon, Prosser and Pickett. Tucker will hopefully bring scoring off of the bench as the sixth man. Shayok will back up Tyshon at the PF spot. The big wild card is who will play behind Prosser at center, and who else can Geno bring who will contribute next year as a scorer. I'm not very high on Bell or Crawford. Keep in mind, if Mike Shaw transfers to Bradley, he can't play until 13-14.
Click to expand...

Right, the Mike Shaw reference was to the 2014-2015 season not being "down" from 2013-2014.

I agree I'd feel a lot better with a more proven backup C (or any backup C), and while Nate Wells doesn't do anything to excite me, it's not like many other Valley Schools are deep at that position. There are also examples this year of teams finishing in the top half without one true post, let alone two.

Also, I believe the addition of Fields gives Lemmon more open threes and less forced, and the addition of Grier provides one true threat that a ball screen offense needs.

It's not perfect, or a finished product, but it should be top half, imo. Anything less would signal we're probably waiting for year 5, which is a scary proposition.
 
Rick LeHew said:
When SIU beat MSU in the final game - It created a 3-way tie for 7/8/9. The current MVC tie-breaking system calls for results from the 3 teams in a "Round-robin" format:
7 - MSU = 3-1
8 - BU = 2-2
9 - DU = 1-3

If MSU beats SIU in the final game, the tie-breaker goes head to head play (tie @ 1-1), then the Non-Conference SOS's - (BU last in the conference):
8 - Drake
9 - Bradley

Since MSU beat Drake twice -Bradley wins the tie-breaker over Drake. Why should Bradley win a tie-breaker based on how MSU/Drake played each other? I understand it's for the 8/9 seed... but if it were the 5/6/7 seed, the losing team is in the play-in game.

I propose the tie-breaker system goes directly to the 3 Non-Conference SOS's. Doug Elgin wants all MVC teams playing a tougher schedule, this would encourage that even more.

Either way... 8/9 or 9/8 - GO BEAT DRAKE !!
Click to expand...

There's a reason it's called "round robin" Rick. That's why how the other two teams do head to head is as important as how Bradley did head to head against the other two.

I do like emphasizing the non-conference SOS for that reason Rick. But head to head competition still should be the first factor since it involves solely the two (or sometimes more) teams that are tied.
 
tornado said:
also - remember that bank-in 3-pointer that Walt threw in to win the Missouri State game?
That's what kept us from being 10th seed - yes - we were rescued by Walt's amazing game winner from a 3rd straight 10th place seed
Click to expand...

Well, a win is a win. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. Look at any of the top 50 teams in the country, and you will find games involving all of them that were won even if they had no business of winning them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top