Seeing how this SoCon tourney has played out has me more convinced than ever that something needs to be changed. If the Mocs could have played that game at home, the 6th man that is the crowd would have helped them get the W. Or if only the top 4 could make the tourney, then GSU and WCU can't spoil the party for the more deserving participants. But we all know that any idea that would result in less money for the SoCon would promptly be roundhouse-kicked to the face.
Losing Z will be a major loss for the Mocs, but the quality of players coming in will more than offset that. That said, the Mocs should finish no worse than 2nd place again next year (behind Mercer). Of course that assumes that Wade isn't going anywhere. I think it's a safe assumption for now. It's a matter of "when" not "if" he bolts to a bigger school.
On how Wade should deal with a close, heartbreaking loss to GSU, somewhere Russ Huesman might have said, "Just blame the refs; it worked for me!"
How about this...maybe change the conference tourney to only have the top 4 play for a chance at the Dance. Semis on a Sat., final on Mon. That would put an emphasis on doing well in the regular season in order to have a shot at the Dance. The drama down the stretch of the season would pick up a bit too as teams would make a strong effort just to get into the postseason.
That's very possible that McKenzie wouldn't be able to hold those sports anyway. Maybe if one of the sideline bleachers were pushed all the way up they could fit? But then you lose lots of good seats doing that. But again, if the demand isn't there anyway, I don't think it should be held against McKenzie that it can't facilitate those particular things.
[Not sure we could make your set-up fly — especially the home-court advantage (no way the league would sign-off).]
I clarified in the comments yesterday that I meant that higher seeds should get to host each game, not the best team host the entire tourney. To me, this is what would keep the regular season important by rewarding the teams who did well with a home game. But it also would allow for a team who was peaking to have a shot at making the Dance.
[In one-bid leagues (or leagues outside the top 10 in the computer rankings) you have the regular-season conference champion play the tournament champion at the regular-season champion's court with the winner getting the Dance invite.]
The only problem I would have with this is that the tourney final wouldn't mean near as much if the regular season champ wasn't playing in it. Simply because a trip to the Dance wouldn't be on the line in this game. Plus, would ESPN be willing to televise in prime time the title game AND an extra play-in game? Not sure that they would want to take that chance each year with our conference.
[It may be bigger than most of you would like for UTC (it has 13,000 seats), but that size venue would be a hub for a slew of activities, but it also would give options for hosting NCAA events, minor league hockey and potentially Arena League football.]
The reason we don't have minor league hockey or an AFL franchise right now is because the demand for those is low in this area. A new arena wouldn't change that, IMO.
McKenzie doesn't need to go anywhere anytime soon. The powers that be have hinted at putting luxury boxes in and I think that and other investments would be the way to go. We have a great venue and probably the best home court in the league. We just need to continue to figure out ways to enhance the great asset that we already have.
Now we need someone to play Oliver. Andrew Houts?
Wade is Sherwood Schwartz, creator/writer/producer of the show.
And if the Mocs win the SoCon tourney, should we make Wade's Bunch dress up in '70s costumes and sing, "We're gonna keep on, keep on, keep on, keep on Dancin'..."?
Makes me want to go to Cullowhee right now! Lol.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant the higher seed in each game should host. Not the best team host the entire tourney. That would be potentially dreadful as you hilariously noted.
The main issue for me is 3 or 4 games in a row. But if you spread out the games over a week, then staying at one site for all games becomes a little harder. Lots of school time missed in that scenario (not that the NCAA really cares about missed school time...unless we're talking about football, but that's a different discussion for another day).
A semi-related issue is the fact that all the tourney games can be viewed online or on TV now. Now you don't have to make a 3.5 hour trip to an artsy/freaky city to watch the Mocs try to play their way into the Dance. If attendance at the neutral site tourney starts dropping off, the organizers will have 2 options: Cut off web/TV access to see the games (won't happen) or start letting teams host their own games. Maybe the latter scenario can work its way into reality sooner than later.
After watching your Wilt clips from yesterday, one of Youtube's related videos was a clip of Wilt and Ali on Wide World of Sports talking about a possible boxing matchup. Ali talked trashed throughout the entire clip (no surprise), but as it turned out, the fight never happened. It was going to happen in 1968 at the Astrodome, but contracts never got finalized and signed. There's a debate as to who would have won. Ali would be the presumed favorite for obvious reasons, but Wilt was a great athlete and had a long reach. Should have been interesting; Wilt regretted later that it never came to be.
Jay, (mailbag?), I wish the Southern Conference would do away with the neutral site conference tourney. Let the higher seed host all games and spread the tourney out over the course of the week (how about a Tues/Thurs/Sat/Mon?). No teams play back-to-back conference games during the season, but they're expected to suddenly play at least 3, possibly 4, days in a row to win the conference title. I think it's a bad setup and should be changed. What do you think?
Wade's Bunch, huh? So who gets to play Alice? Johnny Taylor?
Jay, you forgot to mention that KD got his 42 through only 3 quarters. Can the Sixers make it any more obvious that they are tanking this season away? All the more reason for the NBA to consider giving the lottery teams an equal chance at the top pick.
Wilt's 50 pt/game season was spectacular. But if LeBron played back then, he'd do it too. AND average a triple double just like the big O. And I don't have a LeBron man-crush like Jay does. I'm just calling it like I see it.
Did you see Dominique say that he could drop 40 on the Bobcats at age 54? What's he smokin'? And he implied that LeBron got 61 simply because the Bobcats weren't playing good defense. First of all, if bad defense is all it takes to get 61, why are more guys not doing it against the bad teams in the league year in and year out? Plus, 'Nique had his share of games against bad foes as well. It's his own fault if he didn't exploit the bad matchups when they came.
Jay, given your stats on Cam and Humpty, it looks like a push on who is better. But I still give the edge to Humpty because of how he's stepped up in big games. That said, if either one of these guys demands big money, I let them walk. The strength of both of those teams is the D. I don't think paying either of those QBs the big bucks and then letting key D guys go would be in those teams' best interests.
61 for LeBron? It's gotta be the mask! Is LeBron's 61 more of a statement to KD or to MJ? That's twice now this season that someone has dropped 60+ on MJ's team.
Not liking moving the XP back. So what that professional kickers succeed very well at it? How is that a problem that needs to be fixed? Moving it back won't make me any more likely to watch a game.
Moving it back would make kickers a little more $$$ because their value would increase a bit. And now fantasy football owners will have to have 2 kickers on the roster. (Who would want to start a kicker playing at Chicago or Pittsburgh especially in the second half of the season? Missed XPs are a killer!)
If Goodell wants to generate more excitement in the game, move the kickoffs back to where they were. To me, that's the most exciting play in football (or used to be). Now, it's a bore when a team scores, then we see a 2-3 minute commercial break, then a kickoff goes through the end zone (again), then there's another 2-3 minute commercial break.
Thanks for the info, MT.