|
Isiah
Aug 26, 2009 12:05:25 GMT -5
Post by cdnhoya on Aug 26, 2009 12:05:25 GMT -5
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,441
|
Isiah
Aug 26, 2009 12:23:26 GMT -5
Post by hoyarooter on Aug 26, 2009 12:23:26 GMT -5
I is for....Idiot?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Isiah
Aug 26, 2009 12:27:22 GMT -5
Post by Boz on Aug 26, 2009 12:27:22 GMT -5
OK, I have a few questions here.
First of all, with respect to FIU, if you have a contract that says they can make you play whoever they want, you have no cause for complaint and someone at your school should know better.
Now, if the organizers told them OSU and changed their minds, yes, that's pretty bush league, but if the contract allows them to do so, you shouldn't have signed it (or should have asked for that in writing -- there is never any such thing as a handshake deal where contract lawyers are involved).
But here is my real question. Has the coaches vs. cancer format always been this way? That the four host schools are guaranteed a trip to the semifinals in NYC?? Am I understanding that correctly, or am I missing something?
If I am reading it correctly, that seems ridiculously lame. Why would any of the small schools agree to that? (Money, I know, OK, but still). There is no reward if you pull off an upset? Who came up with that silly idea?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Isiah
Aug 26, 2009 12:30:41 GMT -5
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 26, 2009 12:30:41 GMT -5
It happened a couple years ago when there finally was an upset (Kentucky, I think -- to Austin Peay or USD or whomever they lost to) and a tiny school went to NYC, cutting ticket sales and TV viewership.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Isiah
Aug 26, 2009 13:48:24 GMT -5
Post by hifigator on Aug 26, 2009 13:48:24 GMT -5
Yeah, this entire issue is nothing more than a spectacle. While I agree that contracts should generally be honored, I have heard no one refute what the FIU people have said, in that they agreed to play Ohio St. I think blame might fall on their lawyers for not reading closely enough. In any case, from what little I know about the situation, I think I would side with FIU. I could be wrong, but the tone I get at every corner is that the tournament organizers are trying to "pull a fast one," and even though they might have legal grounds to, I still prefer the idea of the "little guys" standing up for themselves and saying "No." At first, I thought that "won't be bullied into playing North Carolina" comment was little more than cowardice. But as I think about it more and more, I think I see their point.
Incidentally, I agree that calling such predetermined contests a "tournament" is silly. Why bother? If the "first round" games don't matter in determining who "advances" in the tourney, then it ain't a tourney in my book. So just ammend the schedule so that it reflects a "game" against so and so, prior to the real start of the neutral site tournament.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Isiah
Aug 31, 2009 10:26:10 GMT -5
Post by TC on Aug 31, 2009 10:26:10 GMT -5
Who cares? They're still going to lose, whether it's Ohio State or UNC.
|
|