Director's Cut Podcast with Rick Cole

[triplec2195]

The bottom line here is that there are some of us that aren't going to let go of us and all other qualifying schools getting at least one day on the court having had to put in our due diligence sometimes over a long period of time to get there. Whether that will ever happen in some form or fashion remains to be scene. I'll be in denial at least for now thinking that it will.

[Wags]

I can't imagine they do nothing for senior players and teams that qualified for the NCAA tournament but didn't get to play in it. Well I mean I can imagine it, it's the NCAA after all but I don't see advocating for it. Is it that big a deal to have some extra play in games to accommodate any of these qualifiers that don't get a regular bid next year?

Logistically, it is. You don't just snap your fingers and make something like that happen. First, we have no idea how long this pandemic will go on. It's not happening any time soon and there's no way next year's teams will play a season and then add this season's seniors back just for an expanded NCAAT next year. No chance of that.

Even if it were targeted for before next season, this year's seniors would be long gone (some could've already moved on to Europe to play professionally, others possibly drafted in the NBA, etc.), so it would be tough to bring them all back. As sad as it is for those seniors, it's something they're going to have to live with.

The NCAA isn't doing anything for them. We just have to accept that there's no 2020 NCAA tournament. These are obviously not ordinary times and the NCAAT is unfortunately collateral damage of that. Given what's going on, the NCAAT is actually way down at the bottom of the list in terms of things that have been canceled, postponed or otherwise impacted by the pandemic. The NCAA tried to make the tournament happen, but once they saw they couldn't, they moved on.

Disagree. These are extraordinary circumstances. Seniors still with games to play get an extra year of eligibility. Scholarship limit increases for each school by the # of current senior players who choose to return. Done.

Even easier is to expand the 2021 NCAA field with play in games for teams who already auto- qualified this year but do not next year.

Who's paying for those extra scholarships? The NCAA won't. The NCAA is also not expanding the tournament for any reason next year (down the road, maybe, but not next year). Each season is separate. You don't affect next year's tournament because of what happened this year. The only way would be to play a separate tournament based on this year, before next year's season (even if it were played as late as October - I would still be all for that), but once the NCAA saw no window to do that by May, that idea was done.

You're free to disagree or hope all you want, but if you read and listen to what NCAA president Mark Emmert and what the tournament committee said on this, you'd see that it's not me making this up or that it's simply my opinion. It's just reality. The NCAA has moved on. They would have to have a major reversal from what they've said to do what you're suggesting. I don't see that happening.

[cactus]

Logistically, it is. You don't just snap your fingers and make something like that happen. First, we have no idea how long this pandemic will go on. It's not happening any time soon and there's no way next year's teams will play a season and then add this season's seniors back just for an expanded NCAAT next year. No chance of that.

Even if it were targeted for before next season, this year's seniors would be long gone (some could've already moved on to Europe to play professionally, others possibly drafted in the NBA, etc.), so it would be tough to bring them all back. As sad as it is for those seniors, it's something they're going to have to live with.

The NCAA isn't doing anything for them. We just have to accept that there's no 2020 NCAA tournament. These are obviously not ordinary times and the NCAAT is unfortunately collateral damage of that. Given what's going on, the NCAAT is actually way down at the bottom of the list in terms of things that have been canceled, postponed or otherwise impacted by the pandemic. The NCAA tried to make the tournament happen, but once they saw they couldn't, they moved on.

Disagree. These are extraordinary circumstances. Seniors still with games to play get an extra year of eligibility. Scholarship limit increases for each school by the # of current senior players who choose to return. Done.

Even easier is to expand the 2021 NCAA field with play in games for teams who already auto- qualified this year but do not next year.

Who's paying for those extra scholarships? The NCAA won't. The NCAA is also not expanding the tournament for any reason next year (down the road, maybe, but not next year). Each season is separate. You don't affect next year's tournament because of what happened this year. The only way would be to play a separate tournament based on this year, before next year's season (even if it were played as late as October - I would still be all for that), but once the NCAA saw no window to do that by May, that idea was done.

You're free to disagree or hope all you want, but if you read and listen to what NCAA president Mark Emmert and what the tournament committee said on this, you'd see that it's not me making this up or that it's simply my opinion. It's just reality. The NCAA has moved on. They would have to have a major reversal from what they've said to do what you're suggesting. I don't see that happening.

Scholarship money is soft money as previously noted, and we're talking about expanding play in games to get to a field of 64, effectively not changing anything from the current setup of the NCAA tournament.

You may be correct, and probably likely will be correct, that none of this will happen. But the logistical/financial/moral arguments presented so far against these proposals have all been extremely weak.

[Wags]

Scholarship money is soft money as previously noted, and we're talking about expanding play in games to get to a field of 64, effectively not changing anything from the current setup of the NCAA tournament.

You may be correct, and probably likely will be correct, that none of this will happen. But the logistical/financial/moral arguments presented so far against these proposals have all been extremely weak.

I don't know that there have been any moral arguments, but regardless, one season has nothing to do with another.

In 1994, the Montreal Expos had the best record in MLB when the rest of that season was canceled because of a strike. In 1995, they finished last in the NL East.

Guess what - the Expos weren't invited to participate in an extra play-in round in the 1995 MLB playoffs.

That's basically what you're asking here. And, I highly doubt you'd be asking for it if Northeastern had won 15 nights ago. I was as disappointed as anyone for Hofstra, but we can't expect a major NCAA change simply because Hofstra missed its first chance to dance in 19 years.

Bad luck for the Expos in 1994, bad luck for Hofstra and many other teams in 2020.

Life's unfair sometimes there's simply no remedy for that.

So, if it doesn't happen before the start of the next season (and, it won't), there's NO chance it's part of next season's tournament. Next season is next season.

[cactus]

Not the same at all. No one on the Expos was ineligible to play the following season and they hadn't already won a playoff.

(The moral argument was that it would be wrong to take leadership chances away from guys like Coburn and Ray.)

[Wags]

Not the same at all. No one on the Expos was ineligible to play the following season and they hadn't already won a playoff.

It's definitely the same because you're suggesting that next year's teams automatically qualify for next year's play-in games regardless of what they do next year, simply because they earned berths for this year.

If the best team in MLB in '94 didn't get that kind of opportunity in the '95 playoffs, why should 2019-20 Hofstra automatically get to bring back all of its players and get that opportunity in the 2021 NCAAT if they were to say, finish fifth in the CAA next year and lose in the first round of the 2021 CAA tourney?

Aside from that, they're not giving an entire season back because players missed anywhere from 1-6 postseason games. They basically played the season already. Even Mihalich said it. And he's right.

(The moral argument was that it would be wrong to take leadership chances away from guys like Coburn and Ray.)

Ask juniors on other teams who are awaiting their chances to step into major starting roles as seniors next year how they might feel about that.

More than just Hofstra was affected by the NCAAT being canceled.

[cactus]

Not the same at all. No one on the Expos was ineligible to play the following season and they hadn't already won a playoff.

It's definitely the same because you're suggesting that next year's teams automatically qualify for next year's play-in games regardless of what they do next year, simply because they earned berths for this year.

I don't see the similarities at all. The Expos didn't win anything, it wasn't a completed season, and there was no existing concept of play-in games for seeding in baseball playoffs.
Hofstra won a regular season-ending tournament.

(The moral argument was that it would be wrong to take leadership chances away from guys like Coburn and Ray.)

Ask juniors on other teams who are awaiting their chances to step into major starting roles as seniors next year how they might feel about that.

More than just Hofstra was affected by the NCAAT being canceled.

This is a weak argument, already made previously. Don't understand why you are pushing so hard to say "too bad" to a team that qualified for the NCAA's and didn't get to play in it.

[Wags]

I don't see the similarities at all. The Expos didn't win anything, it wasn't a completed season, and there was no existing concept of play-in games for seeding in baseball playoffs.
Hofstra won a regular season-ending tournament.

There's no expanded play-in for the 2021 NCAAT to allow teams like this years Hofstra team to compete in either. So... yes, same thing.
One is just as fictitious as the other.

This is a weak argument, already made previously. Don't understand why you are pushing so hard to say "too bad" to a team that qualified for the NCAA's and didn't get to play in it.

Merely your opinion that it's a weak argument. Tell me when you talk to those players about it and I'll see if it's a weak argument.

As for why... because we are WAY beyond that and it's not happening. There is no 2020 NCAAT, there's no makeup for it next year. We were beyond any of that when the NCAA canceled the NCAAT and when sports were canceled nationwide.

I don't understand why you are pushing so hard for something to happen that we know will not. It IS too bad. I wish they could've played. Would've been great. But reality is reality.

Anyway, we're way off the original point of this thread by now.

[cactus]

I don't see the similarities at all. The Expos didn't win anything, it wasn't a completed season, and there was no existing concept of play-in games for seeding in baseball playoffs.
Hofstra won a regular season-ending tournament.

There's no expanded play-in for the 2021 NCAAT to allow teams like this years Hofstra team to compete in either. So... yes, same thing.
One is just as fictitious as the other.

This is a weak argument, already made previously. Don't understand why you are pushing so hard to say "too bad" to a team that qualified for the NCAA's and didn't get to play in it.

Your opinion that it's a weak argument. Tell me when you talk to those players about it, and I'll see if its a weak argument.

As for why? Because we are WAY beyond that and it's not happening. We were beyond that the day sports were canceled nationwide.

I don't understand why you are pushing so hard for something to happen that we know will not. It IS too bad. I wish they could've played. Would've been great. But reality is reality.

I usually don't argue semantics but the comparison to the 94 Expos who played half a season just makes no sense at all. There are already play in games for the NCAAS!

I still don't get the desire to push the "too bad" narrative.

[Wags]

I usually don't argue semantics but the comparison to the 94 Expos who played half a season just makes no sense at all. There are already play in games for the NCAAS!

I still don't get the desire to push the "too bad" narrative.

They are both fantasies. I used the Expos simply to point out that sometimes, teams screwed and there's nothing you can do about it. The Expos might've won the World Series that year. Hofstra might've made an NCAAT run this year. We don't know and we won't ever know. Nothing changed then, nothing is changing now despite you trying to speak it into existence.

There is the same chance of the NCAA adding extra play-in games to next year's NCAAT to accommodate teams like 2019-20 Hofstra that there was of MLB inviting the Expos to the '95 playoffs. The NCAA doesn't feel as bad for teams like Hofstra as we do and they're not going to do anything about it. THAT'S the point.

This is just a stupid argument at this point. It's like trying to say the NCAA should do something next year about Hofstra's 2006 tourney snub. Sometimes life sucks, you accept it, you move on.

[cactus]

I usually don't argue semantics but the comparison to the 94 Expos who played half a season just makes no sense at all. There are already play in games for the NCAAS!

I still don't get the desire to push the "too bad" narrative.

They are both fantasies. I used the Expos simply to point out that sometimes, teams screwed and there's nothing you can do about it. The Expos might've won the World Series that year. Hofstra might've made an NCAAT run this year. We don't know and we won't ever know. Nothing changed then, nothing is changing now despite you trying to speak it into existence.

There is the same chance of the NCAA adding extra play-in games to next year's NCAAT to accommodate teams like 2019-20 Hofstra that there was of MLB inviting the Expos to the '95 playoffs. The NCAA doesn't feel as bad for teams like Hofstra as we do and they're not going to do anything about it. THAT'S the point.

Then you could compare Hofstra getting an automatic play in game next year to pigs flying, if that's your opinion.

But you compared them to the '94 Expos. If the basketball season ended in January with Hofstra in first, that would be a valid comparison, otherwise it makes no sense.

None of us have the power to make any of these changes happen, we know that. Yes the NCAA won't feel as bad about it, and I doubt anything will happen either. Just feels like you were really harping on the weak arguments and poor analogies to justify/rationalize why it won't, and that's hard for me to understand.

[Wags]

I usually don't argue semantics but the comparison to the 94 Expos who played half a season just makes no sense at all. There are already play in games for the NCAAS!

I still don't get the desire to push the "too bad" narrative.

They are both fantasies. I used the Expos simply to point out that sometimes, teams screwed and there's nothing you can do about it. The Expos might've won the World Series that year. Hofstra might've made an NCAAT run this year. We don't know and we won't ever know. Nothing changed then, nothing is changing now despite you trying to speak it into existence.

There is the same chance of the NCAA adding extra play-in games to next year's NCAAT to accommodate teams like 2019-20 Hofstra that there was of MLB inviting the Expos to the '95 playoffs. The NCAA doesn't feel as bad for teams like Hofstra as we do and they're not going to do anything about it. THAT'S the point.

Then you could compare Hofstra getting an automatic play in game next year to pigs flying, if that's your opinion.

But you compared them to the '94 Expos. If the basketball season ended in January with Hofstra in first, that would be a valid comparison, otherwise it makes no sense.

None of us have the power to make any of these changes happen, we know that. Yes the NCAA won't feel as bad about it, and I doubt anything will happen either. Just feels like you were really harping on the weak arguments and poor analogies to justify/rationalize why it won't, and that's hard for me to understand.

Whatever, man. The reasons I said are all pretty much why we BOTH know the NCAA won't do it, so I don't know what to tell you. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing rather than for something that can legitimately happen. So, I don't understand that. Must be the quarantine.

[cactus]

Then you could compare Hofstra getting an automatic play in game next year to pigs flying, if that's your opinion.

But you compared them to the '94 Expos. If the basketball season ended in January with Hofstra in first, that would be a valid comparison, otherwise it makes no sense.

None of us have the power to make any of these changes happen, we know that. Yes the NCAA won't feel as bad about it, and I doubt anything will happen either. Just feels like you were really harping on the weak arguments and poor analogies to justify/rationalize why it won't, and that's hard for me to understand.

Whatever, man. The reasons I said are all pretty much why we BOTH know the NCAA won't do it, so I don't know what to tell you. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing rather than for something that can legitimately happen. So, I don't understand that. Must be the quarantine.

Actually I'm just refuting your weak arguments why it shouldn't happen and wondering why you are defending the NCAA's likely response to tell Hofstra "too bad". The logistical issues, scholarship issues, Expos comparison, those were all brought up by you and I disagree with you that they would help/concern the NCAA if they don't do anything. They're just not likely going to do anything because they don't care about the mid majors. I wouldn't have argued with you at all if you took a position similar to that, I took issue with the reasons you were putting out there and saying it's right that the NCAA does nothing.

[Wags]

Actually I'm just refuting your weak arguments why it shouldn't happen and wondering why you are defending the NCAA's likely response to tell Hofstra "too bad". The logistical issues, scholarship issues, Expos comparison, those were all brought up by you and I disagree with you that they would help/concern the NCAA if they don't do anything. They're just not likely going to do anything because they don't care about the mid majors.

I don't feel you've refuted anything. The NCAA itself cited the scholarship and logistical issues. Mihalich cited scholarship issues. Once again, if you don't believe me, I invite you to actually listen to or read what NCAA president Mark Emmert and NCAA senior V.P. of basketball Dan Gavitt said on those issues.

I do think you are going in circles though, with the same hope for something that you know yourself won't happen, which is kind of pointless. I tried to get off of that a few posts earlier by saying we had strayed from the original point of this thread, until you brought back again.

As for the NCAA not doing what you're suggesting because of mid-major bias? Talk about weak arguments... um, you know mids weren't the only ones who didn't get to play in the NCAAT this year, right? Like every year, they would've been a small percentage of the field of 68. Or, were you hoping that the NCAA would be completely biased the other way and would only give mids another opportunity, but not all of the P5s who would've earned entries in this year's NCAAT that same opportunity?

[cactus]

Actually I'm just refuting your weak arguments why it shouldn't happen and wondering why you are defending the NCAA's likely response to tell Hofstra "too bad". The logistical issues, scholarship issues, Expos comparison, those were all brought up by you and I disagree with you that they would help/concern the NCAA if they don't do anything. They're just not likely going to do anything because they don't care about the mid majors.

I don't feel you've refuted anything. The NCAA itself cited the scholarship and logistical issues. Mihalich cited scholarship issues. Once again, if you don't believe me, I invite you to actually listen to or read what NCAA president Mark Emmert and NCAA senior V.P. of basketball Dan Gavitt said on those issues.

I do think you are going in circles though, with the same hope for something that you know yourself won't happen, which is kind of pointless. I tried to get off of that a few posts earlier by saying we had strayed from the original point of this thread, until you brought back again.

As for the NCAA not doing what you're suggesting because of mid-major bias? Talk about weak arguments... um, you know mids weren't the only ones who didn't get to play in the NCAAT this year, right? Like every year, they would've been a small percentage of the field of 68. Or, were you hoping that the NCAA would be completely biased the other way and would only give mids another opportunity, but not all of the P5s who would've earned entries in this year's NCAAT that same opportunity?

Those issues are easily resolved, as has been detailed above. You show the arguments are weak by appealing to the probability of the NCAA doing nothing, and attempting to direct the topic. And I'll throw Cole into the mix if you want to evoke authority, who feels eligibility should be restored for seniors.

Mid major qualifiers are obviously disproportionately affected as a number of their tournaments already ended with winners, they rely more on seniors, and make the tournament far less often.

[Wags]

Those issues are easily resolved, as has been detailed above. You show the arguments are weak by appealing to the probability of the NCAA doing nothing, and attempting to direct the topic. And I'll throw Cole into the mix if you want to evoke authority, who feels eligibility should be restored for seniors.

Mid major qualifiers are obviously disproportionately affected as a number of their tournaments already ended with winners, they rely more on seniors, and make the tournament far less often.

They're not easily resolved, as the NCAA has stated (which are the very reasons they're not even attempting to resolve them), but believe what you want.

There are still plenty of P5 seniors from this year who are being denied the chance at playing in the NCAAT. Any disproportion on that in favor of mid-major seniors (if there even is a number in their favor on that), I can assure you, is not the reason the NCAA is not doing what you're suggesting. That would be some real tin foil hat type of conspiracy thinking.

[cactus]

Mid major qualifiers are obviously disproportionately affected as a number of their tournaments already ended with winners, they rely more on seniors, and make the tournament far less often.

Of course. But you're the one who said the NCAA wouldn't do what you suggested out of a bias against mids. That holds no weight since they'd be denying the same to P5s who would've made the NCAAT this year. Still plenty of P5 seniors who would've been denied the same. Any disproportion on that in favor of mids, I can assure you, is not the reason the NCAA is not doing what you're suggesting.

I wouldn't care how many play in games they would have to add, but most of these upper conference teams didn't actually win a tournament so there's no clear deliniation as to who qualified like an autobid. For the top teams that weren't on the bubble many of them would qualify again next year anyway. There would be teams that don't, and they should get a play in game too, but it's obvious these proposals would be much more impactful for mid majors who won tournaments.

[Wags]

I wouldn't care how many play in games they would have to add, but most of these upper conference teams didn't actually win a tournament so there's no clear deliniation as to who qualified like an autobid. For the top teams that weren't on the bubble many of them would qualify again next year anyway. There would be teams that don't, and they should get a play in game too, but it's obvious these proposals would be much more impactful for mid majors who won tournaments.

If the NCAA were to hold a delayed tournament (which again, they won't), to be fair, they would have to declare auto entries from each conference. They can't only take teams like Hofstra, which completed their conference tournament. At the very least, the NCAA would take the regular-season champ from leagues that didn't complete their conference tourneys as the auto-bids, so there would still be plenty of P5 seniors in the tournament (even if they're not as high-profile as mid-major seniors). So, I'm still not buying the anti-mid-major bias theory as a reason for not holding a delayed NCAAT. The P5 teams (including their seniors) were impacted plenty by missing the NCAAT this year as well.

[triplec2195]

After reading all these posts back and forth I'm glad Cactus finally went to bed, lol. Not a disparaging comment in any way. It just seemed like this was going to go on ad-infinitum and I've always appreciated the passion behind the posts here. You guys have been posting since 2014 when this forum was started and I've been posting since 2017 having been a follower of HU sports going back to the mid 70's. I enjoy reading the posts and gaining knowledge while making my own opinions known. The one thing that I do see happening here at times is the absolute need to have the last word or "THE I HAVE SPOKEN MENTALITY". I know at times we just have to reach the conclusion that we will "AGREE TO DISAGREE" and leave it at that. At the end of the day there will be no winners and no losers because really no ones opinion or feelings are any better then anyone elses. Of course that's an opinion in and of itself. I have made my feelings known here and I share the feelings like a lot of ALUM that we're all heartbroken and saddened as to what has happened here. There are far more important things in life right now as we all know so guys lets keep this in the proper perspective and lets be safe. TY