Conference Tournaments

[uncfan103]

Do you think one-bid conferences should give their one bid to their conference champion or should they reward their regular season champion a spot in the NCAA Tournament?

Obviously, it makes sense for the ACC to have a tournament so that everyone can pick up an extra win, bubble teams have a chance to win a game to help their resume, and teams could get hot and win their way in. Georgia got in from the SEC a few years ago, and I think UConn, Ole Miss, and Oregon were bubble teams recently that won the conference tournament to make it into the NCAA tournament.

But smaller conferences only have one bid and it typically goes to the tournament champion. So teams have won their regular season by a couple of games only to lose in the tournament.

Some examples:
Last year Norfolk State finished 16-0 in conference and North Carolina A&T (8-8 in conference) won the tournament and played in the play-in game. So, Norfolk state finished with one loss against conference teams and it happened to be in the conference tournament so they ruined their entire season after losing one game.

Stony Brook last year won their conference by 3 games but instead of going to the tournament the team that finished five games behind them got a 15 seed.

Liberty finished 15-21 (6-10) and played in the tournament instead of High Point and Charleston Southern (both 12-4 in conference).

In 2012, Middle Tennessee State finished 27-7 with 3 conference losses (tournament included). Western Kentucky finished 7-9 and went to the tournament.

Davidson and Steph Curry missed the tournament in 2009 after going 18-2 in conference because they lost in the conference tournament. Chattanooga represented the So Con even though they went 11-9 in conference.

IMO, only the West Coast Conference and the Ivy League are doing their best to make sure the best teams represent the conference in the NCAA tournament. I understand these low level conferences probably need the revenue the conference tournaments generate but it makes the regular season completely meaningless. Does anyone else care, or even realize that teams the regular season is meaningless for low-majors?

End rant.

 

[H2S]

Mammon Trumps Common Sense...

I hate conference tourneys.
You are what/where you are after a season of ooc & conf play.
Tourneys are commercial extravaganzas, imo - put the models on the runway shit for the stiffs to applaud...and occur at the worst possible time - on the eve of THE TOURNAMENT.
(s'like running a regional Ironman the day before an Olympic marathon)

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Well, I'm guilty of enjoying the tournaments, because... well, I like basketball, but I understand your complaints and agree for the most part.

 

[uncfan103]

Well, I'm guilty of enjoying the tournaments, because... well, I like basketball, but I understand your complaints and agree for the most part.

I love the tournaments. It's just that when my school wins or loses during the regular season I know it doesn't matter, so the regular season at Elon is much less enjoyable than the regular season for UNC. Even when we Elon was bad I knew the outcome didn't matter because our season would come down to winning three or four games in the tournament. When both UNC and Elon were bad (which is all relative considering Carolina was still much better than Elon) Carolina still had a chance at the tournament as an at-large so the regular season mattered

 

[Smart]

But the thing is that the NCAA tournament is a single-elimination tournament, so the teams rewarded should be the teams best in that environment. I hear your complaints, and think something should be done to encourage the best teams. The sensible solution is re-arranging the tournaments like some conferences have done. For example, a 12 team league should do:

1. 9 v. 12
2. 10 v. 11

3. W1 v. 8
4. W2. v. 7

5. W3 v. 5
6. W4 v. 6

7. W5 v. 4
8. W6 v. 3

9. W7 v. 1
10. W8 v. 2

11. W9 v. W10

That makes it very unlikely shitty teams will win out and gives a heavy edge to the regular season champs.

 

[uncfan103]

But the thing is that the NCAA tournament is a single-elimination tournament, so the teams rewarded should be the teams best in that environment. I hear your complaints, and think something should be done to encourage the best teams. The sensible solution is re-arranging the tournaments like some conferences have done. For example, a 12 team league should do:

1. 9 v. 12
2. 10 v. 11

3. W1 v. 8
4. W2. v. 7

5. W3 v. 5
6. W4 v. 6

7. W5 v. 4
8. W6 v. 3

9. W7 v. 1
10. W8 v. 2

11. W9 v. W10

That makes it very unlikely shitty teams will win out and gives a heavy edge to the regular season champs.

I agree with you, that's why I said I thought the WCC did it right.

It's
1. 8 vs. 9

2. 6 vs. 7
3. W1 v. 5

4. W2 v. 3 seed
5. W3 v. 4

Semi Finals
6. W4 v. 2
7. W5 v. 1

So the top two seeds have a bye to the semi finals, the 3/4 seeds have a bye to the quarters, and the 2 worst teams have to play a play in game.

 

[Toucanbird]

I'm rather mixed about the whole conference tourneys thing. I do think they are a good thing since it is a little bit of extra basketball we wouldn't normally have and it's good commercially/economically. However, as far as X's and O's basketball is concerned, I do see the problems with it. It practically renders winning your conference during the season pointless if you just so happen to lose a fluke game during the conference tourney.

My one argument (and it's a somewhat weak one) is that if a team like Norfolk State couldn't beat Bethune-Cookman in a tournament atmosphere, what makes them think they could beat the Kansas', Dukes, Arizona, and Michigan States of the world? That's probably something that goes into the Selection Committee's minds when they do the seeding. Also, them going 5-10 in their non-conference schedule certainly didn't help things.

I do see your point though. It's a slippery slope that you can have a sound argument for either way. I do think that is part of the reason why the tournament is expanding...although I agree that the weaker conferences like the MEAC likely won't benefit from it regardless.

 

[uncfan103]

I'm rather mixed about the whole conference tourneys thing. I do think they are a good thing since it is a little bit of extra basketball we wouldn't normally have and it's good commercially/economically. However, as far as X's and O's basketball is concerned, I do see the problems with it. It practically renders winning your conference during the season pointless if you just so happen to lose a fluke game during the conference tourney.

My one argument (and it's a somewhat weak one) is that if a team like Norfolk State couldn't beat Bethune-Cookman in a tournament atmosphere, what makes them think they could beat the Kansas', Dukes, Arizona, and Michigan States of the world? That's probably something that goes into the Selection Committee's minds when they do the seeding. Also, them going 5-10 in their non-conference schedule certainly didn't help things.

I do see your point though. It's a slippery slope that you can have a sound argument for either way. I do think that is part of the reason why the tournament is expanding...although I agree that the weaker conferences like the MEAC likely won't benefit from it regardless.

I don't think Norfolk deserved an at-large and I doubt Norfolk could beat Kansas or Duke or whoever. I just don't like that the regular season is meaningless for Bethune-Cookman considering they could get to the ncaa tournament losing every game with a bunch of walk ons playing during the regular season.

 

[Toucanbird]

I don't think Norfolk deserved an at-large and I doubt Norfolk could beat Kansas or Duke or whoever. I just don't like that the regular season is meaningless for Bethune-Cookman considering they could get to the ncaa tournament losing every game with a bunch of walk ons playing during the regular season.

That's a fair point and I don't disagree with you.

To be honest, I think one thing that could alleviate that problem a little bit is for smaller conferences to do what some Division II conferences do. For their conference tourneys, the team that won the regular season conference champion gets to host the conference tournament. I'm a Winona State alum (DII basketball school, won a few NC's back in the late 2000s...also a famous Barton College meltdown away from winning three in a row) and what the NSIC (their conference) did was just that, the conference champion hosts the tourney. They don't quite do that anymore since the conference has expanded to 16 teams, but what they do do is the higher seeds host the first two games of the tourney before moving the final 8 teams to a neutral site (which I don't agree with).

Anyway, the point I was trying to get with that is the MEAC champion should get to host their conference tournament. If they wanted to, they could do higher seeds host thing before the final 4 (or 8) MEAC teams go to play at the champion's site. I do think that would eliminate some of these fluky losses at a neutral site. It's not a "solve-all" problem, but it's better than what they have in-place now.

 

[uncfan103]

Elon is now 2-3 with a win over a DIII school and losses to Canisius, Drexel, and Charlotte. The good news, IT DOESN'T MATTER!! They're going to lose to UMass, Duke, Georgetown and Colorado and they could lose to VMI, Columbia, Central Penn, and FAU and it STILL wouldn't matter.

Good thing I don't have to pay to watch these scrimmages. I kind of like it because it doesn't make me depressed after a loss, I just get frustrated driving to the games, waiting in lines, and cheering for a team that doesn't win.

 

[wiskyisgood12]

I tend to think conference tournaments are pointless, especially for small major programs. If I'm part of a smaller conference I'd want to just send our regular season conference champion to the tournament. It's the program that's best representative of your conference, and can potentially play the most competitive basketball in a one game tournament like the NCAA's. I don't believe someone should earn a tourney bid because they got hot for a 3-4 day stretch, and didn't do it consistently from November to early March in the regular season.

Conference tournaments are great for the revenue sources for these conferences, but I don't think some 4 seed winning a conference tourney is a great representative of the basketball being played in a small conference.