Divide the 32 conferences?

[PhilSimms11]

I've suggested this for football with the 'Power 5' and the 'Other 5'. What would you think of doing the same for college basketball? It's more difficult to figure out which ones would be in what group since there are so many 'mid-majors', but let's give it a shot. The negative with this idea is it could eliminate the NIT which we all know and love (LOL).

Group A (15 conferences; 179 teams)
American
ACC
A-10
Big XII
Big 10
Big East
C-USA
Ivy League
MAC
MWC
MVC
OVC
Pac-12
SEC
WCC

Group B (17 conferences; 172 teams)
AEC
A-Sun
Big Sky
Big South
Big West
CAA
Horizon
MAAC
MEAC
NEC
Patriot
Southern
Summit
Southland
Sun Belt
SWAC
WAC

There could be a 48-team tournament in Group A with 4 regions of 12 with seeds 1-4 having a 1st round bye. Group B could have a 24-team tournament...?

 

[podsox]

don't fix what isn't broke. only problem I have is the conference tournaments for the smaller conferences. just give the conference champ the berth. if there is a tie then play a tiebreaker game.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Won't ever happen because what makes the NCAA great is that 1st weekend when some lowly school gets hot and knocks off top teams like Kansas, Duke, etc..etc...

That first weekend in March is what separates the Madness from other tourneys.

 

[Cincyfan78]

don't fix what isn't broke. only problem I have is the conference tournaments for the smaller conferences. just give the conference champ the berth. if there is a tie then play a tiebreaker game.

I agree with this 100%.

If you go 28-2 and win your conference by 10 games, and then end up losing in the Semi's or Finals of your conference and get screwed out of the NCAA's beacuse of it...what is the point of playing a regular season?

 

[ericd7633]

I agree with this 100%.

If you go 28-2 and win your conference by 10 games, and then end up losing in the Semi's or Finals of your conference and get screwed out of the NCAA's beacuse of it...what is the point of playing a regular season?

I'd disagree with that. I love the fact that these smaller conference teams have tournaments as well. So the bottom of the NCAA tournament bracket will be slightly easier, than it otherwise would have been had all the favorites won their conference tourney. I'm okay with that.

Also, if a team has 28 wins going into the conference tournament, that team is probably going to get in. No team with 28 wins has ever been left out of the tournament.

 

[PhilSimms11]

I totally agree with the regular season champion getting the automatic bid. It doesn't matter if you're Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, etc., but a lot of these conferences have meaningless regular seasons. A team can go 18-0 in the MEAC and get screwed out of a bid while an 0-18 can fluke their way into an automatic by somehow winning 3-4 games in a row. It's bogus. I say give the regular season champ the automatic bid and if some 10-20 team wins the conference tourney they get a nice trip to the NIT. As it is now all regular season champions get at least an automatic invite to the NIT.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I'd disagree with that. I love the fact that these smaller conference teams have tournaments as well. So the bottom of the NCAA tournament bracket will be slightly easier, than it otherwise would have been had all the favorites won their conference tourney. I'm okay with that.

Also, if a team has 28 wins going into the conference tournament, that team is probably going to get in. No team with 28 wins has ever been left out of the tournament.

Southern Miss had 27 wins...did not get in last year.

Toledo had 27 wins...did not get in last year.

Louisianna Tech had 27 wins...did not get in last year.

Green Bay had 24 wins, a win over Virginia, but did not make the tourney...

In each case, the teams that won the tournament was behind the team that lost...

I get it makes it easier for top tier teams in the 1st round, but the fact of the matter is...the weight of lower conferences is too heavily skewed towards a 3-4 day span rather than the bulk of a season. If a team wins their conference over a 5 month season, 2+ month league season, then they deserved and EARNED the right to go...not because some other team go hot for a 3 day stretch.

You also avoid things like: 11-18 teams making the tourney which has happened multiple times because they won the tourney.

Or 12-18 teams, again multiple times because they won the tourney...

You just can't convince me that those teams deserve to go over a team who put together a better record over a longer period of time than just 3-4 days.

 

[ericd7633]

Southern Miss had 27 wins...did not get in last year.

Toledo had 27 wins...did not get in last year.

Louisianna Tech had 27 wins...did not get in last year.

Green Bay had 24 wins, a win over Virginia, but did not make the tourney...

In each case, the teams that won the tournament was behind the team that lost...

I get it makes it easier for top tier teams in the 1st round, but the fact of the matter is...the weight of lower conferences is too heavily skewed towards a 3-4 day span rather than the bulk of a season. If a team wins their conference over a 5 month season, 2+ month league season, then they deserved and EARNED the right to go...not because some other team go hot for a 3 day stretch.

You also avoid things like: 11-18 teams making the tourney which has happened multiple times because they won the tourney.

Or 12-18 teams, again multiple times because they won the tourney...

You just can't convince me that those teams deserve to go over a team who put together a better record over a longer period of time than just 3-4 days.

I understand that all these teams had 27 wins. However, Southern Miss only had 25 D1 wins, Toledo had 26 and La Tech had 26 as well. There also was the common theme of them playing poor OOC schedules.

For instance Toledo finished 26-6 against D1 teams. With an RPI of 38. They win 28, my guess is that they would have been an at large team.

And you bring up great points as to why there shouldn't be conference tournaments for the lower half of D1, I simply just disagree with them.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

I just had a thought regarding conference tournaments and auto-bids.

Let the committee decide.

Keep the auto-bid idea (every conference sends at least one team) but let the committee decide who it is. In conferences where there is a close race at the top (ie most of them) the tournaments will still be meaningful, but in cases where some random crap team with a sub .500 record wins the tourney, a more deserving team can still win the bid.

 

[uncfan103]

I'd disagree with that. I love the fact that these smaller conference teams have tournaments as well. So the bottom of the NCAA tournament bracket will be slightly easier, than it otherwise would have been had all the favorites won their conference tourney. I'm okay with that.

Also, if a team has 28 wins going into the conference tournament, that team is probably going to get in. No team with 28 wins has ever been left out of the tournament.

There are several examples of his example being true where a team dominates the conference and gets left out of the tournament. If you wanna pick pit his random number and debate it that's fine but, you're not addressing the point he was making with that post.

 

[ericd7633]

There are several examples of his example being true where a team dominates the conference and gets left out of the tournament. If you wanna pick pit his random number and debate it that's fine but, you're not addressing the point he was making with that post.

I understand his point, he has very quality points, which I stated in my next response after he responded to my first response. I just disagree with them. Like I said, with these smaller conference tournaments, there is the possibility the actual field will be somewhat diluted, with the potential of upsets happening in these lower conference tournaments. I simply like the aspect of the conference tournament.

Looking back at last year the only egregious examples of this happening were in the following conference tournaments:

America East: #4 seed Albany won. It was on their home court, which I have more of an issue with since they were the 4th best team during the regular season.
Big West: #7 seed Cal-Poly won.
Horizon League: #5 seed Milwaukee won.
Northeast: #4 seed Mount St. Mary's won.

These were the teams that didn't finish in the top 3 of a conference and went on to win their respective conference tournament.

These outcomes had very little on the actual seeding of the tournament as well. The NEC and America East were getting 16 seeds regardless of who won that tournament. There was a good chance the Big West was getting a 16 seed as well(outside chance UC-Irvine could have gotten a 15). The outcome that had a pretty big affect was Milwaukee winning the Horizon. Green Bay would have been on the 12/13 line and Milwaukee ended up being a bad 15 seed.

I'll admit it does suck, to win a conference regular season rather handily and end up losing in the conference tournament. I simply just like the idea of more basketball, and conference tournaments give me that opportunity.

And I will say, if teams play well enough during the regular season, the pressure won't be on them to win the conference tournament, which I know is very tough for the lower level conferences.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I understand his point, he has very quality points, which I stated in my next response after he responded to my first response. I just disagree with them. Like I said, with these smaller conference tournaments, there is the possibility the actual field will be somewhat diluted, with the potential of upsets happening in these lower conference tournaments. I simply like the aspect of the conference tournament.

Looking back at last year the only egregious examples of this happening were in the following conference tournaments:

America East: #4 seed Albany won. It was on their home court, which I have more of an issue with since they were the 4th best team during the regular season.
Big West: #7 seed Cal-Poly won.
Horizon League: #5 seed Milwaukee won.
Northeast: #4 seed Mount St. Mary's won.

These were the teams that didn't finish in the top 3 of a conference and went on to win their respective conference tournament.

These outcomes had very little on the actual seeding of the tournament as well. The NEC and America East were getting 16 seeds regardless of who won that tournament. There was a good chance the Big West was getting a 16 seed as well(outside chance UC-Irvine could have gotten a 15). The outcome that had a pretty big affect was Milwaukee winning the Horizon. Green Bay would have been on the 12/13 line and Milwaukee ended up being a bad 15 seed.

I'll admit it does suck, to win a conference regular season rather handily and end up losing in the conference tournament. I simply just like the idea of more basketball, and conference tournaments give me that opportunity.

And I will say, if teams play well enough during the regular season, the pressure won't be on them to win the conference tournament, which I know is very tough for the lower level conferences.

This, however, doesn't matter. My point is...as you said, you shouldn't have to go through 3 months of basketball, prove that you are the best team in the league only to get knocked out because the conference you're in is not good enough to have 2 teams, and another team got lucky and won the conference tourney.

In reality, you could give the auto bid to the league champion and still have the tourney to bolster resumes. Teams on the bubble need those just as much, with or without the auto bid coming from the conference tourney. I realize that this won't change, and it will always be this way. I would just hate to see 3 months of hard work undone in 3 days because you finally had a bad game and someone played out their ass. Not just very tough for some conferences, but impossible.

Anyway, back on the original point...dividing this up would dilute the NCAA tourney. It's good the way it is.

 

[jontaejones]

The problem is that teams who are clearly not on the bubble would have nothing to play for, and would not play.

And if the big, bad NCAA took away the conference tourney away from the little guys, you'd have to take it away from the big boys too.

All of these individual conferences can decide at any time to make their regular season champ the NCAA rep and abolish their postseason tourney ala Ivy League. That is how it used to be for most leagues.

The conference tournaments generate $ and so I doubt you'll see the end of them anytime soon.

 

[jontaejones]

What I think they should do is get rid of the play in games.

They're don't feel like part of the tournament, don't generate any interest, and are a waste of time.

And referring to the first round as the second round just feels weird.

That said, I do watch them.

 

[Cincyfan78]

The problem is that teams who are clearly not on the bubble would have nothing to play for, and would not play.

And if the big, bad NCAA took away the conference tourney away from the little guys, you'd have to take it away from the big boys too.

All of these individual conferences can decide at any time to make their regular season champ the NCAA rep and abolish their postseason tourney ala Ivy League. That is how it used to be for most leagues.

The conference tournaments generate $ and so I doubt you'll see the end of them anytime soon.

I would find that very, very hard to believe. While I understand they may not have anything to play for, it's extra games for guys. For the seniors it's a few extra games. For the rest of the team, it's a few extra games to prepare for next year. More experience is more experience. They would also play the role of 'dream killers' or giant slayers. They could look to play spoiler roles for the other buble teams.

I do agree it wouldn't carry the same overall weight it does now, which is why I conceed that it won't change. But to say teams wouldn't play is pure falicy, IMO.

 

[ericd7633]

This, however, doesn't matter. My point is...as you said, you shouldn't have to go through 3 months of basketball, prove that you are the best team in the league only to get knocked out because the conference you're in is not good enough to have 2 teams, and another team got lucky and won the conference tourney.

In reality, you could give the auto bid to the league champion and still have the tourney to bolster resumes. Teams on the bubble need those just as much, with or without the auto bid coming from the conference tourney. I realize that this won't change, and it will always be this way. I would just hate to see 3 months of hard work undone in 3 days because you finally had a bad game and someone played out their ass. Not just very tough for some conferences, but impossible.

Anyway, back on the original point...dividing this up would dilute the NCAA tourney. It's good the way it is.

And I agree, that is a great point. But thus is the nature of the beast so to speak. I would definitely take issue with conference tournaments, if on more occasions, less deserving teams kept on winning them, but that is the rare exception. It's generally a team from the upper half of the conference, that finished in the top 3. And typically, well at least the last couple of years, the conferences where a complete underdog has won it, has been in a league that is playing for a 16 or 15 seed.

It's a shame when a team like Davidson loses their conference tournament after going 15-1 in league play. Given their history they could have put a big scare into a 3 or 4 seed or perhaps even beaten them.

Conference Tournaments to watch this year:

America East: Albany currently sits at 11-0 in conference.
A-Sun: FGCU and North Florida currently are 7-1.
Big Sky: Sacramento State and Eastern Washington each have 1 loss.
Big West: UC-Davis currently sits at 8-1 in conference.
MEAC: NCCU currently sits at 10-0 in conference.
Ohio Valley: Murray State currently sits at 11-0 in conference.
Southern: Wofford currently sits at 11-1 in conference.
Southland: Stephen F. Austin currently sits at 9-0 and Sam Houston State currently sits at 10-1.

I can definitely say, the tournament won't be as good as it COULD be, if these teams don't win their conference tournaments. I hope, for the most part, most of the do. I will say probably 25% of these teams won't win their tournaments, however.

 

[jontaejones]

And I agree, that is a great point. But thus is the nature of the beast so to speak. I would definitely take issue with conference tournaments, if on more occasions, less deserving teams kept on winning them, but that is the rare exception. It's generally a team from the upper half of the conference, that finished in the top 3. And typically, well at least the last couple of years, the conferences where a complete underdog has won it, has been in a league that is playing for a 16 or 15 seed.

It's a shame when a team like Davidson loses their conference tournament after going 15-1 in league play. Given their history they could have put a big scare into a 3 or 4 seed or perhaps even beaten them.

Conference Tournaments to watch this year:

America East: Albany currently sits at 11-0 in conference.
A-Sun: FGCU and North Florida currently are 7-1.
Big Sky: Sacramento State and Eastern Washington each have 1 loss.
Big West: UC-Davis currently sits at 8-1 in conference.
MEAC: NCCU currently sits at 10-0 in conference.
Ohio Valley: Murray State currently sits at 11-0 in conference.
Southern: Wofford currently sits at 11-1 in conference.
Southland: Stephen F. Austin currently sits at 9-0 and Sam Houston State currently sits at 10-1.

I can definitely say, the tournament won't be as good as it COULD be, if these teams don't win their conference tournaments. I hope, for the most part, most of the do. I will say probably 25% of these teams won't win their tournaments, however.

Correct. The underdog who wins the conference still has to go through 3 or 4 teams to win that.

It's the nature of the beast.

It's why the tournament ITSELF is so great and can also suck.

I took issue with a UConn/UK final last year. I didn't think those were the two best teams at all, and far from the most deserving.

But that's the one and done format. If you don't come strong, you're gone.

For a team like American and their fans, their conference tourney is their NCAA you could say.

 

[uncfan103]

I understand his point, he has very quality points, which I stated in my next response after he responded to my first response. I just disagree with them. Like I said, with these smaller conference tournaments, there is the possibility the actual field will be somewhat diluted, with the potential of upsets happening in these lower conference tournaments. I simply like the aspect of the conference tournament.

Looking back at last year the only egregious examples of this happening were in the following conference tournaments:

America East: #4 seed Albany won. It was on their home court, which I have more of an issue with since they were the 4th best team during the regular season.
Big West: #7 seed Cal-Poly won.
Horizon League: #5 seed Milwaukee won.
Northeast: #4 seed Mount St. Mary's won.

These were the teams that didn't finish in the top 3 of a conference and went on to win their respective conference tournament.

These outcomes had very little on the actual seeding of the tournament as well. The NEC and America East were getting 16 seeds regardless of who won that tournament. There was a good chance the Big West was getting a 16 seed as well(outside chance UC-Irvine could have gotten a 15). The outcome that had a pretty big affect was Milwaukee winning the Horizon. Green Bay would have been on the 12/13 line and Milwaukee ended up being a bad 15 seed.

I'll admit it does suck, to win a conference regular season rather handily and end up losing in the conference tournament. I simply just like the idea of more basketball, and conference tournaments give me that opportunity.

And I will say, if teams play well enough during the regular season, the pressure won't be on them to win the conference tournament, which I know is very tough for the lower level conferences.

Autobids for Conference tournaments don't give you more basketball. It actually decreases the number of meaningful games you could be watching during the regular season. You're right though, they don't affect seatings it just devalues the regular season. If you were coaching a mid-major your goal would not need to win the regular season. It would be to build Depth, gain experience, and make it through the regular season without injuries and playing good basketball so that you could win the tournament. It's like an entire preseason

 

[uncfan103]

The problem is that teams who are clearly not on the bubble would have nothing to play for, and would not play.

And if the big, bad NCAA took away the conference tourney away from the little guys, you'd have to take it away from the big boys too.

All of these individual conferences can decide at any time to make their regular season champ the NCAA rep and abolish their postseason tourney ala Ivy League. That is how it used to be for most leagues.

The conference tournaments generate $ and so I doubt you'll see the end of them anytime soon.

When a team wins the conference tournament and goes crazy you don't really think they're celebrating because they're going to be playing the one seed in the baca tournament, do you? They're celebrating because they won their conference tournament. That's why the tournaments would still have teams choosing to play. And money.

 

[tducey]

The only thing I'd change to the NCAA tournament is take away the play in games.Should only be 64 teams that make it.