Interesting idea

[uncfan103]

I heard Jay Bilas on the radio today say he thinks the committee should list their top 64 teams after the regular season before conference tournaments. Whenever a team not on the list won a conference tournament they would knock off the team at the bottom of the committees list. He believes it's unfair for conference tournaments to help get teams into the tournament unless they win it.

I love the idea, however I'm sure power conferences would be against it, and it would take a little bit of excitement away from selection sunday and shift it to championship week/weekend.

Thoughts?

 

[jontaejones]

Oh I get it now.

But then, winning a bunch of games in the ACC tourney can't get you in, but if you are on the list, it can improve your seed?

That's weird.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

He believes it's unfair for conference tournaments to help get teams into the tournament unless they win it.

I respect Jay Bilas's opinion on basketball related matters more than just about anyone, but I fail to see how the current scenario isn't fair.

AFIAK all of the conferences have a tournament except the Ivy, and I don't remember the last time they were a 2 bid league anyway. Everybody else gets the same opportunity to play in a tournament. Those tournament games are games that go on a team's record, so I don't see why they shouldn't count towards NCAA selection. If you're going to change anything, make the Ivy play a conference tournament too, and be done with it.

It just seems to be an arbitrary distinction that serves no real purpose.

 

[gordontrue]

Seems like conference tournaments in the power conferences would become meaningless... except for the teams that didn't make the 64... but its rare for a team like that to actually win the whole conf tournament...

Also... being ranked at the bottom of the 64 would be pointless and nothing to be excited about... as there will be a guaranteed 10-15 (usually more) tournament winners not on the list.


Also.... wouldn't teams on the list just rest their starters? Especially mid-major type teams who don't have anything to gain in seeding by beating non-tourney teams (and teams who are already high seeds)... especially since losing a game in which you rest your starters probably won't hurt your resume for seeding.

 

[uncfan103]

I respect Jay Bilas's opinion on basketball related matters more than just about anyone, but I fail to see how the current scenario isn't fair.

AFIAK all of the conferences have a tournament except the Ivy, and I don't remember the last time they were a 2 bid league anyway. Everybody else gets the same opportunity to play in a tournament. Those tournament games are games that go on a team's record, so I don't see why they shouldn't count towards NCAA selection. If you're going to change anything, make the Ivy play a conference tournament too, and be done with it.

It just seems to be an arbitrary distinction that serves no real purpose.

IMO, the ivy is doing what a lot of conferences should. I think bilas was getting at the fact that conference tournaments are going to guarantee teams in certain conferences boost their resume, especially when you have two "bubble teams" playing each other and bubble teams in other conferences aren't given that.

 

[jonvi]

Those tournament games are games that go on a team's record, so I don't see why they shouldn't count towards NCAA selection.

^^^This^^^

IMO, the ivy is doing what a lot of conferences should. I think bilas was getting at the fact that conference tournaments are going to guarantee teams in certain conferences boost their resume, especially when you have two "bubble teams" playing each other and bubble teams in other conferences aren't given that.

The reason the distinction/advantage is the road through one of the power conferences will almost always be physically harder. Teams are taller, thicker, faster and better coached.

I agree with the credit given to the power conferences.

 

[podsox]

so all the hype about bubble teams would disappear. im sure cbs and espn would love that idea

 

[Arizona_Sting]

My idea:

68 teams make it just like they have it now with the play in games.

First 5 rounds (including play-in game round) are single-elimination.

Once you get to the Final Four it would be a best of 3 playoff series for those 4 teams. Same thing in the championship.

This would make things a lot more interesting and probably add some more excitement + revenue since that's all the NCAA really cares about. And if your team makes it to the Final Four then the excuse for a team getting "lucky" and beating you once can't be used anymore since it's a series.

 

[Arizona_Sting]

This would also add a lot more incentive for teams to make the Final Four since now you'd be guaranteed at least 2 BIG games on the spotlight once you get there.

 

[gordontrue]

My idea:

68 teams make it just like they have it now with the play in games.

First 5 rounds (including play-in game round) are single-elimination.

Once you get to the Final Four it would be a best of 3 playoff series for those 4 teams. Same thing in the championship.

This would make things a lot more interesting and probably add some more excitement + revenue since that's all the NCAA really cares about. And if your team makes it to the Final Four then the excuse for a team getting "lucky" and beating you once can't be used anymore since it's a series.

I've said before that I would love this idea. Its perfect.

You still get the crazy-anything-can-happen nature of march madness of the first 5 rounds... but then you get 2-3 times as many final four games... which would be awesome, and like you said... there will be no doubt that the team that wins the championship was the best of the 4.

 

[Arizona_Sting]

I've said before that I would love this idea. Its perfect.

You still get the crazy-anything-can-happen nature of march madness of the first 5 rounds... but then you get 2-3 times as many final four games... which would be awesome, and like you said... there will be no doubt that the team that wins the championship was the best of the 4.

Yup, some teams do "luckily" make their way into the Final Four (which is what makes March Madness awesome) but I'd feel a lot better about it if they had to win 4 games against very good teams to win it all rather than just 2.

 

[podsox]

don't fix what isn't broke imo

 

[rmilia1]

I think its interesting and I get the approach but I still dont like it. If you are going to take away the value of wins in conference tournaments then you should just abandon the idea of auto qualifiers altogether. Frankly auto qualifiers HURT the little leagues more than theyhelp them. In one bid leagues teams that win the league title are the best shot for that league to win a game or two. Do a few teams get selected every year because they win 1/2/3 games in a league tourney but dont win the tournament?? SUre but those teams generally had decent seasons anyway or they wouldnt have been on the bubble to begin with and in most cases those teams are more than capable of winning a game or 2 in the tourney anyway. Auot qualifiers make shit exciting but they really do hurt the smaller leagues. IF you go to Bilas model then you lose the good stuff about conference tourneys and keep the bad stuff. Its a lose lose

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

IMO, the ivy is doing what a lot of conferences should. I think bilas was getting at the fact that conference tournaments are going to guarantee teams in certain conferences boost their resume, especially when you have two "bubble teams" playing each other and bubble teams in other conferences aren't given that.

Again, how is this unfair? Don't bubble teams play each other in the regular season too? How is that a problem? It looks to me like you're trying to manufacture a problem to justify some particular outcome.

Reminds me of that cheap shit they sell on TV. "Are YOU tired of hacking up tomatoes with an ORDINARY kitchen knife?" No, because I'm not a fucking idiot and I know how to use a normal fucking knife.

"Are YOU tired of those CONFERENCE tournament games actually having meaning and significance?"

Don't be this person.

 

[rmilia1]

Hypothetical. Say you go to the Bilas approach and my team ( Iowa ) is 19-12 ( 9-9 ) in the B10 and is team number 62 on the committees list. Now before the B10 tourney starts 3teams win league tournaments that werent in the field. Now my team is OUT. Say Dayton is 20-11 and is team 61. Dayton loses a first round A10 tourney game to St Bonaventure, meanwhile Iowa beats Maryland, Top 10 Ohio State, Top 15 Nebraska and then loses a B10 title game to #1 Wisconsin 73-72. Now is Iowas resume now substantially better than Daytons?? Hell yes. Yet in the Bilas model Dayton would go and Iowa would be out. Its stupid. Plus it takes away the excitement of seeing iof your team is in or out as we would already know.

 

[gpm1976]

I'm all for this... conference tourney's are dumb as shit anyways. What's the point in having them when you've already crowned a conf. champ. It's just a waste of time and wears teams down + provides an extra opportunity to get someone hurt.

 

[Arizona_Sting]

Personally, I think we should get rid of Conference Tourneys altogether. Reg season is a lot more telling than a tournament ran at the end of the year.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Personally, I think we should get rid of Conference Tourneys altogether. Reg season is a lot more telling than a tournament ran at the end of the year.

I have mixed feelings on this. I think a 30 game sample is a lot better than a 4 game sample, but I see no reason why you shouldn't count the 4 games of the tournament the same as everything else. Conference tournament results shouldn't supersede regular season results, they should augment them.

If we're talking about autobids, then I think its a bit different. If conferences played a round robin schedule, I'd think giving the regular season champ the autobid would be fine, but as it stands now the schedules aren't balanced for most conferences so some teams have a much easier path to regular season champ than others. As it stands now, I think the tournaments are better way of determining autobids.

But I think the conference tourneys are fun and would hate to see them go.

(h/t to douggie on the round robin stuff)

 

[gpm1976]

I have mixed feelings on this. I think a 30 game sample is a lot better than a 4 game sample, but I see no reason why you shouldn't count the 4 games of the tournament the same as everything else. Conference tournament results shouldn't supersede regular season results, they should augment them.

If we're talking about autobids, then I think its a bit different. If conferences played a round robin schedule, I'd think giving the regular season champ the autobid would be fine, but as it stands now the schedules aren't balanced for most conferences so some teams have a much easier path to regular season champ than others. As it stands now, I think the tournaments are better way of determining autobids.

But I think the conference tourneys are fun and would hate to see them go.

(h/t to douggie on the round robin stuff)

But how official is a conf. tourney win when you know you have teams who don't give a crap and they're out there trying new stuff and tuning up for the big tourney and the coach doesn't truly want his team playing more than two games of the conf. tourney anyways.

The regular season is over. Why do we need to watch the same teams tee it up again anyways? If you really wanted to have some fun, toss all the bubble teams in and let them play it off for a slot in March.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

But how official is a conf. tourney win when you know you have teams who don't give a crap and they're out there trying new stuff and tuning up for the big tourney and the coach doesn't truly want his team playing more than two games of the conf. tourney anyways.

The regular season is over. Why do we need to watch the same teams tee it up again anyways? If you really wanted to have some fun, toss all the bubble teams in and let them play it off for a slot in March.

How official is it? It's as official as any other game played.

If you're trying to suggest it isn't legit, then I'll ask you how legit is a game at the end of the season against a bottom rung conference team that isn't even going to make the NIT, and is already phoning it in?

Have you ever been to a conference tournament? I suspect not. They're a fucking blast.