Interesting idea

[gpm1976]

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.

Nope. As a student I used to watch games at St. John arena. Then they built the Schott.. I went to two or three games and was so disappointed that I quit going.

They may be exciting, but I still don't like them. When you're team has just scratched and clawed its way to a conference title and then turns around and loses in the 2nd round of the conf tourney, you learn to hate it. It's just a way of adding in more ball to make money. If this is the case, then extend the season.. or make the conference tourney the primary method of crowning a conf. champ. But don't have it continue to be basically meaningless... because to a team that has just won the conf., it might as well be meaningless.

 

[douggie]

I love a conference tournament. Especially when you have a mega-conference and each team doesn't have an opportunity to play everyone else twice home and away. Sure, your team may be regular season winners, but that doesn't even mean they are the best team in the conference. That's the whole reason a post season tourney is worth the finality of weeding out the very good from the champs. It also means that the winner must win 3 or 4 games succinctly. Kind of like getting ready for the NCAA's.

I go back to UConn winning the Big East after finishing 8th Regular Season, then going on to win the NCAA Title. Sure they finished 8th, but they didn't play everyone home and away. The conference was too large for that to happen. Plus they got hot at the right time. But sometimes it takes a whole season for a team to come together and play well as one unit. That's exactly what they did.

 

[gpm1976]

I love a conference tournament. Especially when you have a mega-conference and each team doesn't have an opportunity to play everyone else twice home and away. Sure, your team may be regular season winners, but that doesn't even mean they are the best team in the conference. That's the whole reason a post season tourney is worth the finality of weeding out the very good from the champs. It also means that the winner must win 3 or 4 games succinctly. Kind of like getting ready for the NCAA's.

I go back to UConn winning the Big East after finishing 8th Regular Season, then going on to win the NCAA Title. Sure they finished 8th, but they didn't play everyone home and away. The conference was too large for that to happen. Plus they got hot at the right time. But sometimes it takes a whole season for a team to come together and play well as one unit. That's exactly what they did.

and if you love these tourney's that's great. I just wish they tied in a little better. They are a conf tourney yet they have zero impact on who wins the conf. They just kind of feel like an after thought. If they could have a little more meaning.. like a conf champ. game does in college football, then I'd be completely in favor of them.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

and if you love these tourney's that's great. I just wish they tied in a little better. They are a conf tourney yet they have zero impact on who wins the conf. They just kind of feel like an after thought. If they could have a little more meaning.. like a conf champ. game does in college football, then I'd be completely in favor of them.

As of right now, the Tournament winner is the only one that counts for anything (NCAA bid) the "regular season winner" is a meaningless designation. It's more important to you only because you want it to be.

Do you think they should also award an NCAA championship to the team with the best regular season record?

 

[uncfan103]

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.

No, I'm fine with it. It's just something to think about. Would it make conference tournaments more interesting if you knew you had to win out?

The only thing I don't like about the tournament is one bid leagues having a conference tournament that determines their representative

 

[gpm1976]

As of right now, the Tournament winner is the only one that counts for anything (NCAA bid) the "regular season winner" is a meaningless designation. It's more important to you only because you want it to be.

Do you think they should also award an NCAA championship to the team with the best regular season record?

Exactly! This is the part that doesn't make sense. If the conf. tourney is the most important thing, then why even crown a champ at the end of the regular season. Makes it feel like winning your conf(regular season) has no meaning.


>> Do you think they should also award an NCAA championship to the team with the best regular season record?

This is not even close to being applicable since the March tourney includes WAY more than just your conference. But before you say anything else, the conf tourney is just your same conf members playing it up... AGAIN! So the outcome of late season run by a team means WAY more than being steady through the course of the regular season??

 

[tducey]

Interesting idea but yeah the NCAA basketball tournament is 1 of the best things in sports, if it ain't broke don't fix it.