BUY/SELL

[RaleighDawg.sixpack]

Conference tournaments are merely opportunities for mediocrity to be rewarded. I think it is absurd that teams that get hot for a few days, while playing very average basketball all year, get the opportunity to dance. Why not reward a team for excellence all year long as the Ivy league does?

So, needless to say, I'm BUYING...

 

[RaleighDawg.sixpack]

Conference tournaments are merely opportunities for mediocrity to be rewarded. I think it is absurd that teams that get hot for a few days, while playing very average basketball all year, get the opportunity to dance. Why not reward a team for excellence all year long as the Ivy league does?

So, needless to say, I'm BUYING...

 

[LandArchDawg]

their purpose is to make more money for the conference, plain & simple.

 

[VegasDawg13]

They're opportunities for a team to earn the right to keep playing. Too many variables can come into play throughout the course of a year.

Plus, it's way more exciting this way.</p>

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

because you can't just take the best record, as they don't play the same schedule.

 

[RebelBruiser]

At least for the major conference tourneys. In the case of bubble teams looking to play their way in our out, it's just the same as another week of games. If you do well it adds to your resume. If you do poorly, it hurts your resume.

Now with the small conferences, you sometimes see a team make a run in one hot weekend and steal the automatic bid from a team that has performed better over a 2 or 3 month period. And in that case, I buy.

Teams getting in on auto-bids from conference tourneys that wouldn't have gotten in otherwise bother me. But teams padding their resume by winning a couple of games in a tourney format, I don't have a problem with.

I'm all for the small conferences getting automatic bids to the tourney, but I think it'd be more fair to everyone if the auto-bid went to the regular season champ. You could even allow them to play a tiebreaker title game if need be, but I don't like the fact that the conference tourney determines who gets the auto-bid.

 

[Uncle Leo]

But part of me agrees with this:

I think it is absurd that teams that get hot for a few days, while playing very average basketball all year, get the opportunity to dance. Why not reward a team for excellence all year long as the Ivy league does?

Part of "March Madness" is the conference tournaments. I agree with rewarding good play over a season, and not necessarily hot play in the final week, but to take away automatic bids from conference tournament champions would take away a lot of the excitement of this time of year.

I'm not sure what you could do, though. Part of me says the formats for the West Coast Conference and the Horizon League are weak. But for smaller conferences such as these, I guess it's not a bad idea. First of all, it protects the teams that have proven themselves over the course of the season. Secondly, it decreases the likelihood that a nobody steals an at-large bid from a more deserving bubble team.

 

[patdog]

if they lose in the conference tournament. I'd be in favor of expanding the NCAA tournament to 96 teams and giving all conferences 2 automatic bids, 1 for the regular season champion and 1 for the conference tournament champion. If the same team won both, the 2nd bid could go to the team with the best combined regular season and conference tournament record (behind of course the team that won both). You'd have to expand the first weekend of the NCAAA tournament to a Wed-Fri-Sun / Thur-Sat-Mon format and the top 8 seeds in each region would be a bye for the 1st round. An added benefit would be that teams from small conference might actually have a chance to win a game in the NCAA tournament because they'd be playing 9/10 seeds instead of 1/2 seeds.

 

[VegasDawg13]

Mediocre, undeserving teams already get into the tournament. The last thing we need is for more of them to get in. The Pac 10 would have nine teams in the tournament for God's sake. It would get rediculous.

 

[RaleighDawg.sixpack]

easier to add a few games to the regular season and have everyone play twice (at least in the SEC) like the Pac 10 does. That way there is no question, and a one game play-off would be unnecessary.</p>

 

[RebelBruiser]

Now I agree with that. I saw the WCC format a little while back and thought it was crazy to do an 8 team tourney that way, but after thinking about it, I agree with the concept of those conferences rewarding regular season play so heavily, because of how much weight the conference tourney carries.

In the SEC, UT dominated the regular season. The format of the SEC tourney gives them a slight advantage but not a big one. The difference is, if they lose their first game, which is possible, they will still get in the NCAA tourney, just with a slightly lower seeding. In a lot of years, if the WCC regular season loses its first game, they are going to the NIT. That's a lot heavier of a punishment, and therefore I can agree with those funky bracket set ups.

 

[RaleighDawg.sixpack]

but the fact is that it results in mediocre teams making the most important tournament of the year. We are talking about our national championship. It would seem to me that the integrity of the NCAA tourney is somewhat compromised when the 34 (at large bids) can't be handed out to the best 34 teams because some random team gets hot and wins a couple of games.

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

it would be an unwieldy schedule to play everyone twice.

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

the national championship. Ought to just give it to the team who wins the most regular season games. Damn George Mason and teams that don't deserve to be in the final four.

 

[VegasDawg13]

I think most would agree that there are about 8 teams in the nation that have really been better than everyone else throughout the year. So, should we just have those eight team play a 3 day tournament next weekend?

 

[Brutius]

Just give the national championship to Tennessee now. They are number 1 at the end of the regular season. No need to play that stupid post season tournament where some "mediocre" team can get hot. That would be very stupid and no fun for anyone.

They put in rules last year to make sure that the regular season champion in every conference plays in the post season. If you win your regular season conference you will be at least in the NIT, if you want to be in the NCAA you win your conference tournament, plain and simple.

</p>

 

[RaleighDawg.sixpack]

if that team has done something worthy of being in the most important tournament of the year. Like when George Mason lost their conference tournament after winning the regular season title, and was thankfully granted an at-large bid, which subsequently led to their Final Four run. A run which almost didn't happen because they failed towin their conference tourney.

 

[patdog]

Back in the early 80s the top 2 teams got a bye to the semi-finals while the remaining 8 played 2 rounds to determine the other 2 semi-finalists.

 

[patdog]

All of the added teams would be gone before Friday of the first weekend anyway (except of course the ones who won). And you'd eliminate all those thrilling 1/16 and 2/15 blowouts. </p>Edited to add that you'd still have 1/16 and 2/15 games in the second round. But instead of North Carolina - Alabama State, you'd have North Carolina - Mississippi as a 1/16 game for example. I'd much rather see the second of those potential games.

 

[VegasDawg13]

I already answered you. I think too many mediocre teams get in already. It should be an accomplishment to get into the NCAAT, not something the you get for finishing in the bottom portion of your conference. It would make the regular season less enjoyable.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Opening Round:
8 vs. 9
7 vs. 10

Second Round:
1 vs. 8/9 winner
4 vs 5
3 vs 6
2 vs 7/10 winner

 

[patdog]

of a 48 team tournament. Or even further back to the days when the tournament consisted of only the conference champions. Sorry, but that's never going to happen. Your argument that there are too many NCAA tournament berths is similar to the argument that there are too many bowl games. If you don't like it, just don't watch the first round (or the bowl games). It's not like anybody's forcing you to.

 

[VegasDawg13]

I didn't argue that they should shrink the tournament. When did I say that? I just don't think they should expand it further. How is that the same thing?

Edited to add: Actually, I do think they should shrink the tournament back to 64 and get rid of the play-in game. Teams that earn an automatic berth shouldn't have to re-earn it in a play-in game.

 

[patdog]

But for the first few years after the SEC tournament was resurrected in the late 70's, the format was as I described.

1st round: 3 vs. 10, 4 vs. 9, 5 vs. 8, and 6 vs. 7
2nd round: 3/10 vs. 6/7 and 4/9 vs. 5/8
3rd round: 1 vs. 4/9/5/8 and 2 vs. 3/10/6/7
Finals: Two remaining teams

Actually, I just checked and that format appears to have only been used in 1979, the first year of the revived tournament. Check out the link below. Tennessee and LSU both had byes in the first 2 rounds and played their first tournament game in the semifinals.

http://secsports.com/doc_lib/bkc_tourn_records.pdf

 

[patdog]

How are you going to eliminate that without shrinking the field? Your whole argument against expanding the field was that you shouldn't have "undeserving" "mediocre" teams in the tournament to start with.

 

[VegasDawg13]

I think the fact that some mediocre teams get in is a negative against the size of the field right now, but I think the positives out-weigh that one negative. I think the tournament is just fine the way it is.

And yes, I do argue that the field shouldn't be expanded 50% larger in order to let in more mediocre teams.</p>

 

[RebelBruiser]

I'm fine with the play-in game, because they still want to have 34 at large bids, and the 31 conferences require 65 teams. My only problem is that they use it for a 16 seed. I wish they'd take the last two bubble teams and force them to play for a 12 seed or something like that. I'd much rather watch Oregon and Syracuse play a Tuesday night game for a shot to play Indiana in the first round. It'd be better than watching Fordham and Alabama A&M play a game to decide who gets to be sacrificed by UNC in the first round.

The automatic bids deserve the right to be in the tourney without having to win another game. The bubble teams that are the last 2 in should have to be the ones that play to see who gets that final tourney spot.

 

[VegasDawg13]

Well, I think they should just eliminate it ( why do we NEED 34 at large teams?), but your plan is definitely better than what they do now.</p>

 

[patdog]

Well, I think they should just eliminate it ( why do we NEED 34 at large teams?), but your plan is definitely better than what they do now.</p>

Money. Pure and simple. When the tournament expanded to 64 teams, there were only 30 conferences. Then when a new conference formed, the bigger conferences didn't want to give up one of their at-large bids, so they just added the play-in game. I do agree that if they have to have a play-in game, it should be between the last two at-large bids. One conference champion gets screwed by not getting to play in the "real" tournament.</p>