Conference Tourneys - Should All Teams Play?

[osceola48]

What to people think about conference tournaments where every team plays?
The positives include that it is nice to extend the season, even if for one more game, for the teams at the bottom of the standings, and you can say that any team has at least a chance, so let them play. (Tulsa and Houston won their first-round games in the AAC this year.)
The negatives are that meaningless games are played with empty arenas, a team higher in the standings has to play an extra game, and tournaments take an extra day to complete.
My vote would be to have a cut-off at the top eight teams in each conference. If a team doesn't qualify, they don't qualify. Tonight, for example, three teams with decent conference records, Gardner-Webb, Asheville, and Bradley each have to play silly games against teams that were 1-17 in conference play (and equally poor results in non-conference play).
Thoughts?

 

[eebmg]

What to people think about conference tournaments where every team plays?
The positives include that it is nice to extend the season, even if for one more game, for the teams at the bottom of the standings, and you can say that any team has at least a chance, so let them play. (Tulsa and Houston won their first-round games in the AAC this year.)
The negatives are that meaningless games are played with empty arenas, a team higher in the standings has to play an extra game, and tournaments take an extra day to complete.
My vote would be to have a cut-off at the top eight teams in each conference. If a team doesn't qualify, they don't qualify. Tonight, for example, three teams with decent conference records, Gardner-Webb, Asheville, and Bradley each have to play silly games against teams that were 1-17 in conference play (and equally poor results in non-conference play).
Thoughts?

I would make the cutoff only 1-4. (I think this is the Ivy League Model) This reduces fatique and improves the game quality and improves the chances that the best team really in the conference representative while allowing for some surprises.

In addition, one less game probably does not affect the money situation too much. The potential of having an 8th seed in a small conference win the conference is too destructive. The season results and seeding should count for much more. In the small conferences especially, only the best teams overall would be competitive.

 

[Plebe]

What to people think about conference tournaments where every team plays? My vote would be to have a cut-off at the top eight teams in each conference. If a team doesn't qualify, they don't qualify. Tonight, for example, three teams with decent conference records, Gardner-Webb, Asheville, and Bradley each have to play silly games against teams that were 1-17 in conference play (and equally poor results in non-conference play).
Thoughts?

These questions tend to come down to competing underlying philosophies. What should be the primary purpose of a conference tournament? Is it:

• To crown a conference (tournament) champion?
• To determine which team gets the conference's NCAA automatic bid?
• To give the players and fans of each team a postseason experience?
• To celebrate and conclude the conference season?

 

[LO TRADER]

To make more money for the various conference & other sports networks

 

[Plebe]

I would make the cutoff only 1-4. (I think this is the Ivy League Model) This reduces fatique and improves the game quality and improves the chances that the best team really in the conference representative while allowing for some surprises.

In addition, one less game probably does not affect the money situation too much. The potential of having an 8th seed in a small conference win the conference is too destructive. The season results and seeding should count for much more. In the small conferences especially, only the best teams overall would be competitive.

What do you mean, "the potential of having an 8th seed in a small conference win the conference is too destructive"? And are you saying that "small" conferences should be more selective in their conference tournaments than the power conferences?

The Kansas men just lost their first game of the Big-12 tournament to #8 seed TCU. Do you think TCU shouldn't have been allowed to play this game?

 

[UcMiami]

To make more money for the various conference & other sports networks

Nope - generally they lose money on the tournaments in the women's game, and it is not cheap for the schools to send the squad to wherever it is happening.

The BE was initially one that did not have everyone playing. But I think I prefer having all the teams come in. You never know who will get the awards and a rookie or scholar athlete who wins ought to be in attendance even if their team is not good enough based on whatever criteria you use. And most of these players have friends on one of the other teams so getting a chance to get together at the end of the year is good.
Maybe it is a little bit different in the men's game, but the revenue generated probably covers the costs, and again it is a celebration of the season for the conference.

 

[Plebe]

Nope - generally they lose money on the tournaments in the women's game, and it is not cheap for the schools to send the squad to wherever it is happening.

The BE was initially one that did not have everyone playing. But I think I prefer having all the teams come in. You never know who will get the awards and a rookie or scholar athlete who wins ought to be in attendance even if their team is not good enough based on whatever criteria you use. And most of these players have friends on one of the other teams so getting a chance to get together at the end of the year is good.
Maybe it is a little bit different in the men's game, but the revenue generated probably covers the costs, and again it is a celebration of the season for the conference.

This was another point I was going to make. Conference tournaments are typically where all-conference honors are presented. To exclude teams from the conference tournament would mean that some of the honorees will be absent from the presentation.

One of the comments referred to some of the early conference-tournament matchups as "meaningless games ... played with empty arenas." First off, if the relative emptiness of the arena were a reason to cancel games, then let's face it, a lot of women's basketball games wouldn't be played. Also, what makes a game "meaningless," and "meaningless" to whom? Is it meaningless to the players, coaches, and fans for whom the conference tournament will end up being their only postseason experience?

 

[triaddukefan]

I like having all of the ACC teams playing... every so often there is an upset... like a few years ago.... #15 seeded VPI won two games.. and ended up playing the #2 seed in the quarters. Plus.... in the ACC they have Mascot night on Friday evenings...... provides a chance to slap paws with the Tiger.... shake hands with a Yellow Jacket.... and punch a Light Blue Ram

 

[Jim]

How soon they forget the UCONN men's team with Kemba Walker, seeded #9 and having to win five games in five days to capture the Big East title...and then go on and win the National Championship!

 

[eebmg]

What do you mean, "the potential of having an 8th seed in a small conference win the conference is too destructive"? And are you saying that "small" conferences should be more selective in their conference tournaments than the power conferences?

The Kansas men just lost their first game of the Big-12 tournament to #8 seed TCU. Do you think TCU shouldn't have been allowed to play this game?

If there are conferences deep enough to support a competitive 8 team tournament, than fine. (Not interested in 14 team playoffs) Maybe the threshold would be a winning percentage at/over .500. My only motivation is to try to ensure that full season results should be at least as important a factor in comparison to a hot streak in the conference tournament to ensure that the best teams get in. If smaller conferences can't field as many competitive teams as the larger conferences, than that should be taken into account.

 

[UcMiami]

If there are conferences deep enough to support a competitive 8 team tournament, than fine. (Not interested in 14 team playoffs) Maybe the threshold would be a winning percentage at/over .500. My only motivation is to try to ensure that full season results should be at least as important a factor in comparison to a hot streak in the conference tournament to ensure that the best teams get in. If smaller conferences can't field as many competitive teams as the larger conferences, than that should be taken into account.

The thing is the really dreadful teams aren't going to upset the favorites, the teams that end up taking down the regular season champ are usually in the top eight seeds anyway, more often than not one of the top 4 seeds. If you are concerned about making sure the NCAA auto bid goes to the most deserving team in a conference than lobby for the conference to change their rule and award the bid to the regular season champ. The tournament then becomes an end unto itself and a chance to snatch a little glory at the end of the season for a team not likely going to the NCAA as a wild card. That is actually a position Geno has taken in the past, saying it is crazy to play three months of a regular season and then make those results basically meaningless by giving the autobid to a team that gets hot for three or four games on one weekend.

 

[Plebe]

If there are conferences deep enough to support a competitive 8 team tournament, than fine. (Not interested in 14 team playoffs) Maybe the threshold would be a winning percentage at/over .500. My only motivation is to try to ensure that full season results should be at least as important a factor in comparison to a hot streak in the conference tournament to ensure that the best teams get in. If smaller conferences can't field as many competitive teams as the larger conferences, than that should be taken into account.

I used to resent the small-conference also-rans that seemed to "steal" the automatic bid from the team that had dominated the league in the regular season. But my perspective has shifted. For one-bid leagues, the conference tournament serves as a play-in round for the NCAA tournament, and I'm okay with that. The team that won the regular season but slipped in the conference tournament doesn't go home empty-handed: they still own the regular-season title (a meaningful accomplishment in its own right), and they also get the NIT automatic bid.

 

[jdubct]

These questions tend to come down to competing underlying philosophies. What should be the primary purpose of a conference tournament? Is it:

• To crown a conference (tournament) champion?
• To determine which team gets the conference's NCAA automatic bid?
• To give the players and fans of each team a postseason experience?
• To celebrate and conclude the conference season?

Well put. I choose all four. Yes the tournament's prime purposes are to crown a champion and determine an automatic bid to the tournament. In doing so it should celebrate the end of the conference season with participation of all teams and players.

 

[j66kicker]

The Kansas men just lost their first game of the Big-12 tournament to #8 seed TCU. Do you think TCU shouldn't have been allowed to play this game?

Josh Jackson, Kansas's superstar guard, was serving a 1-game suspension today and didn't play. This is the guy who was recently in the news for kicking a dent in the car of a Kansas woman basketball player who now alleges she was subsequently punished for speaking up (the car kicking, for which he is awaiting trial, was in retaliation for the woman player throwing a drink on his teammate, Lagerald Vick, who had beat her up and kicked her in the face last year).

Today's suspension was for a hit-and-run accident yesterday - leaving the scene after he hit a parked car. This was his 4th or 5th brush with the law during his first 7-months at KU. Up to now Jackson had been discussed as a high 1st round draft pick. Now there are starting to be questions.

 

[Plebe]

If there are conferences deep enough to support a competitive 8 team tournament, than fine. (Not interested in 14 team playoffs) Maybe the threshold would be a winning percentage at/over .500. My only motivation is to try to ensure that full season results should be at least as important a factor in comparison to a hot streak in the conference tournament to ensure that the best teams get in. If smaller conferences can't field as many competitive teams as the larger conferences, than that should be taken into account.

Who would decide which conferences are "deep enough" or what constitutes "competitive"? And a threshold of a .500 conference record would exclude some quality teams. West Virginia went 8-10 in the Big 12, and we saw what they did in the tournament. Oregon went 8-10 in conference but upset UW in the Pac-12 quarterfinals in the most exciting game of the tournament and in front of a near-capacity crowd.

 

[eebmg]

Who would decide which conferences are "deep enough" or what constitutes "competitive"? And a threshold of a .500 conference record would exclude some quality teams. West Virginia went 8-10 in the Big 12, and we saw what they did in the tournament. Oregon went 8-10 in conference but upset UW in the Pac-12 quarterfinals in the most exciting game of the tournament and in front of a near-capacity crowd.

Thanks for giving me some food for thought. There a pluses and minuses in the system. Weak teams that "steal" an automatic bid are generally balanced by some unique and interesting teams that finally show their potential (i.e WV Oregon) so it is hard for anyone (except solomon) to improve the tournament by tinkering with the current rules.

 

[DefenseBB]

I guess when I look at the collegiate sports landscape, there are some sports that do not lend themselves to "all-in" Tournament participation, which are usually the physical sports (football/lacrosse) that play once a week. Most other sports do have "all-in" participation championships and the energy at these events is usually very high and allows for nice closure to the seasons. Virtually none of these make money however all are mandated to be held if you want your conference to get a bid to the MCBB Tournament so for smaller conferences, they weigh the costs, publicity and relative competitiveness in that sport to determine how to handle. Overall, I like seeing the "little guy get a shot" as they have also dealt with a long season. In some conferences, the top teams get byes/double byes as a reward for a strong season so maybe that supports the meaningful season argument. It is also a sense of promotion and celebration for the conference itself.

 

[chrissaran]

Every team should play and have the experience of playing in a conference tournament championship. There are always surprises: Baylor, Ohio St., Oregon St., DePaul - to name a few.

 

[homer the dog]

My feeling is that the conference tourneys should be mothballed because they serve no useful purpose. They make a mockery of the regular season by enabling an undeserving team to get in and possibly keeping a deserving team out. They also make three games more important than 16. It seems from the talk of all these bracketologists that one or two games played well in a conference tourney erase a lot of mediocrity particularly if it is big 10, acc, big 12 Orr etcetera

The solution? I would take those two weekends wasted on the conference tourneys and play it off like a high school state tournament. Blind draw, no seeding and do the regionals strictly on a geographic basis

 

[DefenseBB]

My feeling is that the conference tourneys should be mothballed because they serve no useful purpose. They make a mockery of the regular season by enabling an undeserving team to get in and possibly keeping a deserving team out. They also make three games more important than 16. It seems from the talk of all these bracketologists that one or two games played well in a conference tourney erase a lot of mediocrity particularly if it is big 10, acc, big 12 Orr etcetera

The solution? I would take those two weekends wasted on the conference tourneys and play it off like a high school state tournament. Blind draw, no seeding and do the regionals strictly on a geographic basis

...so was the sentence right before this -"hey kid, get off my lawn!"

The proverbial Genie is out of the bottle. The ACC Tourney seems to be handling the seeding correctly by creating double byes. Your rant offers no evidence of who as an undeserving team was awarded a bid over someone deserving. Why? Because there is no team that was in the top 30 that didn't get in.

 

[homer the dog]

...so was the sentence right before this -"hey kid, get off my lawn!"

The proverbial Genie is out of the bottle. The ACC Tourney seems to be handling the seeding correctly by creating double byes. Your rant offers no evidence of who as an undeserving team was awarded a bid over someone deserving. Why? Because there is no team that was in the top 30 that didn't get in.

Under .500 teams in regular season have gotten in. Regular season champs from one-bid leagues have had to watch inferior teams go because they lost in their tourneys. Sorry but don't have guides with me.

 

[Plebe]

My feeling is that the conference tourneys should be mothballed because they serve no useful purpose. They make a mockery of the regular season by enabling an undeserving team to get in and possibly keeping a deserving team out. They also make three games more important than 16. It seems from the talk of all these bracketologists that one or two games played well in a conference tourney erase a lot of mediocrity particularly if it is big 10, acc, big 12 Orr etcetera

The solution? I would take those two weekends wasted on the conference tourneys and play it off like a high school state tournament. Blind draw, no seeding and do the regionals strictly on a geographic basis

No useful purpose?

I don't believe it makes a mockery of anything. The regular-season conference title is valued by every team that wins it, and banners are hung for it. But postseason play has a totally different rhythm and character: win and advance, or lose and go home. The conference tournament rewards precisely the team that performs best under this do-or-die pressure — a fitting way to determine which team gets to face the same kind of pressure in the NCAA tournament.

Which bracketologist is suggesting that "one or two games played well in a conference tourney" can "erase a lot of mediocrity"? I haven't heard that.

 

[homer the dog]

No useful purpose?

I don't believe it makes a mockery of anything. The regular-season conference title is valued by every team that wins it, and banners are hung for it. But postseason play has a totally different rhythm and character: win and advance, or lose and go home. The conference tournament rewards precisely the team that performs best under this do-or-die pressure — a fitting way to determine which team gets to face the same kind of pressure in the NCAA tournament.

Which bracketologist is suggesting that "one or two games played well in a conference tourney" can "erase a lot of mediocrity"? I haven't heard that.

My solution of everyone in would magnify and intensify the win or go home aspect by subjecting every team to it for an additional two weekends. The way it is now is lose and play again for some.

These tv bracketologist will say this team has to win one or two or three games to improve seeding or get off the bubble (something else my solution would do away with. My way would be more intense and increase chances for upsets

So just who is the conference champ the team that goes 3-0 or 16-0?

 

[Plebe]

My solution of everyone in would magnify and intensify the win or go home aspect by subjecting every team to it for an additional two weekends. The way it is now is lose and play again for some.

These tv bracketologist will say this team has to win one or two or three games to improve seeding or get off the bubble (something else my solution would do away with. My way would be more intense and increase chances for upsets

So just who is the conference champ the team that goes 3-0 or 16-0?

Improving one's seeding or getting off the bubble is not the same as erasing an entire season of mediocrity.

So you want a 349-team tournament, which would be 8 rounds? No seeding, and purely regional bracketing? So you're okay with the best two teams in the country playing in the first weekend, if they happen to be close to each other?

 

[Plebe]

So just who is the conference champ the team that goes 3-0 or 16-0?

Yes.