In Today’s Game, Should there Be Automatic Qualifiers?

[cancontent]

Like many said, auto-bids give teams outside of the P5 something to aim for. Watched a friend's daughter lead her UC Irvine team win the Big West title and the joy that team had celebrating was awesome to see. This could be the one time they ever make it. It's going to be a college memory they'll always have. With all the challenges in the NCAA, this is one thing that I hope doesn't change.

 

[Bone Dog]

Am I wrong in thinking the AQ bids discourage (slightly) the formation of huge conferences? I’m intrigued by the idea of setting a cap, say 4 or 5 teams from any conference in the tournament. If we think huge conferences are bad for WCBB, then the AQs are useful.

 

[YKCornelius]

I will foot-stomp another criteria - that always seems to come up in a discussion around this time every year - which I think should be enacted immediately: if a team does NOT win at least 50% of its in-conference games, it should not be invited to the NCAA tournament unless it becomes an AQ by winning its conference tournament.

 

[BRS24]

I will foot-stomp another criteria - that always seems to come up in a discussion around this time every year - which I think should be enacted immediately: if a team does NOT win at least 50% of its in-conference games, it should not be invited to the NCAA tournament unless it becomes an AQ by winning its conference tournament.

A very good point, especially when a team has a somewhat weak OOC schedule where it dominates, however is then mediocre in conference.

 

[cancontent]

I will foot-stomp another criteria - that always seems to come up in a discussion around this time every year - which I think should be enacted immediately: if a team does NOT win at least 50% of its in-conference games, it should not be invited to the NCAA tournament unless it becomes an AQ by winning its conference tournament.

I think this criteria you're recommending would also help, in conjunction with the 5 teams per P5 conference cap idea. This is a fair expectation in my opinion.

 

[typhaon]

The NCAA Tournament is (should be) a tournament of teams that had exceptional seasons - similar to the Champions League in soccer. I think NET has a place in the process, but it should just be one component.

I'm also not against expanding the tournament. But, I think you have to do that with an implicit eye that some of whatever number of expansion teams are for the purpose of adding mid-majors that had exceptional seasons, but got upset in their conference tournaments... not just the next whatever teams in NET.

 

[BRS24]

I also posted this in the latest bracketology thread:

Ok, so here's a look at the AQ vs regular season champs. Out of 32 leagues, 19 teams won both the RS and conference tourney.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Yes. no one watches the tournament for the under .500 in league team from a power conference.

 

[JstVisiting]

Yes.

 

[fomalhaut]

I think the autobids should stay. Not only that, I think conference winners shouldn't be in play-in games. They get bids to the tournament, not bids to try to get into the tournament.

I couldn't agree more. It's almost sadistic to make a team that won its conference championship have to win a play-in game to make the main draw of 64. The four play-in games should involve the eight worst at-large teams.

 

[LwrcasefaN]

Oh yea...keep them. Some of the most memorable and spirited games are those against teams which won their conference tournament, but weren't supposed to. The spirit of basketball just oozes in those games.

 

[nwhoopfan]

I will foot-stomp another criteria - that always seems to come up in a discussion around this time every year - which I think should be enacted immediately: if a team does NOT win at least 50% of its in-conference games, it should not be invited to the NCAA tournament unless it becomes an AQ by winning its conference tournament.

I can actually see a team 2 games under .500 making it, but 4 games forget it about it. I'm looking at you Texas A&M. 6-10 in the SEC, but going Dancing all the same. Utterly ridiculous.

 

[cancontent]

I can actually see a team 2 games under .500 making it, but 4 games forget it about it. I'm looking at you Texas A&M. 6-10 in the SEC, but going Dancing all the same. Utterly ridiculous.

How I see you looking at the SEC and the selection committee.

 

[Dillon77]

Switching genders helps me here: The men's Big East conference representation was decimated when 4 -- even 5 -- AQ slots were taken by teams that may have/probably not gotten into the NCAAs based on games up to that point. I imagine the temperature is still hot in East Orange (Seton Hall), Queens (St. Johns) and Providence, as well as central Indiana (Indiana State).

Coming back to WBB, Coaches Taylor (Texas A&M) and Barnes (Arizona) told anyone that would listen their teams belonged. The Pac 12 is a really tough conference and the SEC is hard, too, but an under .500 record? Nope. Nyet. Nada.

 

[nwhoopfan]

How I see you looking at the SEC and the selection committee.

Can you tell me how A&M deserves a bid? Wins over Tennessee and Kansas are about it for anything remotely worthwhile. I know of 2 Pac 12 teams with similarly poor conference records who each have much, much better wins, and both were left out of the field.

 

[cancontent]

Can you tell me how A&M deserves a bid? Wins over Tennessee and Kansas are about it for anything remotely worthwhile. I know of 2 Pac 12 teams with similarly poor conference records who each have much, much better wins, and both were left out of the field.

Hey, I'm with you on A&M. I'm just as flummoxed as yourself. But this was the first image that came to mind when reading your post earlier.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Hey, I'm with you on A&M. I'm just as flummoxed as yourself. But this was the first image that came to mind when reading your post earlier.

Oops. It was early, I guess my reading comprehension hadn't kicked in yet.

 

[Geew1992]

I think the autobids should stay. Not only that, I think conference winners shouldn't be in play-in games. They get bids to the tournament, not bids to try to get into the tournament.

This is not necessarily true. The higher D1 schools (P5) yes.

 

[fomalhaut]

Can you tell me how A&M deserves a bid? Wins over Tennessee and Kansas are about it for anything remotely worthwhile. I know of 2 Pac 12 teams with similarly poor conference records who each have much, much better wins, and both were left out of the field.

Not only did Texas A&M get a bid somehow, they got an 11 slot and don't have a play-in game, while Vanderbilt, with a better conference and overall record and a head-to-head win, has to play Columbia first to get in.