- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 29,646
- Reaction Score
- 47,880
EDIT: TITLE SHOULD READ TOURNEY CHAMPIONSHIPS
Jay Bilas talks here about the relative value of conference championships:
In the video, he makes the point that finishing second place during the regular season is sometimes better in these conferences than winning the conference tournament.
Essentially, he's got to be talking about the ACC, B1G and maybe the SEC since we saw the tourney winners in the B1G and SEC (how the hell am I agreeing with Calipari!!!?) not being rewarded. In the ACC, he seems to credit Virginia as having a greater accomplishment finishing 2nd in the regular season than, for instance, MSU winning the B1G tourney.
There's a lot to quibble about, of course, since MSU's overall resume was not only about winning the conference tourney. They had a fine OOC season, they played without Valentine for several games (and that in itself deserved some consideration). But the first place team in the B1G was Indiana. It made me think, if the 1st place regular season team is underwhelming in other aspects (as Temple was in the AAC) does that then devalue the teams that finish behind it under Bilas's theory?
All in all, it seems Bilas is right and the conference tourneys are now less than. The problem is the unbalanced schedules. I just looked at Michigan State's as a comparison to Indiana. Indiana played Rutgers only once, but they did play Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska twice. Whereas Michigan State played Rutgers twice, but the other 3 bottom dwellers only once. So MSU had 5 games against the 4 bottom dwellers, while Indiana had 7 games. MSU and Indiana met only once, and MSU handled them at home.
I get that winning the AAC tourney is not a big thrill but it's a shame that Bilas is implicitly downgrading the ACC tourney.
Maybe with the NCAA losing its bellwether tourney (the Big East in MSG at 8 pm on a Saturday night) we are now seeing a re-emphasis on the regular season.
In 2011, the committee almost certainly took the BE tourney into account in UConn's seeding. But now that the old BE tourney doesn't have its heft (it's not even played on a Saturday night) we've seen the devaluing of all tournies. It's almost as if you couldn't make an argument against the tournies back when the BE was putting on such a great show.
Although I don't buy what Bilas is selling (Calipari is right that it is dissonant that Texas A&M is seeded higher than Kentucky) I recognize that this is indeed the new reality.
Jay Bilas talks here about the relative value of conference championships:
In the video, he makes the point that finishing second place during the regular season is sometimes better in these conferences than winning the conference tournament.
Essentially, he's got to be talking about the ACC, B1G and maybe the SEC since we saw the tourney winners in the B1G and SEC (how the hell am I agreeing with Calipari!!!?) not being rewarded. In the ACC, he seems to credit Virginia as having a greater accomplishment finishing 2nd in the regular season than, for instance, MSU winning the B1G tourney.
There's a lot to quibble about, of course, since MSU's overall resume was not only about winning the conference tourney. They had a fine OOC season, they played without Valentine for several games (and that in itself deserved some consideration). But the first place team in the B1G was Indiana. It made me think, if the 1st place regular season team is underwhelming in other aspects (as Temple was in the AAC) does that then devalue the teams that finish behind it under Bilas's theory?
All in all, it seems Bilas is right and the conference tourneys are now less than. The problem is the unbalanced schedules. I just looked at Michigan State's as a comparison to Indiana. Indiana played Rutgers only once, but they did play Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska twice. Whereas Michigan State played Rutgers twice, but the other 3 bottom dwellers only once. So MSU had 5 games against the 4 bottom dwellers, while Indiana had 7 games. MSU and Indiana met only once, and MSU handled them at home.
I get that winning the AAC tourney is not a big thrill but it's a shame that Bilas is implicitly downgrading the ACC tourney.
Maybe with the NCAA losing its bellwether tourney (the Big East in MSG at 8 pm on a Saturday night) we are now seeing a re-emphasis on the regular season.
In 2011, the committee almost certainly took the BE tourney into account in UConn's seeding. But now that the old BE tourney doesn't have its heft (it's not even played on a Saturday night) we've seen the devaluing of all tournies. It's almost as if you couldn't make an argument against the tournies back when the BE was putting on such a great show.
Although I don't buy what Bilas is selling (Calipari is right that it is dissonant that Texas A&M is seeded higher than Kentucky) I recognize that this is indeed the new reality.
