MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Galway Eagle on August 04, 2015, 10:33:26 AM
-
Chatting with some buddies about the mid major conferences and we agreed that the NCAA tournament would be exponentially better in the first round if they gave the regular season conference champion the auto bid instead of the conference tournament champion. Thoughts? Some great mid major teams have fallen short that might've been the first 16 to upset a 1 or could've made some noise (Louisiana Tech the past few years comes to mind)
-
That certainly would make those conference tourneys rather meaningless. The regular season champs that lose in their tourneys get a guaranteed shot to make noise in the NIT. That really has not happened in terms of getting to New York.
-
That certainly would make those conference tourneys rather meaningless. The regular season champs that lose in their tourneys get a guaranteed shot to make noise in the NIT. That really has not happened in terms of getting to New York.
Agreed. Those auto-bids to the tourney winners make those conference tournaments a blast to watch. Not sure that would be the case if those auto-bids were taken away.
That said, I agree with your Boxer's point. Feel a lot more like the regular season winner's are the better team, but at least they get their chance in the NIT if they do not win their own tournament. And actually, if the change was made, you would see even more teams from the major conferences (very slightly) in the case that teams like Gonzaga, Wichita State, etc don't win their conference tournaments.
-
Agreed. Those auto-bids to the tourney winners make those conference tournaments a blast to watch. Not sure that would be the case if those auto-bids were taken away.
That said, I agree with your Boxer's point. Feel a lot more like the regular season winner's are the better team, but at least they get their chance in the NIT if they do not win their own tournament. And actually, if the change was made, you would see even more teams from the major conferences (very slightly) in the case that teams like Gonzaga, Wichita State, etc don't win their conference tournaments.
See the reason that the zags and shockers are who they are is because they've always won the conference tournament. I think if you let the regular season winner in you'd get a few more teams like that from the mid major conferences. And if you start to get more big powers all around the board it can only increase viewership. The other thing is I'm always ticked off when you inevitably see a team in there with a below 500 record or close to it.
-
You do realize it is up to the conference how their champion is determined right? The conferences have determined that they get more $$$ by having the tournament champion be the auto bid.
-
You do realize it is up to the conference how their champion is determined right? The conferences have determined that they get more $$$ by having the tournament champion be the auto bid.
But if LA tech had made the sweet 16 let's say then I'm positive that the ncaa credits would be greater
-
If we're just going to take into account what happens in the regular season then let's do away with the NCAA Tournament and just award a basketball National Champion based on the polls.
That's what makes college basketball what it is. 1 and done excitement. It starts with the conference tournaments and ends with the NCAA Tournament.
-
If we're just going to take into account what happens in the regular season then let's do away with the NCAA Tournament and just award a basketball National Champion based on the polls.
That's what makes college basketball what it is. 1 and done excitement. It starts with the conference tournaments and ends with the NCAA Tournament.
Those smaller conference tournaments are some of my favorite basketball to watch.
-
But if LA tech had made the sweet 16 let's say then I'm positive that the ncaa credits would be greater
Organizations would rather have the sure thing in terms of revenue from a conference tournament on television versus the possibility of tourney credits.
Furthermore these conferences can all do the math. They are acting logically.
-
Removing the auto-bid from conference tournaments will not happen anytime soon. Doing so would be incredibly foolish not just by conference standards, but for the networks and host sites. Audiences love the suspense and intrigue of conference tournaments. Lose, and you go home - a perfect lead-in to the NCAA Tournament. People shell out huge amounts of money for the perplexity, unexpectedness and rewards from tournaments. Removing that reward would, essentially, render conference tournaments irrelevant.
Do conferences' best teams (by record) sometimes not get into the NCAA tournament, due to losing in the conference tournament? Of course. But, as a mid-major, if you cannot win on your conference's biggest stage, then perhaps you don't deserve to be on NCAA Basketball's biggest stage.
-
Chatting with some buddies about the mid major conferences and we agreed that the NCAA tournament would be exponentially better in the first round if they gave the regular season conference champion the auto bid instead of the conference tournament champion. Thoughts? Some great mid major teams have fallen short that might've been the first 16 to upset a 1 or could've made some noise (Louisiana Tech the past few years comes to mind)
This may indeed be the case, but it is also true that conference champs can make a run, too. In fact, on VCU's FF run, I believe that they were not the regular season champ, but were the champion of their conference tourney, beating ODU in the championship game (I don't remember if ODU made the tourney).
-
Sounds like another idea from the far left, hey?
-
This may indeed be the case, but it is also true that conference champs can make a run, too. In fact, on VCU's FF run, I believe that they were not the regular season champ, but were the champion of their conference tourney, beating ODU in the championship game (I don't remember if ODU made the tourney).
VCU was an at-large the year they made their F4 run, and was one of those teams the committee was widely criticized for putting in.
They finished 4th in the Colonial and lost in their conference tournament final.
I don't think conference regular season champions that aren't good enough to make the field as an at-large would do much, if anything, for the tournament's early rounds. Certainly not enough to turn a 1-16 upset, for example. To give up the excitement of the conference tournaments for an occasional closer first round game is a very bad trade-off, I think.
-
See the reason that the zags and shockers are who they are is because they've always won the conference tournament.
Wichita State won in 2014. It was there first since the 1980s and the only won two before that.
-
Wichita State won in 2014. It was there first since the 1980s and the only won two before that.
Huh interesting. Then I guess Davidson or Belmont or Murray state would be better examples.
-
Huh interesting. Then I guess Davidson or Belmont or Murray state would be better examples.
Well not really...
Since the start of Bob McKillops tenure at Davidson in 1989, they have only once won their conference tournament in a season where they didn't win the regular season title. (2005-06).
Since Belmont joined the NCAA in 1996, they also have only once won their conference tournament in a season where they didn't win a regular season title or conference division title. (2006-07)
Murray State has done so twice in their history. (2001-02 and 2003-04)
-
Well not really...
Since the start of Bob McKillops tenure at Davidson in 1989, they have only once won their conference tournament in a season where they didn't win the regular season title. (2005-06).
Since Belmont joined the NCAA in 1996, they also have only once won their conference tournament in a season where they didn't win a regular season title or conference division title. (2006-07)
Murray State has done so twice in their history. (2001-02 and 2003-04)
2010 they would've been in the tournament in my system, 2008 they wouldn't.
Murray would have at least been in 2015, 2011, 2000, 1996, 1994, 1989. I'd guess they'd trade 2 bids for 6...
Not much of a difference for Belmont but for Murray that's the difference between a better conference bid or staying mid major.
-
Don't mess with the system. What makes March Madness so magical is that there's one rule when it comes to the NCAA tournament:
Keep winning and you keep playing.
Look at it this way, before conference tourneys start, every D-I team (except independents and Ivy) has a path to the dance. The selection committee doesn't matter, your RPI doesn't matter, the regular season doesn't matter, your opponent doesn't matter, the location doesn't matter; all you need to do is win.
You can take issue with how Cinderella dances, but there's no disputing that without Cinderella, the ball is essentially a sausage fest.
-
2010 they would've been in the tournament in my system, 2008 they wouldn't.
Murray would have at least been in 2015, 2011, 2000, 1996, 1994, 1989. I'd guess they'd trade 2 bids for 6...
Not much of a difference for Belmont but for Murray that's the difference between a better conference bid or staying mid major.
That's not what I am addressing. You used them as examples of teams that have "always won the conference tournament." But these teams rarely have won the conference tournament in years where they weren't regular season champions.
Look, bottom line is that the conferences aren't going to change this because they have financial reason not to do so. And in the end, I can't really get all upset about some low to mid major conference regular season champion missing out because they don't win their conference tournament.
-
I think the best chance for us to make the NCAA tournament this year is to win the conference tournament. This team can see a lot of early bumps, but by the end of the year could be a very good team capable of winning the conference tournament.