Automatic Bid Should be Elininated?

[CTWarrior]

Yea, except for all of those at large bids that give the majority of major and mid major schools their entry into the dance, the conference schedule means nothing.

Not sure I agree with this.  The conference schedule and a team's performance in it will be the main way at-large bids are earned.  I agree with those who say that the conference season is basically meaningless for the low major, one bid leagues. 

[CTWarrior]

If that were the case, why didn't Southern Miss tank the CUSA championship game against Houston in football this year? They cost their school a huge payday. I don't think this would happen as often as you think. Are players going to deliberately play poorly when this might be the only title they win? Will coaches put out poor teams intentionally and risk upsetting alma mater that wanted the conference double?

Every now and then it might happen, but my guess is you'll see no more than 2-5 extra bids per year.

Southern Miss was looking at improving their own ranking and the bowl they would go to.  There is no such advantage to be gained in the scenario you describe.  I'm not suggesting the players will play poorly on purpose, but coaches may give players more rest or use the tournament to see how some of their bench players perform with increased minutes, like many coaches do in the NIT.  The league will be less likely to grant byes or give home court advantage to higher seeds, etc.

[GGGG]

That gives the regular season champion no incentive to win their tournament; plus mid-majors would hope for their regular season champion to lose in order to get 2 bids include of one.  Too many conflicts of interest.

Hell, if I were running a low-major conference, I would *exempt* the regular season champion from the tournament so that I could get two teams in.  Which actually might be pretty exciting if you buy into the two-bids per conference scenario. 

Maybe what they should do is simply expand the Tuesday games to add the regular season champions. The 13, 14, 15 and 16 seeds from each bracket should be determined by play-in game.

[muwarrior69]

I would like to see all the conference championships play at campus sites rather than one neutral site. The highest seed teams based on regular season record would get home court advantage. I believe these games would all be sell outs and cut down on travel costs for half the league. In this scenario the regular season champ would most likely win the conference champioship with home court advantage  Even some of the early first round games in the Big East don't fill the Garden. Don't think it would happen though.

[CTWarrior]

I live close to Sacred Heart University, a member of the NEC.  That conference plays the tournament games on the home court of the higher seeded teams.  I went to the gym (their home gym is really just a high school gym, seats maybe 1,200-they used to call it the SHU Box) for the NEC championship game a few years ago against Mount Saint Mary's.  It was sold-out and maybe the loudest, most electric atmosphere I've ever been in for a basketball game.  The quality of play was terrible and SHU lost, but I agree that the games on campus sites is a good way to go for the smaller conferences.

[TJ]

The worst thing about college football is the widely perpetuated myth that "Every Game Counts" when in reality that's true for about 15-20 teams every year, while the rest of them have no shot at winning a championship no matter what they do - just ask TCU, Boise St, and Utah.

One great thing about college basketball is that every NCAA Div 1 team absolutely has a chance to win the national championship tournament.  It probably won't happen, but they have a chance.  Eliminating auto-bids would completely ruin that, and for what?  So 12 more mediocre teams that didn't win their conference get bids?  If that's the goal, then make the 13, 14, and 15 seeds play play-in games - don't eliminate the auto-bids!

[MUMac]

Hell, if I were running a low-major conference, I would *exempt* the regular season champion from the tournament so that I could get two teams in.  Which actually might be pretty exciting if you buy into the two-bids per conference scenario. 

Maybe what they should do is simply expand the Tuesday games to add the regular season champions. The 13, 14, 15 and 16 seeds from each bracket should be determined by play-in game.

There is only one automatic bid per conference.

[bilsu]

I think the top seeds should go to conference champions who also win their conference tournament. The conference should be ranked on that year's power.
For instance
1. Big 10
2. Big 12
3. SEC
4. Big East
keep going until you get all 31 or 32 conferences ranked
Ohio St wins Big 10, but does not win Big 10 tournament they fall to back of 32.
Assume 20 conference champions do not win their tournament including Ohio St. 32-20= 12(conference champions who also win their tournament), which means Ohio St falls to 13th, which is a 4 seed. Big 12 champion also one of the losers so they fall to 14th.
The top four seeds go to the champions of the highest powered conference that has their champion win the tournament. If enough teams lose the weakest conference could get a number 1 seed. This certainly would give importance to winning both the conference and the conference tournament. It also gives a team from a smaller conference a chance to win a game as one of the reasons a 16th seed always loses is that they are playing a 1 seed. This system could result in them getting a high seed and therefore not playing the best team in the country right off the bat.

[GGGG]

There is only one automatic bid per conference.

Yeah I know....I was responding to brew's post about giving regular season champions bids as well.