(02-21-2011 09:05 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(02-21-2011 05:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  No question, but these tournaments are not designed to give every team an even chance. Your play in the regular season earns you a higher seeding, or a bye, and thus easier (in theory) path. They feed into each other.

No question there, but it's not an issue of the top seeds having an easier time because of seed, but because of upsets. Let's say the #1 seed faces the highest seeds each round. If that's the case, in a 12 team conference, the the #1 seed would have to play the #8 and #4 seeds in order to make it to the championship. The #2 seed might get lucky though with some upsets before its games and only need to beat the #10 and #6 seeds to make it to the championship. Given these games are back to back, that's a lot easier on the #2 seed going into the tournament championship than the #1.

Upsets are essentially random, so for every time the #2 seed benefits from upsets in his half, the #1 team would benefit as well. I don't see that as a structural concern.

In any event, even if it is true that the BE tournament is a more-flawed, less-valid way of picking a champ than the regular season, that doesn't change the fact that the tournament is the more desirable prize, is the more prestigious title to win. That's just what the values of the conference are.

It's kind of like in tennis: Experts have shown that the US Open is, from a technical point of view, the hardest of the major tournaments to win. Its combination of tough weather (hot, humid) and surface-fairness (basically, both fast and slow court players can play well on it), make it the most challenging.

Nevertheless, Wimbledon remains the most prestigious, most important title to hold. It has the mystique, the tradition, the history, and that overrides the technical issues ...