should be the NCAA representative. Had Middle been declared champion without a tournament, they would have undoubtedly had a better seeding, and wouldn't have had to play a Kentucky in the first game. And as a 12-14 seed, might have a chance to win a game.

WKU was the league champion. And they actually did win a game, so more unit money for the Belt.

Honestly, I think they were the best team at the end of the year. In just over a week they defeated four of the top five teams.

(03-15-2012 11:22 PM)CMJ Wrote:  WKU was the league champion. And they actually did win a game, so more unit money for the Belt.

Honestly, I think they were the best team at the end of the year. in just over a week they defeated four of the top five teams.

CMJ, you are right on the money!

I have been a WKU fan for my whole life, I am 36, so as a fan I have seen my team on both sides of this several times. I have seen WKU be the regular season champion only to fall in the tourney, and I have seen WKU be the "lesser" team only to make a run and win the tourney.

A couple of points here.

#1. Without the benefit of a conference tourney run, would our regular season champ be as well prepared for the NCAA? For the most part it hasn't mattered, true. But it is possible that our champs gain a little edge by winning games in a do or die situation.

#2. Winning the tournament is JUST SO DAMN THRILLING. Why are we watching sports if not for the thrill??? It doesn't matter if you are the 1 seed or the 7 seed. Knowing that at any moment your season could unfold but you advance anyway? That is just an incredible rush that would be lost if regular season champ advances. And with divisions can you really have a FAIR regular season champ?



At any rate, I think that the problem with our conference is not how we decide our champion but that we have as a conference a culture of losing in the non-conference. Every coach and athletic department in the Belt seems to accept that we are a one bid league and schedules and prepares based on the assumption that the non-conference does not matter.

How many teams recruit Jucos and transfers that don't qualify until December? (TROY here's looking at you). How many coaches after a bad nonconference slate says, "none of that matters now, it's a new season" or some variation of that cliche. Heck, I even heard Ray Harper say something to that effect.

I really, passionately believe that nonconference games should be included in some way in the conference standings. Also, the play in games should come back. Also, re-seed the teams after each round in the tournament.

Don't just pay lip service to improving non conference records. Give it some teeth.

Regular season! All the way. Unless you award two national championships each year - the regular season and the tournament. Otherwise just have your season be four games long.

(03-16-2012 07:24 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  Regular season! All the way. Unless you award two national championships each year - the regular season and the tournament. Otherwise just have your season be four games long.

But the conference tourney is a LOT of fun as long as the regular season champion pretty much always gets an at-large, correct?

And what about the players?

Do you realize that without the Sunbelt tournament MOST Sunbelt players would NEVER play in any post season of ANY kind??? How do you recruit with that reality?

AND one more thing...

If our regular season champ advances without winning three tournament games then isn't it possible that they would be seeded lower because you denied them the opportunity to get three more wins on thier resume?

Tournaments are fun, and they should be continued. But I just think 30 games means more than four games. I think there ought to be two championships awarded at every level.

I am and have always been a fan of the conference tournaments. I like championship week almost as much as the NCAA tournament itself. Hell, I'd even do away with the silly conference tournaments that award byes all the way to the semi-finals, or like the Big Sky, only invite the top 6 teams. Make them all play a traditional tournament, period. All the teams in every conference, normal tournament with a single bye awarded only if the conference has an odd number of teams (i.e. not 8, 16, etc.). Performance in the regular season gets you an easier path to the championship. That's your reward. If you're #1 in your league and can't beat teams now that you have all year, then you don't deserve the auto-bid.

Hell, with regular season champion only getting the bid logic, why even have the NCAA Tournament? Just give the championship to the #1 team at the end of the year, right? Just like the college football system the works so well, right? The season should mean more, so no tournament. Obviously I'm being sarcastic here, but doing away with conference tournaments would be a move towards a more BCS-style system, and that would stink. It's the egalitarian nature of the basketball postseason that makes me love college ball so much.

I think they ought to scrap the conference tournaments, extend the NCAA by a week, and let it be all-comers.

With conference tournaments, it already pretty much is all comers except for the Ivy.

(03-16-2012 11:22 AM)CMJ Wrote:  With conference tournaments, it already pretty much is all comers except for the Ivy.

Do it like Indiana used to do the high school state tournament.

All good points. I just think a full body of work (conference schedule), should have more relevance than three or four games. Especially in a one bid league. As someone suggested, if you're going to be a one bid league, then the league champion should represent you in the NCAA tournament. The conference tournament should be for the rest of the teams, and if the winner gets an at large bid, or a NIT bid, great. And as a UALR fan, I experienced the joy of our team winning the tournament last year and going to the NCAA for the first time in years, but I still think the league champion should go. Now another way I'd vote for is for the two division champs play a best two out of three series to decide who goes to the big dance. Granted a division champ might not be the second best team in the league, but that's how baseball and other sports do it. Make it about champions. Best teams don't always win a game anyway. Have a tournament to decide the conference tournament championship, but don't make the winner of the tournament the automatic bid. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.
Do you really think North Carolina State was better than Houston? No way, but in one game, anything can happen.

I think the conference tournament should be more weighted in favor of the conference champs.

Since the conference did away with the play in games to ensure every team can make it to Hot Springs, which I'm sure this is to ensure folks can plan their trips in advance without the worry their team won't make it, they should let the division champs get a bye to the semis. That way the probability of the top teams in the conference will go up and increase the odds that one will make the Dance.

(03-16-2012 08:42 PM)LR Alum Wrote:  Since the conference did away with the play in games to ensure every team can make it to Hot Springs, which I'm sure this is to ensure folks can plan their trips in advance without the worry their team won't make it, they should let the division champs get a bye to the semis. That way the probability of the top teams in the conference will go up and increase the odds that one will make the Dance.

+1

(03-16-2012 08:42 PM)LR Alum Wrote:  Since the conference did away with the play in games to ensure every team can make it to Hot Springs, which I'm sure this is to ensure folks can plan their trips in advance without the worry their team won't make it, they should let the division champs get a bye to the semis. That way the probability of the top teams in the conference will go up and increase the odds that one will make the Dance.

How about a bye to the final game? And give the other division champion a bye to the semi finals.