(03-18-2013 02:23 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Just curious, admittedly didn't catch much of the A10 tourney, but did see some of the SLU sf win- seemed like SLU's fans were repping solidly in Brooklyn as well. I wonder if the same thing you're saying about VCU Frank would be the case with SLU as well. I mean- to get realistically top 2 and then 3/4 from the A10(and what Xavier finished 7th so 4/7) and then top 1 from MVC- that's huge. That makes a HUGE splash.

I hate to contradict you the one time you're being optimistic, Stever, but I don't think the world at large is going to sit up and say "Wow, the C7 AND the MVC and A10 champs!"

(03-18-2013 10:43 PM)Natty Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 05:02 PM)bmorex Wrote:  I like VCU more and more. A poster above was right: their fans dominated Barclay's. I know they are public, but the whole premise of this conference is to be the best at basketball as possible. The C7 wanted the media to call them the Basketball 7. If that is the goal, I think VCU has to be a favorite.

Still don't think they are going to be in, but I would take them at 12.

VCU Fan here, so obviously somewhat biased, but I will say having just returned from the A-10 tournament (great fun by the way), I was SHOCKED by how bad some of the teams traveled (and I'm sure some of you have seen this in Atlantic City, etc). Coming from the CAA last year, I can honestly say that was some of the worst team attendance I have seen in years.

I honestly thought at the time, "man...if that team is in the Big East playing that other team in for a Big East Championship...it is literally going to make MSG look like the MEAC title game".

The new Big East will have some great home courts, but from what I saw this weekend...the tournament might be in big trouble as far as attendance.

The new Big East tournament might be in trouble because A10 fans don't travel we'll???

Where's the logic? The new Big East will be comprised of 7 old Big East members. So far 2 - 4 A10 members have been discussed as possible additions. The core of the conference will still be Big East, not A10.

The new Big East tournament will face the same challenge as every tournament in the country in the new realignment era. The success of the Big East tournament was built on a conference that had a tight geographic footprint, allowing fans of most schools to simply get in their cars and drive to the tournaments ors to use easily accessible public transportation. The tournament was located right in the heart of thT footprint.

The ACC tournament is the granddaddy of all conference tournaments and its success was built on a similar tight geographic footprint with the tournament located right in the heart of that footprint. realignments has changed that for many fans - even for the ACC and Big East tournaments. While there are still many fans close to the traditional homes of these tournaments, there is no guarantee in these expanded conferences that the teams who get to the finals and the semis will be from within easy reach of the tournament sight as was almost a guarantee in the past. I wonder how the ACC tournament will draw when the finalists are Miami and Boston College. I remember Black Friday in Greensboro in 1979 when St. John's and Iona upset North Carolina and Duke in the Eastern regionals. The Penn - St. John's final was half empty. A Carolina representative in the final would have guaranteed a sell out.

The mistake of the A 10 was to locate the tournament in Brooklyn instead of in Philly which is where the greatest concentration of A10 members is. The only representative in NY is consistently one of the least successful schools in the conference.

Realignment is creating greater and greater risk that conference tournaments will have limited access for the schools who go deep intro the tournament. It is m aking events both during the season and in the postseason more remote and less accessible for its students, alums, and its larger fan base. We've already seen this problem in the ACC football championship games. We can reasonably project that there would be fewer Rutgers fans at a Big Ten final in Indianapolis than at a Big East final in MSG. Of course the B1G won't have to worry about that any time in the near future because the Rutgers basketball program is so bad. thank God for small favors.

I know this is Emperor's New Clothes around here, but I dislike conference tournaments regardless of where they are located.

In conferences where the result is actually relevant, they should be taking the regular season champion anyway. In multiple bid conferences, you either lose early and risk a lower seed (in the thing that's actually important) OR you don't and risk spending your legs on what amounts to an exhibition.

I'll go to Thanksgiving tournaments, Christmas tournaments, and the NCAA Tournament. I doubt I'd ever attend a conference tournament that was out of town. I'd rather they not exist. It's a little like training all year to run the Boston Marathon, then the day before the race you run a 10-miler for a t-shirt. What's the point?

(03-19-2013 06:52 AM)Title Wrote:  I know this is Emperor's New Clothes around here, but I dislike conference tournaments regardless of where they are located.

In conferences where the result is actually relevant, they should be taking the regular season champion anyway. In multiple bid conferences, you either lose early and risk a lower seed (in the thing that's actually important) OR you don't and risk spending your legs on what amounts to an exhibition.

I'll go to Thanksgiving tournaments, Christmas tournaments, and the NCAA Tournament. I doubt I'd ever attend a conference tournament that was out of town. I'd rather they not exist. It's a little like training all year to run the Boston Marathon, then the day before the race you run a 10-miler for a t-shirt. What's the point?

You've never been to the BET. So many teams have used a BET run to a deep NCAA run, the atmosphere is electric, and nothing beats the Garden.

Title and Nathan, you're both right.

I went to the Garden a few years ago when Butler won the preseason NIT.

It's a historic building. Kind of rough around the edges but its easy to see why it would have nostalgic value to someone from the east coast.

There's a lot of historic buildings though. It still doesn't change my opinion of conference tournaments.

(03-19-2013 06:52 AM)Title Wrote:  I know this is Emperor's New Clothes around here, but I dislike conference tournaments regardless of where they are located.

In conferences where the result is actually relevant, they should be taking the regular season champion anyway. In multiple bid conferences, you either lose early and risk a lower seed (in the thing that's actually important) OR you don't and risk spending your legs on what amounts to an exhibition.

I'll go to Thanksgiving tournaments, Christmas tournaments, and the NCAA Tournament. I doubt I'd ever attend a conference tournament that was out of town. I'd rather they not exist. It's a little like training all year to run the Boston Marathon, then the day before the race you run a 10-miler for a t-shirt. What's the point?

I see the point about the relevance of the tournaments. I think what Calipari said last year about the SEC tournament is true, and is a long-term danger--"We don't hang three-letter banners." If I were king of the NCAAs, I'd put serious thought into a model where a one-seed had to be a conference dual-champion, regular season and tournament, and they shot straight to the Sweet Sixteen. Of course that would bump three more teams into play-in games, maybe you need two more at-larges. That gives you 12 play-in games.

But the Big East tournament has always felt different. Maybe ACC fans feel the same way about their tournament too, I don't know.

Of course the conference tournaments also give your bubble teams in good conferences one more shot at quality wins. Although if Title was king of the NCAAs, there would be no conference tournaments and that would even out.

(03-19-2013 06:03 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 02:23 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Just curious, admittedly didn't catch much of the A10 tourney, but did see some of the SLU sf win- seemed like SLU's fans were repping solidly in Brooklyn as well. I wonder if the same thing you're saying about VCU Frank would be the case with SLU as well. I mean- to get realistically top 2 and then 3/4 from the A10(and what Xavier finished 7th so 4/7) and then top 1 from MVC- that's huge. That makes a HUGE splash.

I hate to contradict you the one time you're being optimistic, Stever, but I don't think the world at large is going to sit up and say "Wow, the C7 AND the MVC and A10 champs!"

No, but C7 and 4 top 25 teams makes someone sit up. Esp. if some of those top 25 teams do some damage in the tourney.

(03-19-2013 07:53 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 06:52 AM)Title Wrote:  I know this is Emperor's New Clothes around here, but I dislike conference tournaments regardless of where they are located.

In conferences where the result is actually relevant, they should be taking the regular season champion anyway. In multiple bid conferences, you either lose early and risk a lower seed (in the thing that's actually important) OR you don't and risk spending your legs on what amounts to an exhibition.

I'll go to Thanksgiving tournaments, Christmas tournaments, and the NCAA Tournament. I doubt I'd ever attend a conference tournament that was out of town. I'd rather they not exist. It's a little like training all year to run the Boston Marathon, then the day before the race you run a 10-miler for a t-shirt. What's the point?

I see the point about the relevance of the tournaments. I think what Calipari said last year about the SEC tournament is true, and is a long-term danger--"We don't hang three-letter banners." If I were king of the NCAAs, I'd put serious thought into a model where a one-seed had to be a conference dual-champion, regular season and tournament, and they shot straight to the Sweet Sixteen. Of course that would bump three more teams into play-in games, maybe you need two more at-larges. That gives you 12 play-in games.

But the Big East tournament has always felt different. Maybe ACC fans feel the same way about their tournament too, I don't know.

Of course the conference tournaments also give your bubble teams in good conferences one more shot at quality wins. Although if Title was king of the NCAAs, there would be no conference tournaments and that would even out.

Don't see the NCAA changing anything. It's the old if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

(03-19-2013 08:05 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Don't see the NCAA changing anything. It's the old if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Well, they tinkered by adding play-in games. And I can't imagine that the big conferences are happy with their tournaments lacking drama. I'm not sure what, but I could see _something_ being done to make being a double-champion of a top conference worth more. In other words, to give the coaches of solid No. 1 seeds some reason to give a crap about their conference tournament.

Quote:No, but C7 and 4 top 25 teams makes someone sit up. Esp. if some of those top 25 teams do some damage in the tourney.

Those polls will be forgotten if Creighton doesn't get past Cincinnati and Duke. And if Creighton gets to the Sweet Sixteen, it won't have mattered that they beat WSU for the MVC crown.

And if SLU doesn't get past Oklahoma State, their A-10 title doesn't mean squat. If they do, then even though the 2012-13 A-10 crown is a little more impressive than going to a Sweet Sixteen by beating NMSU and Oklahoma State, the Sweet Sixteen is what will be remembered.

(03-19-2013 08:43 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 08:05 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Don't see the NCAA changing anything. It's the old if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Well, they tinkered by adding play-in games. And I can't imagine that the big conferences are happy with their tournaments lacking drama. I'm not sure what, but I could see _something_ being done to make being a double-champion of a top conference worth more. In other words, to give the coaches of solid No. 1 seeds some reason to give a crap about their conference tournament.

Quote:No, but C7 and 4 top 25 teams makes someone sit up. Esp. if some of those top 25 teams do some damage in the tourney.

Those polls will be forgotten if Creighton doesn't get past Cincinnati and Duke. And if Creighton gets to the Sweet Sixteen, it won't have mattered that they beat WSU for the MVC crown.

And if SLU doesn't get past Oklahoma State, their A-10 title doesn't mean squat. If they do, then even though the 2012-13 A-10 crown is a little more impressive than going to a Sweet Sixteen by beating NMSU and Oklahoma State, the Sweet Sixteen is what will be remembered.

I dunno- I could see a scenario where Creighton loses to Duke in one of those incredible tourney games (with McDermott going crazy)- and it validating if you will Creighton even in a loss. I don't think the MVC and A10 crowns mean much- but moreso the quanity of top 25 teams coming into the league.

Also if Butler and VCU do some damage(and VCU gets in by the premise of this)- that's more help for us.

Also play in games doesn't alter the general structure of the tournament. What you are saying fundamentally alters big time the structure of the tournament.

It's like why I laugh so hard at these smaller conferences that gerrymander their tourney to help the #1 seeds, and they still fall flat on their face.

Saw in my twitter DMs from last night, that the press conference is expected today. (Haven't seen that anywhere publicly to confirm)

I'd imagine that would end the talk of 12.

IF you decide that Something Must Be Done to support the elite conference tournaments, then you have to change the general structure of the tournament. The reason that the conference tournament and championship is a little devalued is that Kentucky can lose their tournament and be a No. 1 seed. Or Duke can lose their tournament and be a No. 2 seed. (15-7/10-3/6/11/14 really isn't so much worse than 16-8/9-4/5/12/13). So if you do anything, you'd have to create a real difference between Kansas, who won their league and Indiana, who lost in their tournament.

(03-19-2013 08:59 AM)Title Wrote:  Saw in my twitter DMs from last night, that the press conference is expected today. (Haven't seen that anywhere publicly to confirm)

I'd imagine that would end the talk of 12.

Not necessarily. I mean- lets say VCU and SLU have big runs in the tourney. There would be nothing that would stop us from adding them in April.

(03-19-2013 09:04 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  IF you decide that Something Must Be Done to support the elite conference tournaments, then you have to change the general structure of the tournament. The reason that the conference tournament and championship is a little devalued is that Kentucky can lose their tournament and be a No. 1 seed. Or Duke can lose their tournament and be a No. 2 seed. (15-7/10-3/6/11/14 really isn't so much worse than 16-8/9-4/5/12/13). So if you do anything, you'd have to create a real difference between Kansas, who won their league and Indiana, who lost in their tournament.

If you look at the conference tournaments- look who won them
ACC- #1 seed Miami
Big East- #2 seed Louisville(co-reg season champ)
Big 12- #1 seed Kansas
Big Ten- #2 seed Ohio St
Pac 12- #3 seed Oregon
SEC- #3 seed Mississippi

and if you look at their opponents- outside of Syracuse, everyone else was at least a 4 seed(Wisconsin in Big Ten). There is nothing wrong with the conference tournaments.

(03-19-2013 09:04 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  IF you decide that Something Must Be Done to support the elite conference tournaments, then you have to change the general structure of the tournament. The reason that the conference tournament and championship is a little devalued is that Kentucky can lose their tournament and be a No. 1 seed. Or Duke can lose their tournament and be a No. 2 seed. (15-7/10-3/6/11/14 really isn't so much worse than 16-8/9-4/5/12/13). So if you do anything, you'd have to create a real difference between Kansas, who won their league and Indiana, who lost in their tournament.

I actually think the conference tournaments were pretty important this year in the sense that they clearly determined the #1 overall seed. Louisville won the Big East tournament and got the #1 overall seed, which means they get to play in Indianapolis assuming that they get to the Sweet Sixteen. Indiana didn't win its conference tournament and is now sent out to DC instead of getting to play home games. I'm fairly certain that if Indiana had won the Big Ten tourney, they would have received the #1 overall seed instead. It's not as dramatic as sending a 1-seed down to the 2-seed line, but the region placement was extremely important this year with 2 top schools that had Indianapolis as a de facto home game site as a goal. I understand what you're saying in attempting to make conference tournaments worth more, but from an equitable standpoint, I think the performance over the course of the regular season should still be worth much more than getting hot for a few days at the end of the year. Performance in the conference tournament should certainly be a piece of the puzzle and possibly used a tiebreaker when dealing with 2 schools as close as Louisville and Indiana this year, but I definitely don't think it's a good idea to actually put in a rule with it's mandated to be weighted more with respect to power conference schools. The NCAA Tournament selection process has shown to be very good over the years. It's not perfect, but just see the football side of the equation of how NOT to do things.

The thing is it's up to the conferences how they want to hand out it's automatic bid. If the SEC doesn't want to have a conference championship tournament then they don't have to. They would look weak or weaker than they are now for doing so but thats their choice. Teams from the B1G, ACC and Big East will be helping their causes why the SEC or whomever sit at home not playing for weeks.

(03-19-2013 08:59 AM)Title Wrote:  Saw in my twitter DMs from last night, that the press conference is expected today. (Haven't seen that anywhere publicly to confirm)

I'd imagine that would end the talk of 12.

Even if we announce just three today that doesn't mean we aren't going to 12. 10 is NOT the final number.

(03-19-2013 09:17 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ... but I definitely don't think it's a good idea to actually put in a rule with it's mandated to be weighted more with respect to power conference schools.

I was just thinking that the rule would be requiring a double-champion for a one-seed. Of course, that either mandates a conference tournament, or you see people starting thinking about dropping it.

Gonzaga would have qualified with flying colors. One downside I see quickly would be having the top teams in the top conferences knock each other out, leaving the one-seeds to double-champions of lesser conferences. Let's say Miami and Kansas get upset. I think the next "double-champions" would have been New Mexico and SLU.

Yeah, this proposal doesn't fly.