If the regular season is not going to mean anything, then why play so many conference games? That being said, make the regular season mean something, play 6 OOC games and 26 conference games. No need for a conference tourney and regular season Champs gets and earn autobid.

I think the auto-bid should be determined by the conference team that has the most national championships in its program history. You know, that way, even if you only have one bid, that team will be fighting their tails off to win the whole thing.

El Paso geography doesn't help. Almost no one wants to risk playing UTEP at home. The win doesn't help them and a loss hurts more than its worth. Sure, we had Arizona this year but who else did we pay OOC that was any good?

I think the 80 team field is best.

An auto bid to regular season champ AND tournament champ.

If a team wins both, they would get a bye in the 1st round.

Leagues like the Ivy w/no tourney would get two bids in the tourney, but no bye in the first round.

In the past few years, the number of auto nit has been about 10 teams a year. Max of 1 or 2 at larges going away in the craziest tourney year, most likely more like 1 or 2 at larges would be added every year

I think if we change anything, make the conference tourney field smaller. Top 6 go, top 2 get a bye to the semis. The big dance is big enough and I really don't like the idea of having tiebreaker rules possibly deciding who gets the autobid. I could accept ODU winning the regular season then losing in the tourney and having to go to the NIT but I'd be pissed if a team with the same conference record got in over us due to a cointoss (and yes a cointoss is the final tiebreaker)

(03-10-2015 09:52 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  If the regular season is not going to mean anything, then why play so many conference games? That being said, make the regular season mean something, play 6 OOC games and 26 conference games. No need for a conference tourney and regular season Champs gets and earn autobid.

It already does mean something... IF you win your conference during the regular season, you're going to a post-season tournament.

It's too bad that the *spin-doctors and the NCAA's have ruined the importance (or once importance) of the NIT.

You win your conference, you're at least guaranteed a NIT tournament bid at worst.

(03-11-2015 09:12 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 09:52 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  If the regular season is not going to mean anything, then why play so many conference games? That being said, make the regular season mean something, play 6 OOC games and 26 conference games. No need for a conference tourney and regular season Champs gets and earn autobid.

It already does mean something... IF you win your conference during the regular season, you're going to a post-season tournament.

It's too bad that the *spin-doctors and the NCAA's have ruined the importance (or once importance) of the NIT.

You win your conference, you're at least guaranteed a NIT tournament bid at worst.

No one cares about the NIT.

(03-11-2015 10:01 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 09:12 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 09:52 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  If the regular season is not going to mean anything, then why play so many conference games? That being said, make the regular season mean something, play 6 OOC games and 26 conference games. No need for a conference tourney and regular season Champs gets and earn autobid.

It already does mean something... IF you win your conference during the regular season, you're going to a post-season tournament.

It's too bad that the *spin-doctors and the NCAA's have ruined the importance (or once importance) of the NIT.

You win your conference, you're at least guaranteed a NIT tournament bid at worst.

No one cares about the NIT.

If your school is in it you do....

I posted this in the main basketball thread a couple weeks back.

Anyone who wins conference tournament deserves the title. That is the whole point. Giving it to the regular season champ could be a bad thing for numerous reasons.

Say for example in a 18 game conference slate:

Team A started 14-0 in conference play and ended the season going 0-4 to finish 14-4 in conference and are simply not the same team. But they get the bid because they won regular season even though they are playing awful ball down the stretch. Likely a team that could get blown out in the NCAA.

-or-

Team B who loses some conference games here and there. Had some young players that took time to gel with college ball and the team. This team finishes 13-5 in conference but has won 7 straight games and is peaking at the right time of the season. However they lost the head to head with Team A earlier in the season when Team A peaked early.


So in this scenario....which team would you rather have playing in the NCAA representing the conference? The team peaking at the end of the year capable of going on a run? Or the team that started hot but faltered late in the year. I think most would choose the team capable of going on a run. That is really what a conference tournament is all about IMHO.

You could also add injuries into the mix. Say team A lost those last 4 games because they lost their best player for the season. Imagine UTEP losing Vince Hunter, La Tech without "Speedy"....WKU without Fant or Price. Say those teams won the regular season because of early success. But do you really think they are going to be the same teams without a player that is basically the backbone of the team. Then you have team B who peaked at right time, has everyone fully healthy, but has no shot at an at large bid because of early season losses. They may still get a 12 seed in the NCAA and are far more capable when healthy of knocking anyone off.

There are tons of scenarios that can be given for either side of the argument. Either way, it can be a positive or negative thing. Especially for the lower level conferences.

Personally, I would rather have a team that peaks at the right time of year to represent the conference. But I agree in setting up tournament formats to reward teams for good regular seasons and allow them to have an easier road to a tournament championship. If other conference teams can take care of business in OOC. Then both the regular season and tourney champ will go dancing every season and this would not even be a discussion.

itt: mostly la tech fans that believe the regular season champ should go to the ncaa. imagine that.

(03-11-2015 02:47 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  itt: mostly la tech fans that believe the regular season champ should go to the ncaa. imagine that.

I don't care if it's Tech or Old Dominion or Rice or whomever, if they win the conference they should get in. Who would you rather represent your conference in the NCAA tournament when you only get a single bid? The team who was the better team through the season or an 8 or 9 seed with a sub. 500 record that pulled a few games out their butts to win the conference tournament. A #16 NCAA tournament seed who gets smoked by Duke or Wisconsin really helps the opinions of our conference.

(03-11-2015 02:47 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  itt: mostly la tech fans that believe the regular season champ should go to the ncaa. imagine that.

And you would be incorrect, imagine that.

(03-11-2015 07:11 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 02:47 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  itt: mostly la tech fans that believe the regular season champ should go to the ncaa. imagine that.

I don't care if it's Tech or Old Dominion or Rice or whomever, if they win the conference they should get in. Who would you rather represent your conference in the NCAA tournament when you only get a single bid? The team who was the better team through the season or an 8 or 9 seed with a sub. 500 record that pulled a few games out their butts to win the conference tournament. A #16 NCAA tournament seed who gets smoked by Duke or Wisconsin really helps the opinions of our conference.

win the tourney. if you can't beat an 8 or 9 seed you'll get smoked by duke or wisconsin as well.

la tech's track record in ncaa tourneys? last won a game in 1989.

(03-11-2015 08:31 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 02:47 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  itt: mostly la tech fans that believe the regular season champ should go to the ncaa. imagine that.

And you would be incorrect, imagine that.

well count them and I'll say uncle. as I read through it seemed it was 'mostly' la tech folks who seem very skeered of their chances.

(03-11-2015 08:45 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 08:31 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 02:47 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  itt: mostly la tech fans that believe the regular season champ should go to the ncaa. imagine that.

And you would be incorrect, imagine that.

well count them and I'll say uncle. as I read through it seemed it was 'mostly' la tech folks who seem very skeered of their chances.

You count them since you made the claim.

(03-11-2015 08:49 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 08:45 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 08:31 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 02:47 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  itt: mostly la tech fans that believe the regular season champ should go to the ncaa. imagine that.

And you would be incorrect, imagine that.

well count them and I'll say uncle. as I read through it seemed it was 'mostly' la tech folks who seem very skeered of their chances.

You count them since you made the claim.

I'll stick with my original contention that it was 'mostly' la tech fans. My gut is usually good on this. I thought maybe you'd counted them since you stated I was incorrect.

I win.

(03-11-2015 07:11 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 02:47 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  itt: mostly la tech fans that believe the regular season champ should go to the ncaa. imagine that.

I don't care if it's Tech or Old Dominion or Rice or whomever, if they win the conference they should get in. Who would you rather represent your conference in the NCAA tournament when you only get a single bid? The team who was the better team through the season or an 8 or 9 seed with a sub. 500 record that pulled a few games out their butts to win the conference tournament. A #16 NCAA tournament seed who gets smoked by Duke or Wisconsin really helps the opinions of our conference.

This year? If any of the top 5 teams win then I'll feel good about our representation and feel they deserve the bid. If any of the other 3 win out then good for them, they don't call it March Reasonableness and it's hard to say a team that wins 4 games in 4 days and theoretically at least has a tougher road to get there didn't earn the bid. But lets be honest, how likely is that to happen. We 're not a one trick pony league that if the top team has a tough night in the championship game then a scrub is going dancing.

(03-11-2015 01:27 PM)Rojogrande Wrote:  I posted this in the main basketball thread a couple weeks back.

Anyone who wins conference tournament deserves the title. That is the whole point. Giving it to the regular season champ could be a bad thing for numerous reasons.

Say for example in a 18 game conference slate:

Team A started 14-0 in conference play and ended the season going 0-4 to finish 14-4 in conference and are simply not the same team. But they get the bid because they won regular season even though they are playing awful ball down the stretch. Likely a team that could get blown out in the NCAA.

-or-

Team B who loses some conference games here and there. Had some young players that took time to gel with college ball and the team. This team finishes 13-5 in conference but has won 7 straight games and is peaking at the right time of the season. However they lost the head to head with Team A earlier in the season when Team A peaked early.


So in this scenario....which team would you rather have playing in the NCAA representing the conference? The team peaking at the end of the year capable of going on a run? Or the team that started hot but faltered late in the year. I think most would choose the team capable of going on a run. That is really what a conference tournament is all about IMHO.

You could also add injuries into the mix. Say team A lost those last 4 games because they lost their best player for the season. Imagine UTEP losing Vince Hunter, La Tech without "Speedy"....WKU without Fant or Price. Say those teams won the regular season because of early success. But do you really think they are going to be the same teams without a player that is basically the backbone of the team. Then you have team B who peaked at right time, has everyone fully healthy, but has no shot at an at large bid because of early season losses. They may still get a 12 seed in the NCAA and are far more capable when healthy of knocking anyone off.

There are tons of scenarios that can be given for either side of the argument. Either way, it can be a positive or negative thing. Especially for the lower level conferences.

Personally, I would rather have a team that peaks at the right time of year to represent the conference. But I agree in setting up tournament formats to reward teams for good regular seasons and allow them to have an easier road to a tournament championship. If other conference teams can take care of business in OOC. Then both the regular season and tourney champ will go dancing every season and this would not even be a discussion.

lol this is what happened last year with Tulsa - 1 and done in the dance.

2008 Sun Belt Regular Season Champion was South Alabama, WKU won the conference tournament that year.

WKU went to the Sweet 16 while South Alabama lost by 20 to Butler in the first round.

Proof enough for me that the tournament champion goes.

(03-12-2015 09:46 AM)CincyDave Wrote:  2008 Sun Belt Regular Season Champion was South Alabama, WKU won the conference tournament that year.

WKU went to the Sweet 16 while South Alabama lost by 20 to Butler in the first round.

Proof enough for me that the tournament champion goes.

you should just stop right there :)