(03-24-2016 11:46 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 11:32 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:54 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  Let's not lose sight of the fact that those 20 conferences have it entirely within their own power to fix that. All they have to do is eliminate their conference tournament, and select their champion the old fashioned way - by regular season results within the conference.

So you're saying conferences that feature schools that have their athletic department heavily subsidized should cancel one of the few big moneymakers they have? Also, by having fewer games that would further hinder those conference chances of receiving at-large bids.

I didn't say anything even remotely close to that.

Then what point are you trying to get a crossed? Smaller conferences are faced with the decision of giving their regular season meaning at the cost of sacrificing desperately needed money or diluting their regular season so that they can receive desperately needed funds to support their athletics and receive national recognition.

Of the bottom 20 or so leagues, the Ivy League is the one that can in all likelihood most afford financially to forego the conference tournament. They have for a very long time, but the temptation finally got to them as they realized the money they were missing out on and knowing their only hope of ever getting 2 teams in is if 1 puts together a historic season, but loses in the championship game.

I proposed earlier that the tournament expand to 72 teams and the 4 additional spots be awarded to the 4 best teams that won their regular season, but didn't make the initial field of 68. This would bring some regular season meaning back these typical single bid conferences while not diluting March Madness. In fact, it would make the 1st round of the tournament better as teams like Monmouth and Valpo would slot in as an 11th or 12th seed pushing all the seeds back to strengthen the 13, 14, and 15 seeds. Who knows perhaps instead of Middle Tennessee upsetting MSU, they would have been a 16 seed upsetting Virginia. Talk about excitement.

I wasn't trying to get any point across. I was merely responding to the suggestion that the regular season doesn't count for the bottom 20 or so conferences. I doubt their conference tournaments generate much profit, if any. You put your finger on their reason for existence. They are hoping to steal a bid to the Big Dance when and if their best team gets upset in the conference tournament.

What I have proposed in the past is that those 20 conferences get 32 bids. Have them play two rounds in the week prior to Selection Sunday, with the 8 remaining winners going into the round of 64 with whatever seed they have earned. Historically, most of them would be seeded around 10-12, and have a reasonable chance to advance further.

But until that happens, they have no reason to gripe about the regular season not counting for them because they chose to give their weaker teams a chance to catch lightening in a bottle.

I'd support any system that restores some meaning back to conference play. The MAC put a system in place that gave top 2 seeds a bye to the semifinals. It took the excitement out of the tournament so that got axed.

People gripe because it is a broken system that needs fixing. If nothing is ever said, it will never change.

(03-24-2016 12:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Many conferences have instituted double byes and other mechanisms to provide huge advantages to the highest seeded teams. This was the result of unfortunate upsets that left conferences with 16 seed play-in game bids.

But the end result of that is that...it works most of the time. And now there are fewer lower level at large candidates because those candidates are taking automatic bids in greater numbers.

The MAC actually did away with the system this season because it translated into an annual 1 vs. 2 MAC tournament final killing the intrigue of the tournament.

15 teams received auto-bids to the NIT this year and that doesn't include the conferences that the regular season winner lost in their tournament, but still got an at-large. No, the extra byes still haven't fixed the problem.

(03-24-2016 01:02 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 12:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Many conferences have instituted double byes and other mechanisms to provide huge advantages to the highest seeded teams. This was the result of unfortunate upsets that left conferences with 16 seed play-in game bids.

But the end result of that is that...it works most of the time. And now there are fewer lower level at large candidates because those candidates are taking automatic bids in greater numbers.

The MAC actually did away with the system this season because it translated into an annual 1 vs. 2 MAC tournament final killing the intrigue of the tournament.

15 teams received auto-bids to the NIT this year and that doesn't include the conferences that the regular season winner lost in their tournament, but still got an at-large. No, the extra byes still haven't fixed the problem.

In the Sun Belt, a similar system was introduced. This was done because the top seed was repeatedly getting knocked off in the tourney, resulting in a couple of 16 seed one bid seasons. The double bye system works for the Belt. Since established, 2 round of 32 teams in a row.

And even the A-10 went to that system too. This was the first time that a conference champion didn't make the NCAAs. St Bonaventure (tied with 2 other teams for the championship).

(03-24-2016 03:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 01:02 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 12:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Many conferences have instituted double byes and other mechanisms to provide huge advantages to the highest seeded teams. This was the result of unfortunate upsets that left conferences with 16 seed play-in game bids.

But the end result of that is that...it works most of the time. And now there are fewer lower level at large candidates because those candidates are taking automatic bids in greater numbers.

The MAC actually did away with the system this season because it translated into an annual 1 vs. 2 MAC tournament final killing the intrigue of the tournament.

15 teams received auto-bids to the NIT this year and that doesn't include the conferences that the regular season winner lost in their tournament, but still got an at-large. No, the extra byes still haven't fixed the problem.

In the Sun Belt, a similar system was introduced. This was done because the top seed was repeatedly getting knocked off in the tourney, resulting in a couple of 16 seed one bid seasons. The double bye system works for the Belt. Since established, 2 round of 32 teams in a row.

And even the A-10 went to that system too. This was the first time that a conference champion didn't make the NCAAs. St Bonaventure (tied with 2 other teams for the championship).

Just looked up the brackets. The A-10 system isn't the same idea as the lower-tier leagues' double-bye. The A-10 (and the Big Ten, and probably other large leagues) send their top 4 teams straight to the quarterfinals, #5-10 go straight to the "Round of 16", #11-14 have to win a play-in to get to the "Round of 16". The A-10/Big 10 system warps the classic bracket to give #3 and 4 a bye to the quarterfinals, and make #11-14 play an extra game.

The Horizon League (and others I'm sure) give #1 and #2 a bye straight to the semis. #3-10 play in Round 1, 4 advance to Round 2, and then 2 advance to the Semis.

(03-24-2016 03:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 03:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 01:02 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 12:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Many conferences have instituted double byes and other mechanisms to provide huge advantages to the highest seeded teams. This was the result of unfortunate upsets that left conferences with 16 seed play-in game bids.

But the end result of that is that...it works most of the time. And now there are fewer lower level at large candidates because those candidates are taking automatic bids in greater numbers.

The MAC actually did away with the system this season because it translated into an annual 1 vs. 2 MAC tournament final killing the intrigue of the tournament.

15 teams received auto-bids to the NIT this year and that doesn't include the conferences that the regular season winner lost in their tournament, but still got an at-large. No, the extra byes still haven't fixed the problem.

In the Sun Belt, a similar system was introduced. This was done because the top seed was repeatedly getting knocked off in the tourney, resulting in a couple of 16 seed one bid seasons. The double bye system works for the Belt. Since established, 2 round of 32 teams in a row.

And even the A-10 went to that system too. This was the first time that a conference champion didn't make the NCAAs. St Bonaventure (tied with 2 other teams for the championship).

Just looked up the brackets. The A-10 system isn't the same idea as the lower-tier leagues' double-bye. The A-10 (and the Big Ten, and probably other large leagues) send their top 4 teams straight to the quarterfinals, #5-10 go straight to the "Round of 16", #11-14 have to win a play-in to get to the "Round of 16". The A-10/Big 10 system warps the classic bracket to give #3 and 4 a bye to the quarterfinals, and make #11-14 play an extra game.

The Horizon League (and others I'm sure) give #1 and #2 a bye straight to the semis. #3-10 play in Round 1, 4 advance to Round 2, and then 2 advance to the Semis.

Fair enough. We call it a 'double bye' in the conference. But it really isn't like the Belt double bye.