(03-14-2016 02:46 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  It has always been my contention that there should not be conference tournaments. They are nothing but a money grab and lessen the value of winning the conference. How many teams that won their conference lost in the conference tournament? How many of those are not in the big show because they had a bad game? They could go undefeated in their conference but because they lost a game in the tournament and because they did not have a strong schedule and RPI not be included in the Big show.

The way the rules are now, all conference tournaments winners get the pass into the tournament. Wouldn't it make more sense to put the regular season champion in the show? If you still want to have the money grabbing conference tournaments, then let those place the at-large bids based on who gets hot at the right time? Most of those conference tournaments make little or no money anyway. It is just the P-5 games that draw any people.

But I am still on the bandwagon of not having conference tournaments. Just think...UC might have another NC if we did not have to play a conference tournament game in 2000.

I think all conference champs should get a pass to the tourney finals.

(03-14-2016 05:42 PM)doss2 Wrote:  

(03-14-2016 02:46 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  It has always been my contention that there should not be conference tournaments. They are nothing but a money grab and lessen the value of winning the conference. How many teams that won their conference lost in the conference tournament? How many of those are not in the big show because they had a bad game? They could go undefeated in their conference but because they lost a game in the tournament and because they did not have a strong schedule and RPI not be included in the Big show.

The way the rules are now, all conference tournaments winners get the pass into the tournament. Wouldn't it make more sense to put the regular season champion in the show? If you still want to have the money grabbing conference tournaments, then let those place the at-large bids based on who gets hot at the right time? Most of those conference tournaments make little or no money anyway. It is just the P-5 games that draw any people.

But I am still on the bandwagon of not having conference tournaments. Just think...UC might have another NC if we did not have to play a conference tournament game in 2000.

I think all conference champs should get a pass to the tourney finals.

The big thing with this and also determining the auto bid is all the shared championships in this day and age. Tiebreakers often don't cut it since most leagues have unbalanced schedules.

So what do you do if 3 teams tie? What if one of the teams in the tie lucked out and only played the other 2 teams twice, while the other two played head to head. What happens if a team wins the league by one game, but lucked out and only played the other top 2-4 teams one time feasting the in the dregs of the league, while the ones that finished in 2nd played all the top teams. Tiebreakers can really suck and can't really determine the better team in many scenarios.

The unbalanced schedules have made this a regular occurrence in the regular season. I agree that you play the schedule you are handed. But if your tourney life is dependent on it, is it fair? Though honestly I would say the tournament is less fair since one bad game and you are out and the entire conference abides by the rules.

Honestly I'd be more inclined to see a playoff between the tied teams for the bid. But money talks and that is why the conference tourneys exist. At least they are now locked into the NIT if they don't win their conference tourney. I think it was on Mike and Mike this morning where they said the conference tourney makes enough money for some of this leagues to keep them afloat. Without the tourney, they may be forced to shutdown the league and some teams would kill their programs. That seems a little far fetched, but the guy was insistent.

(03-14-2016 05:42 PM)doss2 Wrote:  

(03-14-2016 02:46 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  It has always been my contention that there should not be conference tournaments. They are nothing but a money grab and lessen the value of winning the conference. How many teams that won their conference lost in the conference tournament? How many of those are not in the big show because they had a bad game? They could go undefeated in their conference but because they lost a game in the tournament and because they did not have a strong schedule and RPI not be included in the Big show.

The way the rules are now, all conference tournaments winners get the pass into the tournament. Wouldn't it make more sense to put the regular season champion in the show? If you still want to have the money grabbing conference tournaments, then let those place the at-large bids based on who gets hot at the right time? Most of those conference tournaments make little or no money anyway. It is just the P-5 games that draw any people.

But I am still on the bandwagon of not having conference tournaments. Just think...UC might have another NC if we did not have to play a conference tournament game in 2000.

I think all conference champs should get a pass to the tourney finals.

It used to be that way and the only teams having a end of season tournament was the ACC. Many times the conference champion did not win the tournament, and since only one team could go, they had to stay home. The NCAAs were originally a 8 team tournament (Oregon was the first champion). Then it went to 16, then 32, then 64 and now 68 teams.

Ctip, don't forget the years where it was a 48 team tourney.

Actually there was a rather significant time period of around 24 teams.

(03-14-2016 02:46 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  It has always been my contention that there should not be conference tournaments. They are nothing but a money grab and lessen the value of winning the conference. How many teams that won their conference lost in the conference tournament? How many of those are not in the big show because they had a bad game? They could go undefeated in their conference but because they lost a game in the tournament and because they did not have a strong schedule and RPI not be included in the Big show.

The way the rules are now, all conference tournaments winners get the pass into the tournament. Wouldn't it make more sense to put the regular season champion in the show? If you still want to have the money grabbing conference tournaments, then let those place the at-large bids based on who gets hot at the right time? Most of those conference tournaments make little or no money anyway. It is just the P-5 games that draw any people.

But I am still on the bandwagon of not having conference tournaments. Just think...UC might have another NC if we did not have to play a conference tournament game in 2000.

Usually a money grab until some blow hard decides to put the tourney in a bad locale. I wonder if they even broke even this year?