+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: So conference tournaments are meaningless? (/thread-812217.html)
So conference tournaments are meaningless? - dbackjon - 03-12-2017 05:05 PM
Both Kansas and North Carolina stay number 1C it's despite losing Early and their tournaments
RE: So conference tournaments are meaningless? - Artifice - 03-12-2017 05:10 PM
(03-12-2017 05:05 PM)dbackjon Wrote: Both Kansas and North Carolina stay number 1C it's despite losing Early and their tournaments
Everything about college sports is rigged. The sooner you realize it the sooner you can find a healthier way to invest your time.
RE: So conference tournaments are meaningless? - RutgersGuy - 03-12-2017 05:13 PM
(03-12-2017 05:05 PM)dbackjon Wrote: Both Kansas and North Carolina stay number 1C it's despite losing Early and their tournaments
It's about a seasons worth of work not a single tournament. Don't know how you say they are meaningless when teams who wouldn't make the NCAA's get in every year through them.
RE: So conference tournaments are meaningless? - Wedge - 03-12-2017 06:25 PM
Committee treats conference tournament games and regular-season games the same way. Did you win or lose, how good is the opponent, was it home, away, or neutral court.
It looks like the committee switched Arizona and Oregon based on the Pac-12 tournament final. But those two teams were very close before the game.
Committee obviously didn't think Duke was close enough to UNC to pass them based on the ACC final.
Kansas is 28-4, including 5-1 against other teams that received NCAA tournament top-4 seeds. They kept their #1 seed because they were far enough ahead of the teams that got #2 and 3 seeds.
Kansas State was the last at-large in the field and probably made the tournament because they beat Baylor in the Big 12 tournament, but not because that game was played in the conference tournament. It was because it was their 3rd win of the season over an NCAA top-4 seed.
RE: So conference tournaments are meaningless? - quo vadis - 03-12-2017 06:55 PM
(03-12-2017 05:10 PM)Artifice Wrote:(03-12-2017 05:05 PM)dbackjon Wrote: Both Kansas and North Carolina stay number 1C it's despite losing Early and their tournaments
Everything about college sports is rigged.
It's hard to argue anything about college basketball is rigged against North Carolina and Kansas.
RE: So conference tournaments are meaningless? - esayem - 03-12-2017 07:39 PM
They aren't meaningless. Michigan's showing in their tournament helped their seeding tremendously. Although...I'll be run out on a rail for admitting this: I think Duke deserved the one seed over UNC.
RE: So conference tournaments are meaningless? - jdgaucho - 03-12-2017 07:45 PM
Tell UC Davis, Northern Kentucky, Rhode Island, NMSU... that conference tourneys are meaningless.
RE: So conference tournaments are meaningless? - cleburneslim - 03-12-2017 09:43 PM
Rigged to favor the big name money schools. The rest are simply irrelevant also rans.
RE: So conference tournaments are meaningless? - Stugray2 - 03-13-2017 10:36 AM
(03-12-2017 06:25 PM)Wedge Wrote: Committee treats conference tournament games and regular-season games the same way. Did you win or lose, how good is the opponent, was it home, away, or neutral court.
It looks like the committee switched Arizona and Oregon based on the Pac-12 tournament final. But those two teams were very close before the game.
Committee obviously didn't think Duke was close enough to UNC to pass them based on the ACC final.
Kansas is 28-4, including 5-1 against other teams that received NCAA tournament top-4 seeds. They kept their #1 seed because they were far enough ahead of the teams that got #2 and 3 seeds.
Kansas State was the last at-large in the field and probably made the tournament because they beat Baylor in the Big 12 tournament, but not because that game was played in the conference tournament. It was because it was their 3rd win of the season over an NCAA top-4 seed.
Oregon's seed was impacted by Chris Boucher's injury. That is a big blow to their chances, and to the Pac-12 having a good tournament. The Committee factored that in a little bit, although they only have a couple games to examine the team without him.
RE: So conference tournaments are meaningless? - samandrea - 03-13-2017 07:50 PM
(03-12-2017 07:39 PM)esayem Wrote: They aren't meaningless. Michigan's showing in their tournament helped their seeding tremendously. Although...I'll be run out on a rail for admitting this: I think Duke deserved the one seed over UNC.I would have had no issue if dook and UNC were switched
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
RE: So conference tournaments are meaningless? - BruceMcF - 03-14-2017 12:02 AM
Definitely not meaningless to Akron and Kent.
So conference tournaments are meaningless? - Lenvillecards - 03-14-2017 06:50 PM
(03-13-2017 10:36 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:(03-12-2017 06:25 PM)Wedge Wrote: Committee treats conference tournament games and regular-season games the same way. Did you win or lose, how good is the opponent, was it home, away, or neutral court.
It looks like the committee switched Arizona and Oregon based on the Pac-12 tournament final. But those two teams were very close before the game.
Committee obviously didn't think Duke was close enough to UNC to pass them based on the ACC final.
Kansas is 28-4, including 5-1 against other teams that received NCAA tournament top-4 seeds. They kept their #1 seed because they were far enough ahead of the teams that got #2 and 3 seeds.
Kansas State was the last at-large in the field and probably made the tournament because they beat Baylor in the Big 12 tournament, but not because that game was played in the conference tournament. It was because it was their 3rd win of the season over an NCAA top-4 seed.
Oregon's seed was impacted by Chris Boucher's injury. That is a big blow to their chances, and to the Pac-12 having a good tournament. The Committee factored that in a little bit, although they only have a couple games to examine the team without him.
The committees chairman said that Duke improved from a 4 to a 2 seed because of their performance in the ACC tournament. He also said that the 1's were already solid going into the tournaments.
RE: So conference tournaments are meaningless? - BruceMcF - 03-15-2017 05:53 AM
(03-14-2017 06:50 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: The committees chairman said that Duke improved from a 4 to a 2 seed because of their performance in the ACC tournament. He also said that the 1's were already solid going into the tournaments.Unless the match-ups with the seventh seed are substantially worse than the match-ups with the fifth seed, going from a 4 seed to a 2 seed would normally be an appreciable increase in odds of getting to the Sweet Sixteen.
RE: So conference tournaments are meaningless? - Hood-rich - 03-15-2017 08:15 AM
(03-12-2017 06:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:(03-12-2017 05:10 PM)Artifice Wrote:(03-12-2017 05:05 PM)dbackjon Wrote: Both Kansas and North Carolina stay number 1C it's despite losing Early and their tournaments
Everything about college sports is rigged.
It's hard to argue anything about college basketball is rigged against North Carolina and Kansas.
What? DId you read those 2 posts?
RE: So conference tournaments are meaningless? - kreed5120 - 03-15-2017 03:41 PM
Try telling that to Monmouth, Akron, and all the other mid-majors that lost their conference tournament.