The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(02-24-2016 07:04 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 01:47 AM)Hopeful Wrote:  Regardless of how it ends up, I much prefer the tournament determining the automatic bid over the regular season. It makes more sense to me that the hottest team is the one that should get in over the arguably more consistent team. Becoming the regular season champion is definitely an achievement that deserves recognition, but having the automatic bid on the line makes the tournament that much more interesting to me. Without that, the season would practically be over for most teams way before it's actually done.

There is absolutely no reason to have a tournament when you already determine a champion in the regular season. The Ivy League get it right, the other 31 conferences don't. And it makes the regular season more meaningful. In your argument, you're basically saying a team like North Texas would be more deserving of a automatic bid than a UAB, MTSU, or Marshall because they got hot in a tournament even though they have sucked most of the regular season.

And so what if the season would be over for most teams way before it was actually done, you don't reward mediocrity. Why even have a regular season?

I'll be all about North Texas getting that automatic bid if they beat UAB or if we didn't even make it to the championship game. To me, that's getting it done when it matters the most and that's what the tournaments are all about. That's not rewarding mediocrity. That's a team coming together to earn a sure spot in the NCAA tournament, the same opportunity that more than the better half of the conference gets.

The regular season isn't invalidated by the conference tournament. The grind isn't as fierce, but the games most certainly matter. We don't have the luxury of coasting into the NCAA tournament because of our conference, but the regular season has always provided avenues for success if you do well. If the team is out there rolling, then you can get that at large bid. If you're kind of spotty/the conference is down/etc., then you're still set up to have some kind of advantage in the tournament.

Based on some of the logic in this thread, UAB should have turned down the NCAA bid last year. We were mediocre all season.

(02-24-2016 03:38 PM)Hopeful Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 07:04 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 01:47 AM)Hopeful Wrote:  Regardless of how it ends up, I much prefer the tournament determining the automatic bid over the regular season. It makes more sense to me that the hottest team is the one that should get in over the arguably more consistent team. Becoming the regular season champion is definitely an achievement that deserves recognition, but having the automatic bid on the line makes the tournament that much more interesting to me. Without that, the season would practically be over for most teams way before it's actually done.

There is absolutely no reason to have a tournament when you already determine a champion in the regular season. The Ivy League get it right, the other 31 conferences don't. And it makes the regular season more meaningful. In your argument, you're basically saying a team like North Texas would be more deserving of a automatic bid than a UAB, MTSU, or Marshall because they got hot in a tournament even though they have sucked most of the regular season.

And so what if the season would be over for most teams way before it was actually done, you don't reward mediocrity. Why even have a regular season?

I'll be all about North Texas getting that automatic bid if they beat UAB or if we didn't even make it to the championship game. To me, that's getting it done when it matters the most and that's what the tournaments are all about. That's not rewarding mediocrity. That's a team coming together to earn a sure spot in the NCAA tournament, the same opportunity that more than the better half of the conference gets.

The regular season isn't invalidated by the conference tournament. The grind isn't as fierce, but the games most certainly matter. We don't have the luxury of coasting into the NCAA tournament because of our conference, but the regular season has always provided avenues for success if you do well. If the team is out there rolling, then you can get that at large bid. If you're kind of spotty/the conference is down/etc., then you're still set up to have some kind of advantage in the tournament.

The tournament is about making money for a conference. But in order to justify having a tournament the at-large bid is tied to it. Again, the Ivy League get it right. Playing a 18 game conference schedule and traveling to different cities via bus or plane is a grind. A four-day tournament isn't a grind.

Now, if you want to limit the conference tourney to the top 6 teams I would be good with that. But a team that has been mediocre during the regular season do not deserve a chance to play for an at-large bid......period. We complain about how bad this conference sucks but we're willing to give teams that isn't pulling their weight an opportunity to shine in the biggest college basketball spotlight. It just doesn't make sense.

Everyone is concerned about a mediocre team getting lucky and winning the CUSA tournament. When has that happened? I can think of possibly two times that has happened. UAB last year and Houston a few years back when Heart Attack Penders was coach. Why is everyone worrying about a scenario that most likely won't happen. There are only four teams that have a shot at winning CUSA tournament this year. And all four would be good representatives in the NCAA tournament.

I hope and believe it will be UAB. But an FIU or Rice just isn't going to do it. This is an irrational fear.

(02-24-2016 07:47 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  Everyone is concerned about a mediocre team getting lucky and winning the CUSA tournament. When has that happened? I can think of possibly two times that has happened. UAB last year and Houston a few years back when Heart Attack Penders was coach. Why is everyone worrying about a scenario that most likely won't happen. There are only four teams that have a shot at winning CUSA tournament this year. And all four would be good representatives in the NCAA tournament.

I hope and believe it will be UAB. But an FIU or Rice just isn't going to do it. This is an irrational fear.

So having a conversation and voicing an opinion about something doesn't mean one is worried or fearful about it actually happening. Whether or not the chances of it happening isn't the point. The fact is it could happen and it has happened in other one-bid conferences.

It's not irrational but it isn't a fear either. We're just voicing our opinions. You're reading way too much into a difference of opinions. I have always believed the regular season champ deserved the auto-bid. But I've accepted the fact that the winner of a four day tournament will get the bid.

UAB was a top 4 seed in CUSA last year.
If we had not lost the two games at F_U we may have won the reg season.
Not much more of an upset than if Marshall wins this year.

(02-24-2016 03:46 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  Based on some of the logic in this thread, UAB should have turned down the NCAA bid last year. We were mediocre all season.

We weren't mediocre--we were RISING. There IS a difference.

I know it's tough if we win #1 in the regular season, but then lose the tournament that we'd be in the NIT, but that's really not a bad consolation prize.

Having said that, I do believe G5 conferences (and C-USA IS one of those) should get 2 automatic bids instead of one: Regular season champ and tournament champ. If they're one and the same, then that means an at-large bid is available. I also don't understand in what universe it's fair that P5 conferences like the $EC get more than 4 bids. I can see #1 and #2 in each P5 conference regular season and tournament getting in but #3 in either? Come on.

So many bad ideas in one thread.

Let's play a drinking game.

(02-24-2016 09:58 PM)Blazer88 Wrote:  So many bad ideas in one thread.

There aren't any ideas in this thread.

(02-24-2016 09:38 PM)EnviroBlazerD Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 03:46 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  Based on some of the logic in this thread, UAB should have turned down the NCAA bid last year. We were mediocre all season.

We weren't mediocre--we were RISING. There IS a difference.

I know it's tough if we win #1 in the regular season, but then lose the tournament that we'd be in the NIT, but that's really not a bad consolation prize.

Having said that, I do believe G5 conferences (and C-USA IS one of those) should get 2 automatic bids instead of one: Regular season champ and tournament champ. If they're one and the same, then that means an at-large bid is available. I also don't understand in what universe it's fair that P5 conferences like the $EC get more than 4 bids. I can see #1 and #2 in each P5 conference regular season and tournament getting in but #3 in either? Come on.

So you think the SWAC and the MEAC and Patriot all deserve two teams in the NCAA tournament if there is an upset in the conference tournament? Talk about watering down a tournament. That won't happen.


Fans like a few little teams in the tournament to possibly be Cinderella, but they don't want over half the tournament field to be that way. There are more power 5 teams in the tournament because they have the most fans. That's just the way it is. Nobody is going to suddenly make everyone equal.

So, all you guys mad Tech didn't get the autobid last year?

(02-24-2016 10:23 PM)Smaug Wrote:  So, all you guys mad Tech didn't get the autobid last year?

Why does anyone has to be mad about it? Is having a disagreement on this board always construed as being mad?

It is amazing how something so simple is going right over your heads. If you gave the autobid to the regular season champ, there would be no need for a conference tournament. This is how the Ivy League does it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Leag..._Champions

Just read the first paragraph. This isn't about a team or program, it's about a process. If you like having a conference tournament to decide who gets an at-large then fine by me. It's not my preference but that's just me.

I have always thought the conference regular season champ should get the NCAA bid also. In my mind it's unfair to have a team that's proved itself over the entire conference schedule potentially lose one game
And all that be for naught. I know the current set up benefitted UAB last year, but overall, I don't like it..

Not sure what the alternative is. No post season conference tournament?

(02-24-2016 10:36 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  It is amazing how something so simple is going right over your heads. If you gave the autobid to the regular season champ, there would be no need for a conference tournament. This is how the Ivy League does it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Leag..._Champions

Just read the first paragraph. This isn't about a team or program, it's about a process. If you like having a conference tournament to decide who gets an at-large then fine by me. It's not my preference but that's just me.

The regular season champ should win the tournament

Why is a tournament that lasts 3-4 days more important than an entire regular season?

March madness is large enough to make it legitimate in my mind.

(02-24-2016 10:23 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 09:38 PM)EnviroBlazerD Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 03:46 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  Based on some of the logic in this thread, UAB should have turned down the NCAA bid last year. We were mediocre all season.

We weren't mediocre--we were RISING. There IS a difference.

I know it's tough if we win #1 in the regular season, but then lose the tournament that we'd be in the NIT, but that's really not a bad consolation prize.

Having said that, I do believe G5 conferences (and C-USA IS one of those) should get 2 automatic bids instead of one: Regular season champ and tournament champ. If they're one and the same, then that means an at-large bid is available. I also don't understand in what universe it's fair that P5 conferences like the $EC get more than 4 bids. I can see #1 and #2 in each P5 conference regular season and tournament getting in but #3 in either? Come on.

So you think the SWAC and the MEAC and Patriot all deserve two teams in the NCAA tournament if there is an upset in the conference tournament? Talk about watering down a tournament. That won't happen.


Fans like a few little teams in the tournament to possibly be Cinderella, but they don't want over half the tournament field to be that way. There are more power 5 teams in the tournament because they have the most fans. That's just the way it is. Nobody is going to suddenly make everyone equal.

It's not "over half the field", it's a maximum of TEN teams, out of 68. Probably less most years because at least 1 or 2 of those regular-season champs would go on to win their tournament. Of course, I also feel a 96-team tourney would be better, with an opening round of 64 between the 9-24 seeds, before the 1-8 seeds who got a bye play the winners of those games in another round of 64, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms...

(02-24-2016 11:17 PM)EnviroBlazerD Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 10:23 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 09:38 PM)EnviroBlazerD Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 03:46 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  Based on some of the logic in this thread, UAB should have turned down the NCAA bid last year. We were mediocre all season.

We weren't mediocre--we were RISING. There IS a difference.

I know it's tough if we win #1 in the regular season, but then lose the tournament that we'd be in the NIT, but that's really not a bad consolation prize.

Having said that, I do believe G5 conferences (and C-USA IS one of those) should get 2 automatic bids instead of one: Regular season champ and tournament champ. If they're one and the same, then that means an at-large bid is available. I also don't understand in what universe it's fair that P5 conferences like the $EC get more than 4 bids. I can see #1 and #2 in each P5 conference regular season and tournament getting in but #3 in either? Come on.

So you think the SWAC and the MEAC and Patriot all deserve two teams in the NCAA tournament if there is an upset in the conference tournament? Talk about watering down a tournament. That won't happen.


Fans like a few little teams in the tournament to possibly be Cinderella, but they don't want over half the tournament field to be that way. There are more power 5 teams in the tournament because they have the most fans. That's just the way it is. Nobody is going to suddenly make everyone equal.

It's not "over half the field", it's a maximum of TEN teams, out of 68. Probably less most years because at least 1 or 2 of those regular-season champs would go on to win their tournament. Of course, I also feel a 96-team tourney would be better, with an opening round of 64 between the 9-24 seeds, before the 1-8 seeds who got a bye play the winners of those games in another round of 64, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms...

I was going to respond, until I saw the 96 team tournament endorsement and realized my response would be wasted on you. There is no middle ground to agree on.

(02-24-2016 10:55 PM)Blazer88 Wrote:  The regular season champ should win the tournament

And married couples should always be happy.