Regular season champs going down in their conference tournaments:

Belmont, OVC
Oakland, Horizon
Illinois State, MVC
Monmouth, MAAC
South Dakota, Summit
UNC Greensboro, SoCon
UT-Arlington, Sun Belt
Akron, MAC
UC-Irvine, Big West
CSUB, WAC

Losing conference champs locks for NCAAT

Dayton, A-10
Purdue, Big Ten
North Carolina, ACC
Kansas, Big XII
Oregon, PAC 12


NCAAT AQ-earning regular season champs:

FGCU, A-Sun
Winthrop, Big South
UNC Wilmington, CAA
Mount St. Mary's, NEC
Gonzaga, WCC
Bucknell, Patriot
Vermont, AmEast
NC Central, MEAC
Texas Southern, SWAC
North Dakota, Big Sky
Villanova, Big East
Nevada, MWC
New Orleans, Southland
Middle Tennessee State, C-USA
Princeton, Ivy

Jay Bilas is an advocate of regular season conference champs getting the auto-bid. I don't disagree with him.

The 1 & 2 seeds in the Horizon lost to the 9 & 10 seeds today.

Ohio Valley and Horizon are notorious for having 1 team capable of a 1st round upset (the top 25 Murray team with Payne, a couple 15-1 & 14-2 Belmont teams, Valpo last year) that never get the shot because they blow it in the conference tournament.

(03-05-2017 02:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  Jay Bilas is an advocate of regular season conference champs getting the auto-bid. I don't disagree with him.

Yes. Regular-season champs should get the NCAA tournament autobid.

If you want to do something nice for conference-tournament champs who are not chosen for NCAA at-large bids, you can give them the NIT autobids.

(03-05-2017 02:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  Jay Bilas is an advocate of regular season conference champs getting the auto-bid. I don't disagree with him.

I can't stand him on most issues but he is rght. The tournaments are exciting but render the regular season absolutely meaningless. Basically the whole point of the regular season is to establish seeding for a conference tournament. That's ludicrous. This could be a major contributor that ratings are so poor until March. Maybe one solution would be to increase the field to 96 to incorporate auto berths for regular season winners.

Yeah, it's not like the regular season titles are won weeks or a month before season's end. The champs have earned something, and it should be more than a NIT bid, but, at least it's not nothing.

Champs shouldn't EVER be playing on another's floor, either. Murray State fell in a Belmont-friendly court their great season, and UNCW is crossing its fingers it doesn't get CoC on pretty much their floor.

Maybe the champ gets a bye to the conference tourney final? Yeah, the opponent gets some momentum, but, who should be playing into this thing again?

Anticipating the MVC result, where do you seed the Shockers?

If Illinois State doesn't make the NCAAT, here's a NIT 1-seed.

Monmouth joins this list, losing to Siena on the Saints home court.

Feel for Monmouth the last couple years.

(03-05-2017 07:12 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Monmouth joins this list, losing to Siena on the Saints home court.

27 wins might get them an at large bid. I'm not in favor of some mediocre power conference school with a losing conference record getting in over a team who has dominated their league the last two years.

If they wish to send the Regular Season Champ, then don't have a conference tournament.

(03-05-2017 08:57 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(03-05-2017 07:12 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Monmouth joins this list, losing to Siena on the Saints home court.

27 wins might get them an at large bid. I'm not in favor of some mediocre power conference school with a losing conference record getting in over a team who has dominated their league the last two years.

I agree. The Hawks are in the RPI Top 50. They scheduled tough. @SC, @UNC, and @Syracuse were all losses, but they beat Princeton at home (RPI rank 49, Ivy League champions) and went 11-2 against RPI 101-200 teams, including a win at Mempis (112). The Times Union Center is a tough place for opposing teams and the loss shouldn't entirely take away from their 17-game streak heading into today. It was a good game. They couldn't gameplan for Siena sophomore guard Nico Clareth, who was questionable to play with a tweaked ankle, but ended up going off 73%, including 7-for-9 from beyond the arc. I'll be annoyed if the committee passes over Monmouth.

I can live with both ISU and Monmouth not getting in...but who does if not them? This is where the bubble is praying for normalcy with MTSU, UNCW, UTA, the A10, and that BYU is put down in the WCC.

The result of the MVC game was going to complicate the bubble. MAAC did it again...and it's not the kind of conference that can.

(03-05-2017 09:35 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  If they wish to send the Regular Season Champ, then don't have a conference tournament.

No, the Number 2 regular season and Conference Tourney winners should be guaranteed an NIT berth ...

... and of course in many cases for the bigger conferences, winning the Conference Tourney would let a just outside the bubble team play their way into the Big Dance, so it would be worthwhile having for the big conferences on that score alone.

Bravo, UNCW (especially for pulling it off against Charleston in Charleston!). USD and UNCG? Not so much. More teams for the NIT!

(03-05-2017 02:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  Jay Bilas is an advocate of regular season conference champs getting the auto-bid. I don't disagree with him.

I don't like the idea of tie-breakers determining who goes dancing. You won the regular season, good job. You get preferential seeding in the tournament and no worse than an NIT birth. But this is March, win and advance. The past means nothing.

(03-07-2017 09:43 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-05-2017 02:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  Jay Bilas is an advocate of regular season conference champs getting the auto-bid. I don't disagree with him.

I don't like the idea of tie-breakers determining who goes dancing. You won the regular season, good job. You get preferential seeding in the tournament and no worse than an NIT birth. But this is March, win and advance. The past means nothing.

If you're in a single-bid conference, you benchmark your season a little differently than in a major one. You can afford to lose in a major conference, and lose often and to bad teams. Bad teams are all you play in some single-bid conferences, and how are you supposed to plan out a season when you can win a conference outright, and still not compete for a national championship?

I used to think coaches skipping out on the mid-majors was about money and recruiting advantages. I think pacing and planning is enough to make a person want to go to a bigger program. A "good enough" team in a major conference doesn't have to sweat losing their conference or conference tournament if they can turn it on in the tournament. A team who gets hot but not hot enough in a small or mid-major conference? They're lucky to even see a tournament. And if one does hit and can go to a tournament...how frequent are the return trips?

It's simply harder to do anything at a smaller program. Monmouth is a perfect example of that. You try and schedule and win what you can, you do a darn fine job at it (win over 80% of your games, and that isn't enough?)...where's the reward? Looking over at Vanderbilt, who might be the first team to ever hit 15-losses and get an at-large...surely this can be better?

No real madness the last two days with the conference champs. Business as usual in the Patriot and NEC.

With some of these mid-majors locking up their conference tournaments, I wonder if there's hope for Illinois State, Monmouth, and UTA.

Crazy start to the week...quickly subdued. This could shape up to be one of the most unshackled NIT fields since the AQ. On average, it was close to 30% of the field as AQ. One year was close to 50%. This year, maybe 20%?

Monmouth, Illinois State, UTA, and Akron would all play a better game than the four lowest major conference teams.