As a Liberty alum, I am enjoying being back in the Dance for the third straight year. We won the regular season outright and are back in the championship game on Sunday. The reason why we are already has to do with the ASUN leadership's decision to allow transitioning members Bellarmine and North Alabama into the league tourney.

North Alabama pulled off a couple of upsets and is now in the final. That means we advance whether we win or lose based on league guidelines that if an ineligible team wins the tourney then the commissioner can designate whomever he chooses based on NET rankings and regular seaosn results. That left Liberty as the only choice.

It is natural to ask why a league would choose to let ineligible teams to create such a situation. I have my suspicions why the ASUN commissioner is doing this while courting football schools.

Should leagues be allowed to admit ineligible teams into their tourneys?

(03-06-2021 08:57 AM)SlyFox Wrote:  As a Liberty alum, I am enjoying being back in the Dance for the third straight year. We won the regular season outright and are back in the championship game on Sunday. The reason why we are already has to do with the ASUN leadership's decision to allow transitioning members Bellarmine and North Alabama into the league tourney.

North Alabama pulled off a couple of upsets and is now in the final. That means we advance whether we win or lose based on league guidelines that if an ineligible team wins the tourney then the commissioner can designate whomever he chooses based on NET rankings and regular seaosn results. That left Liberty as the only choice.

It is natural to ask why a league would choose to let ineligible teams to create such a situation. I have my suspicions why the ASUN commissioner is doing this while courting football schools.

Should leagues be allowed to admit ineligible teams into their tourneys?

The better question is, why should these teams be ineligible?

If a team is transitioning from D2 as we were/are, then we’re supposed to have lesser talent than the teams around us. If we (or Bellarmine, or whoever) then manage to win a conference tournament with this “disadvantage”, why should those guys (or girls) be punished and not allowed to compete in the postseason? It honestly makes no sense to me when the NCAA crows about doing things for the student athlete.

I believe Ted Gumbart made a point on Twitter a few days ago. A player can transfer from a D2 school to a D1 and not be ineligible for the postseason. Why should every UNA player be ineligible, and possibly for their entire career? It’s just wrong.

I assume the rule is to partially discourage some schools from making the jump. Maybe? Perhaps there is an obvious reason I’m not seeing. But I really don’t get it.

Honestly I’d be ok if the rule was modified to not allow a transitioning team an at-large bid. But I do think these teams should participate in their conference tournament. And on the rare occasions they win, they deserve to go to the Dance.

I like Gumbart a lot and I appreciate when he challenges the NCAA, the so called defender and advocate of the student athlete, when they do things that are anti-athlete.

The NCAA’s rule on post season ineligibility for transitioning programs is purely punitive in its design. It’s designed to discourage transitions by potentially wrecking programs in the transition process and crippling with the stigma of a losing program for years. It’s a serious recruiting disadvantage when recruits will have zero chance at being in the tournament.

If a D2 upgrade is good enough to win their conference tournament, they deserve a trip to the dance.

Yes, the ASUN has done the right thing allowing all their conference members to play for a championship.

These teams should be eligible for the NCAA tourny anyway.

You think this is bad, how about the California Baptist women's basketball team? They're UNDEFEATED.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...619847001/

Absolutely not.

I think they should be able to login the conference tournament. If they want a 2 year transition ban for the NCAA tournament then maybe allow them to play for the NIT bid. I think 2 years max might be needed to make sure there compliment with D1 standards.

The conference should make the decision that is best for them and their members. Every situation is different and one size doesn't fit all. For the WAC, it makes perfect sense at this point in time.

Since D1 to D2 transfers are immediately eligible, I had assumed this rule existed to stop a team from loading up on immediately eligible transfers just before transitioning.

I think it depends on the reason. If a team is ineligible for the NCAA tournament because of some transition thing, then they should be allowed to play for the conference tournament title. They haven't done anything wrong and are conference members of good standing.

But if they are ineligible for the NCAA because of cheating-probation of some kind, then I would keep them out of the conference tournament as well. Wouldn't want a cheater to be able to wreck someone else's NCAA tournament chances.