Conference Tournies: Pointless?

[FirstTimer]

What is the purpose of conference tournies? Each year they happen and the last year or so on MM I have questioned if they serve any real purpose in relation to making the NCAA Tourny better or have any real purpose in being meaningful games.

In my opinion they are pointless. If anything it gives undeserving teams a chance to get hot for a few games and sneak into the NCAA Tourny and take away a spot from a better at large team. A few examples are Miami(OH) a few years ago and an 11-18 Oakland team years ago as well.

Why have them? I know it draws in extra revenue for the conferences but you just played a nearly 20 game conference schedule to determine the champion. That should be enough of a body of work, coupled with the out of conference schedule in my opinion, to determine seedings etc You don't need a conference tournament. Your regular season conference champ gets the automatic bid to the Big Dance and the committee sorts out the other teams to give ourselves the field of 64...and while we are at it can we PLEASE do away with the lame ass "Play in game"? Jesus Christ that thing is absurd.

 

[Senser81]

co-sign. The conference tournaments are just one more way to gauge the public for some more money. From a competitive standpoint, its illogical to have a 4-game tournament basically wipe away a 20-game regular season. But, from a financial standpoint, why not play a few more games and grab some extra cash?

The play-in game is possibly the most retarded thing in sports. How did it ever come about? Is adding that 65th team really making a difference in the NCAA tournament? Does ANYONE even watch the Tuesday play-in game?

 

[kmanharris]

Who cares about the play-in game. Those teams fighting it our have a chance to make the tournament so let them fight it out for that accomplishment. Conference tournys are just for the money but they don't wipe away a 20 game regular season.

 

[Senser81]

Who cares about the play-in game. Those teams fighting it our have a chance to make the tournament so let them fight it out for that accomplishment.

No, its not. The teams they have competing in the play-in game are teams that have already received an automatic bid for winning their conference. The play-in game MIGHT make sense if it actually featured the last two at-large teams fighting it out for the 64th spot in the tournament...but it doesn't! It features two teams who have already received automatic bids to the tournament. Thats why I think its retarded, because it isn't even a 'play-in' game, really.

 

[ralaw]

I like conference tournaments because I'm a fan of the "win or go home" philosophy, as it makes for good and in some cases better basketball. Conceivably you could have the same sort of philosophy across a 25+ game schedule, but there is something special about it happening within 4 games that makes it different. I don’t get the logic behind saying the regular season champ isn’t rewarded, because they are, as they get the #1 seed in the conference tournament. The top seeds in the elite conferences are locks for the NCAA tournament anyways, while the top seed in the lower mid-majors faces the mediocre lower seeded teams, so they should win. I see nothing wrong with those teams having to maintain a certain level of play to make it into the NCAA Tournament.

I also don't believe a team n the middle or bottom of the conference should have their season over abruptly at the end of the season. IMO it would be sort of lame for non-professional teams to play 25+ games and simply be placed in the tournament. I like the conference tournaments because they are exciting to watch as the emotions of the game are on full display.

Conference tournaments are for those bubble teams in elite conferences and for those lesser teams in lower conferences to be given a chance to play in the tournament. I see no problem with a team getting on a hot streak playing its way into the NCAA tournament via the conference tournament.

 

[FirstTimer]

I like conference tournaments because I'm a fan of the "win or go home" philosophy, as it makes for good and in some cases better basketball.

Isn't that what the NCAA Tournament is for?

Not to say a team that won the regular season shouldn't be rewarded, but I also don't believe a team n the middle or bottom of the conference should have their season over abruptly at the end of the season. IMO it would be sort of lame for non-professional teams to play 25+ games and simply be placed in the tournament. I like the conference tournaments because they are exciting to watch as the emotions of the game are on full display.

The kids had 25 games in the regular season to show emotions in. It's not as if any team in the conference started with a distinct advantage. All the teams started out 0-0. Each had a chance to create their own destiny over the course of the season and win the league. Some fail. It's life. Simply giving the shittier teams the the league a 2nd chance to get into the NCAA tournament serves no real good purpose. In the end it can only hurt the pool of teams making the Big Dance. I'd rather have the debate be about solid consistant teams getting into the tournament rather than having to worry about some flukey conference tourny winner who is just going to get bounced out in the 1st round anyways.I mean can anyone name a subpar team that got into the tourny simply based on the merit of winning the conference tourny and actually did anything, let alone win a game?

 

[ralaw]

Isn't that what the NCAA Tournament is for?

That’s correct, but does that mean conference tournaments should be eradicated? IMO the system isn’t broke, so why try to change it?

The kids had 25 games in the regular season to show emotions in. It's not as if any team in the conference started with a distinct advantage. All the teams started out 0-0. Each had a chance to create their own destiny over the course of the season and win the league. Some fail. It's life. Simply giving the shittier teams the the league a 2nd chance to get into the NCAA tournament serves no real good purpose.

As I said, there is a difference between emotions across a 25+ games season and those within a 4 day conference tournament….especially for those seniors who’s basketball careers are over once the season is over with.

In the end it can only hurt the pool of teams making the Big Dance. I'd rather have the debate be about solid consistant teams getting into the tournament rather than having to worry about some flukey conference tourny winner who is just going to get bounced out in the 1st round anyways.

I wouldn't call winning 4 games across 4 days a fluke. In reality among the mid majors is there a difference between the conference champion and the tournament champion? Generally, among mid majors the conference champion wins the tournament anyways because they’re generally senior dominated and/or coached by an up and coming coach. I just don’t see the issue with conference tournaments…..I absolutely love them and for the most part try to watch all of them.

 

[FirstTimer]

That’s correct, but does that mean conference tournaments should be eradicated? IMO the system isn’t broke, so why try to change it?

When teams like Oakland a few years ago and Miami(OH) are getting automatic bids to the Biggest Tounry of the year and regular season conference champs don't even get automatic bids then the system is broke.

As I said, there is a difference between emotions across a 25+ games season and those within a 4 day conference tournament….especially for those seniors who’s basketball careers are over once the season is over with.

That's what schools have senior night for. There are plenty of seniors who stop playing sports every year. Sacrificing the potential quality of the Biggest Tournamnet of the year for their "emotions" and feelings is absurd.

I wouldn't call winning 4 games across 4 days a fluke.

I would. When a 19 loss Illinois team comes within 1 game of reaching The Big Dance then yes that's a fluke. Any team can be good for a short stretch of games. The good teams can do it over the course of the season. Let those teams in the tourny, not the flukey toruny teams.

In reality among the mid majors is there a difference between the conference champion and the tournament champion?

See Oakland and Miami(OH)

 

[FirstTimer]

For every Oakland and Miami Ohio, there's a Syracuse McNamerra's senior year story where a bubble team, maybe slightly outside of the bubble getting hot at the perfect time, ripping through tournament, and earning themselves a spot in the big dance.

And they lost in the first round to Texas A&M. Which just furthers my point that if you can't get in the tournament based on your 25 game regular season merits alone you don't deserve to go.

 

[Senser81]

For every Oakland and Miami Ohio, there's a Syracuse McNamerra's senior year story where a bubble team, maybe slightly outside of the bubble getting hot at the perfect time, ripping through tournament, and earning themselves a spot in the big dance.

I don't understand your point. So what if there was a Syracuse team that earned a spot in the NCAAs solely by winning their conference tournament? Remember Georgia a couple years ago, having yet another horrid season but winning the SEC tournament and earning a spot in the NCAAs? Then having their coach fired at the end of the tournament because a nice 3-game run didn't erase the fact that Georgia still massively sucked?

And seriously, if the top seeded teams in these major conference tournaments weren't already assured NCAA spots, do you really think a bad team like Georgia or Syracuse would have any shot at actually winning their conference tournament? That shows how pointless these conference tournaments are.

 

[Senser81]

With Oakland and Miami(OH) those years...who would you rather have had from the conference? Oral Roberts is the only team between the two conferences that has ever had an impact...and they still lose in the first round.

Thats not the issue. The issue is: is Oakland more deserving and better than Oral Roberts because they won their conference tournament? The way you have framed the issue, we might as well not allow any small conference teams into the NCAAs, because they don't have an impact on the NCAAs.

 

[FirstTimer]

My point is...with all the bubble teams there are at the end of a season, conference tournaments usually end up having a big impact on who gets in and who doesn't.

Gee, thanks Captain Obvious.....
That's the point we are making, the conference tournament shouldn't. A 4 game run after the regular season shouldn't have "a big impact" on the tournament selections...There is a 25 game body of work to judge on, the other 3-4 games aren't needed.

but say bubble team A looses in the first round of their tournament while bubble team B advances to the finals in theirs....that makes things a little more clear for the selection guys.

There should be no rounds. The selection committee has a 25 game body of work to look at. The tournament shouldn't exist. They have SOS, RPI, head to head matchupsto work with. The conference tournament doesn't need to exist.

and with the second post. How is mine any different than the main argument...that teams like Oakland and Miami Ohio don't deserve to get in because they lose in the first round?

Because it shows that these marginal teams don't need to be in the tournament. They never add anything.

Is it not setting in that the winner of the regular season conference title gets nothing but a banner yet some fluky 4 game champion gets an automatic bid?

 

[FirstTimer]

K...well, if Marginal teams don't need to be in the tournament...name 1 regular season conference title winner that wouldn't get in from an at large bid that would make an impact on the NCAA tournament.

Davidson will win the Southern Conference regular season crown and is on the bubble this year....We saw what they can do last year.

And you are still missing the point anyways....Marginal teams are going to get into the tournament no matter what just by the fact that you have to take 64 teams. The entire point(which you keep on missing) is that conference tournaments increase the odds of fluky 4 game teams getting into the tournament based on those 4 games alone and not on the entire body of work.

For example: Take this hypothetical...Say a few years ago and teh tournies were still around but they winner of them didn't get an automatic bid. an 11-18 Oakland team wins the conference tournament title but doesn't get an automatic bid. Do you still give that team a bid to the Big Dance based on their entire body of work? Of course you don't. They are 11-18. But under this system you are FORCED to take them. That's retarded.

The best compromise I could say is keep the conference tournies if you really wanted and use them as a tune up for the Big Dance and let teams use them to sweeten their resume, but get rid of the automatic bids for the winners. But then you deal with the problem of do the top teams just rest their guys and give lower teams meaningless wins? Do the lower teams just roll over and die knowing full well most of them have no shot?...and on and on.

 

[RainboUnicorn]

You guys saying that conference tournament should be eliminated is one of the dumbest things i have ever heard. This is the chance for these so called 'bubble teams' to prove they deserve to make the tournament. If they can't show they can win in their 10 team (give or take) conference tournament then why should they be allowed into NCAA tournament?

As for letting all the conference champions into the tournament as automatic bids, I don't see a problem with that either. If you win your conference tournament you deserve a chance to go even further and play for a national championship.

Instead of complaining about being on the bubble maybe these teams should have won a few more games to prove they are worthy or scheduled harder opponents.

 

[FirstTimer]

You guys saying that conference tournament should be eliminated is one of the dumbest things i have ever heard. This is the chance for these so called 'bubble teams' to prove they deserve to make the tournament. If they can't show they can win in their 10 team (give or take) conference tournament then why should they be allowed into NCAA tournament?

Correction: Your defense is one of the dumbest things I haev ever heard. Those bubble teams had a nearly 30 game regular season to prove that they belong in the NCAA tournament. Because they ended up being average they deserve a second chance? Please.

As for letting all the conference champions into the tournament as automatic bids, I don't see a problem with that either. If you win your conference tournament you deserve a chance to go even further and play for a national championship.

So you are advocating perhaps having as many as two automatic bids per conference?

Instead of complaining about being on the bubble maybe these teams should have won a few more games to prove they are worthy or scheduled harder opponents.

Talk about talking out both sides of your mouth...........

If a team NEEDS the conference tournament to get into the Big Dance I question their legitmacy as candidate for the Big Dance anyways. Giving all these ubble teams second chances all it does is water down the talent for the Big Dance. No good can come of it.

 

[FirstTimer]

bump...oops...I'm watching one of the greatest college basketball games of all time.

Yawn. Overrated game. I can name 10 better ones off the top of my head.....

 

[FirstTimer]

if you're going to have conferences, why wouldn't you have a champion?

You get dumber by the post in this thread....

You do have a champion. You played a regular season schedule. You played a regular season conference schedule against the other teams. Use that. Done. if you have two divisions (ie the SEC) have the top two teams from each division play eachother and there's your champion. You don't need a regular season champion and conference champion.

 

[FirstTimer]

Lol...it's a pretty well known fact that when people resort to personal insults, they know they're argument sounds stupider and stupider

Lets go by your logic though.

UNC is national champions. You play a regular season schedule. Use that. done.

Wow. You somehow got even dumber... Nice work. Impressive.

UNC is ranked #1 in the nation by SUBJECTIVE polling. UNC is the ACC Champion based OBJECTIVELY on the games they played. UNC is in the Big Dance. They are not the national champion until they decide the games on the floor.

It amazes me you can't grasp that simple difference........

 

[kmanharris]

Yawn. Overrated game. I can name 10 better ones off the top of my head.....

I lol'd. Overrated game? Two top 25 teams go to SIX overtimes and it is overrated. On top of that you can name 10 better games off the top of your head, hilarious.


Heelsox there is no use arguing with this guy. You are right when people resort to personal attacks they don't have an argument anymore so that is all your going to get after each response.

*waits for "your an idiot" comment

 

[FirstTimer]

I was mocking you and your "logic."

Uhh no you weren't. In fact you completely missed the point. My entire argument is that the games are decided on the court. UNC's #1 ranking wasn't decided there. It was decided by sportswriters and coaches..who all didn't agree. Even your attempts at sarcasm fail miserably.

. That's why we play the tournaments. A regular season championship doesn't mean shit.

Are you fucking kidding me? Honestly? They played nearly 20 games just for the hell of it? If it doesn't mean shit then why even play the games? They don't mean anything. I'll remember you saying this next time you are happy over UNC beating Duke before March.

You've made 1 argument this entire time

Actually I've made more than that but you can't seem to understand them. In fact I even forwarded a theory in which conference tournaments could be kept.

But nope, let's ignore that and over simplify things to make you failed use of sarcasm and mockery work. Fail.

You tried to make a point that a highly overrated Davidson team won't get in cause they lost their conference tournament, which is true.

Highly overrated? Where are they even ranked? They went 18-2 in conference play. they were clearly the best team in that conference from Day 1 and because they lose a game in a conference tournament they don't go to the Dance. Idiotic. The champsionship tournament should be about putting the best teams in the tournament. Teams that proved it all year long. Not during 4 days in March.

But your only basis of why Davidson should get in was "Well, look what they've done before."...even though this Davidson team is a completely different Davidson team without Jason Richards.

Stephon Curry carried Davidson last year. We've already seen him almsot singlehandedly take down WVU this year. There isn't much of a reason to think he can't carry them in a tournament run again this year.

You've really not made any solid legit examples except for 2 flukes to back up your points, so before you throw out another insult, let's stop trolling and use some facts

Acutally I've made numerous ones but you choose to ignore them because you can't understand them. I've used plenty of facts.

Then again you are the fucking ifiot who says regular season conference titles/games don't mean anything.