PDA

View Full Version : Why conference tourneys are dumb



ccugrad1
03-14-2009, 08:26 PM
Before I proceed, let me just say that this is my personal opinion and I am certain many will disagree.

Conference tournaments from all over the country are being held and it is an exciting time for the college basketball fan. I personally believe that they are dumb and a waste of time in most instances. Here are some of my reasons why:

1) If you look at the ACC tournament, what real incentive is there for a team like Duke, North Carolina, and Wake Forest to play in this? Even if they all lost in the first or second round, NONE of them are going to be any lower than a #3 seed. Because of that, it leads to my 2nd point:

2) Because a lot of these teams in these conference tournaments don't have a whole lot to play for, it leads to many undeserving teams in the Big Dance. Take the Pac-10 tourney that just finished-- unranked USC is now in the NCAA Tournament because of a few good days of basketball. At 21-12 and with a loss, they are nothing more than an NIT team. If USC had not won the Pac-10 title, would you put them in the NCAA tournament? Had UMBC beating Binghamton in the America East final today, you would have had a team at 15-18 in the NCAA tournament. Come on folks, give me a break. At best they would be a 16 seed and end up going home after 1 round anyways.

Let's put the best 64 teams in there. You will have teams who will say that mid-majors would get no consideration. If your record is solid enough and what not, you would get in. There are too many crappy teams that are going to be in this NCAA tournament and most of them will be one round and out anyways. Let's see quality basketball by the top 64 teams, not basketball that includes teams that got lucky enough over a 2 or 3 day span.

gocubs2118
03-14-2009, 08:35 PM
:pity:

Conference tourneys are awesome. It gives teams like USC, Baylor and Mississippi State a second chance at making the tournament. I would rather see a team who plays 2 or 3 good games of basketball play in the tournament than someone like Penn State who doesn't deserve to be in.

superkegger
03-14-2009, 08:54 PM
Here's my thing. While there isn't always as much reason for the dominant powers of a conference to win a conference tourney, they still want to, and they still want that #1 seed, and if winning the conference tourney helps them do so, they're all for it.

And while you could make the argument that it could put bad teams in that might not deserve to be there. And to a point I agree. But with USC for instance, I don't know how they finished the regular season, but they're a talented team, and they beat 3 teams in a row that are "better" than them.

Plus in the power conferences, you have higher quality players. Usually in the mid majors your best teams are going to win their conference tourney's because it's their ticket in. So the conference tourney's become a good way for the tourney committee to seperate the whest from the chaff so to speak.

I understand the argument, but overall, I don't think that a whole lot of bad teams get in from winning those tourney's that don't have a legit reason to be. Sure it happens on occasion, but then again, winning their conference tourney showed they're a quality team and they deserve to be there.

ccugrad1
03-14-2009, 08:59 PM
:pity:

Conference tourneys are awesome. It gives teams like USC, Baylor and Mississippi State a second chance at making the tournament. I would rather see a team who plays 2 or 3 good games of basketball play in the tournament than someone like Penn State who doesn't deserve to be in.

I guess we'll agree to disagree because I look at teams like Baylor, USC, and Miss. State and NONE of them have any business whatsoever being anywhere near the NCAA Tournament.

UMBC, 15-17; they play 2 days worth of good basketball and all of a sudden they are one of the top 64? Doubt it!!!

sdweston757
03-15-2009, 02:31 AM
I guess we'll agree to disagree because I look at teams like Baylor, USC, and Miss. State and NONE of them have any business whatsoever being anywhere near the NCAA Tournament.

UMBC, 15-17; they play 2 days worth of good basketball and all of a sudden they are one of the top 64? Doubt it!!!



you are looking at the positives of the tourneys and turning them into negatives... what makes the tournaments so great is the whole aspect that a team that has ZERO chance to reach the tournament can win 4 games in a row and reach it. Thats what the conference tournaments are all about.

Its not fair to grant automatic births to the NCAA tourney because of regular season scheldules because many leagues play unbalanced schedules. WIN the TOURNEY and YOUR IN! its great

ccugrad1
03-15-2009, 10:49 AM
OK, to give another reason why conference tourneys are not what they are cracked up to be: Of the 4 projected #1 seeds, 3 of them were bounced either after one game or at most 2. For a team like North Carolina, what incentive do they have to play? They are getting in no matter what, and will be AT WORST a #2 seed. Would Roy Williams have played Ty Lawson if only one automatic bid came from each conference?

You bet he would!!!

But with UNC already guaranteed a spot in the tourney and a likely #1, why bother to play him?

Wake's Fastball
03-16-2009, 09:19 PM
I'm with ccugrad on this one. I think it's stupid that a team that's played poorly all year is given another shot to make it into the Dance. Mississippi State is a prime example of that this year.