Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Mid/low major league tourneys

Dingus

Dingus

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
3,045
1,277
113
Just curious what most people's opinions are of mid-low major conference tournaments.

Most leagues crown their champion, and automatic qualifier, with a tournament (Ivy league is the only one I know of that doesn't). For many of these leagues, this will be the only team that makes it. This often results in a league sending a 0.500 or even sub-0.500 team to the NCAA tournament while a team that dominated the regular season sits at home.

Seems a bit unfortunate to me, though they do add to the overall March Madness feel. Also likely partly the reason #1 seeds never lose to 16's, as #1's will always get the cinderella, 14-16 teams.

So what say you? Should more leagues go the way of the Ivy league? Do they get a choice, for that matter?
 
why play conference games if the tourney winner gets the auto NCAA berth? I've never been a fan of conference tournaments ...
 
Not sure what the right solution is. But it does seem unfortunate that the top conference team with a 23-6 record for example stays at home due to a middle team getting hot in the tournament. Not really in favor of more than the 68 total teams we have now.
 
I personally don't totally like the current set up, because it lessens the value of the regular season. That being said, isn't it up to the conferences to decide how they want their bid to be decided? Schools seem to be doing it to themselves. However, they are sure exciting, and the 1st place team in some of the leagues might not really be much better than the 5th or last place team.
 
I would prefer every conference be set up to play a round robin schedule like we do, everyone plays everyone else home and away, and no conference tournaments. That's not really feasible though currently I don't think.
 
It can be tough for the favorites to sit home if they have a cold shooting night, and probably isn't the most fair of systems in college sports, but on the other hand these smaller, lower profile conference tournaments is one of the only ways for the conferences to get exposure before the big tournament starts. How many casual basketball fans had really ever heard of Mount St. Mary's or the Northeast Conference before watching their championship games tonight?

On a related note, I'll be interested to see what happens to Wisconsin-Green Bay on Selection Sunday. They have a pretty big feather in their cap with a win against Virginia, but that might not be quite enough.
 
Dingus said:
Just curious what most people's opinions are of mid-low major conference tournaments.

Most leagues crown their champion, and automatic qualifier, with a tournament (Ivy league is the only one I know of that doesn't). For many of these leagues, this will be the only team that makes it. This often results in a league sending a 0.500 or even sub-0.500 team to the NCAA tournament while a team that dominated the regular season sits at home.

Seems a bit unfortunate to me, though they do add to the overall March Madness feel. Also likely partly the reason #1 seeds never lose to 16's, as #1's will always get the cinderella, 14-16 teams.

So what say you? Should more leagues go the way of the Ivy league? Do they get a choice, for that matter?
Click to expand...


It's all part of what makes March so great. Let's not ruin it because some 23-6 team had their feelings hurt because they didn't win their conf. tourney and lost their spot in the Dance. S@#t happens. They should've won. If you did away with the conf. tournaments, then you would have several teams that have absolutely zero chance of getting in. That would be worse IMO. The Ivy league needs to have a tournament. Must suck to get second in that league.
 
I'm sure the exposure the conference and the teams get, and the TV money, means more to the Conference Commissioner than ensuring their best team gets in. I do agree that it could make for a more interesting first round without the barely .500 teams in it.
I wasn't sure if it was coincidence or not, but in a lot of the tournaments I've watch parts of this week the higher seeded team was at home. That would seem like a decent compromise for those 1-bid conferences. I think it would be fair to give the regular season champs home court throughout, making the regular season even more important. There would still be cinderellas, but they would have had to do it on the road and would have proven they were worthy of the berth.
 
ISUTex said:
The Ivy league needs to have a tournament. Must suck to get second in that league.
Click to expand...
Really? It sucks even more for a team that's proven itself over 20 games to get second in a tournament -- a single poor performance. Yet I agree with ISUChippewa that the exposure, money, and excitement (it's hard to beat "win or go home") make the tourney worth it. No problem with conferences choosing not to do them, though. FWIW, conference regular season winners who don't win their tournament do at least get an automatic bid to the NIT.
 
ISUChippewa said:
It can be tough for the favorites to sit home if they have a cold shooting night, and probably isn't the most fair of systems in college sports, but on the other hand these smaller, lower profile conference tournaments is one of the only ways for the conferences to get exposure before the big tournament starts. How many casual basketball fans had really ever heard of Mount St. Mary's or the Northeast Conference before watching their championship games tonight?
Click to expand...

That's basically the trade-off between determining whether to send your regular-season champ as the auto-bid, or play a tournament — tournaments offer a rare showcase for underexposed smaller-school leagues. That's a moment in the spotlight, prior to a probable quick exit in the tournament.

A casual CBB follower or person who has no rooting interest is going to be more interested in watching a winner-take-all game. It's better for TV ratings, probably brings in revenue for a conference (not sure if that's always the case -- hence the "probably"), in addition to momentary exposure. If regular season champ gets the bid, few people notice.

On the other hand, it risks overshadowing regular-season performance. That's a reason some conferences advance 1's and/or 2's w/ byes to semifinals instead of structuring a traditional bracket setup. (Big Sky is one example; Summit is another), to at least minimize odds of the favorite(s) stumbling and in some cases risking potential for at-large with a bad loss. Sort of a cake-and-eat-it-too solution.

That said, regular season winner would be more "fair."

ISUChippewa said:
On a related note, I'll be interested to see what happens to Wisconsin-Green Bay on Selection Sunday. They have a pretty big feather in their cap with a win against Virginia, but that might not be quite enough.
Click to expand...

My hunch is Green Bay might get a nod, as long as bid-stealing elsewhere doesn't run rampant. Overall profile doesn't bode well, but it dominated the conference, proved it could play w/ teams like UVa and Wisconsin (which both happen to be in the 1-2-3 seed area). Also, GB has no more bad losses than several bubble teams (and in a way had a lot more "opportunity" for bad losses than some teams). It'll be one of the more interesting details of Selection Sunday.
 
Playoffs and tournaments are good fun and provide lots of drama and exciting games, but they certainly don't always excel at determining who the best team is.
 
Bret44 said:
I enjoy the mid and low major tourneys more then the big boys, real drama. I have enjoyed the last two days.
Click to expand...
I do too. I just don't like some team under .500 getting the spot of a team that was more dominant during the season.
 
At least its better than it was a decade ago as conference regular season winners get invited to the NIT, whereas these small schools would have had little chance previously. While ideally these leagues would go with the regular season champion I certainly can't blame them for taking the money and exposure a tournament provides.
 
Iastfan112 said:
At least its better than it was a decade ago as conference regular season winners get invited to the NIT, whereas these small schools would have had little chance previously. While ideally these leagues would go with the regular season champion I certainly can't blame them for taking the money and exposure a tournament provides.
Click to expand...

That is how it works. Why should an NFC East team make the playoffs at 8-8 and an NFC North team stays home at 10-6. It is sports, there are no rhyme or reason to sports, that is why we love them!
 
Iastfan112 said:
At least its better than it was a decade ago as conference regular season winners get invited to the NIT, whereas these small schools would have had little chance previously. While ideally these leagues would go with the regular season champion I certainly can't blame them for taking the money and exposure a tournament provides.
Click to expand...

The NIT auto-bid for regular season non-NCAA qualifier was a smart idea.

NIT remains mostly an afterthought outside of fanbases involved, but not long ago it was even worse — the field was larger, there was no bracketing and no seeding.

Adding the one-bid league qualifier as a consolation prize is an appropriate addition for a consolation-prize tournament.

At least it somewhat resembles an "NCAA Tournament Jr."
 
I love these small conference tournaments because of the atmosphere that surrounds them. The fans of both schools are so into the games and are want the school to win because they know they get a lot of exposure if they make the NCAA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back