|
Post by milanmiracle on Feb 14, 2011 14:34:49 GMT -5
Here's my point...who won the CAA last year? The only teams that care about the regular season title are the teams in their "conference". And what is a conference really? It's just a bunch of teams getting together to make scheduling easier and to gain the NCAA's automatic qualifier. It's why the Summit League makes a concerted effort to stay eligible for that auto bid. If the auto bid wasn't important, then why bother? Also, what's the value of having your name on the "brackets" that every man, woman, and child sees at tourney time. I don't think they're handing out sheets showing "regular season champs" now do you? One other note, I think that the regular season champ should be rewarded with the automatic bid, but then nobody would care who won the Horizon League tournament and the money would go away. That was the thinking behind the regular season champion getting the NIT if they lost in their conference tournament. It's not perfect, but at least you get something. I agree. The NIT is better than nothing and at least there is some reward for winning the regular season. I just wish it were the big prize...the Dance
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Feb 14, 2011 15:31:28 GMT -5
Cleveland State disagrees with you. As does UIC Again, I said *practically*
|
|
|
Post by valporun on Feb 15, 2011 12:29:46 GMT -5
I guess I see the NIT regular season auto-bid as a way to also make the conference tournaments a little more competitive. I mean how often in our prime Mid-Con years did it seem like the bottom level teams would show up to the Mid-Con tourney only to play a rather lackluster game because they knew their season was done anyway? Now that the regular season champ gets into the NIT, it gives that bad team that gets the champ in the first round, a chance to maybe pull an upset that puts the Valpos, Dukes, UNCs, Michigan States, Pittsburghs, and such into the NIT, and a reason for that "bottom-feeder" to brag for a little while.
|
|
|
Post by CO_VU_Fan on Feb 15, 2011 12:40:55 GMT -5
I guess I see the NIT regular season auto-bid as a way to also make the conference tournaments a little more competitive. I mean how often in our prime Mid-Con years did it seem like the bottom level teams would show up to the Mid-Con tourney only to play a rather lackluster game because they knew their season was done anyway? Now that the regular season champ gets into the NIT, it gives that bad team that gets the champ in the first round, a chance to maybe pull an upset that puts the Valpos, Dukes, UNCs, Michigan States, Pittsburghs, and such into the NIT, and a reason for that "bottom-feeder" to brag for a little while. Huh? How much more competitive is the winner of the tournament going to the big dance? The NIT auto bid is good for the mid-major confernences, so that the regular season champ at least goes to the NIT, vice some BCS conference program that is 16-14, but has a higher RPI. Like the old Indiana HS one class tournament, each confenence tournament is a sectional of sorts - only one team going to the final 64 (or 65, or 68).
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Feb 15, 2011 14:47:51 GMT -5
I guess I see the NIT regular season auto-bid as a way to also make the conference tournaments a little more competitive. I mean how often in our prime Mid-Con years did it seem like the bottom level teams would show up to the Mid-Con tourney only to play a rather lackluster game because they knew their season was done anyway? Now that the regular season champ gets into the NIT, it gives that bad team that gets the champ in the first round, a chance to maybe pull an upset that puts the Valpos, Dukes, UNCs, Michigan States, Pittsburghs, and such into the NIT, and a reason for that "bottom-feeder" to brag for a little while. I don't get you at all. How is that not a prime motivation for bottom feeder teams, regardless of the NIT bid going to the regular season champ? I don't see any cause-and-effect between the two.
|
|
|
Post by 78crusader on Feb 15, 2011 15:41:04 GMT -5
To those who maintain that winning the conference tournament is more important to a mid major than winning the regular season championship since the conference tournament title guarantees an NCAA bid, I can't disagree that to many, if not most people, the NCAA bid is more important. For one thing, having your school's name announced on the selection show and then watching the first round game is a thrill.
I just think that winning a regular season title in a balanced league, over an arduous 18 game schedule, is a more significant team accomplishment. Paul
|
|
|
Post by CO_VU_Fan on Feb 15, 2011 19:00:24 GMT -5
To those who maintain that winning the conference tournament is more important to a mid major than winning the regular season championship since the conference tournament title guarantees an NCAA bid, I can't disagree that to many, if not most people, the NCAA bid is more important. For one thing, having your school's name announced on the selection show and then watching the first round game is a thrill. I just think that winning a regular season title in a balanced league, over an arduous 18 game schedule, is a more significant team accomplishment. Paul I think most would agree, to some degree. The Big Ten held out for a long time, with the regular season champ going to the big dance. Prior to 1975 or 1976, even the big conferences put the emphasis on winning the conference tournament, or else you didn't get into the dance. There were many instances of Top 10 teams that didn't make it into the NCAA tournament. Before the expansion of the tournament field to 40, 48 and 64, and the expanding number of conferences, it was easier to make the field as an independent.
|
|
|
Post by 78crusader on Feb 15, 2011 20:15:49 GMT -5
In the "old" days it WAS tough to get into the NCAAs. I recall that in 1974 (I think that was the year) Indiana tied Michigan for the Big 10 title, yet had to play a playoff game against Michigan in Champaign-Urbana to decide who would go to the NCAAs. (IU lost.) And in 1979, Iowa, Mich St, and Purdue all tied for the Big 10 title, but by then only two teams could go to the NCAAs, so (for some reason I can't recall) Purdue was left out. To add insult to injury, the first game Purdue played in the NIT that year was a road game. This prompted the Purdue coach (Lee Rose, I think) to ask, "Is there ANY benefit to being Big 10 co-champions?" I've been wrong maybe 20 times today, but I think I was right when I said last week that the Wright St game was the big one. If we had lost, we would be 10-4, tied in the loss column with CSU, who I don't think will lose again, and only one game in the loss column ahead of Butler and UMW. I don't think Butler is going to lose again either. That scenario would have put a ton of pressure on tomorrow night's game, which is going to be tough as nails anyway. I like having the breathing room of losing one game out of the last 4 conference games and still being at least the conference co-champs. (Not to take anything for granted against GB, Loyola, or UIC.) I get to go to my first-ever game at the ARC on Saturday! Paul
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Feb 15, 2011 21:04:25 GMT -5
To those who maintain that winning the conference tournament is more important to a mid major than winning the regular season championship since the conference tournament title guarantees an NCAA bid, I can't disagree that to many, if not most people, the NCAA bid is more important. For one thing, having your school's name announced on the selection show and then watching the first round game is a thrill. I just think that winning a regular season title in a balanced league, over an arduous 18 game schedule, is a more significant team accomplishment. Paul If you want to say it's *harder* and therefore should be appreciated more, then I can go along with that. I think it probably is more significant in that respect. But that's an aspect that isn't high on my list of things to care about, simply because the only thing it gets you is a #1 seed in the conference tourney. That means a lot more in the HL than it ever meant in the Mid-Con, but it's a reward that is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
|
|
|
Post by theladybook on Feb 15, 2011 21:30:41 GMT -5
I get to go to my first-ever game at the ARC on Saturday! Paul [/quote] Great--what a good time for your first! You will love it!
|
|
|
Post by crusadermoe on Feb 21, 2011 15:51:48 GMT -5
Been using that phrase for many games this year. This really is the big one.
|
|