Non-ACC conference tournament discussion

[tommy]

Did I miss it over the last few years or is the Big East using a new tournament format this year? I just saw it, and wow -- with the possible exception of making a tiny bit more money -- is it dumb.

The top 4 teams don't get one bye, meaning one day of extra rest relative to the rest of the teams. The top 4 seeds get TWO byes -- TWO extra days of rest relative to the bottom 8 teams. Teams 5 through 8 get one extra day. So on the first day, which is Tuesday, teams seeded 9-16 play each other. The 4 winners play on Wednesday against teams seeded 5 through 8. The 4 winners of those games then play on Thursday against teams seeded 1 through 4. So teams seeded 9-16 have to win FIVE games in five days to win the thing, while the top 4 seeds only need to win three straight.

This strikes me as so unfair. I understand the byes for top seeds when your tournament has a number of teams not divisible by 8. Then you have to do the byes. But when you have a perfectly symmetrical number like the Big East does (16), to artificially create extra advantage for the top teams by concocting this kind of format, in the hopes of making some bank from the Tuesday gate for S. Florida v. Depaul and Cincinnati v. Rutgers, just stinks.

To me, the top seeds already have major advantages. First, they have the best teams of course. Next, they already have the easiest road. #1 would have matchups, barring upsets, with #16, then #8, then #4 before the finals. #2 would have the next easiest road, etc. Same as in the NCAA's. Fine. Those are two pretty big advantages. Now you have to serve up opponents that are not only inferior to begin with, but also tired? When it isn't necessary to do so? What would be so terrible about a 4 round tournament with the first round being 1 v 16, 2 v 15, 3 v 14, etc. like any normal person would design?

It's kind of the same problem I have with the geographic advantages that the NCAA gives the top teams in the Big Dance. I know, it helps with the gate. But I always have clung to the idea that we should be testing the mettle of the top teams. I'm not saying that, for instance, Kansas should have to play, say, Florida State in a 1 vs. 8 second round game in Jacksonville. Not saying that at all. Too close to their opponent's home floor. But I also don't think they should get to play them in St. Louis. If they're that good (and I mean all the top teams -- indeed all the teams period, not just Kansas of course), make them win 6 games against tournament-worthy teams on truly neutral floors. No obvious advantage to either squad. That's what the champion should have to do.

Just as in this silly Big East thing, the top teams in the NCAA already have the biggest advantages -- those again being the best teams and the easiest paths. Giving them the next best thing to home games in the NCAA tournament is contrary to the spirit of the tournament, or at least the tournament I thought I used to know.

[CDu]

It's been that way for a few years in the Big East, and I actually like the way the Big East tournament is set up. It uses a shocking concept - actually giving a real weight to the regular season.

They didn't want to wear out their best teams (and hurt those teams' NCAA chances) by making them have to play 4 games to win the conference tournament. It's not fair to the really good teams to have to play more games than similar teams from other conferences just so that a couple of really crappy teams can get a bailout chance at a title.

It also reduces the chances that a really crappy team (like DePaul, Rutgers, etc) sneaks in a gets a bid and potentially takes a bid away from a stronger bubble team from the conference. Though that's not really part of the reasoning.

So, they came up with a system that allowed their top 4 teams to only have to play 3 games to win it, but also still allowed the entire conference a chance to win. Sure, it's not equally "fair" to all the teams. But basically, I don't see a need for more "fairness." That was the point of playing the regular season. Is it fair to the teams that played the best all season to have the slate almost completely wiped clean and have to play a single-elimination conference tournament? No. The worst teams had their chance to make their tourney lives easier by winning more regular season games. They failed to do so. They don't deserve a nearly-complete "do-over" in the conference tournament.

Granted, I'm also someone who thinks there are too many teams in the tournament already. Really - teams who go .500 in conference don't deserve a chance to be the conference (or national) champion in my opinion.

[Eternal Outlaw]

The West Coast conference (Gonzaga's conference) does this as well. Seeds 5-8 play day 1, winners play seeds 3 and 4 day 2, winners play seeds 1 and 2, day 3 and winners play for the title on day 4 so seeds 1 and 2 only have to win 2 games in an 8 team conference.

[CDu]

The West Coast conference (Gonzaga's conference) does this as well. Seeds 5-8 play day 1, winners play seeds 3 and 4 day 2, winners play seeds 1 and 2, day 3 and winners play for the title on day 4 so seeds 1 and 2 only have to win 2 games in an 8 team conference.

I like it. It puts greater value on the regular season, and reduces the likelihood that you get a crappy team representing your conference. In lesser conferences like the WCC (though they often have 2-3 good teams), this is even more important, because you want to try to make sure you get your best team(s) to the tournament so you can milk as many dollars as possible from the NCAA. Making your best teams play more games in a single-elimination format reduces the likelihood that you get your best teams representing your conference.

In the Big East, I don't think this is really the driver. I think it's more an admission that the conference is too big, and they don't want to wear down their best teams with 4 games in 4 days right before the NCAA tournament.

[BD80]

This format gives teams 9 - 12 (South Florida, Seton Hall, uCon, Cincinatti) a chance to pick up an extra easy win to beef up their resumes. USF (19-11) and SH (18-11) and maybe uCon (17-14) are in a position that with the easy win and one mild upset (GTown, ND, Marquette) they can go dancing.

More teams in means more money.

[CDu]

This format gives teams 9 - 12 (South Florida, Seton Hall, uCon, Cincinatti) a chance to pick up an extra easy win to beef up their resumes. USF (19-11) and SH (18-11) and maybe uCon (17-14) are in a position that with the easy win and one mild upset (GTown, ND, Marquette) they can go dancing.

More teams in means more money.

I'm not sure an extra win against a bottom-feeder really adds much to their resume. Sure, more wins are nice, but the committee will take a look at against whom those wins actually came. If anything, I'd say it gives those teams an extra chance to have a bad loss burst their bubble. I don't think the decision was made to help out the 9-12 teams. I'm pretty sure it was made to give everybody a chance (they used to not even have all 16 teams playing) while not penalizing the top teams by playing more games.

[hurleyfor3]

Oh, something else. You can't play more than four games a day at one site. So if you want to accommodate an eight-team first round, your options are:

1. Find another site (involving additional logistical arrangements and travel costs, especially in NYC -- where you gonna play the games? East Rutherford? Nassau Coliseum?)
2. Play games on more than one day, causing some winners to have more rest than others in the next round
3. Play first-round games on homecourts, causing additional travel costs and scheduling uncertainties and belying the OP's desire for the "fairness" he seeks. Also, good luck filling the Carrier Dome for Syracuse/DePaul on two days' notice.

I think going to a classic four-round format is more unfair, not less.

[noyac]

2. Play games on more than one day, causing some winners to have more rest than others in the next round

If it were a simple 16 team format you could have the top 4 teams play on Wed. and the remaing games be played on Thursday. Then after the first round everyone plays second round on Friday, Semis on Sat, and Championship on Sun.

I think this is an excellent idea the only draw back is that the top seeds, assuming they win, would play 4 games in 5 days. This can be adjusted by tipp off times. Let's say the number one seed wins their first game on Wed then they would be scheduled to play the earliest game on Fri and the latest game on Sat.

the coaches of the top seeds may like this more because the first two games mimicks the NCAAT in that you play a week opponent then rest one day and play a better opponent.

[CDu]

If it were a simple 16 team format you could have the top 4 teams play on Wed. and the remaing games be played on Thursday. Then after the first round everyone plays second round on Friday, Semis on Sat, and Championship on Sun.

I think this is an excellent idea the only draw back is that the top seeds, assuming they win, would play 4 games in 5 days. This can be adjusted by tipp off times. Let's say the number one seed wins their first game on Wed then they would be scheduled to play the earliest game on Fri and the latest game on Sat.

Another problem is that this would give lower-seeds (if they manage an upset over the top seeds) an advantage against middle-upper seeds, by having an extra day's rest. That's counterintuitive. By comparison, a #13 seed would have the following path: beat #4 seed, day off, beat #5/12 seed, beat #1/16/8/9 seed, win the final. That's 4 games in 5 days. The #8 seed would have the following path: beat the #9 seed, beat the #1/16 seed, beat the #4/13/5/12 seed, win the last round. That's the same path as the #13 seed, but they'd have to do it in 4 days instead of 5 days. So you have given a benefit to the lower seed.

the coaches of the top seeds may like this more because the first two games mimicks the NCAAT in that you play a week opponent then rest one day and play a better opponent.

I don't think the coaches of the top seeds are going to prefer any 4-game format to a 3-game format. They're going to prefer to be rewarded for playing well in the regular season.

As SCMatt said more eloquently than I had implied, the format chosen by the Big East was chosen so that the top seeds got a true benefit from doing well in the regular season, but the bottom seeds still technically had a chance to win it.

[tommy]

There is no way you can credibly say that any tournament which by design sets up games in which one team is completely rested and its opponent is playing its third game in three days, is fair. Now apparently some posters don't think it's important to try to be fair in these tournaments, or don't think that stacking the deck in favor of the teams that finished at the top of the regular season standings constitutes unfairness. I agree that some advantage to the top teams -- like that afforded by their seeding -- is appropriate. But isn't that enough? Why should they also get the advantage of freshness?

If these conferences, like the Big East, are really intent on ensuring that their top teams advance to the NCAA's and are fully rested for them, then why even bother having the conference tournament? (of course, money. I get it.) If you're going to have the tournament for financial reasons, then why not stack the deck in favor of the top teams even more? Why not have the #1 seed get to host the tournament instead of it being held at a neutral site? (oh yeah: home game = unfair advantage) Why not have the bottom feeder teams get only 1 timeout per half? That'll make em good and tired. Or why not just spot the top teams 15 points or so? That should make sure they win, right?

I jest of course, but it just seems to me that the advantages being given the top regular season teams are too much. At some point it diminishes the integrity of the tournament when the deck is stacked so heavily. The fix is kind of in, making it nearly impossible for a low seeded team to make a run through the tournament. I say don't be so afraid. The big boys should be able to handle themselves just fine, and if they can't, well, it may say good things about the depth of your conference. If they can't handle a game on Tuesday, followed by a day of rest, then games Thursday through Saturday, then four full days rest before their NCAA opener -- if that simply exhausts them too much -- then they don't have what it takes to be a champion anyway.

[Indoor66]

There is no way you can credibly say that any tournament which by design sets up games in which one team is completely rested and its opponent is playing its third game in three days, is fair. Now apparently some posters don't think it's important to try to be fair in these tournaments, or don't think that stacking the deck in favor of the teams that finished at the top of the regular season standings constitutes unfairness. I agree that some advantage to the top teams -- like that afforded by their seeding -- is appropriate. But isn't that enough? Why should they also get the advantage of freshness?

If these conferences, like the Big East, are really intent on ensuring that their top teams advance to the NCAA's and are fully rested for them, then why even bother having the conference tournament? (of course, money. I get it.) If you're going to have the tournament for financial reasons, then why not stack the deck in favor of the top teams even more? Why not have the #1 seed get to host the tournament instead of it being held at a neutral site? (oh yeah: home game = unfair advantage) Why not have the bottom feeder teams get only 1 timeout per half? That'll make em good and tired. Or why not just spot the top teams 15 points or so? That should make sure they win, right?

I jest of course, but it just seems to me that the advantages being given the top regular season teams are too much. At some point it diminishes the integrity of the tournament when the deck is stacked so heavily. The fix is kind of in, making it nearly impossible for a low seeded team to make a run through the tournament. I say don't be so afraid. The big boys should be able to handle themselves just fine, and if they can't, well, it may say good things about the depth of your conference. If they can't handle a game on Tuesday, followed by a day of rest, then games Thursday through Saturday, then four full days rest before their NCAA opener -- if that simply exhausts them too much -- then they don't have what it takes to be a champion anyway.

But everybody has to get a trophy.

[CDu]

There is no way you can credibly say that any tournament which by design sets up games in which one team is completely rested and its opponent is playing its third game in three days, is fair. Now apparently some posters don't think it's important to try to be fair in these tournaments, or don't think that stacking the deck in favor of the teams that finished at the top of the regular season standings constitutes unfairness. I agree that some advantage to the top teams -- like that afforded by their seeding -- is appropriate. But isn't that enough? Why should they also get the advantage of freshness?

If these conferences, like the Big East, are really intent on ensuring that their top teams advance to the NCAA's and are fully rested for them, then why even bother having the conference tournament? (of course, money. I get it.) If you're going to have the tournament for financial reasons, then why not stack the deck in favor of the top teams even more? Why not have the #1 seed get to host the tournament instead of it being held at a neutral site? (oh yeah: home game = unfair advantage) Why not have the bottom feeder teams get only 1 timeout per half? That'll make em good and tired. Or why not just spot the top teams 15 points or so? That should make sure they win, right?

I jest of course, but it just seems to me that the advantages being given the top regular season teams are too much. At some point it diminishes the integrity of the tournament when the deck is stacked so heavily. The fix is kind of in, making it nearly impossible for a low seeded team to make a run through the tournament. I say don't be so afraid. The big boys should be able to handle themselves just fine, and if they can't, well, it may say good things about the depth of your conference. If they can't handle a game on Tuesday, followed by a day of rest, then games Thursday through Saturday, then four full days rest before their NCAA opener -- if that simply exhausts them too much -- then they don't have what it takes to be a champion anyway.

You're missing the point. The conference tournament is intended to crown the conference champion and thus the representative of the conference in the NCAA tournament.

Why is it fair to the teams that earned it over the course of the season to basically wipe the slate clean and make them go undefeated in a single-elimination tournament?

The bolded part is the key, in my opinion. It's not a matter of whether or not they can handle it. They handled it by proving to be the best team over the course of the regular season. And now you're going to make that essentially meaningless by deciding things with a single-elimination tournament? That's silly.

I'm actually against the concept of a conference tournament. I'd rather see a true round-robin regular season, with the winner getting the conference champion automatic bid. Obviously in super-conferences that won't work because it would be too many games. But in your typical 8-10 team league, it would work just fine.

Single-elimination tournaments are not fair. Round-robin is fair. So if you're going to argue for fairness, that's the route you should go, rather than suggesting that we make the regular season basically meaningless.

[dball]

But in your typical 8-10 team league, it would work just fine.

8-10 typical? Like the A10 or the Big 10?

[CDu]

8-10 typical? Like the A10 or the Big 10?

Well, I was referring more to the mid-majors and the lower conferences. But your joke is duly noted.

[juise]

I know that it's silly to get caught up in how every game affects Duke, but (as I said in another thread) I'm bored and need a reason to get engaged in as many games as possible. Do we cheer for Texas and Louisville to win and move out of 8-seed range or does winning (in this round) keep them in that range? Are most of us not threatened by either of those teams? I would personally much rather see a Northern Iowa or UNLV as our second-round opponent.

[YourLandlord]

A fan in the Weber State - Montana game just had a sign that said "Bring On Duke."

And Anthony Johnson is just hitting ridiculous shots all second half.

[juise]

A fan in the Weber State - Montana game just had a sign that said "Bring On Duke."

And Anthony Johnson is just hitting ridiculous shots all second half.

Yeah, I'm thinking that sign was made assuming that Weber State wouldn't blow a 20-point halftime lead. Oops.

[pfrduke]

Yeah, I'm thinking that sign was made assuming that Weber State wouldn't blow a 20-point halftime lead. Oops.

Ridiculous comeback by Montana to win.

In related news, the losses by Weber State and Quinnipiac in their conference finals tonight push both teams into the NIT (as regular season champs who did not win their tourney). That takes away more space that UNC could potentially fall into. Weber State, hurting the Heels again, even without The Show.

ETA: Jackson State lost to Grambling in the SWAC quarters, putting them in the NIT as well. That's 7 conference winners who have eaten up NIT spots, leaving just 25 available for the rest of the field.

[tommy]

You're missing the point. The conference tournament is intended to crown the conference champion and thus the representative of the conference in the NCAA tournament.

Why is it fair to the teams that earned it over the course of the season to basically wipe the slate clean and make them go undefeated in a single-elimination tournament?

The bolded part is the key, in my opinion. It's not a matter of whether or not they can handle it. They handled it by proving to be the best team over the course of the regular season. And now you're going to make that essentially meaningless by deciding things with a single-elimination tournament? That's silly.

I'm actually against the concept of a conference tournament. I'd rather see a true round-robin regular season, with the winner getting the conference champion automatic bid. Obviously in super-conferences that won't work because it would be too many games. But in your typical 8-10 team league, it would work just fine.

Single-elimination tournaments are not fair. Round-robin is fair. So if you're going to argue for fairness, that's the route you should go, rather than suggesting that we make the regular season basically meaningless.

WADR, I don't think I'm missing your point. I just disagree with it. Is the conference tournament intended to crown the conference champion, or to attempt to pre-ordain that crowning? My contention is that by going out of its way to provide a large amount of extra rest for the top 4 teams relative to the bottom 4, they are making an already likely result (one of the top 4 teams winning the thing) almost inevitable. (I know, I know! -- Nova and Cuse are killing my argument today!)

As far as "wiping the slate clean" goes, well, to a degree, that's what you're doing when you decide to have one of these tournaments. The top teams get a significant advantage by receiving top seeds and therefore an easier path to advancing. But I think that the idea of the tournament shouldn't be for the league to try to replicate the results of the regular season. It's up to the teams themselves to do that, if they are able. If they're not able, well, that's on them.

Where it seems that we most agree is that having the tournament at all reduces the importance of the regular season. But that's a choice each conference makes. Once that choice is made, I think they should not go overboard to try to stack the deck, and instead put the teams on as equal a footing as they can, and may the best team, over those 4 (or whatever number) days, win. That seems fair to me.

[CDu]

WADR, I don't think I'm missing your point. I just disagree with it. Is the conference tournament intended to crown the conference champion, or to attempt to pre-ordain that crowning? My contention is that by going out of its way to provide a large amount of extra rest for the top 4 teams relative to the bottom 4, they are making an already likely result (one of the top 4 teams winning the thing) almost inevitable. (I know, I know! -- Nova and Cuse are killing my argument today!)

And my point is that I think the tourney should more closely reflect the results of the regular season. The teams that did well in the regular season deserved a big advantage. You played the regular season to see who was the best. Why create a single-elimination tournament to try to come up with a different result? Why not give the teams that earned it over the season as good a chance as possible to repeat, while giving a very small (but still tangible) chance to those teams that proved over the course of the year that they had no business being there?

As far as "wiping the slate clean" goes, well, to a degree, that's what you're doing when you decide to have one of these tournaments.

That's how it has mostly turned out, but it doesn't have to be that way. You can make the tournament more suited to place value on the regular season. Which is, to a large degree, what the Big East tourney approach does.

The top teams get a significant advantage by receiving top seeds and therefore an easier path to advancing.

I think you overvalue how much easier the path is for a top seed compared to lower seeds. For example, if all other seeds hold, a #1 seed would have to beat a #8, #4, and #2 seed. A #8 seed would have to beat a #1, #4, and #2 seed. That's a very small difference in degree of difficulty despite comparing two very different seed levels. I could illustrate it with probabilities, but hopefully you can see it visually there. You're basically saying that a season's worth of proving that you are the best team is only worth an advantage in a single game (of three) in the tournament over a team that proved it was middle/bottom of the road in the conference.

But I think that the idea of the tournament shouldn't be for the league to try to replicate the results of the regular season. It's up to the teams themselves to do that, if they are able. If they're not able, well, that's on them.

It's MUCH harder to replicate the results of the regular season in a 3-game, single-elimination format. The probability of losing a single game in three games is fairly high, even for the favorite.

Where it seems that we most agree is that having the tournament at all reduces the importance of the regular season. But that's a choice each conference makes. Once that choice is made, I think they should not go overboard to try to stack the deck, and instead put the teams on as equal a footing as they can, and may the best team, over those 4 (or whatever number) days, win. That seems fair to me.

And I disagree. You're suggesting we just give up on the idea of giving much value to the regular season. I think that they should make every effort NOT to devalue the regular season. There's no reason that the tournament has to wipe the slate clean. It's just the little league mentality of "give everybody an equal shot in the tourney" coming into play.

I think that results over the course of a 16-18 game stretch should be valued more than results over a 1-3 game stretch. THAT seems fair to me.