repeat after me--winning conference tourneys doesn't mean much

[nwhoopfan]

I mean it does if getting an auto bid is the only way you would get in the Tourney. But otherwise, nah. There is a myth about being a hot team or having momentum, but ask Big 12 champ Iowa St. or Pac 12 champ Washington St. how much that helped them. Big 10 and SEC tourney champs bowed out really early last year. There was another thread recently about this. I'm sticking with too big of a deal is made of conference tourneys, and for the most part they don't mean squat.

 

[tigers4ever]

Yep, I agree. The record through 25 total games or 16 conference games is usually a much better indicator but people love the peaking at the right time narrative. My problem with that is teams can go cold just as quickly as the can get hot so the entire season record should be given more weight.

 

[The deacon]

I mean it does if getting an auto bid is the only way you would get in the Tourney. But otherwise, nah. There is a myth about being a hot team or having momentum, but ask Big 12 champ Iowa St. or Pac 12 champ Washington St. how much that helped them. Big 10 and SEC tourney champs bowed out really early last year. There was another thread recently about this. I'm sticking with too big of a deal is made of conference tourneys, and for the most part they don't mean squat.

Gotta at least point out, nwhoopfan, that not all teams have the lofty standards of success of the SCs, UConns and Stanfords.

I've watched one of the country's elite teams, Iowa, win its league tournament title last and again this season, and it surely seemed to me the players, coaches and fans were pretty darned excited. The NCAA title is the ultimate, of course, but for the vast majority of women's basketball programs, their first goals are to win their league regular season and tournament titles. If what you're saying is correct, there are only a handful of teams nationally that have any reason to play.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Gotta at least point out, nwhoopfan, that not all teams have the lofty standards of success of the SCs, UConns and Stanfords.

I've watched one of the country's elite teams, Iowa, win its league tournament title last and again this season, and it surely seemed to me the players, coaches and fans were pretty darned excited. The NCAA title is the ultimate, of course, but for the vast majority of women's basketball programs, their first goals are to win their league regular season and tournament titles. If what you're saying is correct, there are only a handful of teams nationally that have any reason to play.

I get what you are saying. Winning a conference tourney is of course exciting for the team and fans. And yes, very few teams have a realistic chance of winning a Natty any given year.

Let me take a different approach. For my team (s), I would trade a loss in the conference tourney for a win or two in the NCAA Tourney 1,000 times out of 1,000. Certainly for a program like Iowa St. and with Washington St. now getting to the Tourney 3 years in a row, I don't think they have the "happy to be here" mentality. Going one and done has to be quite disappointing for them.

 

[The deacon]

I get what you are saying. Winning a conference tourney is of course exciting for the team and fans. And yes, very few teams have a realistic chance of winning a Natty any given year.

Let me take a different approach. For my team (s), I would trade a loss in the conference tourney for a win or two in the NCAA Tourney 1,000 times out of 1,000. Certainly for a program like Iowa St. and with Washington St. now getting to the Tourney 3 years in a row, I don't think they have the "happy to be here" mentality. Going one and done has to be quite disappointing for them.

Yup, I definitely agree with that, and qualify it further by adding the headier a program is, the more likely it would be to make that trade.

 

[Blueballer]

It doesn’t mean much to you. But it means a lot to those kids who worked so hard for it.

 

[Geew1992]

It doesn’t mean much to you. But it means a lot to those kids who worked so hard for it.

 

[diggerfoot]

I mean it does if getting an auto bid is the only way you would get in the Tourney. But otherwise, nah. There is a myth about being a hot team or having momentum, but ask Big 12 champ Iowa St. or Pac 12 champ Washington St. how much that helped them. Big 10 and SEC tourney champs bowed out really early last year. There was another thread recently about this. I'm sticking with too big of a deal is made of conference tourneys, and for the most part they don't mean squat.

I know this is the general board but still an ironic post for this site, considering that in 2011 a .500 in conference UConn men’s team had to play all five games to win their conference tournament and then went on to win the national tournament.

 

[azfan]

Gotta at least point out, nwhoopfan, that not all teams have the lofty standards of success of the SCs, UConns and Stanfords.

I've watched one of the country's elite teams, Iowa, win its league tournament title last and again this season, and it surely seemed to me the players, coaches and fans were pretty darned excited. The NCAA title is the ultimate, of course, but for the vast majority of women's basketball programs, their first goals are to win their league regular season and tournament titles. If what you're saying is correct, there are only a handful of teams nationally that have any reason to play.

Absolutely! Not only is the atmosphere great it also provides that dark horse opportunity for a team in one of the nonpower5 conferences to survive and play on. I do think the conference tournaments are wonderful, one of the stellar opportunities for so many of these athletes who work their tails off. As a fan I also love these opportunities to see all the teams together at one site.

 

[azfan]

Let me take a different approach. For my team (s), I would trade a loss in the conference tourney for a win or two in the NCAA Tourney 1,000 times out of 1,000. Certainly for a program like Iowa St. and with Washington St. now getting to the Tourney 3 years in a row, I don't think they have the "happy to be here" mentality. Going one and done has to be quite disappointing for them.

Not clear on your claim or analysis.

Is it your view that participation in conference tournaments were responsible for the early exits by the Cougars and Cyclones? Interesting excuse as both of your examples would have played lower ranked teams in the big dance whom they should have been expected to beat..

I'm certain the Cyclone and Cougar fans and players were delighted to have the opportunity to excel in the conference tournament.

I know winning the initial Pac-12 conference tournament championship back in 2001 was huge for the ASU Sun Devils program, players, fans, and I think for the entire conference. I know it meant a great deal to me and was a top 10 women's basketball event in my life. Also I'm sure Tara was definitely impacted by the failure of her team to win the first conference tournament.

Anyway an interesting claim.

 

[hoopsfan22]

They are pointless other than for making money. Like Geno said about Vermont in his post-game, it's dumb that the conference has a tourney.

 

[azfan]

They are pointless other than for making money. Like Geno said about Vermont in his post-game, it's dumb that the conference has a tourney.

Agree to disagree.

The Pac-12 tournament does not make any money and I would suspect that 90% of conference tournaments lose money.

 

[BRS24]

They are pointless other than for making money. Like Geno said about Vermont in his post-game, it's dumb that the conference has a tourney.

Counterpoint - at the end of Geno's post game presser yesterday, he said that even if Vermont (25-7/14-2) went undefeated in conference play, and lost in the conf tourney, they wouldn't get a bid, so it's not an option for them not to win the tourney to get into the NCAAT. That's their ceiling.

I would love to see what a 68 team field looks like with both the regular and conf champs getting bids, and then what else shakes out. For instance, Columbia was tied with Princeton in regular season, but got knocked out of tourney in semis by Harvard. Would I like to see them in the NCAAT rather than a lower ranked team in the conferences that are always awarded multiple seeds? Yep. And yes, the counter to my counter is that this conference is stronger, etc, etc,

Miami - 20-12/11-7
NCSU - 20-12/9-9
Purdue - 19-11/9-8
Alabama - 20-11/9-7
Miss St - 22-10/9-7 (jury still out on this team clearly on a roll right now)

 

[hoopsfan22]

Agree to disagree.

The Pac-12 tournament does not make any money and I would suspect that 90% of conference tournaments lose money.

Why do you need a tournament? For example we spent 2-3 months playing the other teams in our league twice. If we don't know who the best team in the conference is after 20 games, how is three more going to make any difference? It's pointless. UConn was the best team in the Big East. No tournament needed to prove that. If two teams tie for top spot, let them have a playoff game to determine the best team in the conference.

 

[tigers4ever]

Counterpoint - at the end of Geno's post game presser yesterday, he said that even if Vermont (25-7/14-2) went undefeated in conference play, and lost in the conf tourney, they wouldn't get a bid, so it's not an option for them not to win the tourney to get into the NCAAT. That's their ceiling.

I would love to see what a 68 team field looks like with both the regular and conf champs getting bids, and then what else shakes out. For instance, Columbia was tied with Princeton in regular season, but got knocked out of tourney in semis by Harvard. Would I like to see them in the NCAAT rather than a lower ranked team in the conferences that are always awarded multiple seeds? Yep. And yes, the counter to my counter is that this conference is stronger, etc, etc,

Miami - 20-12/11-7
NCSU - 20-12/9-9
Purdue - 19-11/9-8
Alabama - 20-11/9-7
Miss St - 22-10/9-7 (jury still out on this team clearly on a roll right now)

I would hate to watch the first round of that tournament. Many of the small conf AQ games from yesterday were horrible and now you want to potentially give the small conferences two AQ who probably have an average net of 80. Each conf can decide if they want conf champ or tourney champ to be their AQ.

 

[diggerfoot]

They are pointless other than for making money. Like Geno said about Vermont in his post-game, it's dumb that the conference has a tourney.

If only the regular season determined the champion, then you have to make the scheduling fair, ie, home and away with every single member. For the Big East this means scheduling twenty games within the conference. For a conference like the SEC they virtually would be only able to play conference games.

At a practical level that would never happen, no matter how dumb you might view it.

 

[nwhoopfan]

I know this is the general board but still an ironic post for this site, considering that in 2011 a .500 in conference UConn men’s team had to play all five games to win their conference tournament and then went on to win the national tournament.

How is it ironic? Throughout the history of the men's and women's NCAA Tourneys you can find National Champs who won their conference tourney, but you can also find National Champs who didn't win their conference tourney. There just isn't much correlation between conference tourney and NCAA Tourney.

 

[tigers4ever]

If only the regular season determined the champion, then you have to make the scheduling fair, ie, home and away with every single member. For the Big East this means scheduling twenty games within the conference. For a conference like the SEC they virtually would be only able to play conference games.

At a practical level that would never happen, no matter how dumb you might view it.

In an ideal world, it'd have to be fair but in the real world it isn't fair. In football for instance in the SEC, you play your all division opponents buy only some opponents from the other division. All of those other division games count equally in determining who goes to the conference championship game even if your non division opponents are much stronger or weaker than another teams

 

[maple]

Why do you need a tournament? For example we spent 2-3 months playing the other teams in our league twice. If we don't know who the best team in the conference is after 20 games, how is three more going to make any difference? It's pointless. UConn was the best team in the Big East. No tournament needed to prove that. If two teams tie for top spot, let them have a playoff game to determine the best team in the conference.

With that mindset, why have tournament at all? The team with the best record should just be the national champion. After all, SC played all these ranked teams and is undefeated.

Sometimes a small school's only thing to get excited about is the chance they can grit their teeth, go on a Cinderella run, win their conference tournament, and get into the big dance. Is it so terrible to let student athletes have some fun and something to fight for? Maybe give them a chance to end their season on a semi-positive note?

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Well, a lot of the time a team is who they keep trying to tell you they are.

If I knew more about Texas, I might be picking another Final Four for Vic at this point.

 

[tigers4ever]

I love the tournaments because they are fun for the fans and hopefully the players as well. I think making the winner the AQ keeps all the teams incentivized to play hard. If there is an upset in a smaller conference tourney, the result is a weaker team gets in NCAA tourney. This is unfortunate but everyone knows the rules so I don't have problem with it.

 

[DefenseBB]

I mean it does if getting an auto bid is the only way you would get in the Tourney. But otherwise, nah. There is a myth about being a hot team or having momentum, but ask Big 12 champ Iowa St. or Pac 12 champ Washington St. how much that helped them. Big 10 and SEC tourney champs bowed out really early last year. There was another thread recently about this. I'm sticking with too big of a deal is made of conference tourneys, and for the most part they don't mean squat.

I think a more "statistical" rebuttal would be the number of NCAAT that a team won that didn't win their conference tournament.
2022 SC did not win the SECT
2018 ND did not win the ACCT
2013 UConn did not win the Big East Tournament
2011 Texas A&M did not win B12T
2007 Tennessee did not win SECT

That is 5 title winners in the last 15 years of Tournaments who did not win their Conference Tournament. So 67% of the time (10/15) a conference winner has won the title, so I would say it actually does matter.

You are pointing out a statistical anomaly with conference champions like this years PAC12 winner who were well down in the conference standings, similar to Kentucky last year who won the SECT.

Considering there are 32 Conferences and that really only 4 (all but the Big 10 and the 1 title Stanford won in 2021) have dominated the past 20 years led by UConn and Tennessee, there really weren't many chances for the other P6 winners to garner any real momentum.

 

[Ciscokid]

Winning a conference title may have meant something for Mark Campbell. He is now head coach at TCU.

 

[undersized]

If Maryland had beat Iowa in the conference tournament semifinals (and then gone on to win the champsionship too), they and Iowa likely would have swapped regions in the NCAA tournament. Thanks to winning the Big Ten tournament, Iowa got a more favorable draw and is advancing to the Final Four in part because of it.