Conference tournaments...what's Cuse's take? | Syracusefan.com

Conference tournaments...what's Cuse's take?

SRHoo

Walk On
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
84
Like
242
Coming over from the Big East, is that a tournament Syracuse fans get excited about?

Obviously conference tournaments used to be much more important since only the winner moved on to the NCAA's, but it hasn't been that way for a long time. On a few boards (not just here) there seems to be the attitude that getting the #1 seed, or playing well in the ACCT is nice if it happens, but no big deal. It's only important for seeding purposes in the NCAA's.

I think if you poll the old school ACC fans...and I'm talking about pre-FSU, who've been fans for 20+ years, the tournament is important. For the newer members, not so much. Just wasn't sure how much hype/excitement surrounded the Big East tournament in it's prime.

When the ACC had 8 teams, and everyone played on Friday, that day was almost like an unofficial holiday in the Atlantic coast states between Maryland & Georgia. Kids stayed home from school, adults stayed home from work...I can actually remember in elementary school the schools releasing kids from class to watch games in the cafeteria or library. It was just that big.

Was it ever close to that way in the Big East? Do Syracuse fans really care about coming to Greensboro for the tournament this year?
 
Honestly if we aren't on the bubble and pretty much have our seeding taken care I would rather just win 1 game and lose the next game. Syracuse typically doesn't go deep to its bench thus playing 3 games in 3 days and with the Championship game now on a Sunday I wouldn't care to put the wear and tear on the team. If we win great, but if we lose and don't need the wins for our resume I am not a fan of the conference tournaments for non-bubble teams.

In 2010, when we were a NC title contender our starting center Senior Arnize Onuaku got injured in the Big East quarterfinals and we lost a chance a deep run in the tournament because he was injured in the conference tournament. I enjoy Championship Week on TV, but don't care about going all out to win the conference tournament. I will say last year's Big East Tournament was the exception because it was honestly emotional as it was our last BET at MSG and beating Georgetown in our last league matchup was a springboard to our Final Four last year.

I will enjoy watching Syracuse play Virginia though as you guys have had an excellent conference season and have a Final Four team.
 
I love the conference tournaments. I dont buy the argument that teams get tired. Duke has won the ACC tourney for years and piggybacked that with NCAA championships. F Uconns run in 2011 also.

We were not on the bubble last year and NEEDED the conference tourney to get back on track. I am looking forward to the ACC tourney again this year and hoping we can use that to work on things.

The Arinze injury was a fluke.
 
Great post. I had this conversation with a few of my UVA/VT friends recently. Personally, I could not care less about the conference tourney especially the last few years. I haven't always felt that way, but now it just seems like it's fluff before the 'real' tournament. For a team that's a lock for the NCAA tournament, I just don't see the point in killing yourself over 4-5 days in a row to try to win a conference tournament and then having to turn around and potentially play a Thursday game in the NCAA tournament. I know these are kids, but fatigue has to be a factor after that and bumps and bruises may not be entirely healed.

I especially feel bad for the first place teams in conferences that only have an automatic bid. A team can have an awesome year and finish first in the conference, but then if they have one bad game in their conference tournament, some 12-21 Florida Int'l team gets the auto bid instead? I just don't agree with that. The first place team who has done it all year should get the bid. As a fan, I also want to see the best team these non-power conferences have.
 
I especially feel bad for the first place teams in conferences that only have an automatic bid. A team can have an awesome year and finish first in the conference, but then if they have one bad game in their conference tournament, some 12-21 Florida Int'l team gets the auto bid instead? I just don't agree with that. The first place team who has done it all year should get the bid. As a fan, I also want to see the best team these non-power conferences have.

This is what's dangerous in D-1 right now. The one-bid conferences know this and don't like it one bit. They've always wanted to draw a ".500 line" - Until all conference regular-season winners get bids to the NCAA, no more than 50% of any conference can get a bid or a team must finish over .500 in the conference regular season to get an at-large bid. After they all get bids, have at it. In their view, it's not enough that the regular season winners get to go to the NIT and play at a power conference team's gym (despite the fact it's probably 3 or 4 times the size of theirs). There are over 200 schools in one-bid D-1 basketball conferences. They can vote in just about any rule they want and we can't stop them.
 
I want to say winning the regular season and getting a #1 seed is more important, but looking back those BET championships stick out much more the the regular season titles. I can tell you the years of our BET titles, not so much with the regular season.
 
As for the Big East tournament? I saw it as a mjor highlight of the year and enjoyed it as much or more than the NCAA Tournament. It was an incredbile spectacle and awesome games in an awesome environment. I wanted us to win it every time. But it had the nice side benefit of, if you didn't win it, you still had the NCAA Tournament to look forward to. I am not sure how I feel about the ACC tournament yet since we have participated in one, but I feel like I won't see it as quite a big of a deal as the BET.

Maybe if/when the ACCT moves to MSG. I thnk the ACC fans can't really imagine the awesomeness of having it there. The BET was, and I assume the ACCT will be if held at MSG, the very biggest sporting event in the United States during the week it is played in.
 
I am in the minority, but personally I hate them. They are only worth anything if you are a shjtty team that couldn't make its way into the NCAAT field during the regular season. If you are a good team, the rewards are miniscule - a tournament title is not nearly as prestigious as a regular season title - and the dangers are potentially disastrous (as Syracuse found out in 2010).
 
moqui said:
I am in the minority, but personally I hate them. They are only worth anything if you are a shjtty team that couldn't make its way into the NCAAT field during the regular season. If you are a good team, the rewards are miniscule - a tournament title is not nearly as prestigious as a regular season title - and the dangers are potentially disastrous (as Syracuse found out in 2010).
Count me in this camp
 
I like them for our conference but don't place too much emphasis on them. On the plus side, we've had some fun games to watch (e.g. UConn 6OT). But you don't feel too bad after losses. I remember after we lost in 96 (and even after we fell apart against Louisville), I knew that we were still in good shape despite the loss.

For the smaller conferences, I wish they would go the way of the Ivy League and get rid of it. That ensures the best team from your conference advances. I can't believe that these tourneys generate that much revenue. If they do want a post season, I think a championship game between the two top teams is ideal.
 
This is what's dangerous in D-1 right now. The one-bid conferences know this and don't like it one bit. They've always wanted to draw a ".500 line" - Until all conference regular-season winners get bids to the NCAA, no more than 50% of any conference can get a bid or a team must finish over .500 in the conference regular season to get an at-large bid. After they all get bids, have at it. In their view, it's not enough that the regular season winners get to go to the NIT and play at a power conference team's gym (despite the fact it's probably 3 or 4 times the size of theirs). There are over 200 schools in one-bid D-1 basketball conferences. They can vote in just about any rule they want and we can't stop them.
Nobody is forcing the one bid small conferences to have a post season tourney and award the auto bid to the winner. They make that choice themselves. Of course they want the post season tourney for financial reasons -- it makes money for all the schools in the conference. They could have the tourney and award the the auto bid to the regular season winner but that would certainly hurt attendance. I don't favor rules restricting the number of P5 conference teams that can earn a bid just to placate the small conferences. I believe in meritocracy not another quota system. If the small conferences were to pull a power play vote the major conferences could just walk. Who would be the loser then?
 
Do the rules allow a conference to have a tourney but still award the bid to the reg season champ? I guess if they did that it would take away all the motivation? Of course the way it is set up now, there is theoretically no motovation for the entire regular season.
 
For me its always been like this:

National championship > Final Fours > Conference tournament titles > Sweet 16/Reg Season title.

Now I held those conference tournament titles so dear because battling our old rivals in MSG was such an awesome experience. Sat. Nights in the Garden were the best tournament atmosphere there was in ANY post season tournament...plus like an earlier poster mentioned you remember the years you won conference tourneys. I would trade losing in the sweet 16 and maybe even the elite 8 for winning a prestigious conference tournament...only way I take 16 over conference title is if we shock somebody to get there.
 
The BET in its prime was a MEGA-event. Those tourneys in the 80s and 90s were epic. Once the BE started getting 8-10 teams in the NCAAT, however, the importance diminished, but the atmosphere was always tremendous.
 
Nobody is forcing the one bid small conferences to have a post season tourney and award the auto bid to the winner. They make that choice themselves. Of course they want the post season tourney for financial reasons -- it makes money for all the schools in the conference. They could have the tourney and award the the auto bid to the regular season winner but that would certainly hurt attendance. I don't favor rules restricting the number of P5 conference teams that can earn a bid just to placate the small conferences. I believe in meritocracy not another quota system. If the small conferences were to pull a power play vote the major conferences could just walk. Who would be the loser then?

I think that having a tournament that gave the autobid to the winner was the price exacted by the pre-CBS terabucks contract D-1 schools for letting all these schools move up from D-3 to D-1. I really don't think it was done by choice.
 
For me it's pretty simple; if you beat the top dogs in the reg. season you don't want to bother with it. If you didn't then you do.
I guess I find them to be more tolerable since the unbalanced schedules in the regular season became the norm.
But still - from a distance it's seemed pretty clear that Roy Williams for example, doesn't give a crap (regardless of what he may say publically). So really neither the reg. season or the tournament gives you a true champion, sigh.
When I become Sports Czar I'm mandating Ivy League rules. Round robin home & home reg. season & if there's a tie they'll be a rubber match (at least I think that's how they do it).
 
Good discussion, and good insight on the old BET games. I can see arguments for wanting conference tourneys and not, but when the lights come on, and the teams hit the floor in Greensboro in a few weeks, it'll bring the best out in all the players and coaches, and make for a great atmosphere and 5 days of hoops.
 
to be more tolerable since the unbalanced schedules in the regular season became the norm.
But still - from a distance it's seemed pretty clear that Roy Williams for example, doesn't give a crap (regardless of what he may say publically). So really neither the reg. season or the tournament gives you a true champion, sigh.
When I become Sports Czar I'm mandating Ivy League rules. Round robin home & home reg. season & if there's a tie they'll be a rubber match (at least I think that's how they do it).

That's why I'd love it if there were 8 top conferences with 10 teams each.
 
If you listen to Bud Poliquin, he hates them. I love them, and I hate well just win 1 game and lose for rest. What a joke of an argument
 
Good discussion, and good insight on the old BET games. I can see arguments for wanting conference tourneys and not, but when the lights come on, and the teams hit the floor in Greensboro in a few weeks, it'll bring the best out in all the players and coaches, and make for a great atmosphere and 5 days of hoops.
I always enjoyed the ACC tourneys. I feel like you get a concentration of great teams and great players in a few games. I compare the conference tourneys such as the ACC or Big East to the Euro cup; Even though it doesn't include the whole country (or the whole world in the case of the Euro cup), you get a lot higher percentage of quality teams than in the larger tournaments such as the NCAAs and World Cup.
 
Last edited:
Different people will tell you different things, however SU represented very well at MSG over the years and really drove demand for tickets. The environment was special, the stage was grand, it was like Mardi Gras for college hoops fans. Friday night semis almost had a Final 4 feel to it, even if the stakes weren't that high. I attended for 30 years, but I don't have any real plans to head south in this new era. Some of that is due to practicality, and some is due to feelings that it just wouldn't be the same. If it ever comes back to NYC though I will probably return.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,916
Messages
4,736,877
Members
5,931
Latest member
CuseEagle8

Online statistics

Members online
250
Guests online
1,880
Total visitors
2,130


Top Bottom