I'd like to see..

[Maxsumm]

A requirement that you win your conference tournament to get a 1 seed. It would emphasize the importance of the conference tournaments and add some excitement to them for the major conferences..

Right now it's like watching september baseball after pennant race has already been decided..

 

[jdubs30]

Horrible idea.

What happens if UK, Cuse and UNC all lose their conference tourney? You're putting emphasis on the last 3 games and pretty much ignoring the first 30.

 

[arbitragegls]

First off...BET has the excitement. Problem is you go all the way through conference play for 4 months and 18 games and then the tournament is one and done...less should be placed on the tournament otherwise keep any team without a 500 record out of the tournament. It is downright silly that 5 days or less is a determinant of a season.
How fortunate this year that we played well the first 5 months of season and retain our #1 seed...and that both Louisville and Cincy were going to make the dance. Just think if DePaul or Providence or even Pitt this year won the tournament...what a waste of a dance slot.

 

[SBU72]

A requirement that you win your conference tournament to get a 1 seed. It would emphasize the importance of the conference tournaments and add some excitement to them for the major conferences..

Right now it's like watching september baseball after pennant race has already been decided..

And in a way, I would like to see the conference tournaments done away with. It de-emphasizes all the work teams do during the season when a team like a 9th seed can go through and snag a bid and maybe take one away from a more deserving team. Tournaments are't going away becasue they make to much money but does the NCAA have to through an automatic bid in to juicy up the take? Shouldn't the regular season winner get an automatic bid? And what would you do if like somebody said, the 4 teams that were in line to get the #1 seeds didn't win their conference tournament? Or do you allow said 9th seed get as #1 bid just because they won their Tournament?

 

[kirbivore]

And in a way, I would like to see the conference tournaments done away with. It de-emphasizes all the work teams do during the season when a team like a 9th seed can go through and snag a bid and maybe take one away from a more deserving team. Tournaments are't going away becasue they make to much money but does the NCAA have to through an automatic bid in to juicy up the take? Shouldn't the regular season winner get an automatic bid? And what would you do if like somebody said, the 4 teams that were in line to get the #1 seeds didn't win their conference tournament?

Each conference can decide how to award it's auto bid. They could do away with their conference tourneys if they chose to.

 

[SBU72]

Each conference can decide how to award it's auto bid. They could do away with their conference tourneys if they chose to.

I know they could, but they won't becuse of $. And they justify it by awarding the auto bid to the winner. Now that Washingon, the Pac10/12 regular seaon winner did not get in there may be some discussion about that. It had always been assumed that the regular sesaons winners in at least the major conferences and most of the Mid-major would get at least an at large bid. Ain't so now.

 

[dollarbill44]

A requirement that you win your conference tournament to get a 1 seed. It would emphasize the importance of the conference tournaments and add some excitement to them for the major conferences..

Right now it's like watching september baseball after pennant race has already been decided..

UK, SU, UNC and Kansas all lost. If Kansas would have won the Big12, they would have gotten a #1 instead of MSU.

So, who would be the #1 seeds? MSU, obviously, and Mizzou, but then who? Who do you award the other two #1's? FSU? Colorado, New Mexico? Vandy at 24-10? It would be impossible to justify the #1 seeds if you require them to win their tourneys.

 

[Hoov50]

A requirement that you win your conference tournament to get a 1 seed. It would emphasize the importance of the conference tournaments and add some excitement to them for the major conferences..

Right now it's like watching september baseball after pennant race has already been decided..

So you want playing well for a 3-4 day stretch to mean more than playing well over a 4 month stretch...yeah, that makes sense.

 

[HtownOrange]

Do you believe that FSU is really better than Duke and UNC on a daily basis? FSU did not prove this during the season, and though I disparage Duke and UNC for not being the great teams and knowing they would be upper middle class in the Big East (they are not used to the physical play and depth of talent even on our lower teams), they are certainly better teams than FSU, overall. FSU got hot at the right time and I'm personally glad they beat both UNC and Duke in the ACC tourney, but giving them a #1 seed over Duke and UNC would be a hard pill to swollow.

Also, does Louisville deserve the #1 slot? They won the Big East.

 

[SU2NASA]

First off...BET has the excitement.

Wait til we leave and see how much excitement there is for the rejects vs. ConferenceUSA.

 

[kirbivore]

Do you believe that FSU is really better than Duke and UNC on a daily basis? FSU did not prove this during the season, and though I disparage Duke and UNC for not being the great teams and knowing they would be upper middle class in the Big East (they are not used to the physical play and depth of talent even on our lower teams), they are certainly better teams than FSU, overall.

Overall Duke and UNC are probably better, but FSU also beat Duke and UNC in the regular season. First time since 1996 that an ACC team beat Duke/UNC twice in the same year.

 

[pfister1]

In most years failure to win the conference tournament would cost you a #1 slot. This year SU and UK were so far out in front of the competition that not giving them the #1 would have been a travesty. Not as sure about UNC, I suppose you could have given it to Colorado over them.