2014 Conference Tournaments

[gordonmann]

I think we'll see how far we get with the men first.  Pat has done a lot of work on this already, but this weekend is already a very busy one since we'll invariably have to enter the schedules for a lot of conference tournaments that aren't on the Presto Network and enter the seeds for the men's tournament, many of which won't be set until Saturday night.

[John Gleich]

It depends who your conference is though. If you're a lower level league that's not likely to produce at large candidates, then I think you owe it to yourself to give your best teams the best shot to reach the NCAAs. A league like the NACC has only won one NCAA Tournament game in 7 years, so it would make sense to limit the entries and even give your top two a bye to give the teams with the best chance to win an NCAA Tournament game a chance to get there. For a league like the WIAC which can produce an at-large nearly every season, where a 3-5 seed could reasonably win an NCAA Tournament game and almost always wins multiple NCAA games each year, protecting your best for the big dance isn't quite as vital.

Not even having a tournament would guarantee that of course, but most conferences want to have some kind of carrot out there to keep the regular season engaging for all the teams. It's no fun for players if the league's AQ is secured with 3 games left in the regular season.

I've always felt in Division III having about 50% of your teams qualify for the conference tournament makes the most sense for most leagues. You give your top teams the best shot by not having too many games to win it, and/or giving a bye, but you give a reasonable chance to make a run to everyone in the top half of the league. You keep the regular season meaningful by making teams earn their way into postseason. If you didn't finish in the top half of your league, you probably don't really deserve a shot anyway. Just my opinion.

The argument was made recently (i.e. in the last several years) on the CCIW page (which was a relative late-comer in the conference tournament realm) that having the full conference in the tournament is actually *better* for even the top seeds... because the 1 and 2 seed would get another win under their belt (as opposed to the 4 team format they have currently).

Titan Q did the math on it... and it really does make sense, getting teams *and* opponents more wins.

Sure, I can see that, IF your league is legitimately competing in the Pool C race year in an year out. Not all leagues are.

Well, our leage does. 

[gordonmann]

I trust others to analyze how the math works with the NCAA selection criteria, but I like keeping the conference tournaments restricted to a small subset of the conference.  It rewards strong performance over a long period of time and makes the regular season more meaningful.  I even like the UAA/Ivy League approach.  Give the bid to the team that earned it over three months, not three games.

Signed,

Conference Tourney Buzz Kill

[gordonmann]

I should've just quoted Just Bill.  He put it a lot more eloquently.

It depends who your conference is though. If you're a lower level league that's not likely to produce at large candidates, then I think you owe it to yourself to give your best teams the best shot to reach the NCAAs. A league like the NACC has only won one NCAA Tournament game in 7 years, so it would make sense to limit the entries and even give your top two a bye to give the teams with the best chance to win an NCAA Tournament game a chance to get there. For a league like the WIAC which can produce an at-large nearly every season, where a 3-5 seed could reasonably win an NCAA Tournament game and almost always wins multiple NCAA games each year, protecting your best for the big dance isn't quite as vital.

Not even having a tournament would guarantee that of course, but most conferences want to have some kind of carrot out there to keep the regular season engaging for all the teams. It's no fun for players if the league's AQ is secured with 3 games left in the regular season.

I've always felt in Division III having about 50% of your teams qualify for the conference tournament makes the most sense for most leagues. You give your top teams the best shot by not having too many games to win it, and/or giving a bye, but you give a reasonable chance to make a run to everyone in the top half of the league. You keep the regular season meaningful by making teams earn their way into postseason. If you didn't finish in the top half of your league, you probably don't really deserve a shot anyway. Just my opinion.

[John Gleich]

I trust others to analyze how the math works with the NCAA selection criteria, but I like keeping the conference tournaments restricted to a small subset of the conference.  It rewards strong performance over a long period of time and makes the regular season more meaningful.  I even like the UAA/Ivy League approach.  Give the bid to the team that earned it over three months, not three games.

Signed,

Conference Tourney Buzz Kill

There's definitely credence to that... several (most?) in the CCIW room would have preferred to stay away from the conference tournament, due to the fact that it gives every Pool C candidate an additional loss... the UAA is actually at an advantage because the non-Champs get to "Pool C eligibility" without having to lose another game at the end of their regular season.

The only other way that would work is if a team fails to make the conference tournament... but there hasn't been a team who made the NCAA tourney who failed to make their conference tournament yet.  Technically it's possible (if you had 5 strong NCAA candidates in a 4-bid tourney) but unlikely.

[Just Bill]

I should've just quoted Just Bill.  He put it a lot more eloquently.

Don't hitch your wagon to my star. I'm the guy who promotes an anthropomorphic pants supporting device with vaguely omnipotent powers. I can't be trusted.

[Greek Tragedy]

I'm with Gordon on this one. Maybe I am because Point is always one of the top teams, IDK. But why have a 16-game, 14-game or 18-game conference season if you are just jockeying for conference playoff seed? Maybe still have a conference tournament but only have the regular season champion get the Pool A bid. This still gives the lower seeds a shot at the Pool C bids with 3 more wins and if they don't get a bid, they have a conference tournament trophy to hang their hat on.

As a conference, I would rather have my reg. season winner get a bid (and mostly likely have a better shot at winning a NCAA game) than a #6 seed get hot for 3 games and then get beat by an unfamiliar nonconference foe in the NCAAs.

Keep the regular season engaging for all teams? Its called pride and love of the game. They don't get paid millions to "go through the motions".

[Pat Coleman]

Yes, there will be a women's page too, and you can probably figure out what the URL will be. It's just not as far along.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I follow the CCC, which, as far as I know, has never won an NCAA Tournament game.  Essentially, the conference tournament is our NCAA.  That's the goal for 95% of the teams.  Yes, we've had a few who developed some clout and ability and set their sites a bit higher, but that's rare.  (If we have any team that makes the regional rankings, we're all pretty stoked.)

I like getting all the teams in.  Over the last few years the conference has gone up and down in numbers.  We sit at 10 now.  Eight make the tournament.  That seems fair.  Most seasons 5 or 6 teams have as good a chance as any others to be "the best" team.

In those years when we have teams with a chance to win an NCAA game, they win the conference because they're head and shoulders above everyone else.  That's just how it works.

That's only one conference, but it is another perspective.

[AO]

I follow the CCC, which, as far as I know, has never won an NCAA Tournament game.  Essentially, the conference tournament is our NCAA.  That's the goal for 95% of the teams.  Yes, we've had a few who developed some clout and ability and set their sites a bit higher, but that's rare.  (If we have any team that makes the regional rankings, we're all pretty stoked.)

I like getting all the teams in.  Over the last few years the conference has gone up and down in numbers.  We sit at 10 now.  Eight make the tournament.  That seems fair.  Most seasons 5 or 6 teams have as good a chance as any others to be "the best" team.

In those years when we have teams with a chance to win an NCAA game, they win the conference because they're head and shoulders above everyone else.  That's just how it works.

That's only one conference, but it is another perspective.

What if the "head and shoulders above everyone else" team gets sick or has other injuries that keeps players out of the conference tournament?  The CCC might miss out on a rare opportunity to send a team capable of winning multiple games.

[smedindy]

I should've just quoted Just Bill.  He put it a lot more eloquently.

It depends who your conference is though. If you're a lower level league that's not likely to produce at large candidates, then I think you owe it to yourself to give your best teams the best shot to reach the NCAAs. A league like the NACC has only won one NCAA Tournament game in 7 years, so it would make sense to limit the entries and even give your top two a bye to give the teams with the best chance to win an NCAA Tournament game a chance to get there. For a league like the WIAC which can produce an at-large nearly every season, where a 3-5 seed could reasonably win an NCAA Tournament game and almost always wins multiple NCAA games each year, protecting your best for the big dance isn't quite as vital.

Not even having a tournament would guarantee that of course, but most conferences want to have some kind of carrot out there to keep the regular season engaging for all the teams. It's no fun for players if the league's AQ is secured with 3 games left in the regular season.

I've always felt in Division III having about 50% of your teams qualify for the conference tournament makes the most sense for most leagues. You give your top teams the best shot by not having too many games to win it, and/or giving a bye, but you give a reasonable chance to make a run to everyone in the top half of the league. You keep the regular season meaningful by making teams earn their way into postseason. If you didn't finish in the top half of your league, you probably don't really deserve a shot anyway. Just my opinion.

My preference is NOT to have these blasted tournaments in D-3. But if you have them they ALL should be in. You're already corrupting the regular season anyway - just go full criminal on it.

Besides, I LOVE when a low seed beats a high seed. I break out the Nelson Muntz laugh. Give me a #8 or #9 conference seed in the NCAA's!

[KnightSlappy]

I think there's something romantic about every team having a shot. The NCAA Tournament isn't about finding out who's the best team, it's about determining a champion, and I see the conference tournaments as an extension of that.

If every league awarded their Pool A via a tournament with every team involved then, in effect, we'd have a 400+ team tournament. I kind of like that.

[smedindy]

Because of all of the kvetching about the bids in the D-1 tourney, I always thought you should have everyone lace 'em up. You can give a lot of byes and the winner of each D-1 conference gets the first 32 seeds. Start on Monday with the all 350+ on Monday, Tuesday, then 256 to play Thursday, Friday and 128 Saturday, Sunday. Have the conference winners host each of the pods (where two emerge from each pod). After that, you have 64 and then the NIT, CIT, CBI can pick over the upset victims for their squad.

Sure, a game between Arizona and Florida International (256 in Pomeroy) won't be that thrilling, but at least everyone has a 'chance'.

Not that D-3 will do anything like that, but a full boat of conference tournaments could suffice.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

I thought I would give this group the first look at the conference tournament tracker page we're building:

http://www.d3hoops.com/seasons/men/2013-14/conference-tournaments/index

Not all of the info is in yet but if you see anything that is here that is incorrect, let me know!

For the HCAC only 6 teams make the tournament not 8.

Rose-Hulman has locked up the 1 seed and will host the semis (2/28) and final (3/1). Defiance is locked in at #2 and gets a bye. All that's left to decide is Hanover/Mt St Joseph for the 3|4 seeds and Franklin/Transylvania for the 5|6 seeds. The two quarterfinal games will be 2/25 at Hanover and Mt St Joseph

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I thought I would give this group the first look at the conference tournament tracker page we're building:

http://www.d3hoops.com/seasons/men/2013-14/conference-tournaments/index

Not all of the info is in yet but if you see anything that is here that is incorrect, let me know!

For the HCAC only 6 teams make the tournament not 8.

Rose-Hulman has locked up the 1 seed and will host the semis (2/28) and final (3/1). Defiance is locked in at #2 and gets a bye. All that's left to decide is Hanover/Mt St Joseph for the 3|4 seeds and Franklin/Transylvania for the 5|6 seeds. The two quarterfinal games will be 2/25 at Hanover and Mt St Joseph

Fixed...