This could have potentially left George Mason out of the Tournament during "the greatest run in Tournament history."
The game that many agree got them in was the Bracket Buster win over Wichita State late in the season.
The early season that year was good, but didn't provide as much momentum as that game.

Good, the entire season counts. Maybe now that 'body of work' they keep talking about will be considered. Now they need to fix the play-in game. Either get rid of it or make it between at-large teams that didn't earn their way in. While they're at it, quit making the entire season rest on 3-4 games in the conference tournament and give the autobid to the regular season winners.

/pipe dreams
//32 autobids, 64 at-larges, at-larges play their way in

Cheesus: //32 autobids, 64 at-larges, at-larges play their way in

Why not expand to 4096? (pops)

Cheesus: Good, the entire season counts. Maybe now that 'body of work' they keep talking about will be considered. Now they need to fix the play-in game. Either get rid of it or make it between at-large teams that didn't earn their way in. While they're at it, quit making the entire season rest on 3-4 games in the conference tournament and give the autobid to the regular season winners.

/pipe dreams
//32 autobids, 64 at-larges, at-larges play their way in

I am fairly certain that it is the conferences' calls on whether the auto-bid goes to the tourney or regular season winner.

bacongood:
I am fairly certain that it is the conferences' calls on whether the auto-bid goes to the tourney or regular season winner.

It is. I think the Ivy is the only one that doesn't do it. I hate giving to the winner of the tournament, but I don't want to do away with the tournament. It makes the conference season seem like a total waste of time.

Cheesus: bacongood:
I am fairly certain that it is the conferences' calls on whether the auto-bid goes to the tourney or regular season winner.

It is. I think the Ivy is the only one that doesn't do it. I hate giving to the winner of the tournament, but I don't want to do away with the tournament. It makes the conference season seem like a total waste of time.

That's a problem with most conference tournament formats. If you set your conference tournament up like the WCC, then the regular season still matters a bit.


/voting enabled because I can

You all realize the door swings both ways on this, right? For every mid major that has big wins on the front end of the season, there's going to be a mediocre major conference team that played well early but struggled down the stretch. All this does is ensure we continue to see a lot of #8/#9 Purdue/Texas Tech/Auburn/Providence/Florida/whomever matchups.

While the outcomes might be different...I applaud this change.

A game, is a game, is a game.

Who gives a shiat if it's game 1 or game 35...unless they are exhibition games, they should all count.

The headline and the story are one gigantic bucket of FAIL.

If the selection committee really did ignore the beginning of the season, Syracuse wouldn't have been screwed out of the tournament three years ago.

And count equally.

(Sorry for the double post...forgot that last part).

They say they'll change, but they won't. Those guys still basically sit in a room and decide who they want in the tournament, and someone will say "But they've been playing great the last 2 months" and it will get a team in. And teams whose athletic director is on the committee will also continue to get the benefit of the doubt.

I'd like to see the conference seasons start a little earlier and have a week or two in early February in which only non-conference games can be played.

This is weird. Say you've got a bubble team that blows it at this 12-games-out deadline, and after it passes all the analysts say you're out.
So what do you do for the last 12 games? Play your hearts out even though there's zero hope? The field is set except for the conference tourneys. So would it be best to slack of and make 100% sure your stars are healthy for the tournament?

Cheesus: bacongood:
I am fairly certain that it is the conferences' calls on whether the auto-bid goes to the tourney or regular season winner.

It is. I think the Ivy is the only one that doesn't do it. I hate giving to the winner of the tournament, but I don't want to do away with the tournament. It makes the conference season seem like a total waste of time.

I like using the conference tournament winner with the major conferences. The regular season winner is a lock anyway, and the system can prompt the occasional odd team like Mississippi State (which got through) and Baylor (which just missed) to make an inspired effort. It makes championship week more interesting. The only downside is it knocks some team off the bubble, but personally I won't shed a tear for a 19-11 team that loses a chance to be a #12 seed.

But for the smaller conferences with only one bid? Yeah, give it to the regular season winner.

Super Chronic: Cheesus: bacongood:
I am fairly certain that it is the conferences' calls on whether the auto-bid goes to the tourney or regular season winner.

It is. I think the Ivy is the only one that doesn't do it. I hate giving to the winner of the tournament, but I don't want to do away with the tournament. It makes the conference season seem like a total waste of time.

I like using the conference tournament winner with the major conferences. The regular season winner is a lock anyway, and the system can prompt the occasional odd team like Mississippi State (which got through) and Baylor (which just missed) to make an inspired effort. It makes championship week more interesting. The only downside is it knocks some team off the bubble, but personally I won't shed a tear for a 19-11 team that loses a chance to be a #12 seed.

But for the smaller conferences with only one bid? Yeah, give it to the regular season winner.

I would add a few more opening round games (all the 1 and 2 seeds get a play in game winner) and then you can let in all the regular season and tourney winners and most of the time a couple more bubble teams.

PattyMcG: This is weird. Say you've got a bubble team that blows it at this 12-games-out deadline, and after it passes all the analysts say you're out.
So what do you do for the last 12 games? Play your hearts out even though there's zero hope? The field is set except for the conference tourneys. So would it be best to slack of and make 100% sure your stars are healthy for the tournament?

They still consider the last 12 games, they will just no longer give them extra weight. Basically, they are saying they will ignore end of season "momentum".

This is about someone with influence getting their panties in a knot because their team didn't make it after they faded down the stretch.

I swear, they should just let the conference winners in and everyone else gets in on a random drawing.

Every year, all this whining about how "unfair" such and such a team was treated. That they are one of the best 65 teams in the country, blah, blah. If you want to play in the tournament, win your league's automatic bid. If you don't, then shut up.

Idiotic?

The most deserving teams AT THAT TIME should be invited to the tournament. If a team wins 20 games and then has their star player arrested for rape, after which they lose five in a row, the team should not be judged only by their "body of work."

bacongood: PattyMcG: This is weird. Say you've got a bubble team that blows it at this 12-games-out deadline, and after it passes all the analysts say you're out.
So what do you do for the last 12 games? Play your hearts out even though there's zero hope? The field is set except for the conference tourneys. So would it be best to slack of and make 100% sure your stars are healthy for the tournament?

They still consider the last 12 games, they will just no longer give them extra weight. Basically, they are saying they will ignore end of season "momentum".

So I think you're answering "yes," if I understood the question correctly. To use an extreme example, if a team is 5-13 and its tourney hopes look dead on arrival, then plays out of its mind for the last 12 games and winds up 17-13, even if that record normally isn't good enough to merit an at-large bid, under the current criteria the selection committee might say "well, they're as hot as hell so we'll let them in." So there's always that hope. The question, I think, was whether said 5-13 team might as well abandon hope under the new rules, because 17-13 is 17-13 no matter how you slice it and that spells NIT at best.

As I said, that's an extreme example, but the general question is: can a team that seems to have blown it with 12 games to go still hope to turn things around with a hot finish?

Super Chronic:
As I said, that's an extreme example, but the general question is: can a team that seems to have blown it with 12 games to go still hope to turn things around with a hot finish?

Yes. Either by a) winning the conference tournament or b) playing their way onto the bubble and then getting the bid.

The "hot at the end" team is just no longer put in over the "hot in the beginning" team, all other things being equal. This is fair, in my opinion, because a hot at the end team has the better shot to win the conference tourney, so they already have been "awarded".

bubbaprog: Idiotic?

The most deserving teams AT THAT TIME should be invited to the tournament. If a team wins 20 games and then has their star player arrested for rape, after which they lose five in a row, the team should not be judged only by their "body of work."

I am pretty sure the rule about being able to consider players with injuries/suspensions returning/leaving is still in effect. Though that may also only be considered for seeding purposes.

bacongood: Super Chronic:
As I said, that's an extreme example, but the general question is: can a team that seems to have blown it with 12 games to go still hope to turn things around with a hot finish?

Yes. Either by a) winning the conference tournament or b) playing their way onto the bubble and then getting the bid.

The "hot at the end" team is just no longer put in over the "hot in the beginning" team, all other things being equal. This is fair, in my opinion, because a hot at the end team has the better shot to win the conference tourney, so they already have been "awarded".

I'm not necessarily disagreeing; was just trying to flesh out the question. As I think about it further, I don't think I'm really worried about the "nothing to play for" phenomenon in any case. In college, you always have something to play for. College careers are short and you're always playing for today.

Super Chronic:
I'm not necessarily disagreeing; was just trying to flesh out the question. As I think about it further, I don't think I'm really worried about the "nothing to play for" phenomenon in any case. In college, you always have something to play for. College careers are short and you're always playing for today.

Sorority chicks are always willing to have sex after a win.

How about a basketball BCS?

lacrossestar83: How about a basketball BCS?

RPI (new window)

Heavy emphasis on strength of schedule and home vs away.