NCAA Basketball: The annual argument against conference tournaments
Conference tournaments are fine, wholesome fun for the whole family. Do they really elevate the best teams to the NCAA Tournament?
For two weeks every winter, college basketball fans are mesmerized by a never-ending series of elimination games involving nearly every team in Division I hoops. That’s what conference tournaments are, after all.
Every year, however, reminders spring up about why conference tournaments are a problematic way to give away an NCAA Tournament berth.
There’s something to be said about the structure European soccer deploys: there are no playoffs. The team that performs the best in the regular season wins the league. There’s no disputing who the “true” champion should be.
Many conferences play between 16 and 18 league games a season. These same conferences – the small ones especially – only send a team (or two) to the NCAA Tournament. Why let a team that isn’t the league’s best represent the league on the basis of a single elimination tournament?
So far, chalk has reigned in most of the conference tournaments. The only exceptions have been the MAAC Tournament (won by No. 4 Iona), the NEC Tournament (won by No. 4 LIU), and the Big 10 Tournament (won by No. 5 Michigan, but that’s less relevant here).
The Horizon League, however, had to live with the fear that No. 8 Cleveland State – they of nine regular season wins overall – would represent the conference in the NCAA Tournament.
Let’s not kid ourselves here: conference tournaments exist as a way of generating additional revenue for schools and leagues. As such, they aren’t going the way of the dinosaur anytime soon. Even the Ivy League stopped holding out last year.
Additionally, without conference tournaments, we’d miss out on moments like this:
Or this:
Conference tournaments present fun conversations and powerful moments.
Sometimes, however, critical thought is required to create the best possible product.