MAC Tourney Format
Out of curiosity, I was checking ESPN to see how the MAC tournament was going.
I was intrigued by the format of their 12 team conference tournament and wondered if it would be a good format for the B1G to adopt.
Basically the top two seeds get byes all the way to the semifinals. This way, those top teams don't have to worry as much about 3 games in 3 days, injuries, or whatever else the tournament naysayers bring up. The 3 and 4 seeds have a bye to the quarterfinals like they do now.
Therefore, the remaining 5-12 seeds have two rounds to battle their way to the quarterfinals. In this year's B1G, Michigan and Wisconsin would be resting up until Saturday while MSU and Nebraska await the winners of the first two rounds to face in the Friday quarterfinal matchups.
Gives a significant reward for the top 2 seeds and, to some degree, 3 and 4 seeds for their strong regular season finish.
Logistically, it would add a round of tournament games so the current consecutive day format may not work as well. You could possibly have two Monday/Tuesday tournaments with the 5-12 seeds at satellite locations (Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland) that build towards the final in Indy (or Chicago).
I know this akin to fantasizing about college football playoff scenarios, but I was certainly intrigued and can appreciate the benefits as a fan of the #1 seed in this year's tournament. In the Amaker years, I may have liked our chances better in the current format. It is March, Enjoy!
March 11th, 2014 at 10:52 AM ^
I think it is a little different for one bid leagues that really truly want their best-performing team in the NCAA tournament (so they whisk them away to the semis of their conference tournament). A regular season conference MAC champion likely doesn't get an at-large bid, so they must win their conference tournament.
Worth mulling over though.
Worth taking a look, but probably "not for us."
March 11th, 2014 at 10:50 AM ^
I think there are very different motivations for major conferences vs. small conferences in these tournaments. Major conferences have an incentive to want upsets--it might mean an extra team in the tournament. Small conferences like the MAC, where the regular season winner isn't likely to get an at-large and only one team is going to get in regardless, have reason to hope that one team is strong and they also hope their championship game is a good showcase. They don't particularly want early round upsets in their tournaments; they avoid them by seeding teams directly into the late rounds.
March 11th, 2014 at 11:23 AM ^
I was actually looking at mid-major brackets the other day, and there are a fair number of conferences which do something analogous to the MAC, and indeed usually with fewer teams from the look of it. The Horizon, for example, also puts the #1 and #2 seeds in the conference tourney out into the semifinals as well. The Patriot has ten teams and the top six all get the first bye while 7-10 (i.e., 7 playing 8, 9 playing 10) serve as the play-in games for the #1 and #2 seeds. There are quite a few ways to do this, it seems.
March 11th, 2014 at 11:41 PM ^
The Horizon is who I was thinking of; they were the first to do this as far as I know. They weren't happy when Butler was upset in the first round in 2002 and they wound up with 14-loss UIC getting the autobid. They changed to the current format the next year, started sending their good teams to the NCAA every year (usually Butler, Milwaukee or Cleveland State). Nobody lower than a 3-seed has ever won the tournament under the current format.
And it worked--I think they had a team win an NCAA game in 9 of the next 10 years, and that success made it easier to get at-large teams into the tournament.
March 12th, 2014 at 10:40 AM ^
Until last night, when 5 seed, 13 loss Milwaukee won it all.
March 12th, 2014 at 12:45 PM ^
Of course this raises the question: why have a conference tourney at all, if you're that concerned about a Cinderella winner? Is that little bit of ESPN exposure really worth it?
March 11th, 2014 at 10:51 AM ^
How would that work under this format? It actually might make more sense with that many teams to reward the top 2 teams with a bye into the quarterfinals. You are right that it's a logistical nightmare though.
March 11th, 2014 at 10:59 AM ^
I guess you either bump it out another round in the initial stages (making for a 3 round initial tournament), eliminate the bottom two seeds, or make them play the 1 & 2 seeds in a sacrificial scrimmage.
I guess it gets significantly more complicated with 14.
March 11th, 2014 at 11:03 AM ^
The easiest way to handle 14 teams is:
8 teams play round 1 (teams 7-14)
4 teams play the round 1 winners (teams 3-6)
2 teams play the round 2 winners (teams 1-2)
Top 2 teams play 2 games max, while the 3-6 teams play three games. No one is worn out unless a bottom tier team makes it through to the fourth game.
March 11th, 2014 at 11:18 AM ^
March 11th, 2014 at 11:30 AM ^
8 teams play 1st round, 4 advance
8 teams play 2nd round, 4 advance
6 TEAMS PLAY 3RD ROUND, 2 ADVANCE???
EDIT: I think I understand now...
1st round: 7-14 play, 4 advance
2nd round: winners + 3-6 play, 4 advance
3rd round: winners play, 2 advance
4th round: winners + 1-2 play, 2 advance
5th round: winners play, 1 advances
So it's an 8-8-4-4-2 format.
March 11th, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^
March 11th, 2014 at 11:41 AM ^
March 11th, 2014 at 11:42 AM ^
March 11th, 2014 at 11:42 AM ^
March 11th, 2014 at 11:02 PM ^
Six-sided court, 3 baskets, 3 teams on the floor at a time. Two of these matches will narrow down the 6 teams to 2. Might be hard to find a court, though, unless they play it outside in a parking lot.
March 11th, 2014 at 11:17 AM ^
I'm guessing they'll do the same thing the SEC does with 14 teams now:
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/tournament/bracket/_/id/2014…
Teams 1-4 have a double bye, teams 6-10 have a single bye, and teams 11-14 have play in games to play teams 5 and 6. Assuming they'd do this to keep it competitive whereas the smaller conferences try to assure that their top team gets in.
March 11th, 2014 at 12:06 PM ^
You know your conference sucks at basketball when the #3 seed is Georgia.
March 11th, 2014 at 12:39 PM ^
Yea, they only played 4 out of the other 5 top teams once with all the schedule imbalance, going 1-3 in those games. I don't think they'll be making another run and winning the conference tournament this year.
March 11th, 2014 at 10:55 AM ^
If we weren't a top four seed I would consider it a curious call or perhaps weird.
March 11th, 2014 at 10:57 AM ^
Sounds like the MAC has a better handle on things than the B1G. There is more of a reward for season-long performance.
The ACC does a similar thing where the top 4 seeds don't play until the third round. The lower seeded teams must win FIVE games for the championship.
PAC12 uses a B1G format but starts a day early, ending on Saturday.
Most of the SEC schools are unaware that there is a tournament and are preparing for Spring Football practice.
March 11th, 2014 at 11:17 AM ^
Pac-12 tourney ends on Saturday so that the championship game can be played in prime-time, which can't be done on Sunday, due to the 3 hr time difference and lead time required prior to the announcement of the 68 team bracket.
March 11th, 2014 at 10:57 AM ^
March 11th, 2014 at 11:41 AM ^
I concur!
They snuck up on me this year, rattled off like nine wins a row to take control of the MAC. It was a pleasant surprise after their shaky start.
I've always felt that WMU should be much better in athletics in the MAC. Nice facilities, large student population, smack in the middle of recruiting hotbeds like Detroit and Chicago.
I hope they do work in the MAC tourney and represent in the Big Dance. A possible Michigan-WMU matchup would be crazy!
March 11th, 2014 at 11:44 AM ^
Yes sir! I want a 1998 type run! I went to every home game that year, such a blast.
March 11th, 2014 at 10:59 AM ^
It isn't shown in the ESPN bracket, but the first round is played on the higher seed's home court. This gives the school a little bit of extra revenue too. I understand there isn't as much motivation for a large conference to do this, but it is interesting.
March 11th, 2014 at 11:02 AM ^
It makes sense when you are a small conference who wants to give your best teams the best chance of making the dance, but it doesn't make sense for a major conference, especially one like the B1G that tries to sell its competitiveness so much. This gives such an imbalance to the top two seeds that it only makes sense when you're sending one team to the tournament.
Think of last year: UM, as the 5 seed, would have had to play PSU and Illinois just to play Wisconsin, then Indiana, then OSU for the title. That would be brutal. And could you imagine the uproar around here two years ago when UM tied for the conference championship, but tie-breakers put them as the 3 seed, meaning they had to play an extra game in the tournament?
March 11th, 2014 at 11:09 AM ^
Not much to add, but yes, this is an ideal format for a smaller conference. To that end, I wish more of them did it this way. For a major conference, it's not that beneficial necessarily.
It's worth keeping in mind also that in a lot of seasons, you might have three teams tie at the top (happened to us two years ago) or maybe multiple teams tie for second place. Now you've got a scenario where - based on tiebreakers - you're maybe giving two first place teams multiple byes while the third co-champ has to play extra games. Or one second-place team gets multiple byes while the other has to play extra games. That's a pretty big advantage/disadvantage to hand out to teams with the same record. Closest that happens now is if there are two #4s then the second one gets stuck playing one extra game against the worst team in the conference, so that's not nearly as bad.
Do we know how the Big 10 is doing the tournament next year? I assume the top two teams will get one bye and #3 will play #14 and #4 will play #13, but I'm not sure I've heard official word yet.
March 11th, 2014 at 11:10 AM ^
March 11th, 2014 at 11:48 AM ^
The Big Ten format should provide the outright conference champion with one bye for each game the champion won the title by. For instance, if you win the league by one game, you get a first-round bye. Win by two games, and you advance directly to the semifinals. Win by three or more games, go straight to the final.
Then again, this might not work every year. Maybe they should just test it out for 2014 and then decide next year whether to keep it.
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned in the MAC format is that those games last night were on campus, which is why there are no games today as the winners travel to Cleveland. Kind of a cool idea, but I agree it might not make sense for the Big Ten.
I always liked their double bye format. Not sure if it was just the good basketball or the format, but no conference tournament could compare to the Big East tournament at the Garden
Big East seeded the top teams directly into the quarterfinals; MAC seeds them directly into the semifinals.
March 11th, 2014 at 11:21 PM ^
the MAC originated this format that had an explanation of what their goals are, so I appreciate the insight above. Last year, there was one additional bye since Toledo didn't meet the APR numbers and was ineligible.
March 12th, 2014 at 11:44 AM ^
The 5-12 games are played at the home courts of the higher seeds and not satellite locations. For instance, EMU had a game at home on Monday against Central. I think it sucks that EMU has to win 5 games in a row to make it to the big dance but I think it sucked even more that they lost games that they should have won.