I am a little confused as to the purpose of the BIG (or any conference) tourney following the regular season. If I am understanding correctly, it seems like the conference champion is based on the regular season in-conference performance. Is the tourney for bragging rights, additional exposure, warm-up before NCAA Tourney, or something else?
Purpose of Conference Tournament?
Cash, TV exposure, and more hoops.
All things the ivy league abhors.
Agree on TV and hoops, but disagree on cash.
Harvard and Yale have the largest endowments at 31.728 and 19.374 billion, respectively. Princeton is 4th, Columbia is 8th, and Penn is 11th.
FWIW, Michigan is 7th.
I interepreted cash to mean athletically related funds. There is no doubt the the ivies have some seriously wealthy, not rich, wealthy alums who contribute a fortune to their endowments.
MONEY. THE ANWER TO THE QUESTION, "WHY?" IS MONEY, INDEP OF CONTEXT.
For example: "Why do the Yankees have 27 Championships?"
Winner of B1G tournament gets automatic bid for B1G, it raises revenue, and it gives all those teams on the bubble one last chance to make a run......
Conference tournaments determine the league's automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. That's all.
Don't forget about the B10 tourney trophy. Even though it doesn't mean much to us, I'm sure Novak and Stu would love to hold that trophy after all they have been through for Michigan basketball.
Teams on the bubble look at the tourney as one last opportunity to play their way in or out of the tournament. With no conference tournament, we may not make the dance in 2009. You also are jockeying for seeds for the field of 68.
BE QUIET AND SIT DOWN. MOAR GAMES = GOOD THING.
In non-at-large-candidate conferences where the auto-bid is the only way to get in, these conference tourneys are essential.
Else, if determined by reg seaons standings, a conference tie-breaker could leave a team out. People would hate that.
So those small conferences need the tourneys.
And you can't have some conferences with tourneys and some without if league results are linked to the NCAA tourney seleciton commitee's constraints (ie the autobids)
Again, the question can be raised if single elimination tourneys are the best way to choose a champ, but logistically in the NCAA's model where everybody has a title shot, they are necessary.
The winner of the tourney gets an automatic bid for the tourney. So if NW can somehow pull this rabbit out of their butt, then they make the show. Unlikely.
Other than that, just lots of basketball.
Anyone care to confirm? Contradict?
EDIT: Man, you guys type quick. See burtcomma above for confirmation.
if this thread or MGoPoll on rivalries is today's "Duh" question of the day. The answer is Benjamins. A more interesting question would be when is "Benjamins" not the the answer to a "Why" question.
Plus they can be used for seeding purposes. We could get another shot at OSU and/or MSU which if we beat them on a neutral floor would further improve the great resume and the resulting seed.
Just another data point for where the teams are. Actually they are also good preparation for the Big Dance. I think they have a lot of meaning for teams whether or not the teams are safely in the Tournament or fighting for a chance to get there.
It was huge for us last year to get that neutral court win over Illinois and have another shot at taking down OSU. Bring them on.
IT'S ABOUT MONEY AND MONEY ONLY PEOPLE! Seriously, same goes for football conference championship games. They can give you other reasons but it is all about the almighty dollar! Why am I yelling!!!!
...the Big Ten and the Pac 10 where the last holdouts to not have conference tourneys. It was great b/c like football the regular season meant so so much more. I've always hated the tourney it is a pure money grab plan and simple. I'd much rather see the Big ten play everyone twice, and if they need the exposure just extend their season. But that's me, I'm sure some of you would disagree.
Conference tourney's are really kind of useless in the power conferences other than money of course. The probability of a lesser seed playing their way in by running the table is low but there are exceptions (see Syracuse 2006)
Case in point: Last year, the Big East was considered the toughest league in the country. Pittsburgh lost the 1st game of the conference tourney, still got rewarded with a 1 seed. UConn won the tournament winning 5 games in 5 days, but ended up only ended up as a 3 seed.
I think the Big Ten tourny helps some teams that are borderline NCAA tourny bubble add to their resume if they do well.
And at times, they also given teams a chance to go to the big dance that otherwise wouldn't even be qualified to go to the NIT. For instance, Illinois went to the championship game a couple times with a sub .500 record.
More basketball = more fun.
It's just math.
Unless you feel that the purpose of playng the game is to determine the winner, vs. the purpose of playing the game is It Is Awesome to Behold or There is Beauty in a Thing Done Well or Wow That Was Cool to See/Do.
.. are that it allows us to take some time of work and drink alcohol during the day!
As Eiffel 65 said "just about the dollar bill going down into your pocket, into your bank account."
That said, conference tournaments are a blast to watch. Sucks for mid majors that win their regular season conference only to gain a minimal advantage in their conference tournament and have to face several single elimination games just to get into the NCAA Tournament.
2005 Oakland Golden Grizzlies disagree with your logic.
Eiffel 65 also said "I'm blue Daboo Dee Dabba Da" so I would take whatever they say with a grain of salt.
..is that not prophetic??
In between whines about the officiating, Bilas told us saturday night that the B1G places more emphasis on the regular season championship. Is this true? It's been forever since I've concerned myself with a conference title in basketball...
on here and had an arguement with him (what's new these days) on his reasoning. I told him the Ivy League would beg to differ.
What if, instead of 11 BTT games, the B1G scheduled 12 more regular-season games, one midweek before selection Sunday, and one on the weekend of selection Sunday. With 20 (instead of 18) conference games, the B1G would have an almost complete double-round robin, which would be a perfectly balanced, fair way to determine a champion.
Does anybody think that the neutral site tournament brings in more total money than one more home game per team? It seems to me that the Big Ten added the tournament because everyone else did, but it is basically unnecessary.
Aren't these conference tournaments the wee bit fun too? And isn't that the point of sports? Obviously, money plays a large role, but from the fan's perspective I happen to enjoy the cavalcade of basketball games we get before March Madness, often between conference rivals.
It wasn't the best game for Michigan, but that Ohio-Michigan game from two years ago was entertaining.
Bitching about the BCS I understand because it's a money grab that affects the quality of the sport. Conference tournaments don't and are fantastic television in what would be an otherwise dull period.
Huzzah, I say.
The seeding for the NCAA tourney can easily be done by what was accomplised during regular season. Instead, why not take a weekend, fill it with good games, possibly more rivalry matchups, and some extra bragging rights, and make a few bucks?
money, Money, MOney, MONey, MONEy, MONEY (sang to the tune of The O'Jays)
It helps get the league Tournament-ready. Before we had the BTT, Big Ten teams would be a little bit deer-in-the-headlights in some of the early rounds of the NCAA's against teams that were playing their third and fourth tournament game in the last seven days.
Besides, it's fun. More fun than a second game against Nebraska.
is to see who wins