Yes, it needs to end and end quick. I have a resolution to the situation. The regular season win/loss leader gets an automatic bye to the championship game in the BTT, if they lose the BTT they still get an auto-bid to NCAA, the winner of that game is guaranteed an equal or higher seed. If they win, they automatically get a one or two seed depending on the tourney committee's research.This is a really good discussion... I'm squandering too much time at work thinking about this!
I'm a little old school and reluctant to change on this. I love the conference tourney as an event, but hate it as it relates to producing a meaningful award (outside of the auto-bid for NCAA, which is fine). Regarding the notion of 2 champions, I'm certainly of the opinion that 2 champions of the same league for entirely different purposes is dumb. If it were up to me, the championship would be the prize for the regular season, and the only award for the tourney winner would be the auto-bid (unless a better prize idea came to be), much like it is today.
But I do respect that that view is not held by everyone. And it would seem that this sillyness of a championship + a tourney championship has to end at some point. So if there someday can only be 1 champion... I will say there is an element of cool to giving the championship to the tourney winner, to me at least, but that's probably driven only by my love for the event (re: thinking with my heart instead of my head). It would definitely be an exciting way to award the title. The practical side of me says that route presents a greater risk of doing a disservice to the B1G championship than the inverse. For example:
1 - IU is the 1-seed this year. Suppose Purdue is a 4 and Wisconsin is a 3 (just making these up). If IU doesn't win it, and instead it goes to Purdue or Wisconsin (or anybody for that matter), how much damage is done to have proclaimed IU the B1G champion? Some, for sure, but a lot? But should 1 loss in the tourney undue the body of work that is the regular season? For objectivity sake, try to ignore the fact that it's IU in this year's #1 spotLet's pretend Purdue is #1.
2 - Conversely, imagine if the champion on record was solely based on the tourney championship. Again, pretend Purdue is the regular season champ and #1 seed. And in comes lowly Nebraska or Northwestern to win the tourney (perhaps Purdue gets knocked out by a good team, and that team blows a game to to Nebraska in the final). They'd finish the year with barely a .500 record AFTER adding in the tourney wins, yet they'd be declared the official champion. Then forever you look back at the record books and each time you see Nebraska in 2016 you're like "Nebraska... that's weird... oh wait, now I remember".
It just seems to me if you had to pick one of the 2 above, you'd have to go with #1 because it would the lesser of two evils. Sure, imbalanced deludes the title race a little, but not nearly as much if an 8 or 9 seed were to win the tourney for some dumb reason and be declared the league champion with a 7-11 record or something.
As an alternative though... if I were in charge I might consider an alternative hybrid model that gives the official championship to the team with the best record after including the B1G tourney results. This is attractive to me because it pretty much ensures one of the top 4 or 5 teams in the regular season gets the title because lower level teams couldn't amass enough wins in the tourney to beat the better teams' records. Another benefit would be that because of the byes and double byes, different teams will have different number of games played, which would inevitably reduce some of the craziness with tiebreaker scenarios.
Conference Tournament vs. Regular Season Title
- Thread starter FirstDownB
- Start date
oh ok, i will take a look at that, didn't realize that they had a weaker SOS than IU.
The jist of this thread was discussing who is the rightful champion (season vs. tourney), the merits, how you would consolidate this, etc.... whereas your post is all about who gets the auto-bid. So your solution is for a problem that doesn't really exist. I think you may have misunderstood the point.
Roster fart? LOL! You overestimate yourself and your importance to me.
Like any true nacissist, you abuse others using put downs and insults. However, when someone criticises you, you come unglued at the very thought someone might object to their nonsense. Most of what you post here is toxic. I suggest you make an attempt to act mature on here. People will respect you more.
As for the easy schedule, MSU's was even easier than IU's. No issue with them? Maybe you really don't follow college basketball, or even Purdue. Maybe you are just trolling here, eh?
I agree that the best team doesn't always win a one and done tournament. The NCAA should, at minimum, have a losers bracket.
Having said that the format of the BIG regular season is super unfair. IU had a perfect BIG schedule for their team this year. Soft early and pretty easy late. Build confidence and go. I will give IU credit they won the games they should have. I think that minus the round robin schedule the BIG should do in BB like they do in FB. Play division rivals twice, and cross rivals once. Have protected rivals. The BIG Tourney will define the Conference Champ.
Clearly what I say is important to you because you keep responding. And on top of that, you call me out for using put downs and insults, yet you interject yourself in to a conversation that didn't involve you doing what again? Oh yeah, using an insult. I suggest you jump down out of your ivory tower and get over yourself. You're about as hypocritical as they come on here yet somehow you think what you do is okay. As far as respect goes from people that post on an internet forum, that my drive your entire existence but I couldn't give two craps what people think on here. If they don't like the truth I am spinning, tough.Roster fart? LOL! You overestimate yourself and your importance to me.
Like any true nacissist, you abuse others using put downs and insults. However, when someone criticises you, you come unglued at the very thought someone might object to their nonsense. Most of what you post here is toxic. I suggest you make an attempt to act mature on here. People will respect you more.
As for the easy schedule, MSU's was even easier than IU's. No issue with them? Maybe you really don't follow college basketball, or even Purdue. Maybe you are just trolling here, eh?
You know you call me out as well for not following Purdue, yet you are one that comes to iu's aid quite frequently as well. I am guessing it is you that is another iu troll in Purdue clothing.
This is a really good discussion... I'm squandering too much time at work thinking about this!
I'm a little old school and reluctant to change on this. I love the conference tourney as an event, but hate it as it relates to producing a meaningful award (outside of the auto-bid for NCAA, which is fine). Regarding the notion of 2 champions, I'm certainly of the opinion that 2 champions of the same league for entirely different purposes is dumb. If it were up to me, the championship would be the prize for the regular season, and the only award for the tourney winner would be the auto-bid (unless a better prize idea came to be), much like it is today.
But I do respect that that view is not held by everyone. And it would seem that this sillyness of a championship + a tourney championship has to end at some point. So if there someday can only be 1 champion... I will say there is an element of cool to giving the championship to the tourney winner, to me at least, but that's probably driven only by my love for the event (re: thinking with my heart instead of my head). It would definitely be an exciting way to award the title. The practical side of me says that route presents a greater risk of doing a disservice to the B1G championship than the inverse. For example:
1 - IU is the 1-seed this year. Suppose Purdue is a 4 and Wisconsin is a 3 (just making these up). If IU doesn't win it, and instead it goes to Purdue or Wisconsin (or anybody for that matter), how much damage is done to have proclaimed IU the B1G champion? Some, for sure, but a lot? But should 1 loss in the tourney undue the body of work that is the regular season? For objectivity sake, try to ignore the fact that it's IU in this year's #1 spot
2 - Conversely, imagine if the champion on record was solely based on the tourney championship. Again, pretend Purdue is the regular season champ and #1 seed. And in comes lowly Nebraska or Northwestern to win the tourney (perhaps Purdue gets knocked out by a good team, and that team blows a game to to Nebraska in the final). They'd finish the year with barely a .500 record AFTER adding in the tourney wins, yet they'd be declared the official champion. Then forever you look back at the record books and each time you see Nebraska in 2016 you're like "Nebraska... that's weird... oh wait, now I remember".
It just seems to me if you had to pick one of the 2 above, you'd have to go with #1 because it would the lesser of two evils. Sure, imbalanced deludes the title race a little, but not nearly as much if an 8 or 9 seed were to win the tourney for some dumb reason and be declared the league champion with a 7-11 record or something.
As an alternative though... if I were in charge I might consider an alternative hybrid model that gives the official championship to the team with the best record after including the B1G tourney results. This is attractive to me because it pretty much ensures one of the top 4 or 5 teams in the regular season gets the title because lower level teams couldn't amass enough wins in the tourney to beat the better teams' records. Another benefit would be that because of the byes and double byes, different teams will have different number of games played, which would inevitably reduce some of the craziness with tiebreaker scenarios.
Well the argument that the BIG Tourney shouldn't determine the declared champ contradicts what the NCAA does in their Tourney.
EX: Undefeated UK was not declared the best team in college BB because they lost one game all year. It just happenned to be in the NCAA.
Therefore Poof body of work be damned. The body of work determines the tourney seeding in the BIG Tourney and the NCAA.
Thus an advantage for the better teams.
He's not worth it mathboy and I doubt is a Purdue fan as well.Roster fart? LOL! You overestimate yourself and your importance to me.
Like any true nacissist, you abuse others using put downs and insults. However, when someone criticises you, you come unglued at the very thought someone might object to their nonsense. Most of what you post here is toxic. I suggest you make an attempt to act mature on here. People will respect you more.
As for the easy schedule, MSU's was even easier than IU's. No issue with them? Maybe you really don't follow college basketball, or even Purdue. Maybe you are just trolling here, eh?
Soft early and pretty easy late? Come on, that last part is stretching it, even by IU-hatred standards. Included in IU's last 7 games: Iowa, @MSU, Purdue, @Iowa, and Maryland. That's five games against the top-5. And we had another road game in there with Illinois. Sure, not a great team this year, but road games are no gimmes, especially since they should have been mad as hell after getting the sh*t kicked out of them in Bloomington earlier in the year. The last team to fill out that final 7 was a home game w/ Nebraska, but that's the only gimme in that stretch. No IU fan would disagree that IU had one of the easier B1G schedules overall, but that ending is no picnic.
I hear you, I do. But are you suggesting that because the NCAA tournament is flawed in that respect that we should desire to have that same flaw replicated in our own league? I gotta say, that makes no sense.
With the NCAA tournament, I don't know how you'd crown a champion any other way given that there are so many teams, so many conferences, and so few common opponents. I suppose you could go to a double elimination tourney or something, but even that doesn't really solve the complaint you have. Frankly, I'm not sure what would, short of reverting back to the Helms Foundation trophy where the winner was voted on, but who wants that? Would you really rather have seen Kentucky declared the champion that year instead of watching Wisconsin actually playing them in the tourney? Not me.
While I understand I'm lobbying for one thing in the NCAA and another for the regular season, I think there's justification for it. For starters, there is a LOT of common opponents in the B1G conference. It's not a perfect round-robin, but it's 18 games of teams playing each other. There's enough overlap in schedules that giving the trophy to the regular season winner is at least reasonably supported by the results. In other words, I can live with the minor imperfection. It would be different if the same team got the easier schedule every year, or like if Maryland signed some kind of side deal where it guaranteed their single-play games would never be Rutgers or Minnesota, or something like that where the distortion was longer-term. But right now, the scheduling difficulty kind of comes out in the wash over the long-term.
Curious... what did you think of the hybrid model I proposed whereby you add the tourney wins/losses to the regular season wins/losses and determine champion based on that total conference record? It could potentially lead to a team winning the league who was neither the regular season champ OR the tourney champ. I didn't think about that when I posted it... crazy!
Interesting thought, but it could get anti-climactic near the end of the tourney if one of the teams had already accrued enough "points" to clinch the title before the final game or games were even played. If you are going to use the tourney the final game needs to be the climax.
Personally, I kinda like the idea of having the initial rounds played on campus and giving the higher seeds home court advantage. Give the #1 seed a triple bye to the final four as their reward for the regular season and make the final weekend a 3 day "final 7". If the initial games went chalk, Friday would be 3 games: 4 vs. 5, 3 vs. 6, and 2 vs. 7. Saturday would be: 1 vs. 4/5 and 2/7 vs. 3/6. Or you could reseed after any upsets, giving even more weight to the regular season order.
So you would have a tournament that crowns the champ on the court, gave weighting to the regular season order in 3 ways:
-triple bye for #1 seed
-home game in initial rounds for higher seeds
-re-seeding
notice i said reg. season win/loss leader, there is no reg. season championship awarded, so you couldn't put that on a banner and hang it up in the rafters.
I have been playing with this site [http://bball.notnothing.net/big10.php?sport=mbb] and I have a question about the tournament v regular season. If a school is number 7 in the regular season but finishes number 8 in the tournament and the NCAA takes only 7 from the Big Ten which would be used - the regular season standing or the tournament standing to determine if that team goes to the NCAA tournament? I guess what I am asking is does the Big Ten tournament determine who goes and the seeding for the NCAA tournament or does the regular season count in any way?
It's your whole body of work, how tough your conference was/is, your overall record, any injuries you might have sustained and how important that player or those players are to your success, your win/loss record, bad road losses, bad home losses, good road wins, home wins factor but not hardly as much at all UNLESS the team you are playing is in the top 20 of the RPI and if they are ranked in the top 10 AP poll at the time, SOS, RPI, KenPom, Lunardi whisperer, and subjectivity by the NCAA tournament committee.
So, in theory, when we have a year like this one, a team that is much lower in standings but because of good road wins, playing higher ranked teams, advancement in the B10 tournament, etc would go to the NCAA tournament ahead/instead of a much higher B10 standing team????
Yes, that's right. IU's Big Ten SOS is terrible, therefore that standing they have is a paper lion. They can put up a banner for that and have a parade, but it won't help their seed due to SOS. They will have to earn a 4 or 5 seed by beating Maryland and doing VERY well in the B1G Tourney due to the fact they have a double-bye
they had a very difficult pre-conf. schedule and beat the #1 overall seed in the NCAA this year.
You do realize there are going to be around 7 teams from the Big Ten in the NCAAT, right? Mich and OSU are on the bubble. The 6 teams ahead of them have basically already done enough to secure an at-large bid. So, there are basically 2 teams that can play their way in or out of the NCAAT at this point and they would likely knock out a team from another conference.
That's right. Here is a run-down of SOS for outright winners:
Re: IU's weak schedule in Big Ten, in-conf strength of schedules for outright regular season champs in KenPom era:
According to who? Mich is a "last 4 in" according to both Palm and Lunardi. Maybe you don't understand what a lock means.
The committees looks at records only. No name, no finish. They compare SOS, good wins, bad losses, overall record.
Purdue has a good SOS, nice record, some top 15 wins and decent road wins as well.
We are a lock no matter where we finish in the B1G or tournament. We are basically playing for seed. We are a 4 now and probably have an outside chance at getting a 2 or drop to a 7. I think we get a 3.
Very helpful. Thanks. Michigan is the very team I am thinking about. One last question: Is there an algorithm for these calculations used by the NCAA? Or is it more subjective than a simple algorithm?
I said according to some --- espn commentators, not bracketologists. IMO they are only a lock if they win a few games (2) in the BTT. I doubt they win their last game of the conference slate. And yes, I DO understand what a lock is.
According to the posts I've read of his in the last month, my guess is there are a lot of words he doesn't quite understand...
They use calculations but some calculations are already done in the form of RPI, KenPom, etc. So they take those and put them in a blender and then they do the "eye test" among other things. They have spreadsheets with formulas calculated an special programs that have been written for this exact purpose that they have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for.
Michigan at RPI 59 is a bubble team. Right now they are in. Tough game ahead. Win against Iowa and I think they are a lock. If not they will need to win at least two in the B1G tourney and preferably one against a top team.
Purdue was a 9 seed last year with an RPI in the low 60's. Michigan can't drop much lower and hope to dance.
Purdue was a 9 seed last year with an RPI in the low 60's. Michigan can't drop much lower and hope to dance.
The regular season title is the most important if it were a true, 'round-robin' schedule.
But now, due to schedule imbalance, the regular season puts teams in a conference 'seeding' situation to prepare for the Conf tournament, which is the real badge of honor.
That's all good and fine.
They've had the second easiest BIG schedule. And they are two games back.
I wouldn't call beating us twice, beating Indiana once, and beating just about everyone in the big ten with high RPI rankings easy. And they have National POY & B1G POY on their team. (Although I think Hammons should get it).
That's right. Here is a run-down of SOS for outright winners:
Re: IU's weak schedule in Big Ten, in-conf strength of schedules for outright regular season champs in KenPom era:
I'm not sure you understand what you posted here,because it pretty much makes a mockery of your rants vs IU's CSOS (compared to previous outright Champs).It also makes a mockery of your inconsistency-knocking IU's CONFERENCE SOS and seemingly giving MSU a pass for having a worse CSOS...
These are figures with 1 game to go.IU plays Maryland (12 in RPI),while MSU plays OSU (who is 77).So guess which of the 2 between IU (Champ) and MSU (presumptive runner up) is going to finish with the BETTER CSOS?At the very least IU will move up to 11th,which curiously enough puts them where 60% of previous years Champs finished.Also,as an aside, notice that Crean's earlier 2013 Champs finished with the BEST CSOS of any Champ during the Kenpom era...
Also there's this bit of wisdom...
"I wouldn't call beating us twice, beating Indiana once, and beating just about everyone in the big ten with high RPI rankings easy. And they have National POY & B1G POY on their team. (Although I think Hammons should get it)."
So again you tout MSU's schedule/accomplishments,but seemingly downplay IU's based on nothing but personal bias? So beating PU twice is supposed to be more impressive than beating Iowa (who btw ALSO beat PU twice) twice? There's some logic for you...
You do realize that both IU and MSU lost at Wisky,and that IU's loss to MSU is their only other loss to a high RPI B1G team,right? So IU had 2 losses to high RPI rated teams,while MSU,whose virtue you extolled had at least 3 in Iowa (2x) and PU (assuming PU counts as high RPI -they aren't at Iowa's level).And of course MSU also has that pesky home loss to Nebraska (ouch!!)...
And don't get me started on IU's 2016 record vs the Top 6 teams in the B1G (outright Title) vs PU's 2015 record vs the Top 6 (3rd place finish). Do you even realize that MSU's "best" RPI road win in the B1G this season was OSU-that team in the 70's?By contrast IU's was of course Iowa,who is positioned between Maryland at 12 and PU (farther down the scale)...
Last edited:
Are you sure about those RPI rankings champ? Seems a shame that you took all that time to sign up and find all the right keys on your keyboard to type it all out but then you use some form of RPI rankings unknown to the rest of the world.
D+ for effort though.
Last edited:
Regular season goes down in history books. Conf tourney not as valued but it gives better indication on how a team will do in the NCAAs.
