I say no, unless you win your conference tourney.

If you're one of the best teams that do not get an AQ then yes.

If you're one of the best teams that do not get an AQ then yes.

 

The best teams aren’t flirting with .500 in the conference. Don’t really care to see East Southwestern State there either though, so the least-bad mediocre team will do for me.

If every conference played a round-robin where every team played every other team once at home and once on the road then I'd say maybe. Because conference schedules are unbalanced, I don't see how a losing record should prohibit a team from making the tournament. If they're good enough, with enough wins (conference and non-conference) to merit inclusion, then they should be in.

If every conference played a round-robin where every team played every other team once at home and once on the road then I'd say maybe. Because conference schedules are unbalanced, I don't see how a losing record should prohibit a team from making the tournament. If they're good enough, with enough wins (conference and non-conference) to merit inclusion, then they should be in.

This. If all things were equal, then I would entertain the notion. Let’s take Missouri for example. Say they finish the SEC this year at 8-10 (they will be better than that, I know). But the last week they bring back Porter JR. And look like a top 10 team but lose a double OT thriller in the SEC finals to Auburn.

 

And we we also know conferences aren’t the same strength.

You cant be considered good in your own conference, when you have a losing record.

 

Some of these teams with a losing conference record and a winning overall record beat on the worse of the cupcakes/bad teams in the lower mid conferences.

Now most think the mid major conference are way down to the level of play of the bigger conferences but those same fans want to take wins over them and say, look this team, from the bigger conference has a winning overall record.

 

Seems like some are justifying those wins as a good thing. after saying they those wins are against lesser competition

 

Then when the league champion of a lesser conference has a better overall record then the bigger conference team, who has a losing conference record, the joke of an argument comes up look who the lesser conference champion beat

Edited February 11, 20188 yr by newarkcatholicfan

You cant be considered good in your own conference, when you have a losing record.

 

Some of these teams with a losing conference record and a winning all record beat on the worse of the cupcakes/bad teams in the lower mid conferences. Now most think the mid major conference are way down to the level of play of the bigger conferences but want to take wins over them and say, look this team, from the bigger conference has a winning overall record. Seems like some are justifying those wins as a good thing. Then when the league champion of a lesser conference has a better overall record then the bigger conference team, who has a losing conference record, the joke of an argument comes up look who the lesser conference champion beat.

I have no idea what you were saying the last two-thirds of you post, but these things generally manifest themselves when a regular season conference champion in a mid-major loses in their conference tournament. That’s on the respective conferences for saying how they select who goes to the big dance. And again, it is tough to compare if going 13-3 in the Summit League is more impressive than going 8-10 in the Big 12. But I do agree that we default into thinking the road is more challenging in a power conference and are conditioned to give them the nod.

When ya gotta find 68 teams, I don't think you have a choice. Adding more mid majors instead doesn't bring in enough cash come March.

When ya gotta find 68 teams, I don't think you have a choice. Adding more mid majors instead doesn't bring in enough cash come March.

 

^ And there you have it. Personally, I'd rather see a strong mid-major regular season champ that gets bounced in their conference tournament than a 7-9 Power 5 team, but money makes the world - and the NCAA tournament - go round.

If you're one of the best teams that do not get an AQ then yes.

 

I'm slow...what does AQ mean?

I dont think more than 4 teams from any conference should get in.

I'm slow...what does AQ mean?

 

Automatic qualifier.

The best teams aren’t flirting with .500 in the conference. Don’t really care to see East Southwestern State there either though, so the least-bad mediocre team will do for me.

 

The only way the thought that conference record should be a factor is if you view all conferences equal. We know that's not the case. The NCAA already lets lesser teams in that couldn't get in without a guarantee. From that point you simply take the best teams and conference record shouldn't matter.

I dont think more than 4 teams from any conference should get in.

 

I guess I should ask if we're trying to get the best teams in after the AQs or are we trying to have ever conference equally represented?

I guess I should ask if we're trying to get the best teams in after the AQs or are we trying to have ever conference equally represented?

 

Shouldnt the best teams be top 4 in their conference?