Why automatic bids should be eliminated

[iSASO]

"conferences don't earn bids, teams do."

Yes, that has to be one of the biggest lies in all of the history of mankind. Those breakdowns are plastered all over the TV during the selection show. We're not fools, no one believes that they don't do a 'conference total sanity check' right before releasing the brackets.

[getreal4]

I'm still a fan for going to 96 teams with the bottom 64 playing an extra round to fill the 64 team bracket. And adding a new rule, no team can make the dance as an at large without a .500 record in regular season conference play.

I'm sure the bracket would still be seeded to protect the BCS programs, but no system involving money and power is perfect.

[Wufan]

I like this idea too, but I think that if you have 32 teams that skip the first round, I think those should be the auto-qualifiers.

[BEARZ77]

The myth of the NCAA tourney being about the "best 64" teams was one started by people like Bilas. It is supposed to be about the 64 teams that have earned their way there by doing the best they could against the opportunities available to them in the schedule. When you are less than a .500 team and in 7th place in your conference, we know what you are already. When you're top dog in a small conference with only road losses to BCS teams in the noncon and a loss here or there otherwise, there is an uncertainty that can only be weeded out by giving you the opportunity to show what you can do at the next level, ie. in the tourney. That is the beauty and essence of what makes the NCAA Basketball tourney the greatest sporting event each year. As someone else pointed out, weed out the perceived bottom and you become it and set the stage for your own elimination. That's what the BCS football has done and so now we want to do it in basketball to??

[CaliRdBrd]

My 2 cents...

Do away with conference championships and award the automatic bid to the team that wins the regular season conference title. On top of that, any team that isn't over .500 in league play should not be allowed to participate in the NCAA round of 68.

[TrueBlueJay]

My 2 cents...

Do away with conference championships and award the automatic bid to the team that wins the regular season conference title. On top of that, any team that isn't over .500 in league play should not be allowed to participate in the NCAA round of 68.

While I don't disagree with you, the money that the conferences make off of these tournaments is never going to let that happen.

[TylerDurden]

IMO, a .500 conference record is a completely arbitrary standard and certainly shouldn't preclude a team from making the field as an at-large. When you consider unbalanced schedules and super-sized conferences, it's not hard to imagine situations where quality teams can end up below .500 in their league.

A below-.500 conference record is a negative mark against that team, for sure, but it doesn't mean that team isn't one of the best at-large candidates in and of itself.

Last season's national champion was .500 in its league...and didn't lose a game to anyone outside of its league.

It doesn't happen often anyway - in fact, can anyone name the last team with a sub-.500 conference record to make the field (without looking it up)?

[CaliRdBrd]

A better than .500 record should be base line criteria if you want to be considered for an at large bid.

Using the Big East bottom feeders as an example...beating up on Rutgers, DePaul, Pitt, 'Nova, Providence and St Johns twice a year gets you 10 wins.

[TylerDurden]

A better than .500 record should be base line criteria if you want to be considered for an at large bid.

Using the Big East bottom feeders as an example...beating up on Rutgers, DePaul, Pitt, 'Nova, Providence and St Johns twice a year gets you 10 wins.

Not with an unbalanced schedule. Those teams don't play everyone twice.

By your standard, if UConn had lost one additional conference game last year they should have been left out of the tournament.

Last season, they played Villanova one time and won (Villanova was a top 25 team all season). Had they lost that, instead of winning by two, they would have been ineligible by the .500 standard.

Again, I'm guessing you can't name the last team with a sub-.500 record to make the field without looking it up.

It's an arbitrary standard. The strength of opponents matters and it's not (well, shouldn't be) difficult to see how a team could finish below .500 in their league and still be one of the best at-large candidates.

[DoubleJayAlum]

It doesn't happen often anyway - in fact, can anyone name the last team with a sub-.500 conference record to make the field (without looking it up)?

Just read an article by Lunardi on ESPN insider over lunch on this topic. An excerpt from the story:

For the first time in two years and the 30th time in the 64-plus team era, a school with a losing conference record is going to receive an at-large bid to the NCAA tournament.

And it's going to make me crazy. Again.

So it last happened two years ago and Lunardi thinks it will happen again this year.

I'm with Lunardi - a .500 conf. record isn't too much to ask if you want to make the tournament.