Why automatic bids should be eliminated

[Wufan]

If you play in a super conference and can't go .500, you shouldn't get in. Try playing in a one bid league and take your chances in the conference championship if that's too much to ask.

[TheShock]

Guys, the NCAA determines what constitutes D1 and D2 and D3.

There are some overly-judgmental comments on this thread that fly in the face of NCAA by laws.

In fact, we are discussing lower tier conferences the same way the BCS programs talk about us.

Just like the Big 10 and the Big East do not want to be discussed with the likes of the A-10, C-USA, and us... Why should we feel the SWAC and MEAC get as many teams as we have in the tourney over the last few years... Their best teams would finish 9th or 10th in our conference!! How are those teams "deserving" of dancing when a better team plays in a better conference?

As my Big 12 and Big 10 buddies say at breakfast:

"Why should we feel the (MVC) get as many teams as we have in the tourney over the last few years... Their best teams would finish 6th or 7th in our conference!! How are those teams "deserving" of dancing when a better team plays in a better conference?"

Ace Dad,

I highly respect you and all those who serve our great country. Please don’t tell us your Big 12 and Big 10 “BCS” buddies are military leaders? If so, God help us all. People with that kind of mindset and narrow vision couldn’t lead a troop of spider monkeys.

I have many Big 12 “BCS” friends and frankly, none of them are stupid enough to make asinine comments like your buddies.

Let it begin…

[TylerDurden]

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.

I understand the sentiment here, and I'm not suggesting that teams with losing records should be included all that often, but there are instances were a team with a losing conference record has shown itself to be a worthy at-large team.

It's easy to say, "Don't let them in." But when you step back and look at the entire picture, who has the better profile?

If we don't want people to look at a team's conference when determining bids, then we can't ask that some metric related to conference affiliation is used to keep a team out. I'll refer to UConn from last year again. They did not lose one game outside of the Big East. If they lost one more conference game - which they were a three-point basket against Villanova away from -- they would have had an 8-10 record in league play.

There isn't a person out there that could have said with a straight face that UConn shouldn't have been in the tournament last year.

Again, I get why people think that a .500 conference record should be a standard, I just think it's misguided when you look at the realities of the basketball landscape.

[Wufan]

Who was the auto-qualifier from the Big East last year?

[MSUDuo]

Who was the auto-qualifier from the Big East last year?

UConn! Which makes it a moot point

TD, I was going to say Maryland but it sounds like someone has done it since they did...

[Wufan]

[RoyalShock]

If you do away with the auto-bids and conference tournaments you just eliminated much of the motivation for about 200 programs to even put a team on the floor.

Basketball is a game of matchups and consistency. Teams are going to lose to teams that aren't as good due to matchups or the "any given night" concept. Look at Weber St. and Montana in the Big Sk. Each has just one conference loss and were competitive in the non-con. But their RPIs are 78 and 95, respectively. Either one could be left out of an at-large only selection process. I happen to think, since they get very few opportunities to play other tournament worthy teams, they at least deserve the opportunity to play their way into the NCAAs via their conference tournament.

And since the NCAA has made their tournament about money and give substantial payouts to the participants, teams like Weber, Montana, Miss. Valley St, Savannah St, Long Island, et. al, deserve at least a resonable shot at those payouts.

[RoyalShock]

To piggy-back off my previous post, I agree with the notion that if you can't finish at least .500 (and I would go one step further and say a winning record) in conference, you don't deserve an at-large bid to the NCAA tournament.

Accepting the notion that teams we're talking about play in one of the top 3 or 4 conferences means that they have had their opportunity to play multiple (at least 6-7) games against tournament-caliber competition and shown they can't win (or avoid losing) with any consistency. They should now be in no better a situation as teams from lower conferences who have won a lot of games but maybe lost a few to top teams and one or two that can be attributed to a bad matchup or "one of those nights" - win your conference tournament.

Drop the teams that can't finish better than .500 in their conference and I think the current NCAA methodology for filling the bracket is as good as it can get.

[MSUDuo]

For the record, as if anyone cares what I think, I don't think the automatic bids should be eliminated but I do think you should get rid of the conference tournaments

[TylerDurden]

Who was the auto-qualifier from the Big East last year?

UConn! Which makes it a moot point

TD, I was going to say Maryland but it sounds like someone has done it since they did...

Clearly I didn't cross-check the Big East Tournament

That still doesn't invalidate the point that, on occasion, a team with a sub-.500 conference record is still one of the best at-large teams. That's my point.