Why bother having a conference tournament

[NotInRHouse]

Is it just money at this point?

The committee obviously ignored our results to cop out about an injury (when Nevada lost several games to end the season) without one.

They even ignored the Cult going to the final when you look at their seed.

Since it's obvious the NCAA is capping B1G teams it almost would make more sense for the teams locked in to rest their starters and let Nebraska or Minnesota run the table and force the committee's hand to keep out a precious midmajor.

I used to think breaking off from the NCAA was a deluded fantasy but we're to the point where the big boy table should leave this nonsense behind.

 

[ScarletDave]

If you’re a big boy the conf tournament means 0% of your resume.

If you’re a small conf the tournament means 100% of your resume.

Actually a pretty stupid system

 

[socaldave]

The teams don’t even seem that excited about winning conference tournaments
Purdue didn’t seem overly excited.
If the committee isn’t paying attention or the only way to improve your stock is to win the auto bid why bother

 

[dconifer]

They have been useless and meaningless for years.

I grew up following the 7-8-team ACC when only the winner of the ACC tournament advanced (and there were usually multiple top-ten teams in the mix). Those were intense as hell, especially for a little kid who's living and dying with every basket. I'm not sure that any other conference even had a tournament then.

But nowadays, they are a waste of life. Even the Committee, as I think you are alluding, seem to do most of their work prior to the tournaments, and don't care what happens in them...

 

[The RUT]

They ignored it last year when Texas A&M went on a run and clearly earned a bid.

 

[Joey Bags]

The moral of the story is it means nothing unless you win the tourney. Which, frankly, is probably the way it should be handled as the committee cannot watch and analyze every conference tournament game. I doubt we'd have gotten in by beating Purdue.

 

[jordkap]

The moral of the story is it means nothing unless you win the tourney. Which, frankly, is probably the way it should be handled as the committee cannot watch and analyze every conference tournament game. I doubt we'd have gotten in by beating Purdue.

Can you imagine the outrage if that combination happened? It was bad last night, but beating Purdue twice, neither at home and having 20 wins.

 

[Scarlet Blind]

 

[fischy5000]

Can you imagine the outrage if that combination happened? It was bad last night, but beating Purdue twice, neither at home and having 20 wins.

All hell would have broken loose and im guessing committee's home addresses would have somehow leaked haha. All kidding aside, if you take committee chair at his word, beating purdue wouldnt have impacted their decision because the notion of losing those 3-4 games outweighs all else.