BleacherCoaches.com

There's a lot of people who think the idea of a conference title game is pretty worthless. An equal number like the idea. I'm still undecided, but how about these nightmares for the fanbase: in this year's men's basketball postseason, both Illinois and Georgia had coaches who the fans wanted rid of. Now, Illinois has a 50% chance to win their dang conference, and so does Georgia. A win by these teams almost guarantees that the coach, who is not doing very well, will keep his job at least one more season.

Then you have teams like Duke and Kentucky and Tennessee who end up losing in the conference tournament to teams they are clearly better than, 9 out of 10 times. This happens in football as well.

Why do we need these conference championships? Especially in basketball, what is the point of the regular season if pretty much every team plays in the conference tournament anyways? I don't think it is very fair in basketball. In football, I can see it I guess, because the teams are from separate divisions within that conference, and probably did not play eachother in the season. But as far as basketball goes, all it does it generate undeserved hype for teams who get a lucky win over an opponent they have no business playing in the first place, and it ends up hurting the team who lost. That losing team probably beat them twice in the regular season.

How about this: if Wake Forest or Pitt goes undefeated in the conference, and everyone else has a loss, they win the conference. No tournament, nothing. There are teams who get a lucky win or two in the conference tourneys who won like 2 games in the conference regular season. There was all this speculation and these scenarios about Syracuse. Syracuse did not win enough games to deserve a shot at the final tourney. End of story, folks.

Somebody justify this.

In case you have'nt noticed, the ncaa tournament is a tournament. similiar to conference tournaments, so a team performing well in a confernece tournament may get a chance to prove thier worth in the ncaa tournament
after having found success in their confernece tournament.

TAE, you bring up some excellent points....simple reason they will not abolish conf. tourneys > $$$$$$$$!

I do not have a problem with conference tourneys of 2 or maybe even 4 teams. That allows the teams that played worth a dang during the regular season a chance winning the conference on a neutral floor (which they may not have had during the regular season). Lets look at the Big 10 this year for example, four teams played well enough to deserve a chance at the conference championship Mich St., Wisconsin, Purdue, and Indiana. Instead of getting to watch these good teams battle it out for a conference championship we seen Illinois vs. Minnesota play in the semi-finals who both played in the bottom half of the conference.

I think all regular season champs should automatically be in also....to me a regular season champion deserves it more than a conference tourney champion. The Conference Tournaments in effect, make the NCAA like an open tournament...everyone has a chance in March.

My problem with the tournament is that it's too easy for a team who gets hot, but really isn't the best team, to win it all.

I would love to see a double elimination tournament. Whoever that true best team is could certainly get beat by anybody once, but if they are truly the best should be able to avoid the second upset. This would get the TV people upset because they like that one big final game but it works for the world series and the NBA, why not the NCAA in hoops.

When you get down to six teams....two with no losses yet and 4 x one-loss teams, bring them into one site as a "Super Six" to finish. I think you would more often get a truer champion. I do have a problem with any 8th place team playing for a National Title, but double elimination will severely hamper their chance of actually winning it all.

Another concept worth exploring is, Take the smaller conferences and play a I-AA tournament. Start the I-AA with somewhere in the neighborhood of 32 teams from the mid-majors down (not sure where you would draw the line) who won their conf. tourneys and reg. season and play down to a I-AA champ. During the second week of the I-AA championship the Div. I begins with 60 Teams, pairing down to 30 and then 15. The I-AA Champ joins the party at the sweet sixteen and you have your built in "cinderella" in the Regionals each year.

Just some innovative (might be good might be bad depending on your opinion) ideas that I wish would be considered.