Conference Tournament Qualifying

When the remnants of the Pac-12 joined the ACC, SEC, Big Ten and Big 12 over the summer, I wondered how the remaining, super-sized Power 4 would handle their conference tournaments.  The Big East established the model for a 16-team conference tournament, but the Big Ten and ACC both have 18, and I had no idea how they'd figure it out with those two extra teams.  As it turns out, they didn't.  Instead, those two teams aren't playing in the conference tournament.

The ACC had 15 teams last season and kept the 15-team format for the conference tournament.  As a result, Miami and Boston College didn't qualify.  Neither did NC State, which won the ACC Tournament last season (which is the only reason they got into the NCAA Tournament) and rode that run all the way to the Final Four.  Which was enough to get NC State's coach fired.  What a difference a year makes, huh?!

It's the same thing in the Big Ten.  They added four teams to the league, but only one to the conference tournament.  Nebraska (which lost out on a tiebreaker), Penn State and Washington are the odd ones out.

This isn't the first time major conferences haven't included every team in the tournament.  When the Big East first went to 16, only 12 teams made it to the tournament.  They didn't expand to five days with all 16 members invited until 2009.  And those four years from 2009-12 gave us some of the most glorious Big East Tournaments in history (the UConn-Syracuse six-OT game in 2009, UConn winning five games in five days en route to a National title in 2011)!  The 16-team tournament was such a hit that the other conferences decided to follow suit and have everybody qualify, no matter how many teams they had.

That was always going to be tough with these unwieldy numbers, though.  To play an 18-team tournament, you would need six days, and the bottom four teams would be required to win six games in six days.  The chances of that happening would be slim to none.  The chances of somebody winning five games in five days aren't great, either, but we've at least seen it done, and these leagues are deep enough that it's definitely a realistic possibility.  I'm not saying that it's not possible the 15-18 seed could win six games in six days.  Of course it could be!  I'm just saying it's highly unlikely.

So, I have no issue with teams needing to qualify for their conference tournament.  In fact, I kind of like it!  The bottom feeders can't just coast to the finish knowing they're already in the conference tournament anyway.  And it's not like these teams are in contention for NCAA at-large bids, either.  They don't have the safety net of knowing they'll get to play for an automatic bid regardless.  If they want a shot at it (the auto bid), they need to earn it.

Even there are no playoffs in the European soccer domestic leagues, there is promotion and relegation.  Sometimes, the battles to stay out of the relegation zone are more intriguing than the top of the table.  And they're certainly more interesting than the middle-of-the-pack teams who are in no danger of being relegated, but also know they aren't going to qualify for European play.  That brings value to every game late in the season, especially for the teams towards the bottom of the standings.  Not having everyone make the conference tournament brings some of that to college basketball.

Suddenly, late-season ACC and Big Ten games really matter for those lower-level teams.  Qualifying for the conference tournament is a goal.  Having something to play for can provide extra motivation (for both players and coaches), and it gives fans a reason to care.  Will they still lose in the first round of the conference tournament?  Probably.  But, in what otherwise would very likely be a lost season, there will at least be the satisfaction of getting there.  If they don't, it at least means the season is over.  And, for coaches, it could mean the difference between having a job the following season or not.

Basketball is also, by and large, the only sport where the conference tournament is all-inclusive.  In most other sports, including in the Power 4 leagues, teams have to qualify for the conference tournament.  And this isn't the first time teams have had to qualify for their conference basketball tournament, either.  There's the historical example of the Big East, obviously, but other conferences have done it in basketball for a while.  For example, when the Ivy League finally began holding a conference tournament, only the top four teams made.  That's been the case ever since.

Mid-major leagues have even gotten in on the act.  The MAAC added two teams this season to go from 11 to 13.  One of my favorite things about the MAAC is that the men's and women's tournaments are held concurrently in the same arena.  Having 26 total teams simply wasn't going to work.  So, for the first time, not everybody got to go to the MAAC Tournament.  Only the top 10 on each side did.  The other six teams are staying home.

Of course, there's a reason why the conference basketball tournaments have historically included everybody in the league.  They're a big money-maker (sometimes the biggest money-maker) for the conference, so it makes sense that they'd want to have everyone involved.  More teams mean more games.  More games mean more fans.  More fans mean more revenue (from tickets and everything else).  It's just smart business.

But conference tournaments should also mean something, which is where making teams qualify comes in.  I'm not saying having every team play in the conference tournament is bad.  If the number is feasible, conferences should absolutely do it!  The Big Ten and ACC have gotten to a number that isn't feasible, though, so they've decided to make teams earn their spot in the conference tournament.  Which I also like.

Not having those lowest-seeded teams won't really impact the quality of conference tournaments.  The SEC and Big Ten are both incredibly deep.  They're both looking at a double-digit number of conference teams making the NCAA Tournament.  Those conference tournaments will be outstanding, and there are definitely some teams that can make a run that will improve their NCAA seeding (or even get them into the Tournament altogether).  The bottom teams can't make that Cinderella run now.  But they also can't screw up somebody else's chances by upsetting them in the early rounds.

What I'm saying here, ultimately, is that both formats work.  There will always be something great about every team from the conference coming together in one place to determine a champion.  But there's also something about making teams earn their way there.  Especially when you have too many teams to do it the other way.