Monday, March 15, 2010

The Case Against Conference Tournaments

I hate conference tournaments. I hate them. They're a money grab that in order to get people to watch it, demeans the regular season entirely. According to the NCAA, four games is more important than an entire conference season of work. In the small conferences, winning the regular season title is virtually irrelevant, a ncaa bid isn't guaranteed. However, winning a stretch of three or four games over the course of a weekend is worthy of an automatic bid? How is this fair?

Everyone rips on the BCS(Undeservedly) for being a cash cow, but the only reason conference tournaments are around is money. It makes for exciting television. I watch as much of the conference tournaments as I can because its my best chance to see teams I do not normally see.

I do not understand why Bobby Knight is the only member of the national media that is outspoken on the ridiculousness of conference tournaments. I am not against a conference championship game of some sort. Cal Washington was an outstanding game, so was Kansas State and Kentucky. But why are small conference teams taking the spots of big conference bubble teams with better resumes? Wouldn't a ncaa tournament with drawable teams get better ratings and be better attended than Kentucky vs NE Tech State? I'll get to that next time.

No comments:

Post a Comment