[Leftcoast]

Washington, who won the Pac 12 regular season title outright, missed the tournament while Colorado, who got hot one weekend in March, will play for the NCAA title.

I hate, hate, hate the PAC 12 tournament.

[Leftcoast]

Washington, who won the Pac 12 regular season title outright, missed the tournament while Colorado, who got hot one weekend in March, will play for the NCAA title.

I hate, hate, hate the PAC 12 tournament.

[M T]

It looks like the conference gets a Mulligan in the way of the NIT tournament.

[M T]

It looks like the conference gets a Mulligan in the way of the NIT tournament.

[Farm93]

If UW beat OSU then they would have been in.  If the conference champ is so weak that they can't just destroy a terrible 8 seed, then they should not get in.  UW was not thought to be a lock, so going in to the event they should have known they needed to win at least one game.  With that motivation in play they still lost, and I don't think many were crying over UWs lack of an invite.  IMO - C.a.l was lucky it beat Stanford because without that win they would have been NIT bound too.

Also Stanford, Colorado, UofA and UCLA all played in February with an understanding that they were trying to fix things for a strong run in the Pac-12 tournament.  That at least gave the fans of those programs something to track in February.  Take away the tournament auto bid and only C.a.l and UW would have been playing for anything since early February.  That would have been bad news for all of the Pac-12's TV games.  Not that anyone actually watched those games, but in theory it would have made the ratings situation worse.

[Farm93]

If UW beat OSU then they would have been in.  If the conference champ is so weak that they can't just destroy a terrible 8 seed, then they should not get in.  UW was not thought to be a lock, so going in to the event they should have known they needed to win at least one game.  With that motivation in play they still lost, and I don't think many were crying over UWs lack of an invite.  IMO - C.a.l was lucky it beat Stanford because without that win they would have been NIT bound too.

Also Stanford, Colorado, UofA and UCLA all played in February with an understanding that they were trying to fix things for a strong run in the Pac-12 tournament.  That at least gave the fans of those programs something to track in February.  Take away the tournament auto bid and only C.a.l and UW would have been playing for anything since early February.  That would have been bad news for all of the Pac-12's TV games.  Not that anyone actually watched those games, but in theory it would have made the ratings situation worse.

[burger]

I posted this somewhere else, but I'll repeat it here: UW is the first major-conference team ever to win their conference in the regular season and miss the Tourney.  It's a sad time for Pac-12 bball.

[burger]

I posted this somewhere else, but I'll repeat it here: UW is the first major-conference team ever to win their conference in the regular season and miss the Tourney.  It's a sad time for Pac-12 bball.

[OutsiderFan]

I felt the committee would pick Washington over California because they won the conference regular season, but that's not because it seemed like the right thing to do.

The NCAA looks at the conference tournaments as an extension of the regular season.  It's not like Washington blew away the Pac-12 field and got denied after losing a first round game.  They finished one game ahead of California in the regular season.  California beat a higher seeded Stanford team than Washington lost to in Oregon State.  That gave California and Washington the same overall conference record.  California's RPI was way higher than Washington's, and on top of that, the only time the two teams played, California won in Seattle. 

The committee was more than fair to pick California over Washington and put them in a play-in game against the last qualifier of one the best conferences.  I mean if Cal can't beat the 9th best Big East team, South Florida, does it really belong in the tournament as an at-large team?

To me, the tournament committee deserves a lot of credit for how they handled the Pac-12 in this terrible year for the conference.

[OutsiderFan]

I felt the committee would pick Washington over California because they won the conference regular season, but that's not because it seemed like the right thing to do.

The NCAA looks at the conference tournaments as an extension of the regular season.  It's not like Washington blew away the Pac-12 field and got denied after losing a first round game.  They finished one game ahead of California in the regular season.  California beat a higher seeded Stanford team than Washington lost to in Oregon State.  That gave California and Washington the same overall conference record.  California's RPI was way higher than Washington's, and on top of that, the only time the two teams played, California won in Seattle. 

The committee was more than fair to pick California over Washington and put them in a play-in game against the last qualifier of one the best conferences.  I mean if Cal can't beat the 9th best Big East team, South Florida, does it really belong in the tournament as an at-large team?

To me, the tournament committee deserves a lot of credit for how they handled the Pac-12 in this terrible year for the conference.

[Spiny_Norman]

Another way to look at how the committee evaluated Washington.  The following at large teams won their mid-major conference's regular season, lost in the conference tournament and still received a bid.  In other words, these teams were judged to be superior to Washington.

Wichita State (Missouri Valley)
Temple (Atlantic 10)
Iona (Metro Atlantic)
San Diego State (tied for Mountain West)

Sobering to know that Iona had a better profile than Washington.  But I cannot argue that the committee made a bad decision.

[Spiny_Norman]

Another way to look at how the committee evaluated Washington.  The following at large teams won their mid-major conference's regular season, lost in the conference tournament and still received a bid.  In other words, these teams were judged to be superior to Washington.

Wichita State (Missouri Valley)
Temple (Atlantic 10)
Iona (Metro Atlantic)
San Diego State (tied for Mountain West)

Sobering to know that Iona had a better profile than Washington.  But I cannot argue that the committee made a bad decision.

[Viking_Guy]

Well, three of those four conferences had better RPIs than the Pac-12.  And the MAAC always has that "plucky David" vibe going for its members, as well as being predominantly northeastern, in an era when the Big East is becoming far too geographically diverse for some Eastern scribes:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7675...conference

I mean, when the best OOC wins the conference have come from the 7th place team, and are the only wins by the conference against the RPI top 50, no school has the right to complain about getting left out.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

Well, three of those four conferences had better RPIs than the Pac-12.  And the MAAC always has that "plucky David" vibe going for its members, as well as being predominantly northeastern, in an era when the Big East is becoming far too geographically diverse for some Eastern scribes:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7675...conference

I mean, when the best OOC wins the conference have come from the 7th place team, and are the only wins by the conference against the RPI top 50, no school has the right to complain about getting left out.

VG

[82lsju]

I posted this somewhere else, but I'll repeat it here: UW is the first major-conference team ever to win their conference in the regular season and miss the Tourney.  It's a sad time for Pac-12 bball.

this is the first year since 1944 that the PAC-12 (or its predecessors) men's b-ball conference champion has not been in the NCAA tournament, the team that missed in 1944 was also UW.......

[82lsju]

I posted this somewhere else, but I'll repeat it here: UW is the first major-conference team ever to win their conference in the regular season and miss the Tourney.  It's a sad time for Pac-12 bball.

this is the first year since 1944 that the PAC-12 (or its predecessors) men's b-ball conference champion has not been in the NCAA tournament, the team that missed in 1944 was also UW.......

[CrazedZooChimp]

If you think this worked out well, then you're saying that the regular season is meaningless -- that we play 18 games for nothing more than to set the tournament seeding. That seems crazy to me.

Isn't that how the regular season for all sports except college football works? 

Although, the regular season probably also served the purpose of helping demonstrate how mediocre the Pac-12 was this year.

[CrazedZooChimp]

If you think this worked out well, then you're saying that the regular season is meaningless -- that we play 18 games for nothing more than to set the tournament seeding. That seems crazy to me.

Isn't that how the regular season for all sports except college football works? 

Although, the regular season probably also served the purpose of helping demonstrate how mediocre the Pac-12 was this year.

[Leftcoast]

I'm not arguing that UW is "good" relative to some national scale - clearly the conference's level of play was down this year. 

I'm arguing that the Pac 12's regular season champion over 18 games is more deserving than Colorado who played three good games in a tournament that no one cares about and very few bothered to watch.  When I tuned in to watch Stanford games (didn't watch any others) the atmosphere, "crowd" and production was embarassingly minor league.  Good for Colorado for surviving but they shouldn't qualify as the league champion.  The more meaningful accomplishment is to win the Pac 12's regular season and that's the banner I want hung in Maples at the start of next season. 

I wish the league (unrealistic though it may be) would cancel the LA Basketball Survivor reality show and use the week to complete a true round robin - that's something I'd enjoy watching.

The Pac 12 fans have consistently rejected the end of season tournament.  I guess the money is just too good for the league to accept this verdict so they keep trying to find a more attractive formula to entice spectators and the Las Vegas venue change is just more lipstick on the pig.

[Leftcoast]

I'm not arguing that UW is "good" relative to some national scale - clearly the conference's level of play was down this year. 

I'm arguing that the Pac 12's regular season champion over 18 games is more deserving than Colorado who played three good games in a tournament that no one cares about and very few bothered to watch.  When I tuned in to watch Stanford games (didn't watch any others) the atmosphere, "crowd" and production was embarassingly minor league.  Good for Colorado for surviving but they shouldn't qualify as the league champion.  The more meaningful accomplishment is to win the Pac 12's regular season and that's the banner I want hung in Maples at the start of next season. 

I wish the league (unrealistic though it may be) would cancel the LA Basketball Survivor reality show and use the week to complete a true round robin - that's something I'd enjoy watching.

The Pac 12 fans have consistently rejected the end of season tournament.  I guess the money is just too good for the league to accept this verdict so they keep trying to find a more attractive formula to entice spectators and the Las Vegas venue change is just more lipstick on the pig.

[76lsjumb]

It's of interest only to TV programmers and the school ADs who pocket all the money.

You mean, like Thursday night football games?  >:(

[76lsjumb]

It's of interest only to TV programmers and the school ADs who pocket all the money.

You mean, like Thursday night football games?  >:(

[82lsju]

Well said, Lefty. Fans didn't care about this tournament in its first 1980s incarnation, and they don't care about it now. The good coaches (eg Mike Montgomery) don't care about it. It's of interest only to TV programmers and the school ADs who pocket all the money.

well the conference teams with no shot at an NCAA invite care as it is their only chance to get into the tournament

[82lsju]

Well said, Lefty. Fans didn't care about this tournament in its first 1980s incarnation, and they don't care about it now. The good coaches (eg Mike Montgomery) don't care about it. It's of interest only to TV programmers and the school ADs who pocket all the money.

well the conference teams with no shot at an NCAA invite care as it is their only chance to get into the tournament

[OutsiderFan]

It seems to me it's all a matter of how it is positioned.  Far be it from a twerp like Tom Hansen to know thing one about marketing and promotion, so it is no surprise to see the Pac-12 tournament held is such low regard. 

This is sports.  It's about competition.  You can't have one regular season winner and a tournament winner.  It's one trophy and one champion.  If you want it to be based on who has the best record after a regular season, kill the tournament.  If you want the tournament to be meaningful, as it is clear the conference does, it must do away with the notion that there is or can be a regular season champion.  You can't have two champions.  That's too much of an "everyone gets a trophy" mentality.  Ergo, Colorado gets to hang a banner and record a championship this season.  Washington does not.

Once it is clear that to win the league you must win the tournament, coaches and fans will take it more seriously and interest in it will grow.  I'd even suggest coaching contracts include bonuses for conference tournament placement.  No better way to get coaches to care about the tournament than to allow them to gain benefit from where their teams finish in it.

[OutsiderFan]

It seems to me it's all a matter of how it is positioned.  Far be it from a twerp like Tom Hansen to know thing one about marketing and promotion, so it is no surprise to see the Pac-12 tournament held is such low regard. 

This is sports.  It's about competition.  You can't have one regular season winner and a tournament winner.  It's one trophy and one champion.  If you want it to be based on who has the best record after a regular season, kill the tournament.  If you want the tournament to be meaningful, as it is clear the conference does, it must do away with the notion that there is or can be a regular season champion.  You can't have two champions.  That's too much of an "everyone gets a trophy" mentality.  Ergo, Colorado gets to hang a banner and record a championship this season.  Washington does not.

Once it is clear that to win the league you must win the tournament, coaches and fans will take it more seriously and interest in it will grow.  I'd even suggest coaching contracts include bonuses for conference tournament placement.  No better way to get coaches to care about the tournament than to allow them to gain benefit from where their teams finish in it.

[76lsjumb]

The way things turned out this basketball season, I'm okay with Colorado being considered the true Pac-12 Champion, because, after all, that would mean we ABSOLUTELY DEMOLISHED the Pac-12 Champion...TWICE!!...  so, as Carl Spackler would say, we got that goin' for us, which is nice.

[76lsjumb]

The way things turned out this basketball season, I'm okay with Colorado being considered the true Pac-12 Champion, because, after all, that would mean we ABSOLUTELY DEMOLISHED the Pac-12 Champion...TWICE!!...  so, as Carl Spackler would say, we got that goin' for us, which is nice.