The Sway of the Conference Tournaments

The NCAA men's basketball tournament bracket is complete. But, it couldn't have been completed without another year of conference tournaments, a bizarre but exciting approach to college basketball that can sway people's opinions incorrectly going into the NCAA Tournament.

The conference tournaments are a little odd. While many people criticize the BCS for its structure and money grab from the major conferences, the basketball tournaments hold some similarities. The major difference is that it breeds excitement. These conference tournaments provide an appetizer to the “Big Dance” with dramatic games in major venues from Madison Square Garden to the United Center which counters football's desperate need for a bigger playoff system that gives mid-major schools a better opportunity at the national crown.

But, just as the conference tournaments breed excitement, it cannot be denied that they are major money makers for both the NCAA and the respective conferences. Additionally, they provide an added, unnecessary emphasis on the NCAA Tournament that skewers our perception of teams.

The average person who will put their money in on the NCAA Tournament probably hasn't watched much college basketball throughout the year. They kick in their viewing once the conference tournaments hit. With not much to go by, they rely on the teams that produced well in the conference tournaments as a gauge to their potential success in the NCAA Tournament.

In the same light, the NCAA adds emphasis to the conference tournaments. Whoever wins the tournament receives an automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament, which, while adding excitement, toys with the whole point of looking at a team's merit based off an entire season and puts into jeopardy every bubble team on the rare occasion that a lowly team runs their way through the weekend and their conference championship. In general, it's a bit bizarre to have a season conference champion and a tournament conference champion.

Furthermore, the NCAA Tournament's committee that decides the bracket puts far too much emphasis on the outcomes of the tournament in deciding seeding. This seeding ultimately has an impact on our own perception of the teams when filling out our brackets as well as once again swaying away from the importance of a team's regular season. An example is Ohio State, who likely could have been as low as a #6 seed or as high as the #2 seed that they did receive depending upon how they fared in the Big Ten Tournament.

I'm going to go ahead and grab this #2 seed.

To look further into the impact of the conference tournaments on the outcome of the NCAA Tournament, let us look at the winners of the NCAA Tournament since 2000 and the winner of their conference tournament that year:

2000: Michigan State – Michigan State

2001: Duke – Duke

2002: Maryland – Duke

2003: Syracuse – Pittsburgh

2004: Connecticut – Connecticut

2005: North Carolina – Duke

2006: Florida – Florida

2007: Florida – Florida

2008: Kansas – Kansas

2009: North Carolina – Duke

2010: Duke – Duke

2011: Connecticut – Connecticut

2012: Kentucky – Vanderbilt

8 of the past 13 NCAA champions won their conference tournaments. However, in most cases, they weren't surprises. Other than Kemba Walker leading Connecticut on their wild run in 2011, and perhaps Florida in 2006, these were stalwart teams from traditionally excellent programs. Nevertheless, from a numbers standpoint, the majority of champions were winners of their conference tournament, so momentum may play a factor.

However, take a look at last year's conference tournament champions and their outcomes in the NCAA Tournament:

ACC: Florida State - 2^nd round

Big Ten: Michigan State – Sweet 16

SEC: Vanderbilt - 2^nd round

Big 12: Missouri - 1^st round

Big East: Louisville – Final Four

The main point is that the conference tournaments normally have at least one winner that is a real trap team when it comes to their actual production in the NCAA Tournament. Florida State seemed like the clear possibility last year (and that was the case), but it turned out Vanderbilt was as well as Missouri being the biggest miscue (even for me as I had them winning the tournament in my bracket).

The conference tournaments are a fun experience, but they shouldn't allow a person betting on the bracket to get too invested in them. Momentum always plays a role, but it's more difficult to find in the forecasting of the most enigmatic sport to determine, college basketball. It's best to rely on the conference champions that proved throughout the season that they were winners rather than the ones who managed to bump themselves up and are now making all of us think they are better than they truly are because of seeding.