Would you rather....

[cjhsooner]

Did I suggest that? Tournaments are fun and interesting. They declare a champion. But, if they identify the best team it is merely coincidence.

I agree. I do not think anyone thinks UCONN was the best team all last season. They merely got hot at the right time. Same with, up until recently, the Super bowl champ had been a low seed (Green Bay, New York football Giants). Rarely do tournaments get it right, especially in a 68 team format.

 

[sooner333]

Since we will make the NCAA tournament with or without winning the Big 12 Tournament, I think I'd rather win the Big 12 regular season because this year it would be a bigger accomplishment in terms of difficulty. But, I'd gladly take either. And really, whatever version allows us to win games in the NCAA tournament is what I want to have happen.

 

[AltSooner33]

The main reason I would say tournament in this case is just because that, more than likely, it's going to be a split regular season championship. But being the greedy person that I am, I say we just go ahead and get both!

 

[SoonerTraveler]

Have the Sooners win their next two games and be Big 12 regular season champs OR win the big 12 tourney?

I sure would like the Sooners to be the ones to end Kansas's regular season run...

This original post did not ask about the national championship tournament. Obviously, that is the grand prize, and is not even comparable to any of the conference tournaments for the major conferences.

NCAA Tournament Champs > Big-12 Conference Champs > Big-12 Tournament Champs

The automatic bid argument is meaningless for the Big-12. The Big-12 regular season champ is in the NCAA tournament 100% of the time, and will likely be the highest seed from the conference, even if they lose their first game in downtown Kansas City.

Like Gary points out, the best team often does not win a tournament. Ask Billy Tubbs and his 1988 team. Billy's team won the Big-8 Conference Championship and the Big-8 Conference Tournament. Kansas was NOT the best team in 1988. They had a bit of luck as the higher seeded teams in their region kept losing in upsets before they got a chance to play KU. Then OU had to beat a team for the third time, and that is hard to do. (I was in Kemper Arena that day and am still broken-hearted.)

 

[WTSooner]

The NCAA recognizes conference tournament champions as automatic qualifiers not regular season champs.

Why do they do that? In part b/c most leagues don't have a round robin schedule that makes a true conference schedule "telling" enough.

 

[Swans]

Why do they do that? In part b/c most leagues don't have a round robin schedule that makes a true conference schedule "telling" enough.

Actually, it's more of a holdover from the days when only one team from each conference could qualify for the NCAAs. The ACC has always recognized their conf. tourny champ as their true champion. ****shefski's philosophy at Dook was to prioritize the tourney as that was recognized as the true champ.

You are right though when you say the Big 12 regular season champ is a true champ because of our round robin. As I said though, I want to win both!

 

[thebigabd]

Like Gary points out, the best team often does not win a tournament. Ask Billy Tubbs and his 1988 team. Billy's team won the Big-8 Conference Championship and the Big-8 Conference Tournament. Kansas was NOT the best team in 1988. They had a bit of luck as the higher seeded teams in their region kept losing in upsets before they got a chance to play KU. Then OU had to beat a team for the third time, and that is hard to do. (I was in Kemper Arena that day and am still broken-hearted.)

See, and it doesn't matter. Point is that KU is the 1988 National Champion, not OU. You have to prove you are the best team and OU didn't do that in 1988.

This post pretty much proves the point. KU won the tournament, cut down the nets, and have a banner in their arena. OU has an opinion that they were the best team in 1988 and had a better regular season.

You choose which you would rather have.

 

[Sooner04]

See, and it doesn't matter. Point is that KU is the 1988 National Champion, not OU. You have to prove you are the best team and OU didn't do that in 1988.

This post pretty much proves the point. KU won the tournament, cut down the nets, and have a banner in their arena. OU has an opinion that they were the best team in 1988 and had a better regular season.

You choose which you would rather have.

With philosophers like you Aristotle better watch his back.

F the Jayhawks.

 

[coolm]

People look at this wrong. anyone who has coached just about any competitive sport will tell you that a single elimination tournament doesn't always produce the best team ... it just shows who won the tournament.

KU won the National Tournament in '88. That is all. Who was the better team? Well, Oklahoma for sure. Houston was better than NC State blah blah blah.

But it's the best we can probably do. So we live with it.

 

[skyvue]

The comparison of the Big 12 tourney to the NCAA tourney is a specious one. To win the former, you have to play well for a weekend; to win the latter, you have to play well for three consecutive weekends.

I'd choose the regular season title over the tourney title every time; it's an accomplishment earned over eight or nine weeks as opposed to three days.

 

[slappy in OP]

Regular season by a mile for me. I would love to win the regular season AND win the Big 12 tourney of course, but that is a major ask. I say regular season title and then a deep run in the NCAA tourney. The Big 12 tourney does nothing but make a team tired for the bigger tournament (IMO). We just are not deep enough for that.

 

[pnkranger]

Regular season by a mile for me. I would love to win the regular season AND win the Big 12 tourney of course, but that is a major ask. I say regular season title and then a deep run in the NCAA tourney. The Big 12 tourney does nothing but make a team tired for the bigger tournament (IMO). We just are not deep enough for that.

If we could win the regular season, I wouldn't mind bailing out early in the big 12 tourney so we could get healthy.

 

[DenverSooner]

Why not reject the question and win both

 

[BoulderSooner]

The NCAA recognizes conference tournament champions as automatic qualifiers not regular season champs. If you win the regular season and lose the post season championship, you become an at large candidate for the NCAA Tourney. I prefer being the automatic qualifying champ, but I'd still like to win both.

actually it has nothing to do with the NCAA it is the conf's choice which one gets the auto bid ..

 

[Swans]

actually it has nothing to do with the NCAA it is the conf's choice which one gets the auto bid ..

It is the conference's choice. And, that's the way most of them chose to do it when only conference champions were selected for the NCAA tournament. Now the tournaments are money makers and the only way to justify them (make them meaningful) is to make them the auto selection to the NCAA tourny.

 

[NickZepp]

It's probably better for seeding to win the conference tournament or at least go to the conference title game. If OU say wins both games and loses the first game in the conference tournament they are probably a three seed at best in the NCAAs. If OU splits the next two. Finishes 2nd or 3rd in conference. Then wins the conference tournament that's possibly a 2 seed or a high 3. Going deep in the tourney helps OU better though. This is probably a bad example with OU this year. But I'm saying for other teams winning the conference tournament does a lot more for the NCAA.

 

[thebigabd]

The comparison of the Big 12 tourney to the NCAA tourney is a specious one. To win the former, you have to play well for a weekend; to win the latter, you have to play well for three consecutive weekends.

I'd choose the regular season title over the tourney title every time; it's an accomplishment earned over eight or nine weeks as opposed to three days.

It's also an accomplishment that includes variables that have a direct impact on the outcome of the game. Half of the games are on the road, the other half are in your home gym. The home team, statistically speaking, has a huge advantage over the visiting team.

There is also a psychological variable here... When you play a game at home against Texas Tech in January, your season isnt on the line. If you lose it stings, but you just get ready for the next game. When you play a game against Texas Tech in a tournament, their backs are against the wall. This may be the last game they play this season. There is a pressure associated with tournament play. There is only one winner, lose and you are done.

 

[soonertravis]

Right... lots of times the team with the best regular season record doesnt win the NCAA Championship either. That is the beauty of a tournament deciding a championship.

There is no counter to the fact that all championships in basketball are decided by tournaments. Neutral floor, high stakes, tournament basketball against unfamiliar opponents.

The examples you cite all involve teams that do not compete against one another and so there is no way to determine a "fair" champion without a tournament. We play a round robin and everyone plays an equal schedule. No fairer way to determine the best team.

 

[WTSooner]

The examples you cite all involve teams that do not compete against one another and so there is no way to determine a "fair" champion without a tournament. We play a round robin and everyone plays an equal schedule. No fairer way to determine the best team.

Ding. Ding. Ding.

 

[opsooner]

I'd like to win both but would definitely take the regular season and that includes a likely tie if we are able to even do that. It would be a great accomplishment for the team.

I do like the idea of playing well on a neutral (to even less than neutral) floor prior to the big tournament though. Sampson's teams won the conference tourney several times and by that time of the season we were definitely the best team in the conference even though we didn't win the regular season title.