Surprising nobody, the University of Pennsylvania clinched its second consecutive Ivy League championship with a fairly easy victory over Yale on Saturday night, rendering their match-up with Princeton tonight relatively meaningless. As the outright winners of the Ivy regular season championship, the Quakers have earned a spot in the NCAA tournament.
In the small Trans America Athletic Conference, Troy State, like Penn, won the regular season conference championship. Unlike Penn, however, Troy State will be sitting at home watching the NCAA tournament on TV. Instead, Samford, by virtue of winning the postseason conference tournament, will represent the TAAC in the NCAA tournament. Troy State's fine season ended with an upset loss to lowly Mercer earlier in the conference tournament.
In fact, every Division I conference except for the Ivy League and the Pac-10 gives its automatic bid to the NCAA tournament to its postseason tournament champion, rather than its regular season champion. In choosing to reward the regular season champions, the Ivy League and Pac-10 eliminate the possibility of an undeserving champion while rewarding the consistent play of the top regular season team.
So if postseason tournaments sometimes produce an unworthy champion, why does nearly every conference choose to hold one?
First, there is the money. For big-time conferences such as the Big 10 and the ACC, holding a postseason tournament is an enjoyable and legitimate way of creating eight to 10 televised games between high-profile teams, all while making a ton of money. For many smaller, cash-strapped conferences, postseason tournaments are probably just another way of making ends meet.
Financial incentives are not, however, the only reason for a conference to hold a postseason tournament. Many proponents argue that postseason tournaments reward the team that is playing the best at the end of the season -- the team most likely to succeed in the NCAA tournament. Conference tournaments are also an effective way of sorting out conferences that lack a single dominant team.
Conference tournaments are also an opportunity for teams hurt by injuries in the regular season to prove themselves. Princeton, for example, probably wishes right now that the Ivy League held a postseason tournament. They were hampered by injuries earlier in the year, but no one would be overly surprised if they have what it takes to beat Penn right now. Likewise, a successful team burdened by injuries at the end of the season may not be the best representative for a small conference in the NCAA tournament.
Conference tournaments are also another opportunity for major conferences to add another team to the NCAA tournament field. Last year, Illinois made surprising run to the title game of the Big 10 tournament, drawing the attention of the committee that hands out at-large tournament bids. Ultimately, Illinois both lost the title game and was denied an at-large bid, but its run was enough to at least earn it some consideration.
Another positive aspect of conference tournaments is the television exposure they bring to smaller conferences. At no other time during the year can one find highlights on a national television network of Siena beating Niagara following highlights of Appalachian State beating the College of Charleston.
Despite all of these positive effects, conference tournaments do have some negative side effects. As alluded to earlier, it would be unfortunate if the Ivy League held a tournament and Penn were somehow knocked off by a lesser team, like Brown or Cornell. Penn's excellent season would likely go without reward, as it would have little chance of being awarded an at-large bid. Some people also argue that postseason conference tournaments simply tack on more games to a season that is already too long to begin with.
Taking this into account, should conferences choose to hold postseason tournaments? Ultimately, it should probably be an individual conference decision. In general, smaller conferences would be better off not holding a postseason tournament, if that is a financially viable option. A conference should prefer sending its strongest team, rather than a team that just got hot or lucky, to the NCAA tournament. Larger conferences probably have more freedom in deciding whether or not to have a postseason tournament. The benefits are likely greater than the costs for a major conference and overall postseason tournaments are a good thing for conferences like the Big 10, Big East, and ACC.
