Friday, May 21, 2010

Big East Will Eliminate Double-Byes From Tournament

At first I thought that being a 16-team conference was a bad idea (now it seems that everyone will want to do it). Then I really hated the Big East's decision to have a funky basketball tournament that afforded double-byes and made teams playing in the first round have to win five games to get into the tournament.

Now, according to my old stomping grounds at FanHouse, they may be looking to get rid of it. Thank god.

It really isn't wise to drag this thing out like that. Sure, the proposed format (a normal 16-team bracket) would mean that the tournament would still last five days (you cannot hold 8 first round games on the same day at MSG) but it would be fairer to everyone in the league.

Of course, the Big East could go back to the 12-team tournament era and have the same structured tournament as the SEC, ACC, Big XII, etc have. The problem here is that the coaches don't want it since it means that four programs won't even qualify for the trip to New York. That means shaky job security and having Seton Hall or St. John's missing out on the hometown love. The new way would force whomever wins the tournament to have to win four games to do so (not unheard of at all).

What has also fueled this is the fact that in the two years of this double-bye tournament, five of the eight teams that received those double-byes have lost their first game. That gives the league double-trouble. One, their marquee (read: best) teams in a given year are losing so early in the tournament that it affects their seeding in the NCAA Tournament. It also means that whomever won the tournament just won four or five games in consecutive nights. Get them to the dance the next week and those teams are just worn out.

Granted, making everyone have to win four games to win the Big East tournament would also wear the champion and the runner-up out. But aside from going back to the 12-team format ... which they don't want to do ... they'll have to take this alternative.

No comments: