The somewhat odd math of the 14 team B1G conference tournament

[eastbaycat99]

Since this year’s tournament will be the first since expansion to 14 teams in which the Cats play in the first round, one aspect of the way the byes are structured hadn’t really caught my attention much until now. With 10 teams having a first round bye and 4 teams a second round bye, the teams playing in the first round have to win the same number of games to win the tournament that a team In a 32 team tournament without byes would have to win.
What is odd about the math is that normally in structuring a tournament that has a number of teams that is not a power of 2 (e.g. 4, 8, 16 etc.) you structure a bracket for the number of teams that is the first power of 2 greater than the number of teams in the tournament. If the number of teams in the tournament is T and the number of teams in the fully populated bracket is N, there would be N-T byes. When the conference had 11 teams, there were 16-11=5 byes. When Nebraska joined, there were 16-12=4 byes. In the 11 team tournament, 5 teams essentially played an 8 game tournament since they had a bye. In the 12 team configuration 4 teams play the 8 game equivalent. At the time the conference expanded to 14, the decision was made to keep the number of teams playing the equivalent of an 8 game tournament at 4, which required expanding the bracket to that of a 32 member tournament. In the 2014 tournament, the 11 and 12 place teams needed to win 4 games. The next year, after expansion, places 11 and 12 were now essentially better teams, not finishing in bottom 2 spots, but they were “rewarded” by having to win 5 games in order to win the tournament.

I personally like the fact that the regular season gets more weight in the tournament structure that was selected rather than the “unbiased” one that would have hade 4 rounds and 2 byes. What is odd is that I don’t really remember there being much debated about the bracket structure at the time, though I am sure there must have been. Can anyone fill me in on whether our administration weighed in, and if they did, whether it was in favor of the structure selected?

 

[NJCat]

Since this year’s tournament will be the first since expansion to 14 teams in which the Cats play in the first round, one aspect of the way the byes are structured hadn’t really caught my attention much until now. With 10 teams having a first round bye and 4 teams a second round bye, the teams playing in the first round have to win the same number of games to win the tournament that a team In a 32 team tournament without byes would have to win.
What is odd about the math is that normally in structuring a tournament that has a number of teams that is not a power of 2 (e.g. 4, 8, 16 etc.) you structure a bracket for the number of teams that is the first power of 2 greater than the number of teams in the tournament. If the number of teams in the tournament is T and the number of teams in the fully populated bracket is N, there would be N-T byes. When the conference had 11 teams, there were 16-11=5 byes. When Nebraska joined, there were 16-12=4 byes. In the 11 team tournament, 5 teams essentially played an 8 game tournament since they had a bye. In the 12 team configuration 4 teams play the 8 game equivalent. At the time the conference expanded to 14, the decision was made to keep the number of teams playing the equivalent of an 8 game tournament at 4, which required expanding the bracket to that of a 32 member tournament. In the 2014 tournament, the 11 and 12 place teams needed to win 4 games. The next year, after expansion, places 11 and 12 were now essentially better teams, not finishing in bottom 2 spots, but they were “rewarded” by having to win 5 games in order to win the tournament.

I personally like the fact that the regular season gets more weight in the tournament structure that was selected rather than the “unbiased” one that would have hade 4 rounds and 2 byes. What is odd is that I don’t really remember there being much debated about the bracket structure at the time, though I am sure there must have been. Can anyone fill me in on whether our administration weighed in, and if they did, whether it was in favor of the structure selected?

My head hurts from reading this! Nice analysis though....

 

[NURoseBowl]

I don't like to give anything that much thought.

 

[Jonny2TheP]

Since this year’s tournament will be the first since expansion to 14 teams in which the Cats play in the first round, one aspect of the way the byes are structured hadn’t really caught my attention much until now. With 10 teams having a first round bye and 4 teams a second round bye, the teams playing in the first round have to win the same number of games to win the tournament that a team In a 32 team tournament without byes would have to win.
What is odd about the math is that normally in structuring a tournament that has a number of teams that is not a power of 2 (e.g. 4, 8, 16 etc.) you structure a bracket for the number of teams that is the first power of 2 greater than the number of teams in the tournament. If the number of teams in the tournament is T and the number of teams in the fully populated bracket is N, there would be N-T byes. When the conference had 11 teams, there were 16-11=5 byes. When Nebraska joined, there were 16-12=4 byes. In the 11 team tournament, 5 teams essentially played an 8 game tournament since they had a bye. In the 12 team configuration 4 teams play the 8 game equivalent. At the time the conference expanded to 14, the decision was made to keep the number of teams playing the equivalent of an 8 game tournament at 4, which required expanding the bracket to that of a 32 member tournament. In the 2014 tournament, the 11 and 12 place teams needed to win 4 games. The next year, after expansion, places 11 and 12 were now essentially better teams, not finishing in bottom 2 spots, but they were “rewarded” by having to win 5 games in order to win the tournament.

I personally like the fact that the regular season gets more weight in the tournament structure that was selected rather than the “unbiased” one that would have hade 4 rounds and 2 byes. What is odd is that I don’t really remember there being much debated about the bracket structure at the time, though I am sure there must have been. Can anyone fill me in on whether our administration weighed in, and if they did, whether it was in favor of the structure selected?

I can’t speak to the reaction at the time of the decision, but I do agree with how it’s structured. If you finish in the bottom 4 of a 14 team league, you should have to do the near impossible to win the whole thing. As you said, gives more weight to the 20 game regular season than a 5 day tournament.

 

[ricko654321]

Since this year’s tournament will be the first since expansion to 14 teams in which the Cats play in the first round, one aspect of the way the byes are structured hadn’t really caught my attention much until now. With 10 teams having a first round bye and 4 teams a second round bye, the teams playing in the first round have to win the same number of games to win the tournament that a team In a 32 team tournament without byes would have to win.
What is odd about the math is that normally in structuring a tournament that has a number of teams that is not a power of 2 (e.g. 4, 8, 16 etc.) you structure a bracket for the number of teams that is the first power of 2 greater than the number of teams in the tournament. If the number of teams in the tournament is T and the number of teams in the fully populated bracket is N, there would be N-T byes. When the conference had 11 teams, there were 16-11=5 byes. When Nebraska joined, there were 16-12=4 byes. In the 11 team tournament, 5 teams essentially played an 8 game tournament since they had a bye. In the 12 team configuration 4 teams play the 8 game equivalent. At the time the conference expanded to 14, the decision was made to keep the number of teams playing the equivalent of an 8 game tournament at 4, which required expanding the bracket to that of a 32 member tournament. In the 2014 tournament, the 11 and 12 place teams needed to win 4 games. The next year, after expansion, places 11 and 12 were now essentially better teams, not finishing in bottom 2 spots, but they were “rewarded” by having to win 5 games in order to win the tournament.

I personally like the fact that the regular season gets more weight in the tournament structure that was selected rather than the “unbiased” one that would have hade 4 rounds and 2 byes. What is odd is that I don’t really remember there being much debated about the bracket structure at the time, though I am sure there must have been. Can anyone fill me in on whether our administration weighed in, and if they did, whether it was in favor of the structure selected?

I like the structure. If a team can’t finish in the top 10 of the conference, it’s deserved that they need to win 5 games to get through the BTT. And I think deserved that a top 4 team only needs to win thrice. If you don’t like it, play better in the regular season... the BTT isn’t strictly a tournament for fun, it decides an automatic bid to the big dance, so it makes sense that it favors the best teams in the regular season.

 

[FeralFelidae]

In at least one other 14-team conference (CUSA), the bottom two teams don't even participate in the tournament.

 

[Styre]

I like the structure. If a team can’t finish in the top 10 of the conference, it’s deserved that they need to win 5 games to get through the BTT. And I think deserved that a top 4 team only needs to win thrice. If you don’t like it, play better in the regular season... the BTT isn’t strictly a tournament for fun, it decides an automatic bid to the big dance, so it makes sense that it favors the best teams in the regular season.

Agreed. This is especially true in the smaller conferences - I like that the OVC gives its top two seeds byes directly to the semifinals, for example.

 

[Secho99]

Agreed. This is especially true in the smaller conferences - I like that the OVC gives its top two seeds byes directly to the semifinals, for example.

The WCC takes this approach too, 1 and 2 get a 3-round bye to the semis so only 2 wins needed to get the auto bid. 3 and 4 get a 2-round bye, 5 and 6 get a 1-round bye. So if you finish 7th-10th you have to win 5 games.

This of course further tilts that tourney in favor of Gonzaga and gives them more rest and fewer chances to get guys hurt before the NCAA tourney. And it usually gives St. Mary’s another crack at the Zags.

 

[Alvious]

Of course the best thing would be for the NCAA tournament automatic bid to go to the regular-season conference champion, and do away with conference tournaments completely.

 

[FeralFelidae]

Of course the best thing would be for the NCAA tournament automatic bid to go to the regular-season conference champion, and do away with conference tournaments completely.

Why? The conference tournaments are lots of fun! Always have been. I wouldn't celebrate getting rid of them.

 

[Styre]

Why? The conference tournaments are lots of fun! Always have been. I wouldn't celebrate getting rid of them.

It would guarantee that the best teams from the smaller conferences got tournament bids. It's really quite stupid that a low-major team can utterly dominate its league over 3 months but fail to win 3 games in 3 days at season's end and miss the tournament in lieu of a garbage team that got hot.

That said, getting rid of conference tournaments would also eliminate a lot of fun, meaningful basketball - and it's always fun to watch those aforementioned garbage teams go on Cinderella runs. So there's no good answer.

 

[FeralFelidae]

It would guarantee that the best teams from the smaller conferences got tournament bids. It's really quite stupid that a low-major team can utterly dominate its league over 3 months but fail to win 3 games in 3 days at season's end and miss the tournament in lieu of a garbage team that got hot.

That said, getting rid of conference tournaments would also eliminate a lot of fun, meaningful basketball - and it's always fun to watch those aforementioned garbage teams go on Cinderella runs. So there's no good answer.

The NCAA Selection Committee should give more weight to those conference champions instead of giving 9 bids to the ACC. It's absurd that NU is still ranked 84th in the NET coming into today (we'll drop some, but not much, by losing to Purdue). NU was ranked two spots higher than Fresno St. coming into today, a Fresno St. that just destroyed NU earlier in the season and would surely do it again if they played today. I have problems with the NCAA Tourney selection process, but I see the solution as giving more bids to the mid-major conference champions (so that some of these conferences will get a whopping two bids, WOW!!!) instead of doing away with the conference tourneys.

 

[Noah121]

I think the format that the B1G has originated in the Big East tournament.

In Division III, oftentimes there are teams that will not make their conference tournament. In the WIAC, for example, the top 2 teams get a bye in the first round (and host semis); those 3rd and 4th standing teams host the 6th and 5th teams respectively in the quarters, and the 7th and 8th place teams do not participate.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

The NCAA Selection Committee should give more weight to those conference champions instead of giving 9 bids to the ACC. It's absurd that NU is still ranked 84th in the NET coming into today (we'll drop some, but not much, by losing to Purdue). NU was ranked two spots higher than Fresno St. coming into today, a Fresno St. that just destroyed NU earlier in the season and would surely do it again if they played today. I have problems with the NCAA Tourney selection process, but I see the solution as giving more bids to the mid-major conference champions (so that some of these conferences will get a whopping two bids, WOW!!!) instead of doing away with the conference tourneys.

Belmont just lost their CC to Murray State. Belmont will end up 26-5 and I would much rather they get a shot in the tourney than watching Indiana or OSU again. BTW, Murray State is good.

 

[mikewebb68]

Belmont just lost their CC to Murray State. Belmont will end up 26-5 and I would much rather they get a shot in the tourney than watching Indiana or OSU again. BTW, Murray State is good.

It is not an either/or proposition. They will all be in in all likelihood. Belmont's NET ranking was 41, Murray St. was 52. Murray St. was on the bubble with a loss, but the same was not true of Belmont, imo. So they will get two bids.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

It is not an either/or proposition. They will all be in in all likelihood. Belmont's NET ranking was 41, Murray St. was 52. Murray St. was on the bubble with a loss, but the same was not true of Belmont, imo. So they will get two bids.

Hope so, these conferences historically haven’t got the benefit of the doubt. This would take a spot from a power conference. If think OSU needs to win a game in BTT. Maybe Indiana too.

 

[mikewebb68]

Hope so, these conferences historically haven’t got the benefit of the doubt. This would take a spot from a power conference. If think OSU needs to win a game in BTT. Maybe Indiana too.

Doubt OSU needs to win a BTT game if they beat Wisky tomorrow; right now they aren't even last 4 in on most boards, but last 4 byes or safely in. Indiana, maybe, since they're last game is Rutgers (if they lose to Rutgers, they are probably on the outside looking in unless they make a nice BTT run...)

 

[olshin]

I like the format a lot.
But realistically it was designed that way to
1) Allow every team a shot to participate.
2) Keep it at no more than 4 games in a day at one site, without extending the tournament

So given that, you're left with two choices
1) The current option
2) Or play the "traditional tournament" way, where you'd have six Round of 16 matchups (1 and 2 get byes), spread over two days with three games the first two days. Tournament would still take 5 days.

The current option to me is far better because ... well, why should the 3 seed have to win as many games to win the conference title as the 14 seed? Make the conference regular season matter a little bit, at least.