Are Conference Championships fair?

[Yeofoot]

I'm just ticked off because Duke and Texas are in the same bracket. They are the best two teams in the tournament, and only one makes it to the final four. Yeah, early in the year Duke smashed us, but we played 3 of the No. 1 seeds, and beat two of them, and get put in the side of the bracket with two of the only teams that beat us all season. That's B.S. There are also two teams that got close to beating us. Hmmm. I just don't want to play Duke yet.

[Spence]

You have to beat them sometime, may as well do it now.

[colorado_loves_football]

I was just using Cincy as an example. I'm sure their were more teams that were better then a lot of teams in the tourney. I'm not necessarily talking about mid majors. I am talking about teams that shouldn't have been selected. The Big 10 is a prime example of teams not deseving to make it in. Cincinnati or probably Maryland would have probably won the B-10.

Why wouldn't anyone want the best teams in no matter what conference they play in. This whole representative thing makes no sense to me at all. If you are good enough, you should make it, if your not good enough you should stay home.

You may notice you referred to the Big Ten, not me, as a conference being poorly represented. I dont' make those distinctions, I base it on how a team does, as to whether or not they 'belong'. All those Big Ten teams were selected, so obviously the 'belonged'. I wouldn't have not invited one, simply because I think the Big Ten isn't a good conference, they 'earned' it as much as any other team, if not more.
Maryland lost to Manhattan, I don't think you can use them as a 'good' example of an ACC team. They 'belonged' in the NIT, and probably weren't very good. Air Force 'belonged' in the NCAA's as well, but obviously weren't as good as Illinois, unless your argument is Illinios wasn't good, either. The whole point of the tournament, is to select one team from a field of 65 as the 'best'. Only way that can happen is to pair them together, let the chips fall where they may.
There are two teams, Wichita St, and George Mason, will be playing for Elite 8. Both teams 'earned' their way to the Sweet 16, and only one team will advance. That's how it's set up, and it's fair. That's why, I believe a 'competitive' BCS would work, provided it's done 'fairly' and without regional bias. Only way that happens is to allow every major coference a representative. Football isn't like basketball, a 65 team bracket is excessive. Ten is sufficient, but I've already made that point.
It would require confernece championship games, they would serve as a fair way to select a field of ten teams. I don't trust polls.
They wouldnt' be playoffs in the truest sense, simply a fair way to select a representative, from a conference, similar to how in basketball one team is selected through competition, following a team's regular season.
Apply my model to the NCAA's if you must, but it works, and it will select one national champion. The Big Ten likely lost because they weren't as good as those other teams. But they (Illiniois) were #2 the previous year, so things have a way of 'cycling'. That's why Air Force 'earned' a NCAA bid. They likely won't be as good next year. An NIT invitation would have been an insult to their record, unless you think 6 losses is too many.

[Spence]

You may notice you referred to the Big Ten, not me, as a conference being poorly represented. I dont' make those distinctions, I base it on how a team does, as to whether or not they 'belong'. All those Big Ten teams were selected, so obviously the 'belonged'. I wouldn't have not invited one, simply because I think the Big Ten isn't a good conference, they 'earned' it as much as any other team, if not more.

If anything the -10 was overly represented in the B-Ball tournament, not poorly represented. just bcause someone is selected doesn't mean they belong. The problem with the NCAA tourney is they take so many teams it becomes a jumbled mess as to who belongs and who doesn't. They should cut it down and take the best teams. If they are going to have a play-off, they should make it a real play - off.

An announcer on the television said it best when talking about cinderella teams and the B-ball tournement. The coach said He had played a lot of golf with Jack Nicklaus. He stated that he had no chance of ever beating Nicklaus in an 18 hole round, but on one hole, one day he could win. That is your basic argument for allowing teams that couldn't win with a highly ranked schedule into a BCS game. This isn't whay you do if you are trying to really determine who the best team is that year. The B-ball tourney is an example of that.

[colorado_loves_football]

If anything the -10 was overly represented in the B-Ball tournament, not poorly represented. just bcause someone is selected doesn't mean they belong. The problem with the NCAA tourney is they take so many teams it becomes a jumbled mess as to who belongs and who doesn't. They should cut it down and take the best teams. If they are going to have a play-off, they should make it a real play - off.

An announcer on the television said it best when talking about cinderella teams and the B-ball tournement. The coach said He had played a lot of golf with Jack Nicklaus. He stated that he had no chance of ever beating Nicklaus in an 18 hole round, but on one hole, one day he could win. That is your basic argument for allowing teams that couldn't win with a highly ranked schedule into a BCS game. This isn't whay you do if you are trying to really determine who the best team is that year. The B-ball tourney is an example of that.

I don't necessarily agree that somehow the Big Ten was over-represented, but it's possible I suppose maybe they weren't the 'best' from a competitive standpoint, but that didn't become apparent until after the games were played.
Illinois, is a team I thought represented itself well. Even Iowa, to some degree did ok, just couldn't win, doesn't mean they weren't qualified.
Michigan State lost to George Mason, and they are in the Sweet 16.
I"m not sure how you make the games more competitive than they already are, so I disagree with your 'assessment' of it, how it's organized.
You are basing your opinion on unsubstatiated evidence, in fact I might argue that there's sufficient evidence to refute your 'argument' about the quality of play. Two teams, Wichita St, and George Mason will be playing in the Sweet 16, so one is assured an Elite 8 bid. Memphis, a #1 seed, is in the Sweet 16, but they aren't from a major conference. Bradley, is yet another team many haven't really given a lot of attention, yet is one game away from being in the elite 8, so as many as 4/8 teams or 1/2 could conceivably advance to the Elite 8, and 1 is asssured a spot.
Now, apply that to the BCS, where 8 teams are 'traditionally' recognized.
You would likely award all 8 spots to 'traditional' teams. If that were applied to the NCAA tournament, several teams, not just Memphis, would be left out of the 'dance'. I give the tournament credit for allowing any team an opportunity to participate, regardless of where they play.
You can try, I suppose to argue that somehow George Mason, Wichita St, Bradley, aren't 'typical' teams, but you can't apply that argument to Memphis. They were a #1 going into the tournament.
They will either 'sink' or 'swim' just like any other #1. I'ts ironic that a team like Memphis would be selected to the NCAA's and a team like Tulsa in the BCS isn't represented at all. Shows the disparity between the two sports. But that will likely change, in the future.

[Spence]

Now, apply that to the BCS, where 8 teams are 'traditionally' recognized.
You would likely award all 8 spots to 'traditional' teams. If that were applied to the NCAA tournament, several teams, not just Memphis, would be left out of the 'dance'. I give the tournament credit for allowing any team an opportunity to participate, regardless of where they play.

That isn't true. If Memphis was a #1 seed in the tournament they would have made the BCS as one of the 8 who play based on their rankings before the tournament started. THey wouldn't have been a #1 seed if they weren't highly regarded going in.