My opinion has evolved over the years. I would love to win a regular season title again, but I think winning the tournament is much more fun. Of course, making the Sweet 16 once in a while would be great.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If your team sucks bad enough to need to win to get in they aren't going to win it anyway.BTT gives you the autobid to the NCAA's so have to go with that.
I've heard other people give that specifically as the reason that its more important, but thats really a silly non starter answer. I mean if you win the conference regular season, (which is certainly harder), your already IN the NCAA tournament, so the "autobid" for a power conference like the B1G holds no weight in that discussion...BTT gives you the autobid to the NCAA's so have to go with that.
I can't think of a team besides Iowa that has won the BTT and really had no business even being there. Didn't Illinois make a run one year when they weren't super good?
I didn't mention "regular season title" because like most of the posters here, when is the last time anyone actually saw one? It's basically not doable at Iowa, which is why 41 out of 42 years the BTT is way more important.I've heard other people give that specifically as the reason that its more important, but thats really a silly non starter answer. I mean if you win the conference regular season, (which is certainly harder), your already IN the NCAA tournament, so the "autobid" for a power conference like the B1G holds no weight in that discussion...
That's honestly one of the biggest detractions against keeping conference tournaments for these major conferences.I've heard other people give that specifically as the reason that its more important, but thats really a silly non starter answer. I mean if you win the conference regular season, (which is certainly harder), your already IN the NCAA tournament, so the "autobid" for a power conference like the B1G holds no weight in that discussion...
Yep, even next year the B1G will not "invite" the bottom three teams to play in the conference tourney. Too big a mess, and too many added games for no reason.That's honestly one of the biggest detractions against keeping conference tournaments for these major conferences.
I mean yeah it isn't gonna help all the bubble teams if you take away the ACC, B10, B12, SEC conference tournaments, but other than that and helping to kind of iron out some seeding debates for the NCAA Tournament, the positives are few and far between outside of..........."revenue".
But if you were to ask any major conf. coaching staff at the end of a regular season if they honestly give a single sh*t about the revenue from the conference tournaments, they'd probably just laugh at the question.
Making money for the conference isn't even on the radar of coaches, or players (who are only interested in money for themselves).
So again, then I ask, what purpose does a conference tournament serve for a major conference other than to be more games/risk to their teams?....................
To answer the question, then, I should also preface that I'm more of an old school head. I grew up in a time where half my childhood the Big Ten didn't even have a conference tournament yet. But I remember everyone mocking the B10 and Pac 10 for not playing one.
Well, the other elephant in the room is the fact that conferences are about to get bloated as f***, and there really becomes absolutely no need to play a conference tournament in an 18 team league (or more if they idiotically continue to expand with only football in mind and forcing every other sport to just deal with it.......)
The f*** do you need a conference tournament for in a 24-team league? At that point, you either will have to blow up the NCAA model in its current format, break off and do your own fake "national tournament", or actually use logic and make changes and go back to a more balanced and regionally structure to keep what isn't broken from becoming unnecessarily broken...................
Suffice it to say, the grind of a regular season title, to me, is more important than the fun of winning a tournament title, even though I've enjoyed every tournament title Iowa has had and wouldn't trade them for anything.....................other than a regular season title or a national championship. 😉
Well the women won it just two years ago, SO its certainly been in your lifetime, and its certainly doable...I didn't mention "regular season title" because like most of the posters here, when is the last time anyone actually saw one? It's basically not doable at Iowa, which is why 41 out of 42 years the BTT is way more important.
Yes, I understand the BTT has only been going X amount of years, the point remains. This year Iowa is firmly on the bubble, and it may be possible the only way they get to the NCAA tourney is by winning the BTT.
I had honestly forgotten that we won the regular season title two years ago. Probably had something to do with how that season ended.....Well the women won it just two years ago, SO its certainly been in your lifetime, and its certainly doable...
Regular season is a grind and a true testament to the strongest and best teams at the top. That winner is usually the best team while the tourney winner can be a 5 or 7 seed once in a whielMy opinion has evolved over the years. I would love to win a regular season title again, but I think winning the tournament is much more fun. Of course, making the Sweet 16 once in a while would be great.
Regular season is a grind and a true testament to the strongest and best teams at the top. That winner is usually the best team while the tourney winner can be a 5 or 7 seed once in a whiel
Refer to my post about teams seeded 5th or lower in the BTT.Could you say the same thing about the NCAA Tournament?
My opinion has evolved over the years. I would love to win a regular season title again, but I think winning the tournament is much more fun. Of course, making the Sweet 16 once in a while would be great.
It's going to be interesting next year and beyond to see how the Big Ten shapes their 20 game scheduling to try and even out the bad teams with the good and home and away games.Since they don't play a balanced schedule, I say the tourny champion is the only way to decide the champ. That being said, Purdue certainly earned the reg season championship this year. No other team was close but when they are close and the teams played different schedules, it doesn't mean anything outside of having an easier schedule
I know change is coming whether I like it or not, but am not a fan of all these conference changes. Seeing some new opponents will be nice, though.It's going to be interesting next year and beyond to see how the Big Ten shapes their 20 game scheduling to try and even out the bad teams with the good and home and away games.
I mean how are they going to give each team, 3 teams that they play home and away and fill out the remaining schedule with 17 one play home or away games,
The computer they use, is going to blow a circuit trying to figure it out. A number of teams are going to get royally screwed.
Some great responses, I don’t think there’s a wrong or right. Very subjective.The regular season title is and will always be viewed as more important than winning just 4 games in a row. If you think otherwise, then you must be a crazy Hawkeye fan.
I believe the only 2 Iowa teams in my lifetime that won an outright title in the Big Ten were the 1955 and 1970 teams, and we know that the 1979 team finished tied with Michigan St. and Purdue. That's only 3 times in 69 years if my math is correct.
I think they both have their merits. One may be more indicative of playing your best when it’s most important. I would rather Caitlin be known for success in tournaments than her teams performances overall in regular season.My opinion has evolved over the years. I would love to win a regular season title again, but I think winning the tournament is much more fun. Of course, making the Sweet 16 once in a while would be great.
He was a D-head though. Good to have him gone.you do recall Alford won 2 BTT titles in 8 years at Iowa and you wanted him fired/gone back in the day
So is OSU better than Iowa. I think not.I agree that I’d prefer a regular season title. But with the Big Ten currently at 14 teams and moving to 18, unbalanced schedules really don’t make for a fair regular season. The Women’s season this year was a prime example. OSU won the regular season but didn’t have to play Indiana twice which basically gave them the 1 game lead over Iowa in the standings. The top three teams lost a random game to one of Illinois, Michigan, and Nebraska. Then they beat each other at home. But Indiana didn’t get OSU at home.
That’s my exact point. We took them to OT and lost at their place, then closed the season by clobbering them at our place. But they won the title because they didn’t have to play in Bloomington like we did. With 18 teams next year this is only going to get worse. Meaning the tournament title becomes more important.So is OSU better than Iowa. I think not.
If it were still that way the Iowa women may have won the regular season title this year and last year.I know change is coming whether I like it or not, but am not a fan of all these conference changes. Seeing some new opponents will be nice, though.
But, I recall the old days where the Big Ten actually had TEN teams. True round Robin, each of 9 opponents twice. Perfect balance.
Once AGAIN they DID win the regular season a couple of years ago......I think they both have their merits. One may be more indicative of playing your best when it’s most important. I would rather Caitlin be known for success in tournaments than her teams performances overall in regular season.
But that doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s disappointing she never won a regular season title. Or rather Lisa wasn’t able to get a team around an amazing talent that played consistent enough to not give up double digit leads in 2nd halves.
Entertainment and revenue. And I'll bet the coaches and players like the tournament as well.So again, then I ask, what purpose does a conference tournament serve for a major conference other than to be more games/risk to their teams?....................
The Big 10 was one of the last conferences to add a conference tournament. One of the reasons for adding it was because Big 10 teams were having issues with losing early round games and schools from conferences with a tournament were having far more success. At the time it was thought that the conference tournament help get teams in the right "mode" so if they had a first game bomb it would be in the conference tournament game and not the NCAA's. After the Big 10 started the conference tournament their NCAA tournament performance did seem to improve (although I don't have any statistical information available on that). Lately though, it's clear that the conference tournament is not having any impact on tournament performance. Whatever current factors affecting performance seem to be having a much greater impact than having a conference tournament is doing.That's honestly one of the biggest detractions against keeping conference tournaments for these major conferences.
I mean yeah it isn't gonna help all the bubble teams if you take away the ACC, B10, B12, SEC conference tournaments, but other than that and helping to kind of iron out some seeding debates for the NCAA Tournament, the positives are few and far between outside of..........."revenue".
But if you were to ask any major conf. coaching staff at the end of a regular season if they honestly give a single sh*t about the revenue from the conference tournaments, they'd probably just laugh at the question.
Making money for the conference isn't even on the radar of coaches, or players (who are only interested in money for themselves).
So again, then I ask, what purpose does a conference tournament serve for a major conference other than to be more games/risk to their teams?....................
To answer the question, then, I should also preface that I'm more of an old school head. I grew up in a time where half my childhood the Big Ten didn't even have a conference tournament yet. But I remember everyone mocking the B10 and Pac 10 for not playing one.
Well, the other elephant in the room is the fact that conferences are about to get bloated as f***, and there really becomes absolutely no need to play a conference tournament in an 18 team league (or more if they idiotically continue to expand with only football in mind and forcing every other sport to just deal with it.......)
The f*** do you need a conference tournament for in a 24-team league? At that point, you either will have to blow up the NCAA model in its current format, break off and do your own fake "national tournament", or actually use logic and make changes and go back to a more balanced and regionally structure to keep what isn't broken from becoming unnecessarily broken...................
Suffice it to say, the grind of a regular season title, to me, is more important than the fun of winning a tournament title, even though I've enjoyed every tournament title Iowa has had and wouldn't trade them for anything.....................other than a regular season title or a national championship. 😉
AGree, and all the games were on Thursday and Saturday so after each of those two days every team had played the same number of games to see the standings very easily.I know change is coming whether I like it or not, but am not a fan of all these conference changes. Seeing some new opponents will be nice, though.
But, I recall the old days where the Big Ten actually had TEN teams. True round Robin, each of 9 opponents twice. Perfect balance.
When the 1970 team won the regular season title there were 10 teams in the Big Ten, but each team only played 14 conference games. The Hawkeyes averaged over 100 points in conference games and there was no three point shot.I know change is coming whether I like it or not, but am not a fan of all these conference changes. Seeing some new opponents will be nice, though.
But, I recall the old days where the Big Ten actually had TEN teams. True round Robin, each of 9 opponents twice. Perfect balance.