What is the reasoning for not allowing every team to compete in the conference tournament?

[ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK]

NC State went 5 for 5 last year in the ACC and UConn did it in 2011 in the Big East. What’s crazy is both made the final four and UConn won the title

Didn’t Syracuse win 5 also?

And a couple of games in the tourney?

 

[ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK]

I was initially just curious on the reasoning.

After reading some of these posts, I think 8 teams is more than enough for a conference tournament.

There’s been more than enough years of the tournament & if no team lower than an 8 seed has ever won it, it’s time to chop it even more.

If you’re going to exclude some teams, I say exclude a lot of teams.

A nice Friday - Sunday with only the top 8 teams qualifying.

 

[Knothole Hawk]

I was initially just curious on the reasoning.

After reading some of these posts, I think 8 teams is more than enough for a conference tournament.

There’s been more than enough years of the tournament & if no team lower than an 8 seed has ever won it, it’s time to chop it even more.

If you’re going to exclude some teams, I say exclude a lot of teams.

A nice Friday - Sunday with only the top 8 teams qualifying.

I'd go for that.

 

[Hawkfan_08]

I know I'm in the minority but I don't want more games. I don't like teams that have earned the right to have a top seed have to drag their guys out there to play a bad team who's record doesn't reflect an opportunity to play in the post season. They play so many games already, regardless of the entertainment value.

I'm just a big proponent of rewarding teams for their performance in the regular season.