I dont understand this logic. If a champion of the regular season goes,
say 19-5-3 in league and then a hot team wins the league tourney, waht
does this have to do with anyone proving anytnign outside the league?

I say the team that has stuck to the grindstone over the whole season
deserves the #1 bid to any league. Doestn have anythign to do with
format, etc. I woudl be extremely pissed , if , eg. RPI went 20-2 next
year, even if they lost all their out of conference games for a record
of 20-10-2, and got upset in the league tournament... and was not
invited to the NCAA. Makes no sense to me. Then again... maybe I've been
out on the left coast too long.

I guess my point is it is a bid to a CONFERENCE. Therefore what should
matter is conference record. Oh, well, whatever, let's get that old puck dropped.

Tony Buffa
RPI '64

================

[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> "Anthony J. Buffa" wrote:
> >
> > Logically, I would want to think the autobid would go to the REGULAR
> > season champ, having proved itself over many games, rather than a
> > end-of-season tourney champ who wins 4 or 5 games, but then again, what
> > has logic had to do with a lot of NCAA decisions?
> >
>
> I would actually argue it the other way around.  The regular season
> champion has only proven itself WITHIN CONFERENCE PLAY and not over the
> course of all games played.  The regular season champion may not even be
> deserving of an at-large bid by the NCAA, as has actually happened when
> Colorado College had a poor out-of-conference record and didn't make the
> tournament the year before the second automatic bid was (IMHO wrongly)
> started.