Big Sky basketball Tourny question

[Wyokie]

Isn't the Big Sky Tourny where only top 6 teams qualify? If so, beside the obvious head-to-team tiebreaker, what are the tiebreakers?

When the WAC had 16 teams (1996-98), the top 6 schools in each division (out of 8) qualified for the WAC Tournament.

I do like the idea of having the regular season champions hosting the semifinals and finals of the tournament.

 

[dystopiamembrane]

first head-to-head
then record against other teams in the conference, from highest to lowest.
then a coin toss

 

[Wyokie]

first head-to-head
then record against other teams in the conference, from highest to lowest.
then a coin toss

Kinda like what the WAC did. It's probably a standard format for all conferences I bet.

 

[martymoose]

first head-to-head
then record against other teams in the conference, from highest to lowest.
then a coin toss

Kinda like what the WAC did. It's probably a standard format for all conferences I bet.

Way better than the Pac 10 does it. That's the worst conference tourney deal around...

 

[Wyokie]

first head-to-head
then record against other teams in the conference, from highest to lowest.
then a coin toss

Kinda like what the WAC did. It's probably a standard format for all conferences I bet.

Way better than the Pac 10 does it. That's the worst conference tourney deal around...

What do you mean?

 

[martymoose]

first head-to-head
then record against other teams in the conference, from highest to lowest.
then a coin toss

Kinda like what the WAC did. It's probably a standard format for all conferences I bet.

Way better than the Pac 10 does it. That's the worst conference tourney deal around...

What do you mean?

The Pac 10 bagged their conference tourney for a while and went without one.

The "haves" of the Pac 10 thought this was great. Arizona, UCLA, and Stanford. They have traditionally had great teams, so a conference tourney is a bad thing in their eyes. They can roll in with 20+ wins and get upset right before the NCAA tournament.

The "have nots" of the Pac 10 didn't like this at all. Oregon State, Washington State, Arizona State, etc could roll in with 9 or 10 wins and upset one of the big three for the Pac 10 title.

With three votes for no by the "haves" of the Pac 10, a conference tournament would not happen. When it came time to debate for a conference tourney, it went somewhat like the lobbyists in Washington DC.

To UCLA: If the host site of the Pac 10 tournament will be held in Los Angeles every year (home court), will you change your vote from no to yes?

UCLA said yes and the rest is history.