BET or Regular Season Title

[XUFan09]

Winning BET in 2007 really helped the Hoyas with their final 4 run.

I imagine it helps. It just usually pales in comparison to just being really good for a few straight months.

[Hall2012]

I don't really see the "impact on NCAA seeding" argument.

For example - Creighton, Villanova, and Seton Hall are all largely projected to be top 3 seeds, regardless of which one wins the regular reason title. The committee gives zero consideration to which one gets the trophy (assuming someone wins it outright) in terms of seeding. They'll consider the record as part of the overall body of work, but not the trophy (nor the tournament trophy for that matter). Just look at current projections - Seton Hall currently leads by a game but many projections have Villanova (and some Creighton too) seeded above them anyway. Because while it's certainly a great accomplishment, in terms of seeding it simply doesn't matter.

This year is a weird exception where it's still a three-way race for first place. If you look at past years, there usually ends up being separation between 1st and 3rd, but I would bet this year that we don't see more than a one-game separation at the end. If the third place team this year wins the conference tournament, they'll probably be better off than the 1st place team. Usually you can only say that about 2nd place, that they'd be better off or equal to 1st after a tournament win. It's just a highly unusual Big East season.

Having 3rd place involved this late is a little unusual, yes, but my point is simply that the committee considers OOC performance equally with conference performance, so it's entirely possible for 2nd place (or 3rd or in rare situations even lower) to have a better overall resume and thus get a better NCAA seed than 1st place. So yes, winning the regular season means you had a great year, but not winning it doesn't necessarily mean your year was any worse - the overall body of work could have been even better.

[Bogg]

I mean, how'd that work out for X?

Translation: I'm not going to engage in your actual post, because it provides evidence of the weakness of conference tournament for predicting the national champion.

Also, I'd rather root for 2018 Xavier than 2014 Providence any day of the week.

I just think it's funny for an X fan to write off conference championships and take a "Natty or bust" mentality.

[kayako]

When the BET results in a bid thief, I'll take the auto-bid thing seriously. What I really miss is having 4 Wednesday games. We'll get to 3 next year with uconn, but having 12 teams will result in 4. I don't really miss Tuesday games.

[stever20]

When the BET results in a bid thief, I'll take the auto-bid thing seriously. What I really miss is having 4 Wednesday games. We'll get to 3 next year with uconn, but having 12 teams will result in 4. I don't really miss Tuesday games.

We had a bid thief wth Providence in 2014.

[XUFan09]

I don't really see the "impact on NCAA seeding" argument.

For example - Creighton, Villanova, and Seton Hall are all largely projected to be top 3 seeds, regardless of which one wins the regular reason title. The committee gives zero consideration to which one gets the trophy (assuming someone wins it outright) in terms of seeding. They'll consider the record as part of the overall body of work, but not the trophy (nor the tournament trophy for that matter). Just look at current projections - Seton Hall currently leads by a game but many projections have Villanova (and some Creighton too) seeded above them anyway. Because while it's certainly a great accomplishment, in terms of seeding it simply doesn't matter.

This year is a weird exception where it's still a three-way race for first place. If you look at past years, there usually ends up being separation between 1st and 3rd, but I would bet this year that we don't see more than a one-game separation at the end. If the third place team this year wins the conference tournament, they'll probably be better off than the 1st place team. Usually you can only say that about 2nd place, that they'd be better off or equal to 1st after a tournament win. It's just a highly unusual Big East season.

Having 3rd place involved this late is a little unusual, yes, but my point is simply that the committee considers OOC performance equally with conference performance, so it's entirely possible for 2nd place (or 3rd or in rare situations even lower) to have a better overall resume and thus get a better NCAA seed than 1st place. So yes, winning the regular season means you had a great year, but not winning it doesn't necessarily mean your year was any worse - the overall body of work could have been even better.

Oh definitely. That's why I say regular season championship unless you can tell me my team will be 2nd in the regular season while winning the BET. And in this year, I'd include 3rd place too. The OOC results matter significantly too, but usually the 3rd place team is there below the 1st place team for good reason. They tend to not be as good and have a worse OOC performance behind them. This year, that isn't true.

In the new Big East the NCAAT seed gaps between the 1 seed and the 3 seed or best 3rd place team have been 9, 5, 4, 5, 7, and 4. The NCAAT seed gaps between the 1 seed and the 2 seed have been 1, 3, 0, 3, 0, and -1. There's generally not a big difference between 1st and 2nd, but generally a notable difference between 1st and 3rd. This year, though, a NCAAT seed gap of 0 for 1st and third wouldn't surprise me.

[Westbrook#36]

How'd those BET titles work out for Pitt when to came to sustaining momentum in the NCAA?

They had three times as many regular season "titles" as they did BET wins. They won the regular season in the both the years UConn won the national championship but not the regular season. If anything, Pitt's postseason struggles were on display in the BET.

Syracuse won the BET 6 times, what their excuse(I know Syr-excuse). My point is people don't need to throw shade at a BE RS title to stick up for or defend the BET title.

I sort of set the other thread over the top, so this past weekend I did a deep dive into this. Instead of RS title, let's say best record because as someone mentioned earlier the BE I don't think officially recognized RS titles until about the mid to late 00's, plus the years they did that goofy division set-up. Out of the 55 times teams won or shared a BE RS title 45 times they landed a top 3 seed in the dance, that's 82% of the time. It's 35 out of 55 or 64% of the time a top 2 seed. BTW it's 75% for a #1 seed if you win the BE RS with a 13-3 or 15-3 or better record and win the BET.

If you want to prepare yourself for postseason success, the best way is to have a great reg. season and get a great seed in both the BET & NCAA. Now that doesn't guarantee anything but you've set yourself up for success.

BTW, go ask L'Ville fans if the RS BE title is meaningless. I clearly remember how stoked they were to win one, pretty sure they even hung a banner(that now may or not be vacated).

[XUFan09]

I mean, how'd that work out for X?

Translation: I'm not going to engage in your actual post, because it provides evidence of the weakness of conference tournament for predicting the national champion.

Also, I'd rather root for 2018 Xavier than 2014 Providence any day of the week.

I just think it's funny for an X fan to write off conference championships and take a "Natty or bust" mentality.

Hardly natty or bust. Just for me, the pursuit of a national championship far outweighs the pursuit of a Big East championship, however we define the latter. It seems like a lot of C7 fans care more about Big East titles in and of themselves than fans of the newer schools. I know they're more invested in that history, especially the fans of programs who have been there before the '00s, but it just seems rather regional to me. The exception to this historical regionalism seems to be a decent proportion of the Nova fans who say the two choices are about the same or they prefer the regular season championship. That's likely because they have actively and recently experienced how their regular season performances have led to 1 seeds and 2 seeds en masse, which has set them up well so that on two occasions they have won the championship.

[Bogg]

Hardly natty or bust. Just for me, the pursuit of a national championship far outweighs the pursuit of a Big East championship, however we define the latter. It seems like a lot of C7 fans care more about Big East titles in and of themselves than fans of the newer schools. I know they're more invested in that history, especially the fans of programs who have been there before the '00s, but it just seems rather regional to me. The exception to this historical regionalism seems to be a decent proportion of the Nova fans who say the two choices are about the same or they prefer the regular season championship. That's likely because they have actively and recently experienced how their regular season performances have led to 1 seeds and 2 seeds en masse, which has set them up well so that on two occasions they have won the championship.

Eh, I'm of the school that if you're good enough to win a national title you should be able to do it whether you're on the 1-line or the 3-line. You gotta play everyone eventually. Give me as many (real) trophies as possible.

[XUFan09]

If you're a fan of a program in conferences like the Patriot League or the Big Sky, I understand focusing on conference championships. Outside some extreme cases, your best NCAAT outcome is going to be winning a game. But if you are a fan of a program in a power conference with all the resources that entails, I can't understand why your primary concern wouldn't be competing for national championships. Conference championships are great, but they are a distant second.