Why Have a Conference Tournament?

Last night I attended a portion of the GNR Conference Tournament and saw a team that 'rested' approximately 3/4 of their starters. Now today I read that the same thing was done with a team in the CAP 7 conference tournament. The consensus feeling by both coaches appeared to be that they wanted to make sure no one got injured in the conference tournament for the playoffs.

My question is this: If the conference tournament does nothing to enhance your seeding in the playoffs, and coaches are treating the games like scrimmages and protecting their players from injury, WHY HAVE A CONFERENCE TOURNAMENT?

There needs to be some reward for the teams if you want to avoid situations such as those mentioned above.

Who has some thoughts???

 

not for conf. tournaments

especially in tough economic times when public entities are / should be seeking cost-cutting ways to balance budgets, deleting a conference tournament should be a no-brainer.

 

Go Back

Could go back to only 1 team from each conference makes the state playoffs. The conference champion. Play the season to seed the tourney. Play the tourney, the champ moves on. NUFF SAID....... budgets trimmed and no sandbagging. But this will never fly. It's not PC.

 

While agree if it's not a moneymaker perhaps it should be looked at as a cost saving measure. However, the conference tournaments do affect seeding. The conf winner automatically receives the top spot, but the tournament winner receives the 2nd seeding; so there is a purpose and drive for all teams to want to win it.

Example: A team is seeded 5th or 6th in a conf awarded only 3 or 4 spots. If they win their tournament, they become the 2nd seed and everyone except the conf champs get moved down...and for some...out!

As you can see, there is an incentive for all but conf champs to try to win it.

 

I was at the GNR tournament. I didn't see a team that rested 3/4 of their players. The closest thing I saw that would fit that description may have been when Garner had such a lead that they played some subs. Garner won by run rule.

The situation there was nothing like the situation in the Cap 7. I disagree with the coach's decision in that case but that's his decision. I feel bad for the players because I know them and I believe they would rather have competed. There are some really good players on that team. That decision probably affected the seeding for the playoffs. But it may have ended up that way anyway. Leesville Road was fired up. They ended up beating Wakefield who they hadn't beaten all year; they may have done the same to a full-strength WFR--we'll never know.

To address your primary question, I agree there needs to be some incentive for the top seed. I guess a point of view would be why risk getting hurt. My personal view would be to play for the spirit of competition. But obviously that's not enough. Maybe we need a trophy that the winning school would keep for the year--with the appropriate engraving for the annual winner.

I just don't understand why winning the tournament wouldn't be enough incentive. Unless, of course, someone underestimated the other teams that much.

I can guarantee you this, though, if you win the GNR tournament you earned it. Leesville Road earned the Cap 7 Tournament title. Let there be no asterisk.

 

R U AN ACCOUNTANT ??

Just wondering you are always talking about the economical effects of the game ?? Or are you just poor like the rest of us ??---LOL

 

That's the problem; there is nothing in it for the top seed. Therefore, in some cases, they don't really feel the need to risk injuries, etc., just for the sake of winning. Should the top seed just not be invited?

 

Not the Garner Game...

Phreak - PM me if you want more info about the players sitting out (it wasn't in the Garner game) at the GNR tournament.

As it was explained to me - and please correct me if I am wrong: For the GNR tournament (not sure how each conference's tournament works), the playoff seeds have already been established, and everyone who has qualified for the playoffs based on their regular season record already knew their playoff matchup for Tuesday.

If this is true, and everyone already knows their playoff matchup and you are essentially "scrimmaging" your conference, I can understand a coach sitting players out. In that case, I would liken the situation to resting some players in a pool game in a big TB tournament.

Is this the way all conference tournaments are?

 

Cap 7 seedings changed

The Cap 7 state seedings changed as a result of the tournament play. Leesville moved to the #2 seed from the #4 seed, Wakefield dropped from #2 to #3, and Enloe dropped from #3 to #4. From what I was told this is also how the confeence tournaments worked for basketball and volleyball.

 

It doesn't really matter to me about the players sitting out. I just didn't want anyone thinking this was anything like what happened in the Cap 7.

The way I understand the seeding is the regular season champion keeps their seed whether or not they win the conference tournament. But if, for example, the number 8 seed were to win the tournament they would then be the number 2 seed as far as state playoffs. And the other seeds would trickle down. That being the case there would, of course, be incentive for everyone but the top seed.