[Spiny_Norman]

As I recall, the NCAA requires each conference to host an end-of-the-year tourney. I don’t think that Tara was too fond of the idea at first, but she is a realist and seems to have accepted it. It’s a good marketing tool to inspire fan interest going into the NCAA sixty-four team tournament, and it gives all teams in all conferences reason to hope, since the winner of the tournament receives an automatic bid to the tournament. It rarely happens, but once in a great while a Cinderella Team emerges who had no chance to go to the tournament, yet earns a birth by winning it all at a conference tourney. This was the case in 2014 when Cynthia Cooper-Dyke's USC women's basketball team won the PAC-12 Tournament (can anyone forget that postgame Cooper Dance?) and received an automatic birth to the NCAA Finals (they lost in the first round to St. John's).

I don't think that the NCAA requires a conference tournament. But it is traditional in some conferences and lucrative for others because of ESPN $. The Big 10, Pac 10 and Ivy League resisted holding a conference tournament for many years. The P10 men tried it from 1987-90, but attendance was poor and it did not make much money (in contrast to other conferences like the Big East, ACC and Big 8 which played to sold out crowds). The coaches did not really like the tournament either.

But various pressure, financial and non-financial, forced a re-vote in 2000. Aside from money, P10 coaches felt that their seeding in the NCAA tournament was negatively affected by the lack of the extra week of play. Stanford and Arizona opposed it, but everyone else supported it. The P10 tournament was reinstated in 2002. The Big 10 started their tournament in 1998 and the Ivy League finally gave in and started a tournament in 2017.

The P10 started its women's tournament in 2002, the same year as the men's.

[Spiny_Norman]

As I recall, the NCAA requires each conference to host an end-of-the-year tourney. I don’t think that Tara was too fond of the idea at first, but she is a realist and seems to have accepted it. It’s a good marketing tool to inspire fan interest going into the NCAA sixty-four team tournament, and it gives all teams in all conferences reason to hope, since the winner of the tournament receives an automatic bid to the tournament. It rarely happens, but once in a great while a Cinderella Team emerges who had no chance to go to the tournament, yet earns a birth by winning it all at a conference tourney. This was the case in 2014 when Cynthia Cooper-Dyke's USC women's basketball team won the PAC-12 Tournament (can anyone forget that postgame Cooper Dance?) and received an automatic birth to the NCAA Finals (they lost in the first round to St. John's).

I don't think that the NCAA requires a conference tournament. But it is traditional in some conferences and lucrative for others because of ESPN $. The Big 10, Pac 10 and Ivy League resisted holding a conference tournament for many years. The P10 men tried it from 1987-90, but attendance was poor and it did not make much money (in contrast to other conferences like the Big East, ACC and Big 8 which played to sold out crowds). The coaches did not really like the tournament either.

But various pressure, financial and non-financial, forced a re-vote in 2000. Aside from money, P10 coaches felt that their seeding in the NCAA tournament was negatively affected by the lack of the extra week of play. Stanford and Arizona opposed it, but everyone else supported it. The P10 tournament was reinstated in 2002. The Big 10 started their tournament in 1998 and the Ivy League finally gave in and started a tournament in 2017.

The P10 started its women's tournament in 2002, the same year as the men's.

[81alum]

Tara did oppose it.  I distinctly remember her saying that the work of a full season should not be compared with a brief tournament.

But if you look at the last 6 years, Stanford has benefited from the tournament.  During those 6 years we never won the regular season, but we won the tournament 3 times.

I think that the tournament allows Tara's coaching style to shine.  She is all about teaching and improving a team, and her teams get better as the year goes along.  She does this better than other coaches, and so while her teams might lose a game or two during the regular season while they are still learning, they tend to execute much better come tournament time.   Now that the Pac 12 is getting so much more talent than it used to, other teams can use that raw talent to compete better with us earlier in the season but we find a way to beat them later in the season.  We did not win the tournament last year, but look at our reversal of fortunes against UCLA in the tournament as a textbook example, or our defeat of Oregon in 2018-2019 tournament.

[81alum]

Tara did oppose it.  I distinctly remember her saying that the work of a full season should not be compared with a brief tournament.

But if you look at the last 6 years, Stanford has benefited from the tournament.  During those 6 years we never won the regular season, but we won the tournament 3 times.

I think that the tournament allows Tara's coaching style to shine.  She is all about teaching and improving a team, and her teams get better as the year goes along.  She does this better than other coaches, and so while her teams might lose a game or two during the regular season while they are still learning, they tend to execute much better come tournament time.   Now that the Pac 12 is getting so much more talent than it used to, other teams can use that raw talent to compete better with us earlier in the season but we find a way to beat them later in the season.  We did not win the tournament last year, but look at our reversal of fortunes against UCLA in the tournament as a textbook example, or our defeat of Oregon in 2018-2019 tournament.

[here4WBB]

Both the regular season champion and tournament winner count as champions for conference purposes. The banner in Maples that lists Stanford's conference championship years includes years they won only the the regular season (including ties), only the tournament, or both.

thank you.  That is helpful.

[here4WBB]

Both the regular season champion and tournament winner count as champions for conference purposes. The banner in Maples that lists Stanford's conference championship years includes years they won only the the regular season (including ties), only the tournament, or both.

thank you.  That is helpful.

[oldalum]

 [for men's BB] Stanford and Arizona opposed it, but everyone else supported it. The P10 tournament was reinstated in 2002.

IIRC (which I very well may not), the AQ bid was an important consideration. Stanford and AZ hadn't needed it to make the tournament for years by 2000 (and I guess didn't foresee needing it now!). UCLA had also opposed a tournament historically because it didn't need it either, but at that time it had years in which it did. Only 3 "no" votes were needed to sink the proposal, but UCLA voted for the conference tourney in 2000. For the conference, the AQ bid gives the conference more $ when the AQ bid is won by a team that otherwise would not have gone to the tournament. 

My even shakier recall is that the 1987-1990 conference tourney was tried on the theory that the reason the Pac-12 teams were getting drummed out of the NCAA tourney so early was that its teams weren't toughened by a conference tournament like everyone else. That was a dumb theory and a short-lived experiment.

Please correct my errors of memory if necessary!

[oldalum]

 [for men's BB] Stanford and Arizona opposed it, but everyone else supported it. The P10 tournament was reinstated in 2002.

IIRC (which I very well may not), the AQ bid was an important consideration. Stanford and AZ hadn't needed it to make the tournament for years by 2000 (and I guess didn't foresee needing it now!). UCLA had also opposed a tournament historically because it didn't need it either, but at that time it had years in which it did. Only 3 "no" votes were needed to sink the proposal, but UCLA voted for the conference tourney in 2000. For the conference, the AQ bid gives the conference more $ when the AQ bid is won by a team that otherwise would not have gone to the tournament. 

My even shakier recall is that the 1987-1990 conference tourney was tried on the theory that the reason the Pac-12 teams were getting drummed out of the NCAA tourney so early was that its teams weren't toughened by a conference tournament like everyone else. That was a dumb theory and a short-lived experiment.

Please correct my errors of memory if necessary!

[Papa John]

The 1987, 1988 and 1990 edition of the Pac-12 men's basketball tournament was held on the home courts of UCLA, Arizona and Arizona, respectively. The home team won all three times. They moved it Staples Center when it was revived in 2002, but I think that Las Vegas is a much more equitable destination. Everyone has to travel to a more-or-less central destination.

[Papa John]

The 1987, 1988 and 1990 edition of the Pac-12 men's basketball tournament was held on the home courts of UCLA, Arizona and Arizona, respectively. The home team won all three times. They moved it Staples Center when it was revived in 2002, but I think that Las Vegas is a much more equitable destination. Everyone has to travel to a more-or-less central destination.

[PVTree]

I seem to recall that the tourney was held in San Jose (now SAP Center) for at least a year. I went to a Stanford game vs. the condoms there.

[PVTree]

I seem to recall that the tourney was held in San Jose (now SAP Center) for at least a year. I went to a Stanford game vs. the condoms there.

[BobK]

Many years in San Jose. Oregon was year 1 then San Jose for many years

[BobK]

Many years in San Jose. Oregon was year 1 then San Jose for many years