For low/mid major conferences I actually like it. The regular season should be heavily weighed over the 4-5 day tournament. This gives the conference's best team 1 game to refresh, shake the rust of the break off, and then win just 2 games to make the NCAAT they worked really hard to make. One weekend tournament shouldn't undo 2-2.5 months of conference play.
Will one of those 2 best teams always make good on this advantage? No, but they earned that advantage.
Especially if the top team has aa player miss the tournament or 2/3 days of it. I think regular season should factor wayyyy more than tournament results. If a team goes like 15-1 or something like that during the regular season (in a one bid conference) and have bad luck of their top player getting injured and being out a few games (not the year just the tournament), that would suck. They proved they are the best team in the conference all year, not for 1 game.
I do not want to see the 12-18 record, 10th seed in the tournament steal a bid from the #1 team in the conference because their best player was injured. Not to mention the NCAA tournament hurts because of it as there is a LOT less chance the 12-18 team from a one bid conference could upset a team in the big dance.
I will use the MVC for example. Drake is 17-3 in conference and 27-3 overall and has a NET ranking of 60. Say a team like Evansville who is 8-12 and 11-20 overall upsets them. Drake more than likely wouldn't get a at large because of the power conference bubble teams have higher Net ranking and quality wins. Instead you have Evansville who is 11-20 overall and a NET ranking of 243 in the tournament and no chance of competing in the tournament.
Drake beat Kansas State and Vandy, but also lost to (15-16) Murray State and (17-13) Illinois-Chicago so a at large is not happening.
JMO.