NCAA Tournament: Fun but Nonsensical

[Big Sexy]

Before I start I'd like to say that the NCAA Tournament is one of my favorite sporting events and not much can compare to the excitement and drama that it brings. With that said, it has got to be the most absurd way to decide a Champion in all of major American sports and that includes the BCS in college football. I love the stories of Butler and VCU as much as anybody but it's ludicrous to think that they are among the 4 best teams in the country, especially VCU. The NCAA tournament is all about getting hot at the right time and going on runs. Obviously the better team you have, the easier it is to go on those runs but there are many schools capable of doing it. The tournament doesn't always decide the best team in College Basketball, just the hottest team for that few week period. I mean even UConn who is the best team left in the tourney finished 9th in their own conference during the regular season. Basically everyone agreed before the tournament started that VCU should not have gotten in and now they have a 25% chance to win the National Championship.

Even the greatest teams have minor slip ups and in a single elimination tournament that one slip up can cost you your season. The BCS is a very flawed system but at least at the end of the year you know that either the top 2 or 2 of the top 3-5 teams will be competing to be the champion. I'm all for a college football playoff because at the most it would more then likely be just 8 teams so everyone involved could be a deserving contender. College Basketball increased the tournament from 64 to 68 teams this year thinking it's great when in actuality the bigger the tournament gets the less emphasis is placed on the regular season. No sports regular season is more meaningless then college basketball's. You can play like shit all year and still win a few games in your conference tournament and all of the sudden be a tourney team. Regular season accolades only effect seeding and that has proven year after year to be a very overrated part of the tournament.

Once again, I'm not trying to bash the tournament in terms of its excitement and pleasure it brings to the fans of the game. I'm just pointing out the absurdity with how they find their champion and how meaningless games keep becoming outside the month of March. So what are your opinions? Agree? Disagree? Have at it.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Honestly, the tournament has never been about putting the best teams in so more often that not the team who wins isn't the best team. I don't like it that a team can get hot for three weeks and win the whole thing especially when it's single elimination. I also am not fond of automatic qualifiers when it comes to small conference because basically all you have to do is win your conference tournament but those are there for money purposes.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

Before I start I'd like to say that the NCAA Tournament is one of my favorite sporting events and not much can compare to the excitement and drama that it brings. With that said, it has got to be the most absurd way to decide a Champion in all of major American sports and that includes the BCS in college football. I love the stories of Butler and VCU as much as anybody but it's ludicrous to think that they are among the 4 best teams in the country, especially VCU. The NCAA tournament is all about getting hot at the right time and going on runs. Obviously the better team you have, the easier it is to go on those runs but there are many schools capable of doing it. The tournament doesn't always decide the best team in College Basketball, just the hottest team for that few week period. I mean even UConn who is the best team left in the tourney finished 9th in their own conference during the regular season. Basically everyone agreed before the tournament started that VCU should not have gotten in and now they have a 25% chance to win the National Championship.

Even the greatest teams have minor slip ups and in a single elimination tournament that one slip up can cost you your season. The BCS is a very flawed system but at least at the end of the year you know that either the top 2 or 2 of the top 3-5 teams will be competing to be the champion. I'm all for a college football playoff because at the most it would more then likely be just 8 teams so everyone involved could be a deserving contender. College Basketball increased the tournament from 64 to 68 teams this year thinking it's great when in actuality the bigger the tournament gets the less emphasis is placed on the regular season. No sports regular season is more meaningless then college basketball's. You can play like shit all year and still win a few games in your conference tournament and all of the sudden be a tourney team. Regular season accolades only effect seeding and that has proven year after year to be a very overrated part of the tournament.

Once again, I'm not trying to bash the tournament in terms of its excitement and pleasure it brings to the fans of the game. I'm just pointing out the absurdity with how they find their champion and how meaningless games keep becoming outside the month of March. So what are your opinions? Agree? Disagree? Have at it.

I agree and disagree in some senses. I think the tournament is TOO inclusive and the BCS is TOO exclusive.

Put simply, some odd years ago, we'd have said that Boise St. and TCU should not have a shot at the title. Now, after we've seen what they can do on the big stage, we realize that TCU or Boise could win it all in playoff.

That being said, I'm not even gonna make the argument for VCU being the best team in the damn country even if they DO win it all. They will be the best team in the tournament and that's it. I do think, however, that teams who win their conference tournaments and get invites deserve a shot, but I wouldn't mind seeing a healthy balance of weight on regular season merits.

While big conferences like the Big 10 and Big East will, undoubted, not need to "win their tournament" to get a bid, most small conferences do. You either win your tournament, or you're fucked. It sucks, too, because you could have had a great year, but because you had an off night in the tournament, you're playing in the NIT? That's sort of garbage to me.

Conversely, a team that has no business playing in the tournament can win their conference tournament and steal an autobid from someone that's probably more deserving in their own conference.

Also, this arbitrary selection process? That's got to go. There needs to be clear cut criteria, which there is, mind you, but they NEED to stick to it. It seems horrible to me that the entire hopes and dreams of a group of kid's chances to experience the tournament is left up to a group that can't even all agree on what the fuck matters.

 

[Davi323]

I would like to see them reduce the tournament down to 32. No more 17-13 teams getting in, or one conference sending 9 fucking teams. Then, you make each round best of 3, with each round taking a full weekend. You play Friday/Saturday, and if you must, Sunday. If you win your 2 on Friday and Saturday, you get Sunday off, and can enjoy the action from your hotel room. By going to a mini-series for each round, it makes it more likely that the best team actually wins.

 

[Slyfox696]

With that said, it has got to be the most absurd way to decide a Champion in all of major American sports and that includes the BCS in college football. I love the stories of Butler and VCU as much as anybody but it's ludicrous to think that they are among the 4 best teams in the country, especially VCU.

Why is it ludicrous? After all, the prevailing sentiment ALL year long in college basketball was that no one team had ever distinguished itself ahead of anyone else.

The NCAA tournament is all about getting hot at the right time and going on runs.

Untrue.

The regular season is all about building up to the tournament, peaking at the right time to make sure you are playing your best basketball. The tournament is where you want to be playing the best basketball of the year, and you work for that all year long.

Obviously the better team you have, the easier it is to go on those runs but there are many schools capable of doing it. The tournament doesn't always decide the best team in College Basketball, just the hottest team for that few week period.

I would argue the winner is the team that is playing the very best basketball at the most crucial time of the year.

I mean even UConn who is the best team left in the tourney finished 9th in their own conference during the regular season. Basically everyone agreed before the tournament started that VCU should not have gotten in and now they have a 25% chance to win the National Championship.

Regular season is very different from playoff basketball. In the regular season you spend the first half of the season figuring out your rotations, who plays well with who, who you can depend on in certain situations. You'll generally play more guys off the bench, open the playbook a little more, etc.

The second half of the season you begin to trim things down, in order to prepare for the playoff run. The bench begins to see more clearly defined roles and minutes, the playbook loses some plays that don't work and adds new plays to see if they might work, you know your rotations now so you let the guys learn to play together, etc. Everything you do in the second half of the season is to provide you with the best possible knowledge of how to optimize your team for the playoff run.

In the playoffs, everything changes. For most teams, the bench will see two, or maybe three, guys only, the playbook will consist of those plays you've found work best for your team, the defense you've been tweaking all year long should be set, and you should know who your crunch time players are.

It's a misguided notion that teams stay the same and do the same thing all year long. The regular season, especially for power conference teams, is a feeling out process in order to find out what works best in the tournament. Many coaches are willing to sacrifice a few early season losses, so they can give several guys minutes to see who is going to contribute off the bench, and they run plays just to see if they'll work.

All of this is to build up for the tournament, so theoretically, when you get to the tournament, you're playing the very best basketball your team can play.

Even the greatest teams have minor slip ups and in a single elimination tournament that one slip up can cost you your season.

Agreed, but that's just as true for Duke as it is for Butler.

The BCS is a very flawed system but at least at the end of the year you know that either the top 2 or 2 of the top 3-5 teams will be competing to be the champion.

Wait, what? Did you just really say that minor slip-ups can cost you a championship and then quote the BCS? Where if you have a minor slip-up in early October it apparently doesn't mean nearly as much as having a minor slip-up in late November?

I'm sorry, but this argument does not hold water. Fair point that a slip up can cost you a championship, but it is applied equally in football as in basketball.

College Basketball increased the tournament from 64 to 68 teams this year thinking it's great when in actuality the bigger the tournament gets the less emphasis is placed on the regular season.

Hate the expansion. It's just a thinly veiled attempt to keep even more smaller schools out and get more power conference teams in. HAte it.

No sports regular season is more meaningless then college basketball's.

You obviously don't follow college baseball.

You can play like shit all year and still win a few games in your conference tournament and all of the sudden be a tourney team.

Depends on the conference. Many conferences only allow SOME of the teams to make the conference tournament. But, like I said, the regular season is a build-up tool for the tournament. So, if a team plays well in the tournament, it has just as much to do with the coaching and the players coming together at the right time as it does with "luck".

Regular season accolades only effect seeding and that has proven year after year to be a very overrated part of the tournament.

I'm sorry, but that's just false. This is the first time in decades when a #1 or #2 seed didn't make the Final Four. Usually your Final Four consists of teams ranked #1-5, which would be the top 20 teams in the tournament.

It's not overrated, just because one year the Final Four sees a couple lower seeded mid-majors.

I'm just pointing out the absurdity with how they find their champion and how meaningless games keep becoming outside the month of March. So what are your opinions? Agree? Disagree? Have at it.

With over 300 teams that play all across the country, this is the only way you can do it and make it fair. How else would you determine a champion? You can't do it like the NBA, because there wouldn't be time to give all the potential champions a chance. For example, in the NBA style, Butler would never have had a chance to be playing for a national championship, which is absurd considering they've been there two years in a row now. You can't do it with a BCS style format, for obvious reasons. Even a 32 team tournament is unfair, because then you get into the "they don't deserve a shot at the national championship because of their schedule" argument.

This is the best way to do it for college basketball. Without a doubt.

 

[Big Sexy]

Why is it ludicrous? After all, the prevailing sentiment ALL year long in college basketball was that no one team had ever distinguished itself ahead of anyone else.

It's ludicrous because 68 teams are given the opportunity to become the National Champion. Many of these teams have 10+ losses which isn't overly impressive in a roughly 30 game college basketball season.

Untrue.

The regular season is all about building up to the tournament, peaking at the right time to make sure you are playing your best basketball. The tournament is where you want to be playing the best basketball of the year, and you work for that all year long.

Yet you can play like shit for different parts of the season yet make a late run at the end of the season and in the conference tournament and make the NCAA tourney. Teams may work hard all year long but that doesn't make the regular season anymore relevant.

I would argue the winner is the team that is playing the very best basketball at the most crucial time of the year.

That may be partly true but you know damn well some luck plays into it as well. Single elimination doesn't always find the best team and most deserving champion.

Regular season is very different from playoff basketball. In the regular season you spend the first half of the season figuring out your rotations, who plays well with who, who you can depend on in certain situations. You'll generally play more guys off the bench, open the playbook a little more, etc.

Yes but there are plenty of teams that do that and still have very good regular season records and are without a doubt tournament teams.

The second half of the season you begin to trim things down, in order to prepare for the playoff run. The bench begins to see more clearly defined roles and minutes, the playbook loses some plays that don't work and adds new plays to see if they might work, you know your rotations now so you let the guys learn to play together, etc. Everything you do in the second half of the season is to provide you with the best possible knowledge of how to optimize your team for the playoff run.

A playoff run with many undeserving teams and a single elimination style that is built for upsets and not always the best teams making it to the end.

In the playoffs, everything changes. For most teams, the bench will see two, or maybe three, guys only, the playbook will consist of those plays you've found work best for your team, the defense you've been tweaking all year long should be set, and you should know who your crunch time players are.

Once again I understand all of this but it isn't all that relevant to the point I'm making which is there are too many teams in the tournament and many teams the best teams do not even make the final four let alone win it all.

All of this is to build up for the tournament, so theoretically, when you get to the tournament, you're playing the very best basketball your team can play.

Yet VCU entered the tournament undeservedly after losing 5 of their last 8 games. They weren't even close to playing the best they could yet they are in the final four. You don't have to be playing your best ball if you can get hot at the right time.

Agreed, but that's just as true for Duke as it is for Butler.

Yes it is, it's true for everyone. Furthering my notion that you need to be hot at the right time.

Wait, what? Did you just really say that minor slip-ups can cost you a championship and then quote the BCS? Where if you have a minor slip-up in early October it apparently doesn't mean nearly as much as having a minor slip-up in late November?

I'm sorry, but this argument does not hold water. Fair point that a slip up can cost you a championship, but it is applied equally in football as in basketball.

I agree that the BCS is extremely flawed and needs a plus one or a an 8 game playoff but at the end of the day you're getting two of the best if not the best teams in all of college football vying for the national title. The same is rarely said about college basketball.

You obviously don't follow college baseball.

I follow it extensively. I watch teams like Florida State sneak into a tournament field that is overly crowded and make a nice run after a subpar regular season. I watch teams get off to great starts or finish strong and make the tournament just because there are so many slots available.

Depends on the conference. Many conferences only allow SOME of the teams to make the conference tournament. But, like I said, the regular season is a build-up tool for the tournament. So, if a team plays well in the tournament, it has just as much to do with the coaching and the players coming together at the right time as it does with "luck".

It still doesn't mean they are a deserving tournament team with a chance to compete for a title.

I'm sorry, but that's just false. This is the first time in decades when a #1 or #2 seed didn't make the Final Four. Usually your Final Four consists of teams ranked #1-5, which would be the top 20 teams in the tournament.

Yes it usually does but that's not necessarily my point. High seeds get upset early on in the tournament as well and often to teams that they would beat 8 times out of 10.

With over 300 teams that play all across the country, this is the only way you can do it and make it fair. How else would you determine a champion? You can't do it like the NBA, because there wouldn't be time to give all the potential champions a chance. For example, in the NBA style, Butler would never have had a chance to be playing for a national championship, which is absurd considering they've been there two years in a row now. You can't do it with a BCS style format, for obvious reasons. Even a 32 team tournament is unfair, because then you get into the "they don't deserve a shot at the national championship because of their schedule" argument.

This is the best way to do it for college basketball. Without a doubt.

I'm not saying I have the perfect solution but the current situation certainly isn't the fairest way to do it and it does fail to always find a true champion. Sometimes it gets the job done but it isn't close to perfect. People shit on the BCS all the time for not finding a true champion but many times they come closer then the NCAA Tournament. (I'd like to make it clear I hate the BCS and they definitely need a change as well.)

 

[Slyfox696]

It's ludicrous because 68 teams are given the opportunity to become the National Champion. Many of these teams have 10+ losses which isn't overly impressive in a roughly 30 game college basketball season.

Actually, EVERY team has a chance to become the National Champion. That's true in all sports though. It's about winning the right number of games at the right time. The NCAA Tournament is hardly unique in that sense.

Yet you can play like shit for different parts of the season yet make a late run at the end of the season and in the conference tournament and make the NCAA tourney. Teams may work hard all year long but that doesn't make the regular season anymore relevant.

Well sure it does. The regular season, as I pointed out, is about far more than just wins and losses. And that's true of every sport outside of college football.

That may be partly true but you know damn well some luck plays into it as well.

Luck can only play a part if you're good enough to be in a position to have that luck matter.

There's a story I've always remembered. Years ago, they asked Magic Johnson about his thoughts on Larry Bird. Johnson said that Bird was the luckiest white man in basketball. When reporters asked Bird about Johnson's comments, Bird agreed with Johnson. But Bird also said it's funny how the more he practices, the luckier he gets.

Single elimination doesn't always find the best team and most deserving champion.

Well sure it does, how does it not? If a team can win 6 (or in the case of VCU, 7) games against the very best teams in college basketball, how are they not deserving?

Yes but there are plenty of teams that do that and still have very good regular season records and are without a doubt tournament teams.

So? That doesn't mean that when every team is playing their absolute best, that the team with the good record is better than the team with the not as good record.

A playoff run with many undeserving teams and a single elimination style that is built for upsets and not always the best teams making it to the end.

How are these teams undeserving? There are 32 (or is it 33?) conference champions in the tournament. Of the at-large teams, many of them spend time in the Top 25. VCU is in the Final Four.

How are these teams not deserving? What makes a deserving team in your mind? Are we going to be like college football now and say you can only compete for a national title if you're in a Power 6 conference?

Once again I understand all of this but it isn't all that relevant to the point I'm making which is there are too many teams in the tournament and many teams the best teams do not even make the final four let alone win it all.

If they make it to the Final Four, how are they not the best?

Take Duke for example. Very good team this year, ranked #1 for a while, defending champions, one of the best freshman in the country...and they got beat. They obviously can't be the best team if they are beaten. The four teams we have left haven't been beaten when it really matters. They've all played games which have come down to the last possession, so we know they can win the close games.

Let's put it this way. I want you to tell me how you can say any team is better than the four teams we have right now. You can't, because those four teams are the only four which haven't been beaten.

Yet VCU entered the tournament undeservedly after losing 5 of their last 8 games. They weren't even close to playing the best they could yet they are in the final four. You don't have to be playing your best ball if you can get hot at the right time.

How are they undeserving, if they're one of only four teams left? That doesn't make sense.

And this "getting hot at the right time" is ridiculous. If VCU wins the championship, they will have won 7 games over the course of 3 weeks. That's not "getting hot", that's being consistently good.

Yes it is, it's true for everyone. Furthering my notion that you need to be hot at the right time.

Tell me, how does a team get "hot" during a 6 game, three week tournament? Please elaborate.

I agree that the BCS is extremely flawed and needs a plus one or a an 8 game playoff but at the end of the day you're getting two of the best if not the best teams in all of college football vying for the national title. The same is rarely said about college basketball.

How do we know Oregon was one of the two best teams? Did they play even 15% of the teams in college football this year? No, they didn't, so how can you say they were one of the best? Because they had an undefeated regular season? Well so did TCU and Boise St almost had one, but neither of those teams had a prayer of being in the national title game. What about all those 1 loss teams, how do we know they weren't better than Oregon?

The fact of the matter is, you can't say unequivocally that we had the two best teams playing. In college basketball, you're guaranteed to have the two teams who are playing the very best basketball in the country competing for the national title. Even you cannot dispute that.

I follow it extensively. I watch teams like Florida State sneak into a tournament field that is overly crowded and make a nice run after a subpar regular season. I watch teams get off to great starts or finish strong and make the tournament just because there are so many slots available.

So then you agree college baseball's regular season is more meaningless than college basketball? Oh, and let's not even begin to discuss the irrelevancy of the NBA season.

It still doesn't mean they are a deserving tournament team with a chance to compete for a title.

Well, sure it does. What's this "deserving" talk all about? You sound as misguided as Jay Bilas.

The NCAA Tournament isn't about recognizing who had the best regular season, the NCAA Tournament is about finding which team is the very best in college basketball. And if a team like VCU is able to go to the Final Four, obviously they are one of the best teams in college basketball.

Yes it usually does but that's not necessarily my point. High seeds get upset early on in the tournament as well and often to teams that they would beat 8 times out of 10.

Complete fallacy.

You're just pulling numbers out of your head with the 8 out of 10 times, with absolutely no way to prove it. You're not understanding the difference between how a coach manages a do or die game, as compared to a regular season game. You're not understanding the different levels of stress and intensity of a do or die game as compared to a regular season game. Those are huge factors, which usually are the difference in the upsets. Especially when many times, those upsets come from the hands of mid-majors with upper classmen against major powers with reliance on freshmen and sophomores.

I'm not saying I have the perfect solution but the current situation certainly isn't the fairest way to do it

How is putting two teams together to decide the best not the most fair way to do it? This isn't college football, where the only teams who get a chance have to come from a power conference, this is basketball, where everyone has a chance, and what they do with that chance depends on them.

and it does fail to always find a true champion.

Like when? When was the last time you had a team which could clearly say they were better than the national champion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Men's_Division_I_Basketball_Champions

There's a link. Let me know.

Sometimes it gets the job done but it isn't close to perfect. People shit on the BCS all the time for not finding a true champion but many times they come closer then the NCAA Tournament. (I'd like to make it clear I hate the BCS and they definitely need a change as well.)

And I want to make it clear, I'm not insinuating you endorse the BCS.

 

[Big Sexy]

Well sure it does, how does it not? If a team can win 6 (or in the case of VCU, 7) games against the very best teams in college basketball, how are they not deserving?

They went 23-11 overall and 10-6 in a conference that really isn't all that great. They finished 4th in said conference and lost 5 of their last 8 games. They had very few impressive victories and they were other teams with better resumes. What's to say Colorado or Alabama doesn't have a similar run if they get in?

So? That doesn't mean that when every team is playing their absolute best, that the team with the good record is better than the team with the not as good record.

I never said it does, but one single elimination doesn't always decide the better team.

How are these teams undeserving? There are 32 (or is it 33?) conference champions in the tournament. Of the at-large teams, many of them spend time in the Top 25. VCU is in the Final Four.

We're talking about the National Title. Trying to find the best team in all of college basketball. You really think all of these teams with 11, 12, 13 losses that got in the tournament should have the opportunity to contend for the title?

How are these teams not deserving? What makes a deserving team in your mind? Are we going to be like college football now and say you can only compete for a national title if you're in a Power 6 conference?

Fuck no. You can use similar criteria to what is in place now just tweak it a little and have less teams in the tournament. Quantity doesn't always equal quality. You can still get mid major teams in the top 32. Teams like Butler, Temple, Xavier, etc.. were all in the top 32 this past season in terms of seeding.

If they make it to the Final Four, how are they not the best?

Outside of the past 3 weeks they have been a sub par team all season considering the schedule they played. They are on a nice run and are pulling out victories but that doesn't make them the best.

Take Duke for example. Very good team this year, ranked #1 for a while, defending champions, one of the best freshman in the country...and they got beat. They obviously can't be the best team if they are beaten. The four teams we have left haven't been beaten when it really matters. They've all played games which have come down to the last possession, so we know they can win the close games.

The 2001 LA Lakers lost game one of the NBA Finals to the 76ers. The Lakers proceeded to dominate the rest of the series and win it easily. One game doesn't tell a whole story.

Let's put it this way. I want you to tell me how you can say any team is better than the four teams we have right now. You can't, because those four teams are the only four which haven't been beaten.

In a single elimination tournament they haven't lost. One game doesn't always decide which teams are better.

And this "getting hot at the right time" is ridiculous. If VCU wins the championship, they will have won 7 games over the course of 3 weeks. That's not "getting hot", that's being consistently good.

7 games out of close to 40 and 3 weeks out of a 5 month season is consistency?

Tell me, how does a team get "hot" during a 6 game, three week tournament? Please elaborate.

Exhibit A: VCU

How do we know Oregon was one of the two best teams? Did they play even 15% of the teams in college football this year? No, they didn't, so how can you say they were one of the best? Because they had an undefeated regular season? Well so did TCU and Boise St almost had one, but neither of those teams had a prayer of being in the national title game. What about all those 1 loss teams, how do we know they weren't better than Oregon?

I said they were one of the best. Watching them on the field all season long that was clear.

The fact of the matter is, you can't say unequivocally that we had the two best teams playing. In college basketball, you're guaranteed to have the two teams who are playing the very best basketball in the country competing for the national title. Even you cannot dispute that.

You have two teams that are playing the best combined with some luck and the fact that single elimination tournaments are flawed.

So then you agree college baseball's regular season is more meaningless than college basketball? Oh, and let's not even begin to discuss the irrelevancy of the NBA season.

Home court is more prevalent in the NBA then almost any other sport so while the NBA regular season may not be the most relevant thing it is certainly more relevant then college basketball.

The NCAA Tournament isn't about recognizing who had the best regular season, the NCAA Tournament is about finding which team is the very best in college basketball. And if a team like VCU is able to go to the Final Four, obviously they are one of the best teams in college basketball.

And you can't find the very best team in a single elimination tournament.

You're just pulling numbers out of your head with the 8 out of 10 times, with absolutely no way to prove it. You're not understanding the difference between how a coach manages a do or die game, as compared to a regular season game. You're not understanding the different levels of stress and intensity of a do or die game as compared to a regular season game. Those are huge factors, which usually are the difference in the upsets. Especially when many times, those upsets come from the hands of mid-majors with upper classmen against major powers with reliance on freshmen and sophomores.

I understand everything just find and yes my number was an estimation but just like I can't predict that a team like VCU couldn't win in a series type tournament you can't predict that they could. I firmly believe that if you put Kansas vs VCU 10 times Kansas would win the majority of the time.

How is putting two teams together to decide the best not the most fair way to do it? This isn't college football, where the only teams who get a chance have to come from a power conference, this is basketball, where everyone has a chance, and what they do with that chance depends on them.

Because one game isn't always a deciding factor of who is better then who.

Like when? When was the last time you had a team which could clearly say they were better than the national champion?

How about this year? I don't think any of the teams remaining are the best in college basketball. In 2006 I don't think Florida was either. There's also many years where the eventual champion has a fairly easy championship game because of upsets earlier in the tournament.

 

[Slyfox696]

They went 23-11 overall and 10-6 in a conference that really isn't all that great.

But when their season is on the line, and they are pulling out all the stops just like everyone else, they are 5-0.

What's to say Colorado or Alabama doesn't have a similar run if they get in?

That's an entirely different argument, with so many different variables it's pointless to consider. What we're discussing is the fact that VCU got in, and proved they belonged by making it to the Final Four.

The criteria for how teams are selected, and whether teams deserve to be there are two entirely different subjects.

I never said it does, but one single elimination doesn't always decide the better team.

In a do or die situation, with all the marbles on the line, excluding injury or illness, one game does determine the better team.

Out of curiosity, do you have the same problem with the NFL playoffs?

We're talking about the National Title. Trying to find the best team in all of college basketball. You really think all of these teams with 11, 12, 13 losses that got in the tournament should have the opportunity to contend for the title?

Well...yeah. Why not? As I've already mentioned, the regular season isn't just about wins and losses. It's about experimentation with all sorts of things, and sometimes you try things in a regular season game you wouldn't try in a playoff game.

Wins/losses is a good test to identify the better teams, but it doesn't determine the best team.

Fuck no. You can use similar criteria to what is in place now just tweak it a little and have less teams in the tournament. Quantity doesn't always equal quality. You can still get mid major teams in the top 32. Teams like Butler, Temple, Xavier, etc.. were all in the top 32 this past season in terms of seeding.

But how long would they be if you eliminate automatic bids, and make everything invite only? How long before the Power 6, which garners much better ratings and revenue, shove out the little guys? I'd say inside of 10 years. It'd be the same thing as we see with college football.

The answer is 64 teams, with each conference getting an automatic bid. It's the only solution, and the best solution.

Outside of the past 3 weeks they have been a sub par team all season considering the schedule they played. They are on a nice run and are pulling out victories but that doesn't make them the best.

Explain this "schedule they played" stuff. Hasn't it been proven time and again that great basketball happens just as often in the mid-majors as it does in the power conferences?

The "schedule they play" stuff holds no water for me, certainly not in college basketball. As we saw with UConn, conference games are tougher, because your opponents know you so much better, and are better able to gameplan against you. Kids are more likely to know each other and know each other's strengths and weaknesses.

I'm sorry, but the schedule argument doesn't hold up for me. What does hold up is that VCU has won 5 games over the course of 2 weeks. To say they aren't playing some of the best basketball in the country is silly.

The 2001 LA Lakers lost game one of the NBA Finals to the 76ers. The Lakers proceeded to dominate the rest of the series and win it easily. One game doesn't tell a whole story.

Game One isn't a do-or-die situation. So your example really doesn't apply here.

In a single elimination tournament they haven't lost. One game doesn't always decide which teams are better.

Head to head competition doesn't decide the better team, when both teams know it's win or have their season finished? How else can you realistically determine that?

7 games out of close to 40 and 3 weeks out of a 5 month season is consistency?

But it's not 7 games out of 40. It's 7 games out of 7 games. They haven't won just 5 games the entire season, they've won 28 out of 40. So yeah, I'd say consistency. Because they're winning the games during the time that everyone is theoretically playing their best basketball. And for five games, VCU's best has been better than 64 other teams' best.

Exhibit A: VCU

I said tell me, not give me an example.

I said they were one of the best. Watching them on the field all season long that was clear.

And I've watched VCU throughout the tournament, and they've been "one of the best". I fail to see your point.

You have two teams that are playing the best combined with some luck and the fact that single elimination tournaments are flawed.

There's nothing flawed about a system where a team is forced to play their very best every night or be sent home. There's nothing flawed about a system in which both teams know it's win or go home. It's not like the NCAA tells them they get 5 games, and then after game one, tells them the series is over. Both teams know the stakes, and have to deal with that stress.

And the team that handles it better wins the game.

Home court is more prevalent in the NBA then almost any other sport so while the NBA regular season may not be the most relevant thing it is certainly more relevant then college basketball.

And no #16 seed has ever beaten a #1 seed, and, if my math is right, #2 seeds are 100-4 against #15 seeds.

We can play that game all day long.

And you can't find the very best team in a single elimination tournament.

I disagree.

I understand everything just find and yes my number was an estimation but just like I can't predict that a team like VCU couldn't win in a series type tournament you can't predict that they could.

So what you're saying is that this part of your post is essentially worthless.

You may not think VCU could beat Kansas 5 times out of 10, but then again, people didn't think VCU could beat Kansas 1 time out of 1. So unless you have some evidence to support your majority theory, it really is useless in this conversation.

How about this year? I don't think any of the teams remaining are the best in college basketball.

I'd say any of these teams are just as good as any teams that will be sitting at home watching.

In 2006 I don't think Florida was either.

Uhh, they won back-to-back championships with essentially the same team. How can you say they weren't the best, when they did it two years in a row?

There's also many years where the eventual champion has a fairly easy championship game because of upsets earlier in the tournament.

Which has nothing to do with this conversation, because we're talking about finding the BEST team. And other than Florida in 2006 (who won back-to-back titles), and the team that hasn't been decided this year, you seem to think each year the tournament has found the best team.

How can you argue against the system that has found, and you agree are, the best teams for the previous 25 championships (since expanding to 64 and above)?

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

I'm curious as to a couple of points that both of you have made.

Sly you're making an after the fact argument for VCU. Well, actually, VCU is making the argument for themselves, but it's still a logical fallacy.

You can't say, look how well they've done AFTER they got in. You're using hindsight to prove a different argument. VCU should have never been awarded a bid in the first place. What they do after the fact isn't germane to how the selection committee arbitrarily decided the criteria by which they will choose teams. VCU was so sure they weren't going to the tournament based on their OWN season, that they went out for burgers as a team instead of watching the show.

I said before in a different thread there's two ways to look at this and neither one is wrong. I think that Big Sexy is arguing the same thing just from a different way.

You don't have to agree with the fact that VCU should be in the tournament, but you can applaud their effort thus far and say that they were the best team in the tournament if they win it all.

How do we know Oregon was one of the two best teams? Did they play even 15% of the teams in college football this year? No, they didn't, so how can you say they were one of the best? Because they had an undefeated regular season? Well so did TCU and Boise St almost had one, but neither of those teams had a prayer of being in the national title game. What about all those 1 loss teams, how do we know they weren't better than Oregon?

This same argument applies to VCU, they didn't play 15% of the teams, they played a couple good teams in the tournament and a completely soft schedule during their regular season. Styles make match-ups in sports, and VCU didn't beat the number of good teams that these other teams beat. Anyone can get caught. How does that make an argument for VCU anymore than it did for Oregon?

Simply put, I think Big Sexy is arguing that VCU should never have been in there in the first place so no matter what happens he won't consider them the best.

You're saying you don't care about the fact that they shouldn't be in there, it only matters what they've done since they got there.

Same relative idea seen from both sides of the coin. The selection of VCU is what's making your argument.

Also, if you really wanted to make a college football playoff 16 teams is the way to go. Not 8. You give an invite to every conference champion and 5 at larges. Makes the most sense. Since 6 of the power conferences are already assuming those spots in an 8 team playoff, that means you have two at large spots which means you'd have even less room than you do now.

The BCS is 5 bowls or 10 teams, you really want to remove two spots from a system that already can't get the right teams in there?

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm curious as to a couple of points that both of you have made.

Sly you're making an after the fact argument for VCU. Well, actually, VCU is making the argument for themselves, but it's still a logical fallacy.

You can't say, look how well they've done AFTER they got in. You're using hindsight to prove a different argument. VCU should have never been awarded a bid in the first place. What they do after the fact isn't germane to how the selection committee arbitrarily decided the criteria by which they will choose teams. VCU was so sure they weren't going to the tournament based on their OWN season, that they went out for burgers as a team instead of watching the show.

Actually, YOU are the one with the different argument. I already covered this before with Big Sexy.

The criteria used to determine who gets in the tournament has nothing to do with the quality of play once in the tournament. The NCAA Tournament is about finding the best team, and obviously VCU is one of the best teams.

Now, you can say that VCU didn't deserve a bid, which is a whole other argument, but they did get that bid, and they showed they are one of the best teams.


Like I told Big Sexy, you're using the Jay Bilas argument (who I heard talk about it on a couple different occasions), but it doesn't make sense. We're talking about the tournament finding the best team, and VCU is obviously one of the best teams. Perhaps VCU didn't earn a bid from the committee in your mind, but they are obviously one of the best teams.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

Actually, YOU are the one with the different argument. I already covered this before with Big Sexy.

The criteria used to determine who gets in the tournament has nothing to do with the quality of play once in the tournament. The NCAA Tournament is about finding the best team, and obviously VCU is one of the best teams.

Actually, it does.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D111.pdf

Bylaw 31.3.3 restricts championship selection criteria to win-loss record, strength of schedule, and availability of student-athletes. The Championship/Sports Management Cabinet must approve any additional selection criteria.

RPI, head to head, common opponents, and non-conference strength of schedule, last 8, and results against teams already in the field are not currently approved selection criteria according to the Men's Basketball Handbook.

There hasn't been any additional approvals to the selection committee criteria, other than the ones mentioned in Bylaw 31.3.3 since September of 2008.

Simply put, it's against NCAA rules for 10 different people to walk in to a room with 10 different ideas on how to fill the bracket.

Because of this VCU should have never been in the tournament in the first place. The lack of adherence to NCAA By-Laws allowed them in to the tournament. The simple fact that they would not have qualified without those other criteria, which I mentioned after, precludes their run in the tournament.

If sticking to the criteria as stated by the legislative handbook were actually the only things used, VCU could not have made the tournament, per legislative guidelines and, therefore, would have ZERO results. These are simple facts.

Gene Smith offered this explanation for VCU's selection: "There were a lot of different factors."

No, there aren't. None that are allowed. There are three factors that determine a championship team's selection currently approved. Anything else being considered is a violation of Bylaws and legislative regulation. This is not up for debate.

The most controversial picks were Conference USA regular-season champ UAB, which beat one team in the field, VCU, another perplexing pick considering the Rams didn't finish in the top two in the Colonial Athletic Association.

In defending the selection of UAB, which lost in the quarterfinals of the C-USA tournament to East Carolina, Smith said that the committee was impressed by "their road wins, who they beat, their RPI and a lot of different factors."


Smith's refrain on VCU was similar to his on UAB. VCU, with an RPI of 51, lost in the CAA title game to Old Dominion.

Smith then went on to say that it's about the body of work to get a team a spot. The Rams' win total (23), wins against top 50 (three, UCLA in New York, at Old Dominion, and George Mason in the CAA tournament), and their road record (8-6) was worthy enough to get them into the field.

http://qam.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=6214265

Now, you can say that VCU didn't deserve a bid, which is a whole other argument, but they did get that bid, and they showed they are one of the best teams.

No, they showed that they are one of the best teams in the tournament. You can argue that this tournament decides the National Champion, but so does the BCS, and people do not agree that it meets that goal, either. The NIT is also a post-season tournament which decides a champion. The winner of the NIT does not play the winner of the CBI and NCAA's to determine who the actual best was.

If VCU wins this tournament, they will be the National Champion, that does not mean that everyone has to agree they were the best in college basketball this YEAR. That's a subjective argument for which there's no answer. They had an average season and a solid run in the post season. If you take a C and average that with an A, you get a B.

Like I told Big Sexy, you're using the Jay Bilas argument (who I heard talk about it on a couple different occasions), but it doesn't make sense. We're talking about the tournament finding the best team, and VCU is obviously one of the best teams. Perhaps VCU didn't earn a bid from the committee in your mind, but they are obviously one of the best teams.

You're telling me that a man, who is an expert in his field, with a Juris Doctor, is not making sense? He's sticking to facts and logic.

As I've pointed out to you using law and rules, VCU should not be in the tournament. They did not meet the guidelines to qualify for the tournament that are currently approved.

Using this logic, they wouldn't be in the tournament and would have zero results.

VCU "didn't earn" a bid from the committee "in my mind," they earned a bid because the committee, ADMITTEDLY, took in to account things that were not approved by NCAA legislation for championship selection.

 

[Big Sexy]

But when their season is on the line, and they are pulling out all the stops just like everyone else, they are 5-0.

Exactly. They're hot right now.

That's an entirely different argument, with so many different variables it's pointless to consider. What we're discussing is the fact that VCU got in, and proved they belonged by making it to the Final Four.

VCU's resume was not good enough to get in the tournament over teams like Colorado and Alabama.

The criteria for how teams are selected, and whether teams deserve to be there are two entirely different subjects.

Using the tournament criteria VCU should not have been in.

In a do or die situation, with all the marbles on the line, excluding injury or illness, one game does determine the better team.

Not really, especially in a game like basketball. Things like off shooting nights happen even to great teams.

Out of curiosity, do you have the same problem with the NFL playoffs?

With football being a completely different sport you can't really have series because it would be too many games but I do believe that the best team doesn't always win the Super Bowl. The 2007 Giants being a perfect example.

Well...yeah. Why not? As I've already mentioned, the regular season isn't just about wins and losses. It's about experimentation with all sorts of things, and sometimes you try things in a regular season game you wouldn't try in a playoff game.

Yet other teams do the same thing and still do much better in the regular season. Over 10 losses is getting up there in the sport of college basketball when talking about elite teams.

Wins/losses is a good test to identify the better teams, but it doesn't determine the best team.

It determines who should be considered the contenders to vie for the best.

But how long would they be if you eliminate automatic bids, and make everything invite only? How long before the Power 6, which garners much better ratings and revenue, shove out the little guys? I'd say inside of 10 years. It'd be the same thing as we see with college football.

That's not what I'm discussing. Besides how many mid majors have actually won the tournament before? Since the UCLA dynasty started only major conference teams have won the tournament.

The answer is 64 teams, with each conference getting an automatic bid. It's the only solution, and the best solution.

Not really.

Explain this "schedule they played" stuff. Hasn't it been proven time and again that great basketball happens just as often in the mid-majors as it does in the power conferences?

When has that been proven? Mid major conferences have no where near the depth of power conferences.

I'm sorry, but the schedule argument doesn't hold up for me. What does hold up is that VCU has won 5 games over the course of 2 weeks. To say they aren't playing some of the best basketball in the country is silly.

I never said they weren't currently playing some of the best ball. They just aren't one of the best teams in the country.

Game One isn't a do-or-die situation. So your example really doesn't apply here.

Of course it does. Every game is important in the NBA Finals. Just because a situation is do or die it doesn't mean the teams are automatically going to play perfect.

Head to head competition doesn't decide the better team, when both teams know it's win or have their season finished? How else can you realistically determine that?

One tournament head to head game doesn't always decide it no. Possibly they could shorten the field and have rounds be best of 3 series, or at least after the first round.

But it's not 7 games out of 40. It's 7 games out of 7 games. They haven't won just 5 games the entire season, they've won 28 out of 40. So yeah, I'd say consistency. Because they're winning the games during the time that everyone is theoretically playing their best basketball. And for five games, VCU's best has been better than 64 other teams' best.

VCU has won the 7 most important games of their season thus far but it doesn't just eliminate the entire regular season and conference tourney which showed they weren't an elite team. They're hot and playing great but aren't one of the best 4 teams in the country.
I said tell me, not give me an example.

There's nothing flawed about a system where a team is forced to play their very best every night or be sent home. There's nothing flawed about a system in which both teams know it's win or go home. It's not like the NCAA tells them they get 5 games, and then after game one, tells them the series is over. Both teams know the stakes, and have to deal with that stress.

Anything can happen in one game. Even knowing the stakes poor shooting nights are possible or a team getting extremely hot shooting the ball can happen. One game just isn't going to convince me one team is truly greater then the other.

And no #16 seed has ever beaten a #1 seed, and, if my math is right, #2 seeds are 100-4 against #15 seeds.

After the first round of the tourney there is a huge drop off in terms of seeding disparities meaning much.

You may not think VCU could beat Kansas 5 times out of 10, but then again, people didn't think VCU could beat Kansas 1 time out of 1. So unless you have some evidence to support your majority theory, it really is useless in this conversation.

My evidence is the fact that Kansas finished 32-2 in the Big 12 and was one of the best teams all season long. VCU was 23-11 in the regular season and finished 4th in the CAA conference. Kansas only lost to tournay teams. VCU lost to a couple shitty conference bottom feeders.

I'd say any of these teams are just as good as any teams that will be sitting at home watching.

You'd be wrong.

Uhh, they won back-to-back championships with essentially the same team. How can you say they weren't the best, when they did it two years in a row?

The first year they were a younger less experienced team and I believe there were a couple better teams in the field that year.

Which has nothing to do with this conversation, because we're talking about finding the BEST team. And other than Florida in 2006 (who won back-to-back titles), and the team that hasn't been decided this year, you seem to think each year the tournament has found the best team.

I just pulled out two recent years off the top of my head. Having a life kind of prohibits me from dissecting every tournament of the last 20 years.

How can you argue against the system that has found, and you agree are, the best teams for the previous 25 championships (since expanding to 64 and above)?

Lol I didn't agree to that at all. There are certainly many years where the best team does win but the way it comes about isn't the best way and with some tweaks the system could be improved in terms of finding the best possible team as champion.

 

[Slyfox696]

Wow, these are getting long, so I'll do some condensing.

Actually, it does.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D111.pdf

Bylaw 31.3.3 restricts championship selection criteria to win-loss record, strength of schedule, and availability of student-athletes. The Championship/Sports Management Cabinet must approve any additional selection criteria.

RPI, head to head, common opponents, and non-conference strength of schedule, last 8, and results against teams already in the field are not currently approved selection criteria according to the Men's Basketball Handbook.

There hasn't been any additional approvals to the selection committee criteria, other than the ones mentioned in Bylaw 31.3.3 since September of 2008.

Simply put, it's against NCAA rules for 10 different people to walk in to a room with 10 different ideas on how to fill the bracket.

Because of this VCU should have never been in the tournament in the first place. The lack of adherence to NCAA By-Laws allowed them in to the tournament. The simple fact that they would not have qualified without those other criteria, which I mentioned after, precludes their run in the tournament.

If sticking to the criteria as stated by the legislative handbook were actually the only things used, VCU could not have made the tournament, per legislative guidelines and, therefore, would have ZERO results. These are simple facts.

Gene Smith offered this explanation for VCU's selection: "There were a lot of different factors."

No, there aren't. None that are allowed. There are three factors that determine a championship team's selection currently approved. Anything else being considered is a violation of Bylaws and legislative regulation. This is not up for debate.

You're talking about two different things Gay Guy.

Feel free to argue all you want whether or not VCU should have been selected to the tournament based on whatever criteria is to be used. It doesn't change the fact that since they ARE in the tournament, they have proven themselves as one of the best teams in the country.

The fact they've proven themselves to be playing some of the best basketball in the country is the only thing that matters in this thread, where Big Sexy is alleging it doesn't determine the best basketball team. The selection process has nothing to do with it.

No, they showed that they are one of the best teams in the tournament.

Which is comprised of the best teams in the country. Even if you think Alabama is better than the winner of the American conference, it doesn't change the fact schools like Duke, UCLA, Kentucky, Florida, etc. are still in the tournament as well.

This tournament was comprised of the best teams. VCU has shown it's one of the best teams.

If VCU wins this tournament, they will be the National Champion, that does not mean that everyone has to agree they were the best in college basketball this YEAR. That's a subjective argument for which there's no answer. They had an average season and a solid run in the post season. If you take a C and average that with an A, you get a B.

Which, if you have read my posts in this thread, you know that your average is not how the basketball season works.

In the end, what DOES matter, is the fact that when it came time to win or go home, VCU couldn't be beaten. Which would make them the best team.

You're telling me that a man, who is an expert in his field, with a Juris Doctor, is not making sense? He's sticking to facts and logic.

Absolutely I am. What, because he is an analyst, he can't be wrong? What sports shows do you watch, anyways, because I'd love to be able to make some extra money from Vegas.

You both are looking at it completely wrong in saying that VCU didn't deserve to be in the tournament, no matter how well they do. Perhaps they didn't deserve a selection in your mind, but they definitely have proven they deserved to be in the tournament.

It's two separate issues, you all have to understand that.

Exactly. They're hot right now.

Which means they are doing what every other team in the country wishes they could be doing, which is peaking at tournament time. Every college coach in the country prepares his team to play their best basketball at the end of the year, and VCU's best has been better than everyone else's best.

VCU's resume was not good enough to get in the tournament over teams like Colorado and Alabama.

Their resume has nothing to do with how good they are when they are playing their best ball. You HAVE to understand those are two separate issues.

Using the tournament criteria VCU should not have been in.

Doesn't change the fact they're one of the best teams.

That's like saying a 7 oz filet mignon steak shouldn't be more expensive than a 12 oz pork steak, because there's less meat. It doesn't change the fact that the filet mignon is simply a better steak.

Not really, especially in a game like basketball. Things like off shooting nights happen even to great teams.

They do, but more often than not, I find off shooting nights are more the result of good defense (or poor environment) than poor preparation. Furthermore, if you do have an off-shooting night, there's nothing to prevent you from forcing the other team from having an off-shooting night.

I've seen so many basketball games in my life, I couldn't begin to count them. And usually there's more things that go into an "off shooting night" than simply a failure of muscle memory.

With football being a completely different sport you can't really have series because it would be too many games

Change football for college basketball, you can make the same statement.

Yet other teams do the same thing and still do much better in the regular season.

So what? That doesn't matter. Maybe they have a deeper bench, maybe they're more athletic so execution isn't as important.

What matters is how your team plays in that moment that you've worked for the entire season. The regular season is important in that you have to win games for a good postseason position, but what the regular season is REALLY necessary for is finding how how to optimize your team for the postseason. That's what you work for all regular season long.

That's not what I'm discussing. Besides how many mid majors have actually won the tournament before? Since the UCLA dynasty started only major conference teams have won the tournament.

Which would only further my point about the best teams winning the tournament, would it not?

Not really.

I've yet to see a better one.

When has that been proven? Mid major conferences have no where near the depth of power conferences.

And yet, we have two mid-major (actually, I'd say more small conference than mid-major, but whatever) in the Final Four. We had one in the National Championship game. We've had George Mason in the Final Four. Numerous times we've had mid-majors in the Elite Eight. Gonzaga is routinely a Top 25 team. BYU and San Diego St. were both ranked in the Top 5.

Since leaving college early has become trendy, the level of basketball is much more even now than ever before. Sure, Power Conferences still dominate, but smaller schools have proven they can be just as tough as Power Conference teams. Which means when those top flight mid-majors can still be beaten in their own conferences, those conferences are playing good basketball.

Good basketball happens everywhere.

I never said they weren't currently playing some of the best ball. They just aren't one of the best teams in the country.

Well, we both would agree that all teams should be playing the best basketball of the year right now, correct? If VCU's best is better than Kansas best, than how can you say VCU is not one of the best teams? Whether it's a style thing, or a coach thing, or a shooting thing or an execution thing or a defensive thing...whatever the case may be, everyone SHOULD be playing their best, and VCU's best has been better than everyone they've played.

Of course it does. Every game is important in the NBA Finals. Just because a situation is do or die it doesn't mean the teams are automatically going to play perfect.

No, they aren't going to play perfectly, and that's my point. The teams that can handle the do or die situation are the ones that win.

Anything can happen in one game. Even knowing the stakes poor shooting nights are possible or a team getting extremely hot shooting the ball can happen. One game just isn't going to convince me one team is truly greater then the other.

Well, how is that going to be any different in a 2 out of 3 series? Or a 4 out of 7 series? Are you going to make these teams play 100 times to decide? For example, using your theory, are you convinced the #8 seed Denver Nuggets were a better team than the #1 Seattle SuperSonics in 1994? Were the Lakers a better team than the Celtics last year?

After the first round of the tourney there is a huge drop off in terms of seeding disparities meaning much.

This is the first year the NCAA Tournament doesn't have a #1 seed (or was it a #1 or #2) in the Final Four. I would argue your statement is incorrect.

My evidence is the fact that Kansas finished 32-2 in the Big 12 and was one of the best teams all season long. VCU was 23-11 in the regular season and finished 4th in the CAA conference. Kansas only lost to tournay teams. VCU lost to a couple shitty conference bottom feeders.

That's great. But losing in the tournament is hardly a rarity in Bill Self's career. He and Bob Huggins always seem to have teams that struggle in the Big Dance.

I think that says more about the coach than "VCU got lucky".

You'd be wrong.

Obviously, I'm not.

The first year they were a younger less experienced team and I believe there were a couple better teams in the field that year.

You're just being silly now. They were still loaded with juniors and seniors. And what team was better?

I just pulled out two recent years off the top of my head. Having a life kind of prohibits me from dissecting every tournament of the last 20 years.

I provided you a link with all the champions. I made it easy for you. If you're a fan of college basketball, you'll look at the champions and know whether or not they were the best.

Lol I didn't agree to that at all. There are certainly many years where the best team does win but the way it comes about isn't the best way and with some tweaks the system could be improved in terms of finding the best possible team as champion.

Not really. You can't come up with a single system which will find the team everyone will agree is the best.

However, with the system currently in place, unlike in college football, a team completely controls its own chances to win a national title. All you have to do is win. There's no surprise how the tournament works, you have to come with your best game every night. If you can't come with your best game in a do or die situation, then you don't deserve to be called a national champion.



Didn't I say I was going to do some condensing? I suck.

 

[Big Sexy]

Which means they are doing what every other team in the country wishes they could be doing, which is peaking at tournament time. Every college coach in the country prepares his team to play their best basketball at the end of the year, and VCU's best has been better than everyone else's best.

VCU didn't peak at tournament time, they were struggling going into the tournament. I find it highly doubtful that losing 5 of their last 8 going into the tournament they were playing their best basketball. They got hot, it's that simple.

Their resume has nothing to do with how good they are when they are playing their best ball. You HAVE to understand those are two separate issues.

It's completely relevant to the fact that the tournament doesn't always find the best 64, 68, or whatever number teams and it allows undeserving teams an opportunity to go on a run.

That's like saying a 7 oz filet mignon steak shouldn't be more expensive than a 12 oz pork steak, because there's less meat. It doesn't change the fact that the filet mignon is simply a better steak.

VCU isn't a better team they're just on a hot streak.

I've seen so many basketball games in my life, I couldn't begin to count them. And usually there's more things that go into an "off shooting night" than simply a failure of muscle memory.

Bad games happen and it's not always just because of what the other team is doing. Many times one game won't decide which team is better.

Change football for college basketball, you can make the same statement.

No you can't. Football is a much more physically demanding sport and the college game plays much closer to an NFL like schedule then college basketball plays to an NBA like schedule. There could easily be 3 game series with less teams rather then a single elimination tournament.

So what? That doesn't matter. Maybe they have a deeper bench, maybe they're more athletic so execution isn't as important.

Or maybe they're just the better overall team.

What matters is how your team plays in that moment that you've worked for the entire season. The regular season is important in that you have to win games for a good postseason position, but what the regular season is REALLY necessary for is finding how how to optimize your team for the postseason. That's what you work for all regular season long.

You can be the most prepared team in all of college basketball and still have that one game where you get upset.

Which would only further my point about the best teams winning the tournament, would it not?

No, my point is that having less teams wouldn't automatically mean less deserving mid major teams and even if it did, it's not like they ever win it all anyways.

And yet, we have two mid-major (actually, I'd say more small conference than mid-major, but whatever) in the Final Four. We had one in the National Championship game. We've had George Mason in the Final Four. Numerous times we've had mid-majors in the Elite Eight. Gonzaga is routinely a Top 25 team. BYU and San Diego St. were both ranked in the Top 5.

I never said mid major conferences didn't have some great teams. I'm saying overall the depth of the4 conference is inferior to that of the major conferences making the competition for the top mid major teams less.

Since leaving college early has become trendy, the level of basketball is much more even now than ever before. Sure, Power Conferences still dominate, but smaller schools have proven they can be just as tough as Power Conference teams. Which means when those top flight mid-majors can still be beaten in their own conferences, those conferences are playing good basketball.

It's more even but the major conferences are still easily better on the whole.

Well, we both would agree that all teams should be playing the best basketball of the year right now, correct? If VCU's best is better than Kansas best, than how can you say VCU is not one of the best teams? Whether it's a style thing, or a coach thing, or a shooting thing or an execution thing or a defensive thing...whatever the case may be, everyone SHOULD be playing their best, and VCU's best has been better than everyone they've played.

They've been better in isolated single game situations. Under a different format I don't see them in the final four because they aren't one of the top 4 teams whether it's in the regular season or now.

Well, how is that going to be any different in a 2 out of 3 series? Or a 4 out of 7 series? Are you going to make these teams play 100 times to decide? For example, using your theory, are you convinced the #8 seed Denver Nuggets were a better team than the #1 Seattle SuperSonics in 1994? Were the Lakers a better team than the Celtics last year?

No situation is perfect and upsets would still happen but more often the best teams would win. Denver upset Seattle in 94 but they were gone in the next round because they weren't a top team. I believe the Lakers were certainly better then the Celtics last year. Having a three game series would do a better job of proving who was better.

This is the first year the NCAA Tournament doesn't have a #1 seed (or was it a #1 or #2) in the Final Four. I would argue your statement is incorrect.

But most years there is only one or two number one seeds in the final four showing that the drop off is certainly there.

That's great. But losing in the tournament is hardly a rarity in Bill Self's career. He and Bob Huggins always seem to have teams that struggle in the Big Dance.

Self just led Kansas to a National Title just 3 years ago. He has made the elite eight in 4 of his 8 years at Kansas. He also made the elite eight in twice in the 6 years he coached at Tulsa and Illinois. His tournament struggles are highly overstated.

You're just being silly now. They were still loaded with juniors and seniors. And what team was better?

In 2006 they had lost their top three scorers and only had two starters returning. The starting 5 in 2006 were nothing more then role players in 2005. 4 of Florida's 5 starters in 2006 were sophomores and the other starter was a junior. There was only one senior on the roster who played double digit minutes. The UConn team that was upset by George Mason in the elite eight was a better team.

I provided you a link with all the champions. I made it easy for you. If you're a fan of college basketball, you'll look at the champions and know whether or not they were the best.

A link wasn't necessary I could find the list in 10 seconds on my own. Even the biggest college basketball fan doesn't have all of the top teams from every year memorized. I provided with two very recent examples.

Not really. You can't come up with a single system which will find the team everyone will agree is the best.

But I can find a system that's better then the current one.

However, with the system currently in place, unlike in college football, a team completely controls its own chances to win a national title. All you have to do is win. There's no surprise how the tournament works, you have to come with your best game every night. If you can't come with your best game in a do or die situation, then you don't deserve to be called a national champion.

Yet you're telling me that a 23-11 team that finished 4th in the fucking CAA and shouldn't have even been in the tournament is one of the top 4 teams in college basketball.

 

[Slyfox696]

VCU didn't peak at tournament time, they were struggling going into the tournament. I find it highly doubtful that losing 5 of their last 8 going into the tournament they were playing their best basketball. They got hot, it's that simple.

As someone's who's played, refereed and coached basketball for the last 16 years, who has been apart of more games than I'll ever remember, the concept of "just getting hot" is not something I buy. You can get hot shooting in a game, but even that's a matter of all the practice you've put in coming together perfectly.

In my mind, there's no such thing as "just getting hot", not when it's over the course of 5 games. To sustain this level of play is more than just being lucky, which is essentially what you're claiming when you say they just got hot.

It's completely relevant to the fact that the tournament doesn't always find the best 64, 68, or whatever number teams and it allows undeserving teams an opportunity to go on a run.

The tournament is not about finding the best 68 teams, it's about finding the best ONE team. And it does do that.

VCU isn't a better team they're just on a hot streak.

Which is completely bogus.

Let's look at it this way. In your mind, what does it mean when a team gets on a hot streak? Does it imbue players with skills they don't previously have? Do players suddenly become smarter, or do the rims suddenly become more friendly to their shots than the other teams? Is it simply luck?

Or is it when everything fits together and gels? Is it when those long hours of practice in the gym finally come together? Is it when the coach is calling all the right plays, and knowing his bench, having the right substition rotation? Is it when the players know all the plays and their teammates tendencies innately and play completely by instinct?

Because from where I sit, to say a team "got hot" means one of those two things. To say a team is simply lucky over the course of 5 games seems ludicrous, and the second option is indicative of good quality, which proves my argument.

So which is it?

Bad games happen and it's not always just because of what the other team is doing.

In my experience, it almost always is, unless it's an environmental issue. The only time I would grant you it has nothing to do with the other team or the environment is if there's an incident like a family death or something, which then affects a player's mental condition, or an injury in the middle of the game to an important player. But to the best of my knowledge, that hasn't happened to any team expected to make a big run this year, so that's not really something you can hold against teams like VCU.

No you can't. Football is a much more physically demanding sport and the college game plays much closer to an NFL like schedule then college basketball plays to an NBA like schedule. There could easily be 3 game series with less teams rather then a single elimination tournament.

Yeah, it's not like these kids have to go to class or anything.

No, the simple fact is you can't do a series. Not only do kids need to be in class, the travel expenses becomes so much greater, not to mention uncertain, because you never know if there's a third game or not. Your scenario is just not feasible.

Or maybe they're just the better overall team.

Obviously they're not if they can't win when it matters most. Or are you now going to try and tell me one game during the regular season is more important than one game during the postseason?

You can be the most prepared team in all of college basketball and still have that one game where you get upset.

If you're the most prepared and you get beat, then you obviously weren't the best team.

No, my point is that having less teams wouldn't automatically mean less deserving mid major teams and even if it did, it's not like they ever win it all anyways.

The problem I have with your statement is "less deserving". Sounds just like what the BCS conferences say to TCU and Boise St. when they make excuses for why they can't play for a national title.

I never said mid major conferences didn't have some great teams. I'm saying overall the depth of the4 conference is inferior to that of the major conferences making the competition for the top mid major teams less.

It's more even but the major conferences are still easily better on the whole.

Mid major basketball is a different beast than power conference basketball. The athletes in power conferences are obviously much better than what you'll see in mid-majors, but the basketball SKILL isn't necessarily much better. It's very similar to the International basketball scene. The United States obviously has the vastly superior athletes to the rest of the world, but they're not always the most skilled, which is why International games are so close for the USA.

They've been better in isolated single game situations. Under a different format I don't see them in the final four because they aren't one of the top 4 teams whether it's in the regular season or now.

Prove to me VCU isn't. You keep saying they're not because they're just getting hot at the right time of the year, but what if I countered that by saying they just got cold those last 8 games of the regular season? Take your same argument and flip it around, and then is VCU one of the best teams? Or, at the very least, do you have any proof they're not?

For someone who keeps trying to say the regular season in college basketball is the most irrelevant, you sure are putting WAY more emphasis on the regular season "cold" streak than you are the post season "hot streak". It's actually quite hypocritical of you. Why is the way they played to close the regular season so much more important to you than the way they've played in the postseason?

No situation is perfect and upsets would still happen but more often the best teams would win. Denver upset Seattle in 94 but they were gone in the next round because they weren't a top team. I believe the Lakers were certainly better then the Celtics last year. Having a three game series would do a better job of proving who was better.

Wait a minute...winning one game proves the Lakers were "certainly" better than the Celtics, after the Lakers had just lost 3 games out of 6 to them? So the Lakers are certainly better because they won one game, but VCU can't be better because they won one game.

I'm sorry, but this, too, sounds hypocritical to me.

But most years there is only one or two number one seeds in the final four showing that the drop off is certainly there.

If there are two #1 seeds, than 50% of the Final Four is a #1 seed. How does that not show that seeds are important, especially when the other 50% is USUALLY seeded 2-5?

Self just led Kansas to a National Title just 3 years ago. He has made the elite eight in 4 of his 8 years at Kansas. He also made the elite eight in twice in the 6 years he coached at Tulsa and Illinois. His tournament struggles are highly overstated.

And, aside from that national title game, his teams have lost almost every time to teams seeded lower than them, including this year and the year they lost to Bucknell. I'm not going to go back and look through every year, but Self's teams have historically choked in the tournament.

But, fine, let's do things your way. If his tournament struggles are overrated, and his team got beat by VCU, doesn't that just further my proof that VCU is one of the best teams in the country? You can't have it both ways. You can't claim a Bill Self team doesn't struggle in clutch games, and then also try to say VCU got lucky. It's one or the other. You're wanting your cake and to eat it too.

In 2006 they had lost their top three scorers and only had two starters returning. The starting 5 in 2006 were nothing more then role players in 2005. 4 of Florida's 5 starters in 2006 were sophomores and the other starter was a junior. There was only one senior on the roster who played double digit minutes.

And this same team won championships in back-to-back years. I'm not really sure what your point is here. You're trying to show they weren't a good team because of what they had had the previous year, and their class?

I'm telling you these players were so good, they did something which hadn't happened in over ten years, which was win back-to-back championships. How can you say they weren't a good team, when the same team won the national championship two years in a row? Just because they may not have had the hype, it doesn't mean they weren't a good team.

The UConn team that was upset by George Mason in the elite eight was a better team.

Completely false. That George Mason game showed Uconn's major weakness, which was if they couldn't beat you with athleticism, they were going to struggle to beat you. Florida was better than them.

A link wasn't necessary I could find the list in 10 seconds on my own. Even the biggest college basketball fan doesn't have all of the top teams from every year memorized. I provided with two very recent examples.

Which I then debunked.

But I can find a system that's better then the current one.

You've yet to do so.

again.

Yet you're telling me that a 23-11 team that finished 4th in the fucking CAA and shouldn't have even been in the tournament is one of the top 4 teams in college basketball.

Absolutely. Why? Because the postseason is a different animal than the regular season. And in the postseason, VCU has yet to be defeated.

Again, though, I find it amusing that for a "meaningless" college basketball regular season, as YOU call it, you seem to put a lot more emphasis on the way teams play in the regular season than you do in the postseason. Why is that? Why is a "meaningless" regular season so much more important in determining a "best team" than the postseason?

 

[Born To Fly]

Fantastic debate thus far.

Not much to add, other than this.

Once the regular season ends, everybody who reached the conference tournament has a clean slate. Those teams that have earned the right to a top seed, are usually guaranteed a spot in the NCAA Tournament.

Once you get into the NCAA Tournament, all bets are off.

Shouldn't the best team in the regular season be able to roll through the NCAA Tournament to a championship? Yes, but at the same time, it adds the extra enjoyment to it. If a team comes out of nowhere and plays out of its mind, great. They deserved it.

Every single team that gets into the tournament knows the consequences. Bring your A game each time or go home.

Right now, there are two teams left. Say what you want, but they played the system the best they could.

 

[Big Sexy]

As someone's who's played, refereed and coached basketball for the last 16 years, who has been apart of more games than I'll ever remember, the concept of "just getting hot" is not something I buy. You can get hot shooting in a game, but even that's a matter of all the practice you've put in coming together perfectly.

In my mind, there's no such thing as "just getting hot", not when it's over the course of 5 games. To sustain this level of play is more than just being lucky, which is essentially what you're claiming when you say they just got hot.

I'm not saying they are getting lucky by any means, but they were certainly on a streak where they were playing better then usual. Streaks like this happen in sports. They are obviously a solid team with a lot of talent and that contributed to the winning streak they had but it by no means makes them one of the best 4 teams in the country. In the 2007-2008 season the Houston Rockets won 22 straight games but they were still just a 5 seed in the Western Conference and were knocked out in the first round.

The tournament is not about finding the best 68 teams, it's about finding the best ONE team. And it does do that.

Not always.

Because from where I sit, to say a team "got hot" means one of those two things. To say a team is simply lucky over the course of 5 games seems ludicrous, and the second option is indicative of good quality, which proves my argument.

Good quality is only part of it. Teams like VCU just don't magically become an elite team in the country because the tournament starts.

Yeah, it's not like these kids have to go to class or anything.

No, the simple fact is you can't do a series. Not only do kids need to be in class, the travel expenses becomes so much greater, not to mention uncertain, because you never know if there's a third game or not. Your scenario is just not feasible.

Right now the tournament is over the course of three weekends. If the field is down to 32 teams and there are only 3 game series for the match ups starting after the first round then it can all be condensed into a similar time commitment. I'm not saying changes will or even should ever be made because of how successful the tournament with viewership and in terms of making money. This entire time I've just been pointing out the fact that this isn't the greatest way to determine a National Champion in College Basketball.

Obviously they're not if they can't win when it matters most. Or are you now going to try and tell me one game during the regular season is more important than one game during the postseason?

Of course it's not but one game doesn't always tell the whole story no matter when it's played.

Mid major basketball is a different beast than power conference basketball. The athletes in power conferences are obviously much better than what you'll see in mid-majors, but the basketball SKILL isn't necessarily much better. It's very similar to the International basketball scene. The United States obviously has the vastly superior athletes to the rest of the world, but they're not always the most skilled, which is why International games are so close for the USA.

I'm not trying to down play mid major basketball as some of the best teams in the country are from those conferences every year. Once again, I'm just pointing out how the mid major conferences lack the depth of power conferences which makes for easier schedules.

Prove to me VCU isn't. You keep saying they're not because they're just getting hot at the right time of the year, but what if I countered that by saying they just got cold those last 8 games of the regular season? Take your same argument and flip it around, and then is VCU one of the best teams? Or, at the very least, do you have any proof they're not?

I'm not saying VCU is a shit team, I never have. But on the whole this season they haven't been anywhere near an elite team and now all of the sudden when they have a good tournament run I'm just supposed to forget about everything else and crown them as an elite, top 4 team in the country? Not happening.

For someone who keeps trying to say the regular season in college basketball is the most irrelevant, you sure are putting WAY more emphasis on the regular season "cold" streak than you are the post season "hot streak". It's actually quite hypocritical of you. Why is the way they played to close the regular season so much more important to you than the way they've played in the postseason?

I'm saying the regular season is irrelevant in terms of how easy it is to get into the tournament even if you are just a solid year. How the teams play throughout the year is certainly relevant as it is in any sport, but with the number of teams that are getting into the tournament even with sub par resumes it makes the teams records and accomplishments not all that relevant.

Wait a minute...winning one game proves the Lakers were "certainly" better than the Celtics, after the Lakers had just lost 3 games out of 6 to them? So the Lakers are certainly better because they won one game, but VCU can't be better because they won one game.

That is two completely different things. The Lakers and Celtics had a 7 game series. It wasn't one game where anything could happen. After 7 games the two teams were obviously close to equal but the Lakers proved to just be slightly better. After one game that can't always be decided.

If there are two #1 seeds, than 50% of the Final Four is a #1 seed. How does that not show that seeds are important, especially when the other 50% is USUALLY seeded 2-5?

The tourney isn't filled with all number one seeds. Obviously as a one seed you are considered elite and have the easiest path to the final four. But as you get to the 2, 3, 4, 5, etc seeds once the first round is over the seeding doesn't mean all that much.

And, aside from that national title game, his teams have lost almost every time to teams seeded lower than them, including this year and the year they lost to Bucknell. I'm not going to go back and look through every year, but Self's teams have historically choked in the tournament.

What do you consider choking? In his elite eight appearance at Tulsa they were a 7 seed and lost to an 8 seed North Carolina team, just one seed lower. In his elite eight appearance with Illinois they were a one seed and lost to a seed, again just one seed lower. In his first elite eight appearance at Kansas in 2004 he made it there as a 4 seed and lost to the 3 seeded Georgia Tech team. In his second elite eight appearance in Kansas in 2007 he was again a 1 seed that lost to a 2 seed in UCLA. I'm not seeing much choking in the fact that he lost to teams in the elite eight that were one seed lower then him. Obviously his teams have lost against inferior competition in the tourney on occasion but what coach hasn't? Tom Izzo, Coach K, they've all had early exits to inferior teams before. Self's choking is greatly exaggerated.

But, fine, let's do things your way. If his tournament struggles are overrated, and his team got beat by VCU, doesn't that just further my proof that VCU is one of the best teams in the country? You can't have it both ways. You can't claim a Bill Self team doesn't struggle in clutch games, and then also try to say VCU got lucky. It's one or the other. You're wanting your cake and to eat it too.

It's not one way or the other at all. Are you going to tell me that every year is exactly the same? All coaches and all teams have struggles some years and lose games they shouldn't. It's the nature of the tournament and part of the reason I started this thread in the first place.

And this same team won championships in back-to-back years. I'm not really sure what your point is here. You're trying to show they weren't a good team because of what they had had the previous year, and their class?

No, I'm showing that the 2006 team wasn't as experienced as the 2007 team and therefore wasn't as good. Experience plays a huge role and having a year of big minutes under their belt helped a lot of those Florida players. Shit, Butler lost their best player from last year in Gordon Hayward yet they are back in the finals in large part because of the experience of guys like Shelvin Mack and Matt Howard.

I'm telling you these players were so good, they did something which hadn't happened in over ten years, which was win back-to-back championships. How can you say they weren't a good team, when the same team won the national championship two years in a row? Just because they may not have had the hype, it doesn't mean they weren't a good team.

Lol, who said they weren't a good team. There is a fine line between good and the best. Florida even with the inexperience was a great team in 2006 but I do not believe that they were the best.

Completely false. That George Mason game showed Uconn's major weakness, which was if they couldn't beat you with athleticism, they were going to struggle to beat you. Florida was better than them.

And you got all that from a two point overtime loss in one game? Disregarding the fact that they won 27 regular season games and 3 tournament games before that. UConn had a slip up and George Mason took advantage. That's what happens in the single elimination NCAA tourney and it happens a lot.

Which I then debunked.

Not really.

You've yet to do so.

I have to an extent, but again it isn't exactly the point of my thread anyways which is too show that this system isn't that great in terms of finding the best teams in the country.

Absolutely. Why? Because the postseason is a different animal than the regular season. And in the postseason, VCU has yet to be defeated.

The postseason is a different animal but VCU doesn't just automatically become an elite team because now it's tourney time.

Again, though, I find it amusing that for a "meaningless" college basketball regular season, as YOU call it, you seem to put a lot more emphasis on the way teams play in the regular season than you do in the postseason. Why is that? Why is a "meaningless" regular season so much more important in determining a "best team" than the postseason?

It's meaningless in the fact that you can go 23-11 in the CAA and still make the tournament. It's meaningless in the fact that these teams play there ass off to make what is supposed to be a tournament with the best of the best yet undeserving teams get in every year. What the teams show on the court and how they play throughout the regular season is completely different and not meaningless. The way the NCAA views the regular season with how they put the tourney together is.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm not saying they are getting lucky by any means, but they were certainly on a streak where they were playing better then usual.

Right, they were playing their best basketball, like everyone tries to do this time of the year. And their best was better than the other teams best, until they ran into Butler.

I don't understand how you can even remotely argue this anymore. Do you not understand the point of basketball is to play well in the postseason, that the postseason is where EVERYONE should be playing their best basketball? And if a team is not playing their best basketball in the postseason, then they obviously didn't prepare correctly.

Not always.

I say always, and you even say "most of the time".

Good quality is only part of it. Teams like VCU just don't magically become an elite team in the country because the tournament starts.

Exactly my point. They've always had the capability to be that good of a team, they are just now fully reaching that potential.

Thank you, that's what I've been saying. They don't magically become good, they've always been good, which makes them one of the best teams. I am so glad we finally agree on that point.

Right now the tournament is over the course of three weekends. If the field is down to 32 teams and there are only 3 game series for the match ups starting after the first round then it can all be condensed into a similar time commitment. I'm not saying changes will or even should ever be made because of how successful the tournament with viewership and in terms of making money. This entire time I've just been pointing out the fact that this isn't the greatest way to determine a National Champion in College Basketball.

Of course it's not but one game doesn't always tell the whole story no matter when it's played.

I'm not trying to down play mid major basketball as some of the best teams in the country are from those conferences every year. Once again, I'm just pointing out how the mid major conferences lack the depth of power conferences which makes for easier schedules.

I'm not saying VCU is a shit team, I never have. But on the whole this season they haven't been anywhere near an elite team and now all of the sudden when they have a good tournament run I'm just supposed to forget about everything else and crown them as an elite, top 4 team in the country? Not happening.

All of this has been discussed numerous times before, or deals with VCU who didn't win the championship. Moving on.

I'm saying the regular season is irrelevant in terms of how easy it is to get into the tournament even if you are just a solid year. How the teams play throughout the year is certainly relevant as it is in any sport, but with the number of teams that are getting into the tournament even with sub par resumes it makes the teams records and accomplishments not all that relevant.

But the point is that no team with a good record and has a serious claim to being called the best during the regular season DOESN'T get in. Any team you want to point to and say "they could be the best team in America" gets in the tournament. This isn't college football, this is where every team has an equal chance to prove themselves.

And when tournament time comes, those teams that are truly great step up and prove themselves. Like Butler and UConn.

That is two completely different things. The Lakers and Celtics had a 7 game series. It wasn't one game where anything could happen. After 7 games the two teams were obviously close to equal but the Lakers proved to just be slightly better. After one game that can't always be decided.

And if they had played a Game 8 and the Celtics won, they would be equal again. I'm sorry, but you're just making your argument look bad now. At the end of the day, the NBA Finals came down to who played the best in one game. And not only that, it came down to who played the best in one game in Los Angeles. So you're going to tell me the Lakers are clearly better than the Celtics because they won one game on their home court, which you've already said is important during the NBA playoffs?

My point is that no matter how many games you play, the situation which you are describing is possible to happen. In college basketball, there is no pre-determined home court advantage, and each team knows ahead of time they have to bring their very best game or they lose.

I'm sorry, but you just simply are off on this one.

The tourney isn't filled with all number one seeds. Obviously as a one seed you are considered elite and have the easiest path to the final four. But as you get to the 2, 3, 4, 5, etc seeds once the first round is over the seeding doesn't mean all that much.

Okay, but that shows equality in the game, not that the regular season is irrelevant. I'm not understanding your point. You agree the 1 seed has an easy road, so how is the regular season not important? You agree the first round for the top seeds makes a difference, so how is the regular season not important?

Again, I have no idea how you can even argue this any more.

No, I'm showing that the 2006 team wasn't as experienced as the 2007 team and therefore wasn't as good.

And Syracuse won that national title with a freshman leading the way. I guess that team wasn't very good either, after all that freshman didn't have experience and couldn't be a good player. Whatever did happen to that Carmelo Anthony guy?

Experience is not the end all and be all of a good team. Does it help, certainly, but there are other factors as well.

Lol, who said they weren't a good team. There is a fine line between good and the best. Florida even with the inexperience was a great team in 2006 but I do not believe that they were the best.

Prove to me otherwise. When it counted, those same Florida players won every game for two years.

Prove to me they weren't the best. And don't give me the "eyeball test", because you've already told me you didn't buy that as a reasonable excuse to put VCU in the tournament this year. So give me proof that Florida wasn't the best team.

I have to an extent, but again it isn't exactly the point of my thread anyways which is too show that this system isn't that great in terms of finding the best teams in the country.

You haven't shown any system which is better and reasonable.

The postseason is a different animal but VCU doesn't just automatically become an elite team because now it's tourney time.

Again, I agree completely. They had this potential the entire time, and they finally put it together during the postseason, just like every team tries to do.

Are you now going to hold it against VCU because they did what other teams couldn't?

It's meaningless in the fact that you can go 23-11 in the CAA and still make the tournament. It's meaningless in the fact that these teams play there ass off to make what is supposed to be a tournament with the best of the best yet undeserving teams get in every year. What the teams show on the court and how they play throughout the regular season is completely different and not meaningless. The way the NCAA views the regular season with how they put the tourney together is.

I've condensed some of the argument, but at this point, I don't even see how you can possibly argue this. I've explained to you how the point of the basketball season is to prepare for the tournament, I've given you examples of how coaches try different things in the regular season so they know exactly how they'll play in the tournament, I've noted the fact that every year you cannot legitimately find a team clearly better than the team who won it all, and I've shown you (a couple of different ways) how there is not a singe format better than what we have, which gives everyone a chance to prove how good they can be.

I don't see how you can argue this any more. You have been playing defense throughout the last several posts, and I've been getting layups anyways. The tournament finds the best team every year (or at the very least, no team is clearly better than the tournament winner) and you cannot give me one system which is clearly better than what we have. The only thing you've done is propose a system which essentially would make it impossible for teams outside of the Power conferences to have a chance for a national title.

I'm sorry, but you've been defeated.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

I agree with you for the most part.

I think I'd like to see something in the middle between the BCS system and the tournament system, in college basketball.

For one thing, expanding the tournament was a huge mistake. If anything, downsizing is the way to go.

Maybe you take the top 3 teams from each major conference or something.

My problem is that teams like Butler, VCU, George Mason, Valpairaiso, etc. would never beat the higher seeds over the course of a few games. In a one and one scenario, anything can happen. Does that really prove who the best team is?

Certainly you can't have a best of 7 series, unless you seriously downsized the tourney, and we know that won't happen. I think strength of schedule needs to play a much more important role and I think I would scrap the conference tournaments all together. All those are for, are to make money for the conferences. It does nothing for the teams.

I love watching the tournament but I don't believe it crowns the best team, the champion (for the most part).

 

[Big Sexy]

Right, they were playing their best basketball, like everyone tries to do this time of the year. And their best was better than the other teams best, until they ran into Butler.

I've repeated time and again that it isn't always feasible for a time to bring their absolute best in a single elimination tournament like this. Shit happens and that is more evident after watching that abomination of a National Title game.

I don't understand how you can even remotely argue this anymore. Do you not understand the point of basketball is to play well in the postseason, that the postseason is where EVERYONE should be playing their best basketball? And if a team is not playing their best basketball in the postseason, then they obviously didn't prepare correctly.

Did you watch Buler last night? They made under 19% of their shots. Part of it was UConn's defense but a bigger part was the fact that were missing open and makeable shots. This was the game where they were supposed to be at their absolute best and they played probably their worst game of the season on the offensive end.

Exactly my point. They've always had the capability to be that good of a team, they are just now fully reaching that potential.

It still baffles me how you just assume they are some great team because of 5 tournament games. I don't see how they just miraculously put it all together after a fairly sub par regular season and losing in their conference tourney.

Thank you, that's what I've been saying. They don't magically become good, they've always been good, which makes them one of the best teams. I am so glad we finally agree on that point.

If they've always been this good then they wouldn't have lost 11 games as a member of the CAA conference.

But the point is that no team with a good record and has a serious claim to being called the best during the regular season DOESN'T get in. Any team you want to point to and say "they could be the best team in America" gets in the tournament. This isn't college football, this is where every team has an equal chance to prove themselves.

And when tournament time comes, those teams that are truly great step up and prove themselves. Like Butler and UConn.

In a smaller tourney field Butler and UConn still would have gotten in. 68 teams is way too large of a number of teams to get a chance to prove they are the best. You said yourself you didn't like the expansion to 68 teams. If we were at 64 or 65 then VCU would not have made it in.

And if they had played a Game 8 and the Celtics won, they would be equal again. I'm sorry, but you're just making your argument look bad now. At the end of the day, the NBA Finals came down to who played the best in one game. And not only that, it came down to who played the best in one game in Los Angeles. So you're going to tell me the Lakers are clearly better than the Celtics because they won one game on their home court, which you've already said is important during the NBA playoffs?

My point is that a 7 game series provides a better sample of who is better then a one off game.

My point is that no matter how many games you play, the situation which you are describing is possible to happen. In college basketball, there is no pre-determined home court advantage, and each team knows ahead of time they have to bring their very best game or they lose.

There is obviously no perfect way but a single elimination tournament is far from the best way.

Okay, but that shows equality in the game, not that the regular season is irrelevant. I'm not understanding your point. You agree the 1 seed has an easy road, so how is the regular season not important? You agree the first round for the top seeds makes a difference, so how is the regular season not important?

Last time I checked the NCAA tourney had 6 rounds (after the first four) Seeding being fairly important for one round out of 6 doesn't make the regular season all that relevant in terms of records.

And Syracuse won that national title with a freshman leading the way. I guess that team wasn't very good either, after all that freshman didn't have experience and couldn't be a good player. Whatever did happen to that Carmelo Anthony guy?

Experience is not the end all and be all of a good team. Does it help, certainly, but there are other factors as well.

Of course there are other factors but Carmelo Anthony was a man amongst boys. He was one of those few players who comes along as a freshmen who can dominate the game and lead a team to victory. Florida didn't have that superstar dominant player. They were a great young team but had they run into UConn in 2006 I don't believe they would have been victorious.

Prove to me they weren't the best. And don't give me the "eyeball test", because you've already told me you didn't buy that as a reasonable excuse to put VCU in the tournament this year. So give me proof that Florida wasn't the best team.

The eyeball test wasn't reasonable in VCU's case but they didn't play all that well in the regular season which makes it even more of a reason why they shouldn't have been in the tournament.

You haven't shown any system which is better and reasonable.

I showed one possible solution but again the point of my thread is that single elimination 6 round tournament isn't a great way to find the best possible teams and ultimately a National Champion.

I've condensed some of the argument, but at this point, I don't even see how you can possibly argue this. I've explained to you how the point of the basketball season is to prepare for the tournament, I've given you examples of how coaches try different things in the regular season so they know exactly how they'll play in the tournament, I've noted the fact that every year you cannot legitimately find a team clearly better than the team who won it all, and I've shown you (a couple of different ways) how there is not a singe format better than what we have, which gives everyone a chance to prove how good they can be.

After last nights title game I don't know how anyone can possibly think that those were the two best teams in the country. Butler especially just was god awful on the offensive end and didn't execute like an elite team should.

I don't see how you can argue this any more. You have been playing defense throughout the last several posts, and I've been getting layups anyways. The tournament finds the best team every year (or at the very least, no team is clearly better than the tournament winner) and you cannot give me one system which is clearly better than what we have. The only thing you've done is propose a system which essentially would make it impossible for teams outside of the Power conferences to have a chance for a national title.

The system I proposed would have had UNLV, Butler, SD State, BYU, Temple, George Mason, and Xavier all in the tournament from outside the power conferences. Richmond and VCU are the only teams not on that list that made it to the Sweet 16.

I'm sorry, but you've been defeated.

Not in the least bit.

 

[Slyfox696]

I agree with you for the most part.

I think I'd like to see something in the middle between the BCS system and the tournament system, in college basketball.

For one thing, expanding the tournament was a huge mistake. If anything, downsizing is the way to go.

Maybe you take the top 3 teams from each major conference or something.

My problem is that teams like Butler, VCU, George Mason, Valpairaiso, etc. would never beat the higher seeds over the course of a few games. In a one and one scenario, anything can happen. Does that really prove who the best team is?

Certainly you can't have a best of 7 series, unless you seriously downsized the tourney, and we know that won't happen. I think strength of schedule needs to play a much more important role and I think I would scrap the conference tournaments all together. All those are for, are to make money for the conferences. It does nothing for the teams.

I love watching the tournament but I don't believe it crowns the best team, the champion (for the most part).

It's called reading; top to bottom, left to right. Put the words together to make a sentence.

Try it next time before you enter a thread. Thanks.

I've repeated time and again that it isn't always feasible for a time to bring their absolute best in a single elimination tournament like this.

Then you're not the best team.

What's so hard for you to understand about this? The goal of the basketball season is to peak during tournament time. If you're not peaking, then your not doing what you're supposed to do, which indicates a failure on the part of the team to play their best. Or you could be playing your best, and your best simply isn't as good as someone else's best.

Did you watch Buler last night? They made under 19% of their shots. Part of it was UConn's defense but a bigger part was the fact that were missing open and makeable shots. This was the game where they were supposed to be at their absolute best and they played probably their worst game of the season on the offensive end.

Don't bring up last night with me. Mostly because you know how pissed I am that I missed it.

But you're telling me that UConn's defense was part of it, and pressure had nothing to do with it? Why can't it be both? Mental approach to the game had nothing to do with it? Having the coach settle down the team had nothing to do with it?

Those are controllable factors. Have you ever played competitive basketball before? Have you ever coached it? If so, you know you can always tell when something feels off, and if you're a practiced enough shooter, you can always tell when your mental approach to the game is hurting your shooting. Sometimes it's simply not warming up enough, and sometimes it's not using self-analysis on your shots to determine why you miss and the proper way to correct it. There's all sorts of things, but they are almost always controllable and correctable. As someone who has played and coached you cannot convince me otherwise.

It still baffles me how you just assume they are some great team because of 5 tournament games. I don't see how they just miraculously put it all together after a fairly sub par regular season and losing in their conference tourney.

And it still baffles me how a team can win 6 games in a row in a tournament featuring the best teams and you still say they aren't the best team.

If they've always been this good then they wouldn't have lost 11 games as a member of the CAA conference.

...you're joking, right? Have you not read everything I've written about the difference between regular season and playoff basketball? Good God, if you aren't going to read the posts, why did you even create a thread?

In a smaller tourney field Butler and UConn still would have gotten in. 68 teams is way too large of a number of teams to get a chance to prove they are the best. You said yourself you didn't like the expansion to 68 teams. If we were at 64 or 65 then VCU would not have made it in.

This year Butler and UConn would have gotten in. If it was a 32 team tournament, over the course of a couple years, Butler no longer gets in, because no one is going to play mid-major teams, and mid-majors will no longer get notice.

I don't like 68 teams, I like 64. But 32 is nothing more than a case of Power conferences to step on the little guy. In a 64 team tournament, every team with a chance to win it all will be there. 64 is the best number.

My point is that a 7 game series provides a better sample of who is better then a one off game.

And my point is the 2010 NBA Championship proves you wrong.

Unless you consider one game on the Lakers home court to be a better sample than one game at a neutral site.

There is obviously no perfect way but a single elimination tournament is far from the best way.

And yet, you can't provide a better way.

Florida didn't have that superstar dominant player. They were a great young team but had they run into UConn in 2006 I don't believe they would have been victorious.

The eyeball test wasn't reasonable in VCU's case but they didn't play all that well in the regular season which makes it even more of a reason why they shouldn't have been in the tournament.

And not ONE piece of concrete evidence to prove that the best team hasn't been crowned champion every year.

I showed one possible solution but again the point of my thread is that single elimination 6 round tournament isn't a great way to find the best possible teams and ultimately a National Champion.

And I'm telling you that it has found the best team and national champion every year. And until you can give me indisputable proof it hasn't, OR can provide a system which can give a more realistic way to decide a champion, then to say the NCAA Tournament isn't a great way is a completely fictitious statement.

After last nights title game I don't know how anyone can possibly think that those were the two best teams in the country. Butler especially just was god awful on the offensive end and didn't execute like an elite team should.

I haven't seen the game, so I can't comment on last night. But as ugly as you say the game was, these are still the two teams that beat every one else who was "pretty".

But then again, I'm guessing your definition of ugly is different from mine. I suspect I could watch the game and be very impressed with what I see, because I'm not just concerned with how many times the basketball goes through the net.

However, how aesthetically pleasing a team is has absolutely nothing to do with how good a team is.

The system I proposed would have had UNLV, Butler, SD State, BYU, Temple, George Mason, and Xavier all in the tournament from outside the power conferences. Richmond and VCU are the only teams not on that list that made it to the Sweet 16.

Again...that's just this year. But you know as well as I do that if the tournament becomes a 32 team invite only, power conference schools will not play mid-major powers. And without the "strength of schedule" like we hear about all the time in college football, mid-majors won't make it to the dance.

I'm sorry, but you're just completely naive if you think a 32 team invite only tournament will see a consistent mid-major presence.

Not in the least bit.

Considering you've completely failed to prove it HASN'T found the best team each year and considering you've failed to provide one viable alternative, I'd say you've been defeated. Thanks for playing, try again next tournament.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

The whole tournament set up boils down to money, just like the BCS set up does. Whatever format will make the most money for all (or most) of the parties involved is what they're going to stick with.

Expansion of the tournament was purely for money. If they expand again it will be for money.

The tournament does give small schools A LOT of exposure, more exposure than they'd get if it were only a 16 team or 32 team tournament. Exposure of these schools is beneficial to all.

As I said, ideally, I would like something in the middle but less money would be made like that so that's not happening.

I do have a major issue with the "First round" games being between 11 and 12 seeds. That to me seems unfair. You shouldn't have to "play in" if you're good enough to get an 11 or 12 seed.

Don't give me that nonsense that you're in the tournament if you're in the play in games.

YES it is called a 68 team tournament, we all get that but if you're playing another equal seed in order to advance to the normal seeding matchup, you're not in the tournament.

 

[Big Sexy]

Then you're not the best team.

What's so hard for you to understand about this? The goal of the basketball season is to peak during tournament time. If you're not peaking, then your not doing what you're supposed to do, which indicates a failure on the part of the team to play their best. Or you could be playing your best, and your best simply isn't as good as someone else's best.

And what's so hard for you to understand that you can be playing great basketball going into the tournament and then just have one minor slip up and have everything you've done in the season be all for not. There are a ton of factors that play into being the college bball National Champion and it isn't always the best team that wins.

But you're telling me that UConn's defense was part of it, and pressure had nothing to do with it? Why can't it be both? Mental approach to the game had nothing to do with it? Having the coach settle down the team had nothing to do with it?

There are many factors that contributed but the fact remains that both Butler and UConn easily played their worst games of the tournament and a lot of it was because of easy missed shots and just poor execution. There is no way that the two teams I watched the other nigh are the two best teams in college basketball.

Those are controllable factors. Have you ever played competitive basketball before? Have you ever coached it? If so, you know you can always tell when something feels off, and if you're a practiced enough shooter, you can always tell when your mental approach to the game is hurting your shooting. Sometimes it's simply not warming up enough, and sometimes it's not using self-analysis on your shots to determine why you miss and the proper way to correct it. There's all sorts of things, but they are almost always controllable and correctable. As someone who has played and coached you cannot convince me otherwise.

Of course they are controllable factors which makes the other nights game prove even more that these two teams were not the best in college basketball. After half time when Butler, who has a tremendous coach and great veteran leadership, came to play they were even worse then they were in the first half. That's just poor basketball from a team who isn't a top 2 team in the country.

And it still baffles me how a team can win 6 games in a row in a tournament featuring the best teams and you still say they aren't the best team.

UConn took out a 14 seed, 6 seed, 2 seed, 5 seed, 4 seed, and 8 seed. They didn't exactly have the toughest path in the tournament. There is no way you can sit here and tell me that in every single game in the tournament the best team always wins.

...you're joking, right? Have you not read everything I've written about the difference between regular season and playoff basketball? Good God, if you aren't going to read the posts, why did you even create a thread?

I've read every single word but even with the figuring out line ups and everything else that goes in the regular season there is no way that an 11 loss CAA team should be in the tournament because they don't deserve it. With a team like VCU because they are in the CAA they have to get in post season basketball mode a lot earlier then other teams because if they don't then they won't even get in the tourney, just like they shouldn't have gotten in this year.

This year Butler and UConn would have gotten in. If it was a 32 team tournament, over the course of a couple years, Butler no longer gets in, because no one is going to play mid-major teams, and mid-majors will no longer get notice.

I don't like 68 teams, I like 64. But 32 is nothing more than a case of Power conferences to step on the little guy. In a 64 team tournament, every team with a chance to win it all will be there. 64 is the best number.

College Basketball is completely different from College Football. With 32 teams mid majors would still have a chance to prove themselves. Many of the mid majors games against power conferences come in the beginning of the season tournaments anyways and those tournaments are invite only so the power teams wouldn't even have a choice.

And my point is the 2010 NBA Championship proves you wrong.

It really doesn't.

And yet, you can't provide a better way.

I've provided an example of a possible better way. I'll give another one right now. This isn't a ton better but still certainly a better way: Make the tourney more like the NIT. Have 32 teams and until the final four make it so the top seed has home court advantage. That shortens the field to make the teams in the tourney have better quality and it also places more emphasis on doing well in the regular season.

And not ONE piece of concrete evidence to prove that the best team hasn't been crowned champion every year.

I don't consider a single elimination tourney where many factors can play into the outcome of every single game as concrete evidence that it does find the best team.

I haven't seen the game, so I can't comment on last night. But as ugly as you say the game was, these are still the two teams that beat every one else who was "pretty".

I'm a Big Ten guy so I love ugly, defensive basketball but this game was not that. This game was a display of poor play and poor execution from both teams.

But then again, I'm guessing your definition of ugly is different from mine. I suspect I could watch the game and be very impressed with what I see, because I'm not just concerned with how many times the basketball goes through the net.

Once again, anyone with basketball knowledge would not be impressed by the performance of either team, especially Butler.

I'm sorry, but you're just completely naive if you think a 32 team invite only tournament will see a consistent mid-major presence.

It will see enough of one where the deserving/elite mid major teams will get an opportunity. Mid major teams don't ever win the tournament so having 7 out of 32 teams (like this tournament would have) would be enough of a presence. I'd probably make it to where there has to be a set number of non power conference schools. Making it so at least something like 6 mid majors get in would make your point moot.

Considering you've completely failed to prove it HASN'T found the best team each year and considering you've failed to provide one viable alternative, I'd say you've been defeated. Thanks for playing, try again next tournament.

I've actually succeeded with both of those, so nice try but maybe you should wait until next tournament.