kmason, not a valid argument imho. The BCS is a complete joke. The NCAA tournament puts the best 2 teams in the Nation in the championship game every year. If you lose and don't make it to the nc game, then you obviously weren't the best. Its pretty simple, win 5 games in a row against quality competition and you get to be in the nc game. Saying Kansas should be playing for a national championship is laughable. They lost quite early in the tourney which is not a quality a great team possesses.

the national tournament does NOT put the best two teams in the country in the national championship games. to claim it does it a little out of touch with reality. the final four team who lost to the champion is fairly often better than the one who lost in the title, as the most obvious of examples.

but, i think the current format is fair (mostly, ignoring the little thing like certain teams getting better draws than they should). win 6, and you are the national champs. there is nothing that equates national champs to best team in the country, nor should there be. you hear it on TV a thousand times this time of year, "the best team doesn't always win". the national championship is just an approximation of the best team, and there is nothing wrong with that (i wouldn't change a thing about the NCAA tournament format if i could). same goes for all the other national championships.

as a final example, "best team in the coutry" is subjective. i think most everybody would agree with that. national champions is not (i know there are some exceptions, especially from long ago, but that is not the intention). so, they are obviously not the same thing.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Put the BCS system in college basketball: Kansas and Kentucky will meet for the National Championship. However, they won't play for 4 weeks. Until then, the other 62 teams will play one game each. The games will have no effect on the NC but they will be well-compensated and we will make sure everyone has a good time.

Kansas and Kentucky would probably have been a great game, one everyone would have wanted to see. However, we would have had to have given up seeing Butler, St. Mary's, Ohio over Georgetown, Villanova going to OT against Robert Morris, etc. Basically everything that would have given the game meaning and character.

Almost all of the most memorable sporting events ever were upsets. Everyone loves the underdog. Without tournaments/playoffs, we would never have had Maz' walk-off homer in 1960, The Miracle on Ice, NC State over Phi Slama Jama, Villanova over Georgetown, Namath's Guarantee, The '69 Miracle Mets. Who knows what great moments we are missing with this BCS crap.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

a champion is, by definition, "someone who has won first place in a competition"

Quote: Originally Posted By jetwildcat on 3/27/2010a champion is, by definition, "someone who has won first place in a competition

So by 1st place you mean better than everybody else, which means being the best.

Quote: Originally posted by coach_billyg on 3/27/2010the national tournament does NOT put the best two teams in the country in the national championship games. to claim it does it a little out of touch with reality. the final four team who lost to the champion is fairly often better than the one who lost in the title, as the most obvious of examples.

but, i think the current format is fair (mostly, ignoring the little thing like certain teams getting better draws than they should). win 6, and you are the national champs. there is nothing that equates national champs to best team in the country, nor should there be. you hear it on TV a thousand times this time of year, "the best team doesn't always win". the national championship is just an approximation of the best team, and there is nothing wrong with that (i wouldn't change a thing about the NCAA tournament format if i could). same goes for all the other national championships.

as a final example, "best team in the coutry" is subjective. i think most everybody would agree with that. national champions is not (i know there are some exceptions, especially from long ago, but that is not the intention). so, they are obviously not the same thing.

will those of you that keep saying that the two participants in the NCAA finals are the two best teams in the country PLEASE read, and reread this post a few times before you keep making your moronic claim. thank you.

Quote: Originally posted by newmex on 3/27/2010Put the BCS system in college basketball:  Kansas and Kentucky will meet for the National Championship.  However, they won't play for 4 weeks.  Until then, the other 62 teams will play one game each.  The games will have no effect on the NC but they will be well-compensated and we will make sure everyone has a good time.  Kansas and Kentucky would probably have been a great game, one everyone would have wanted to see.  However, we would have had to have given up seeing Butler, St. Mary's, Ohio over Georgetown, Villanova going to OT against Robert Morris, etc.  Basically everything that would have given the game meaning and character.Almost all of the most memorable sporting events ever were upsets.  Everyone loves the underdog.  Without tournaments/playoffs, we would never have had Maz' walk-off homer in 1960, The Miracle on Ice, NC State over Phi Slama Jama, Villanova over Georgetown, Namath's Guarantee, The '69 Miracle Mets.  Who knows what great moments we are missing with this BCS crap. 

this falls on the athletic dept. of these schools as well. they used to have a series, it was a great one, why UK and KU no longer play every year is beyond me. they should get it started up again, i feel like both programs will be among the best in the next 5-10 years, and there could be some really awesome games in that span.

Quote: Originally Posted By newmex on 3/27/2010
Put the BCS system in college basketball: Kansas and Kentucky will meet for the National Championship. However, they won't play for 4 weeks. Until then, the other 62 teams will play one game each. The games will have no effect on the NC but they will be well-compensated and we will make sure everyone has a good time.

Kansas and Kentucky would probably have been a great game, one everyone would have wanted to see. However, we would have had to have given up seeing Butler, St. Mary's, Ohio over Georgetown, Villanova going to OT against Robert Morris, etc. Basically everything that would have given the game meaning and character.

Almost all of the most memorable sporting events ever were upsets. Everyone loves the underdog. Without tournaments/playoffs, we would never have had Maz' walk-off homer in 1960, The Miracle on Ice, NC State over Phi Slama Jama, Villanova over Georgetown, Namath's Guarantee, The '69 Miracle Mets. Who knows what great moments we are missing with this BCS crap.

The Namath thing and Mets don't fit into your argument, Namath's team was the best in the AFL and beat the best in the NFL, they weren't some 6 seed who had a bunch of upsets, the Mets won 100 games that year and had the best record in the NL. They were considered the "Miracle Mets" because they won 73 games the season before and not much was expected of them in the 69 season not because nothing was expected of them in the playoffs. And back then only 4 teams even made the playoffs, you had to win your division, so whoever won a WS back then had a legit case that they were the best team from opening day.

However your other points are valid. But once again you are missing my point, the point is the NCAA tournament does no better of a job of deciding a champion then the BCS does. Anybody arguing that a 1 game tournament actually does that, quite simply put doesn't know what they're talking about. Some people will get put off by that comment but truth is truth and sometimes it hurts. There is just no way you can say simply because a team won a 1 game scenario in a tournament it makes them a better team but if the same 2 teams played in the regular season and the same team pulled off the upset you wouldn't call them the better team.

Is the NCAA tourney exciting, absolutely, as I've said multiple times it's my favorite time of the year for sports, but so is the NCAA football regular season. But as far as a championship game goes the BCS in general gets us a better matchup, and by better matchup I'm not talking about the actual game as somebody brought up how Florida dismantled Ohio State it was still an intriguing matchup. UNC vs. Michigan St. had no intrigue last season, UCONN vs. Georgia Tech had no intrigue in 04, Maryland vs. Indiana had no intrigue in 02, and unless we got UK vs. K State in the championship this season's champioship game will have no intrigue.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By mrpolo09 on 3/27/2010

Quote: Originally posted by coach_billyg on 3/27/2010 the national tournament does NOT put the best two teams in the country in the national championship games. to claim it does it a little out of touch with reality. the final four team who lost to the champion is fairly often better than the one who lost in the title, as the most obvious of examples.

but, i think the current format is fair (mostly, ignoring the little thing like certain teams getting better draws than they should). win 6, and you are the national champs. there is nothing that equates national champs to best team in the country, nor should there be. you hear it on TV a thousand times this time of year, "the best team doesn't always win". the national championship is just an approximation of the best team, and there is nothing wrong with that (i wouldn't change a thing about the NCAA tournament format if i could). same goes for all the other national championships.

as a final example, "best team in the coutry" is subjective. i think most everybody would agree with that. national champions is not (i know there are some exceptions, especially from long ago, but that is not the intention). so, they are obviously not the same thing.

will those of you that keep saying that the two participants in the NCAA finals are the two best teams in the country PLEASE read, and reread this post a few times before you keep making your moronic claim. thank you.

You are the moron if you think that getting into the 2nd round or sweet sixteen means your the best. Damn, as a Maryland fan we must be one of best programs off all time.

I understand that there is a really good team every season that doesn't get to the final game and I understand that the ones who make it there are really good as well (hense the National Championship Game).

Do we forget that the teams who make it the tournament were selected or got an automatic bid? Are they not good teams? What makes Kansas better then Kansas St.? There history? Yes they beat them two out of three. What if they played a best of seven and K. State won the next two. Get off of the super power band wagon and understand that there is parity today. Not all the great prestige teams can get everyone to attend their school.

How about a best of seven series between Kentucky and Kansas? Or a series of best of three series between the Big 6 conference champs and two at larges?

Could give us a better idea regarding who the actual best team is, but might not be quite as "fun" to watch as the full tournament.

With all the complaints about the BCS, why would anyone want to implement it in another sport??