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

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/27/2010
The key failure in your argument is when you said this "We are guaranteed a national title between 2 teams that haven't played each other and are arguable the 2 best in the nation"

Why do you want a title between two teams that are only arguably the best two in the nation ? Why not have it between the best two that proved they belonged there by winning 2-3 games against other top competition?

How can you possibly make the argument that a single elimination tournament does a better job of getting the 2 best teams into the national title

Quote: Originally Posted By mrpolo09 on 3/27/2010some folks just dont get it.

let me preface by saying. . . the NCAA tourney is the best, most entertaining way to decide the title for college basketball. It will never go away, nor should it....

That said it DOES NOT crown the best team. it crowns the hottest team.

Using this logic, Kansas is now the #17 team in the country? There's 16 teams that "performed" better in the tourney... But Kansas is STILL a Top5 team in the country. Agreed. What people always miss in these arguments is that the best team(s) doesn't always win and I have no idea why this gets constantly overlooked.

I just dont understand some people. ESPECIALLY considering we are members of this site. Which is largely based upon statistics and probability.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/27/2010Everyone is confusing the "Best Team" and who is the "national champ"They are not the same thing and nor should they be. One of them is based solely on talent while the other is based on winning. - especially billy and whoever else it was that said my comments were out of touch.

I never said UNI was more talent then Kansas, but they were the better team for the 40 minutes that they played. If you disagree with that then you are the ones that are out of touch (or w/e it was you said) because very clearly I watched UNI play last night and not Kansas

Quote: Originally Posted By jetwildcat on 3/27/2010if the jets and colts played 100 times, would the jets have won 100 time? would they have even won 50 times? probably not. but they won that one game, thus were the CHAMPS, not necessarily the BEST. was villanova the best team in 1985

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

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.



As an ACC fan, I can say that I was quite intrigued by who won those games. To say that nobody cared is a very close-minded way to look at things. Just because it wasn't the "supposed" two best teams in the finals those seasons, doesn't mean that people weren't intrigued.

And I think it's safe to say that should Duke and Butler meet in the National Championship game, you'd have a higher viewing audience than a Kentucky-Kansas State game. The most hated team in college basketball (Duke, although I must admit that I've been a Blue Devil fan for over 25 years) versus the little guys from the What? conference (Butler). David versus Goliath.........EVERY sports fan would turn in to watch that one, and there would certainly be more "intrigue" surrounding that game than Kentucky and Kansas State.

Quote: Originally Posted By dcy0827 on 3/27/2010

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

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.




As an ACC fan, I can say that I was quite intrigued by who won those games. To say that nobody cared is a very close-minded way to look at things. Just because it wasn't the "supposed" two best teams in the finals those seasons, doesn't mean that people weren't intrigued.

And I think it's safe to say that should Duke and Butler meet in the National Championship game, you'd have a higher viewing audience than a Kentucky-Kansas State game. The most hated team in college basketball (Duke, although I must admit that I've been a Blue Devil fan for over 25 years) versus the little guys from the What? conference (Butler). David versus Goliath.........EVERY sports fan would turn in to watch that one, and there would certainly be more "intrigue" surrounding that game than Kentucky and Kansas State.

Quote: Originally posted by zhawks on 3/27/2010

Quote: Originally posted by kmasonbx on 3/27/2010I would like to hear the argument of how a single elimination tournament proves that 1 team is better than the other. ok, are you ready for it? Because one team wins and one team loses. That was really tough, don't make your questions so hard next time. Do you think Northern Iowa is better then Kansas? well they won, so yah. If you are going to ask me "Do I think UNI is more talented then Kansas", well that is a completely different question, but the one you are asking is very very simple, they each had 40 minutes to go out and win and one of them did. Case closed. Do you think St. Mary's is better than Villanova, do you think Michigan State, Butler and Tennessee are 3 of the 8 best teams in the nation?