Is the NCAA Tournament a flawed way to determine a champion?

[5wide]

This is an awesome post. Well said and a great rant. I couldn't agree more. I'd love to hear what the talking heads would have to say after hearing you call in and stating this post.

 

I thought about it. I wasn't sure if I could organize it all and get it out in good order.

[RomanEmpire]

I thought about it. I wasn't sure if I could organize it all and get it out in good order.

 

I agree that it was a great post. Made tons of sense and well thought out. Nice work 5W.

[98NCCalum]

I agree, its not conducive for finding the "best" team. But it is for determining a Champion.

 

Let's be real here, no one in their right mind, even the most unrealistic UK fan in the world, is going to say that the winner of this Final Four was the best team in America this year.

 

But they will be the Champion of this tournament.

 

Flawed maybe, but the best way to determine a champion.

[5wide]

I agree, its not conducive for finding the "best" team. But it is for determining a Champion.

 

Let's be real here, no one in their right mind, even the most unrealistic UK fan in the world, is going to say that the winner of this Final Four was the best team in America this year.

 

But they will be the Champion of this tournament.

 

Flawed maybe, but the best way to determine a champion.

 

The best team doesn't always win, but the best team over the course of the season isn't always the best team when the tournament or playoffs roll around.

 

Take this Kentucky team for example. They were a handful of points in a bunch of close road games from being a one-loss team. Let's say they had won the UNC game and only lost two of the SEC Road games and finished the season at 30-3 instead of 25-8. Every player and the team as a whole has improved over the course of this season and they're playing their best basketball right now. If they'd won those earlier games, they'd have been a #1 seed and nobody would be the least bit surprised. Instead, there were question marks because they weren't as good in January and February as they are in March. I'm not trying to make an argument for Kentucky as the best team. But, they weren't that far off all season and the improvements from their players and team have made up that difference.

 

You could also use the 2007 NY Giants Super Bowl champion as an example. The Patriots at 16-0 were clearly the best team throughout the season. But, but season's end, the Giants were playing great football and their defensive line was unstoppable.

 

You just never know which teams will figure it out and play to their potential, which ones won't, and when they will do it.

 

But, the point of distinguishing between a champion and the best team is valid. It just seems that in our sports society there's suddenly an overwhelming desire for those two to be the same thing. Sometimes they are, but not always. It just goes to show what is important, and that is being better when it matters. Kentucky doesn't have to be the best team on Saturday night. They just have to be better than UConn. Butler and VCU could both be better teams on that night.

[HammerTime]

You have no one to blame but yourself if you don't win it. At least everyone is given a chance.

[Bluto]

And, I would add, we don't need a tournament to tell us who the best team is. We watched it for 5 months. That's what a #1 overall seed is. That's your prize for being the best team.

 

That's a great summary. OSU was the best team all season, & they DID receive the overall #1 seed. I hope they're happy with that "award" (somehow, I don't think they will brag on that too much).

 

If your goal is to be the best team, go for it. Personally, I'm happy that coach Cal is aiming for a championship.

[HT721]

It's like democracy it's the worst way to determine a champion, but it's better than all the other ways that we know of.

 

Truthfully I think there are arguments to support the BCS and support the NCAA Tournament way of doing things, and they both have positives the other lacks, so I don't think this question has a really good answer.

 

The NBA tournament/ MLB style is probably the best overall because a team has to win multiple games to prove they are better than their opponent. But that isn't logistical in college.

[mcpapa]

Best team of the year? Nope.

 

Team that's playing the best in late March/early April? Yep. Nothing wrong with that, IMHO.

[5wide]

It's like democracy it's the worst way to determine a champion, but it's better than all the other ways that we know of.

 

Truthfully I think there are arguments to support the BCS and support the NCAA Tournament way of doing things, and they both have positives the other lacks, so I don't think this question has a really good answer.

 

The NBA tournament/ MLB style is probably the best overall because a team has to win multiple games to prove they are better than their opponent. But that isn't logistical in college.

 

I honestly don't think the BCS has any credibility with regards to determining a champion. There are too many worthy teams that don't get a chance to play it out on the field.

 

My question for any BCS supporter is this: what would your response be if any other sport you enjoy decided to switch to the BCS model for its post-season championship?

[98NCCalum]

 

The NBA tournament/ MLB style is probably the best overall because a team has to win multiple games to prove they are better than their opponent. But that isn't logistical in college.

Exactly.

[5wide]

Best team of the year? Nope.

 

Team that's playing the best in late March/early April? Yep. Nothing wrong with that, IMHO.

 

Again, I think that's an important distinction that needs to be made. In addition to the difference between best team and champion, there is a difference between best team over the course of a season and the best team at the end of the season. They can be the same, but don't have to be.

 

Take Florida's back-to-back teams. They weren't the best team over the course of their first championship season (they were a #2 seed), but I don't think anyone would argue that there was a better team in the country when March rolled around. The following season, they were the best team all season, the best in March, and the champion.

[HT721]

I honestly don't think the BCS has any credibility with regards to determining a champion. There are too many worthy teams that don't get a chance to play it out on the field.

 

My question for any BCS supporter is this: what would your response be if any other sport you enjoy decided to switch to the BCS model for its post-season championship?

 

I'm not advocating I like it, but every game matters in the BCS be it for strength of schedule or because one loss knocks you out of the hunt. That is a positive that no other sport has. In pretty much every other sport you can take multiple games completely off and still get to the ultimate prize. Baseball and NBA, you could take 20 to 30 nights or more completely off and still have a great chance to win it all. In the NFL you can take 5 or 6 games off and still make the playoffs.

[dolamite]

No, its how it always has been. Very seldom does the "best" team in basketball win the college championship. Instead of arguably the best team winning the tourney it is normally about the good teams who get hot and peak at the right time. Now obviously there have been cases in which the best team has won, but you could argue over half the time the best team in basketball that year did not win the championship. I love the setup though because it shows who has what it takes to win the only six games of the season that really matter. If you can win those then you deserve to be champion IMO.

[westsider]

What a crazy premise, that the NCAA Tournament is somehow a "flawed" way to determine a champion. Every team that deserves a chance to play for the national title gets to, which is something we can't say about college football.

[MJAlltheWay24]

This is one of the few things that the NCAA actually has right...to continue to mess with it would be a big mistake.