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

[5wide]

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.

 

I'm not arguing your point in general, but I would argue the number you chose for NFL games. In the ultra-competitive NFL and a 16 game schedule, 5 or 6 games is a bit high. That is 30-40 percent of the season.

 

From a TV and hype perspective, every game matters in college football, which is where the positive comes in. The negative is that every game doesn't matter for the teams and their chase for a championship. TCU won every game this year. None of them mattered with regards to a championship. Same for Auburn the year they went undefeated and got excluded.

 

In any case, the focus here is (for me anyway) is determining a champion. I'm not necessarily concerned with TV drama.

[5wide]

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

 

:thumb:

 

I agree. I wasn't a fan of the play-in game idea, but I can live with their current 68-team field. I hope they leave it alone. But, my guess is that they'll eventually go to a 96-team field.

[HT721]

:thumb:

 

I agree. I wasn't a fan of the play-in game idea, but I can live with their current 68-team field. I hope they leave it alone. But, my guess is that they'll eventually go to a 96-team field.

 

I would say VCU making it this year justified the 68 for sure, they were a team that got in because of the change and benefited from it.

[okie1]

I think all these debates have sprung up because a lot of the big name talking heads have had their ego's struck a little by this tournament. They don't call it march madness for no reason. It's the best "tournament/championship" going IMO.

[5wide]

I think all these debates have sprung up because a lot of the big name talking heads have had their ego's struck a little by this tournament. They don't call it march madness for no reason. It's the best "tournament/championship" going IMO.

 

Actually, from what I've heard, the real college basketball guys are defending it. It's the guys like Colin Cowherd and Mike & Mike who really aren't college basketball guys. They are more football and professional sports fans, IMO.

[westsider]

If the NCAA ever does go to 96 teams (I would like 80 better than that), they need to start letting regular-season conference champions receive automatic bids.

[HT721]

I'm not arguing your point in general, but I would argue the number you chose for NFL games. In the ultra-competitive NFL and a 16 game schedule, 5 or 6 games is a bit high. That is 30-40 percent of the season.

 

You realize a team with a losing record hosted a playoff game in the NFL this year right?

[mcpapa]

:thumb:

 

I agree. I wasn't a fan of the play-in game idea, but I can live with their current 68-team field. I hope they leave it alone. But, my guess is that they'll eventually go to a 96-team field.

 

You're probably right, but I hope not.

 

Just means that Seth Greenberg will whine some more after Virginia Tech goes 8-8 in the ACC, plays nobody OOC, then gets relegated to a 1 seed in the NIT.

[AHSPanther23]

As long as we don't determine the champion by computer rankings....

[Dlbdonn]

I heard guys on ESPN saying they "didn't love" the way the basketball playoff was set, which is a crock of crap. When all 4 number one seeds made it to the final 4 a few years ago, there were people saying that that wasn't good for the tournament. Now that there are two "Cinderellas" in the final 4, you hear idiots like Skip Bayless saying that he "didn't love" the setup. Just shut up and enjoy the upsets. That's most of the beauty of the NCAA tournament. It sucks for the "better" teams that end up losing, but it's no one's fault but their own if they're that much of a "better" team.

Anyone that listens to and agrees with an adult that calls himself " Skip " is brain dead .

[CatsCatsCats]

Forget 96 teams. I like the idea of letting everyone in. I think I read that it would only take one additonal full weekend to make it happen, and one weekend of play in games. That would be an awesome tourney.

[TheLegends64]

In basketball it's all about the tournament. If you lose once your done. Is VCU one of the best teams in the nation. Right now, yes they are because they have played well. Kansas shot like UK did last year. You can't have a off day or you lose.

[HT721]

Forget 96 teams. I like the idea of letting everyone in. I think I read that it would only take one additonal full weekend to make it happen, and one weekend of play in games. That would be an awesome tourney.

 

Ya but good luck ever getting a perfect bracket. And some of those early games would be awful. Part of the fun of the tourney now is the first round upsets, let everyone in probably wouldn't be many upsets before the 3rd or 4th round.

[5wide]

You realize a team with a losing record hosted a playoff game in the NFL this year right?

 

Yes, and two teams with the exact same record (10-6) as the Green Bay Packers got to watch the playoffs at home. What Seattle did is the exception, not the rule. I'm pretty sure that was the first time it ever happened. I can't ever remember a season when an entire division didn't have one quality football team. And, to top it off, Seattle knocked the defending Super Bowl champions out of the playoffs. I didn't hear anyone complaining about that and I'm pretty sure nobody thought the Seahawks were a better team than the Saints.

 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I don't think you can take 30+ percent of the season off and win in the NFL. That's crazy.