Inherient FLAW with any playoff system

[HomerChampless]

It is hard enough to win the Billion dollar bracket...no need to re-seed

Actually, one reason I started this thread. IMO, you can't win the billion dollars by predicting the brackets correctly unless you throw darts at a dart board for your picks. If there ever is a winner of the billion dollars, it will be someone who doesn't know anything about NCAA division one basketball.. And the reseed will make it easier to predict the brackets if you know anything about NCAA basketball.

Like I said early on: the regular season has to mean something or teams are going to 'sleepwalk' for a good part of the regular season.

 

[Hawknigh]

It's easy to realize the NCAA Final Four selection committee really shafted Iowa with it's matchup with Tennessee. Tennessee lost a close game in the semi finals of the SEC tournament. Iowa lost in the first round of the B1G tournament to Northwestern.... Maybe the Final Four selection committee really wanted Tennessee in the tournament, but had to 'legitimize' Tennessee's involvement in the NCAA tournament (because of Tennessee's record) by qualifying Tennessee against a 'patsy' team like Iowa. Iowa, a team that was once highly rated in the season but had fallen on hard times...

What is the NCAA Final Four Selection Committee? I'm not aware of there being such a thing.

 

[kicker22]

So, you want to stack the deck for the lesser teams... You want to handicap lesser teams (even the competition against better competition) 'cause they aren't as good. Hum... IMO, a national champion won't be determined with that kind of format. Better TV will, however.

I'm not saying that I want to stack the deck for lesser teams, but by reseeding this past seasons tourney you'd essentially be running UCONN and KY through the gauntlet while giving Wichita State a free ride. I just simply don't believe its fair to the field to reward a soft schedule (ie.Wichita State) an pave their way but seeing to it that they would continue to get the softest/weakest teams available up until the end. IMO it essentially rewards teams for playing softer schedules if those schedules lead to a higher seed.

 

[kicker22]

Actually, one reason I started this thread. IMO, you can't win the billion dollars by predicting the brackets correctly unless you throw darts at a dart board for your picks. If there ever is a winner of the billion dollars, it will be someone who doesn't know anything about NCAA division one basketball.. And the reseed will make it easier to predict the brackets if you know anything about NCAA basketball.

Like I said early on: the regular season has to mean something or teams are going to 'sleepwalk' for a good part of the regular season.

I guess the reseeding thing is where we differ. In my opinion it waters down the regular season as I think it will take the NCAA football approach and lead to watered down OOC schedules in fear that rankings could drop which would hurt seeding later on.

 

[HomerChampless]

I guess the reseeding thing is where we differ. In my opinion it waters down the regular season as I think it will take the NCAA football approach and lead to watered down OOC schedules in fear that rankings could drop which would hurt seeding later on.

Huh? Didn't you learn the same lesson Iowa learned after the 2012-2013 season? Iowa played a subpar non-conference schedule, was an average team in the B1G (B1G conference games helped Iowa's chances to play in the NCAA tournament), and just missed playing in the NCAA tournament... Just like SMU this year. <P> Wichita State played and defeated St. Louis U., Tennessee, and Brigham Young, all teams that ended up in the NCAA tournament. They played and beat Alabama and, I think, DePaul, teams that were in the NIT. And they lost to NCAA runner up Kentucky. <P> WSU's conference schedule was easy, but not losing any games until the Kentucky loss took skill as a team. <P> The high rated seeds in the NCAA tournament are usually great teams... unless its ISU against Hampton. <P> Really, you're saying Wichita State didn't belong in the NCAA field as a high seed? Really?

 

[kicker22]

Huh? Didn't you learn the same lesson Iowa learned after the 2012-2013 season? Iowa played a subpar non-conference schedule, was an average team in the B1G (B1G conference games helped Iowa's chances to play in the NCAA tournament), and just missed playing in the NCAA tournament... Just like SMU this year. <P> Wichita State played and defeated St. Louis U., Tennessee, and Brigham Young, all teams that ended up in the NCAA tournament. They played and beat Alabama and, I think, DePaul, teams that were in the NIT. And they lost to NCAA runner up Kentucky. <P> WSU's conference schedule was easy, but not losing any games until the Kentucky loss took skill as a team. <P> The high rated seeds in the NCAA tournament are usually great teams... unless its ISU against Hampton. <P> Really, you're saying Wichita State didn't belong in the NCAA field as a high seed? Really?

I think Wichita State was a good team, but forgive me and others for not seeing them as a great/elite team last season. In my honest opinion I would consider it a stretch to have them higher then a 2 seed if that. I just don't believe that a 98 SOS (per CBS) for the entire season gives a team the benefit of the doubt. An that's where we differ.

All I'm saying is that based on the criteria used to say that they'd have more luxurious reseeding then everyone else, with the exception of Florida is a joke (again that's only my opinion). I simply don't think it's fair to any teams that made it that far to play a tougher opponent or get bounced around so that a team at the top can get a more favorable matchup.

 

[HomerChampless]

Reseeding isn't done to get a favorable matchup for a higher seed. Its done to keep the remaining teams in the Final Four tournament quality teams... so the next wins in the FF tournament mean something. <P> And the regular season means something... a team, like Connecticut, with a poorer regular season record but catches fire late in the season, has a chance to win. They just don't have the same chance to win because they were ******* in the regular season. So they play against the higher seeded teams. If they win they go on and possibly they justify their greatness. They could win the trophy, you know. <P> One wouldn't want a high seed playing a high seed early in the tournament because that game would be climatic and the FF tournament would then be anticlimactic. This is what we had, theoretically, when Kentucky beat Wichita State even though Kentucky wasn't a high seed.

 

[HomerChampless]

I don't think I can make this any clearer to you.

 

[Hawknigh]

I don't think I can make this any clearer to you.

You've made it clear that you don't like actual tournaments . . . including the best tournament in all of sports.

It isn't all about the "Final Four Tournament," but about the "NCAA Tournament" and its "Road to the Final Four." It is the "road" that captivates the country, not just having teams in the Final Four based on the regular season.

So, would you prefer that we just scratched the 68 team tournament and went to a 4 team tournament . . . like they are doing in college football?

 

[parahawkeyes]

Reseeding isn't done to get a favorable matchup for a higher seed. Its done to keep the remaining teams in the Final Four tournament quality teams... so the next wins in the FF tournament mean something. <P> And the regular season means something... a team, like Connecticut, with a poorer regular season record but catches fire late in the season, has a chance to win. They just don't have the same chance to win because they were ******* in the regular season. So they play against the higher seeded teams. If they win they go on and possibly they justify their greatness. They could win the trophy, you know. <P> One wouldn't want a high seed playing a high seed early in the tournament because that game would be climatic and the FF tournament would then be anticlimactic. This is what we had, theoretically, when Kentucky beat Wichita State even though Kentucky wasn't a high seed.

Kentucky was in the Bracket of Death. Every team who had to advance in said Bracket of Death to make it the toughest on them advanced. They were the outlier; zero breaks handed to them. The biggest break they got was playing a scorching Wisconsin team who qualified under every category you spoke of that supposedly cater to flukes. Then over in UCONN, their biggest break was getting Michigan St. instead of Virginia. They held MSU, Florida and Kentucky to 54 points on average. Nobody is beating that. Ever. Reseed at halftime of every game and again after the final buzzer, it won't ever matter.

I didn't really even need to say any of that. History has proven being any lower than a 3 seed has eliminated you from the jump. Go ahead, look back. Also, UCONN's last victory was the closest since the dawn of man that you'll see the final seeds add up past double digits, let alone 15 like this year's 8 and 7 matchup. They were a 3rd, they beat the 8 in the final that year. In order for something to be inherent, it has to be, well, something that happens. Ever.

A couple final daggers to put this thing to bed: UCONN and Kentucky have combined to win 33% of the last 18 available National Championships. Over all of sports, one system has been by far the best at crowning its most deserved champ: the BCS. Everybody marveled at how wide open this year's college hoops season was all season, and that allowed for this to happen. And it could've been two worse teams than UCONN and Kentucky. Nothing about your post holds water besides the fact these were 8 and 7 seeds. Not enough.

 

[kicker22]

Reseeding isn't done to get a favorable matchup for a higher seed. Its done to keep the remaining teams in the Final Four tournament quality teams... so the next wins in the FF tournament mean something. <P> And the regular season means something... a team, like Connecticut, with a poorer regular season record but catches fire late in the season, has a chance to win. They just don't have the same chance to win because they were ******* in the regular season. So they play against the higher seeded teams. If they win they go on and possibly they justify their greatness. They could win the trophy, you know. <P> One wouldn't want a high seed playing a high seed early in the tournament because that game would be climatic and the FF tournament would then be anticlimactic. This is what we had, theoretically, when Kentucky beat Wichita State even though Kentucky wasn't a high seed.

I understand what you're saying, but how do you define "quality". I'm sorry, but simply think its foolish to use the term quality, when applying it to any team that reaches the final four, as at that point they've proved they belong there. Why penalize a team for being "****** in the regular season" when they easily played a tougher conference schedule then Wichita State who questionably played 5 or 6 quality opponents all year. Yet that same Wichita State team would be the beneficiary of the reseeding process based on their brutal (heavy sarcasm) schedule during the season which resulted in them going undefeated.

I just don't see how reseeding rewards a successful regular season, when that "success" essentially rewards weak schedules. I think UCONN and UK along with Louisville among others should have been seeded higher and Wichita State should have been seeded lower, but at the same time I don't see the tournament's conclusion being anticlimactic because two teams matched up earlier then they probably should have. To me it adds to the magic and unpredictability of the March Madness.

 

[HomerChampless]

Let me use Connecticut as an example, parahawkeye: in the 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 seasons when they won it all, they were low seeds. The only way to guarantee a team is good at the beginning of the FF tournament, is to examine their regular season record. The only way. <P> Great guard play from both guards also helps tremendously to win the FF tournament. <P> The best tournament in sports? I think not.

 

[Hawknigh]

Let me use Connecticut as an example, parahawkeye: in the 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 seasons when they won it all, they were low seeds. The only way to guarantee a team is good at the beginning of the FF tournament, is to examine their regular season record. The only way. <P> Great guard play from both guards also helps tremendously to win the FF tournament. <P> The best tournament in sports? I think not.

I see that you are online right now. What is the Final Four Tournament? You are the only one I've ever heard use it for basketball. What you describe sounds more like the playoff for BCS football next year.

Reseeding in the middle of a tournament is a crazy idea. Would you want to do this with wrestling also? What is wrong with just letting the tournament run without reseeding? Essentially, the selection committee does seed according to regular season performance, hence most automatically qualifiers end up really low seeds.

What is the axe you are really grinding? Do you have something against UConn this year? Or is there some other team that you think got screwed this year or in the past?

 

[kicker22]

It's a tournament. To prove you deserve to win you have to defeat whoever your matched up against, regardless of the seed or who they are. There's nothing wrong with the format. The winner still comes out on top and all reseeding would do is lead to more what if questions.

 

[parahawkeyes]

Let me use Connecticut as an example, parahawkeye: in the 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 seasons when they won it all, they were low seeds. The only way to guarantee a team is good at the beginning of the FF tournament, is to examine their regular season record. The only way. <P> Great guard play from both guards also helps tremendously to win the FF tournament. <P> The best tournament in sports? I think not.

No, they actually were not low seeds, not any other time they won it. Just this year. And again, in a year where this kind of outlandish anomaly is possible I find it no accident those teams getting through happened to own 6 of the last 18 titles.