Where the tourney gets it wrong...

[hawkeyebob62]

But it doesn't crown a true champion....

Huh? NSu is more of a "champion" than Mizzou. THEY came prepared, THEY hustled for every loose ball, THEY got "up" for the game.

Was 1983 NC State the "best" team? No. But they were definitely "champions" for that year.

 

[BryceC]

Who cares? Determining the best team out of 300+ is impossible without a tournament. Prove it on the court and there is nothing to worry about. I agree they should reduce teams. But only down to 64. This is the best event in American sport.

 

[CAARHawk]

The NCAA tourney is too big...Mizzou is one of the best teams in the nation and they don't get a shot to really play for a national title...we know Norfolk is NOT better than Mizzou...yet one bad game and the season is worthless.

Someone suffering from a little bracket regret?

 

[TheOnePercent]

The NCAA tournament is a crap shoot, but it still typically produces a worthy champion. Anytime you have single elimination there's going to be problems.

Missouri probably loses to Norfolk St. less than 10% of the time, but that's what makes it so exciting. March Madness is loved by everyone not because it always crowns the best team in the nation or because it always gets the best four teams in the final 4... March Madness is loved because it's a crap shoot and anything can happen.

The NBA, NHL, and MLB produce the best and most qualified champions year in and year out because of they're best of 5 or 7 series.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

That's what I'm saying though...there is NO way VCU was one of the best 4 teams last season...nice story...but not one of the top teams.

So, punish VCU, reward a Duke or UNC for "reputation" and "perception" of the "best" teams?

Gee, thanks Dukie V...

 

[TheOnePercent]

so the 99% of the population that thinks the NCAA tournament is a great way of determining a national championship is wrong, and you are right?

you sir are the 1%

you can set up your tent in college green park with the proper permit

First of all it's not 99%. Secondly, just because someone thinks it's a "great way" doesn't mean they think "it's the best way". The current NCAA Tournament is definitely one of the most exciting ways of determining a national championship.

But if you're going to sit here and say that March Madness is a great way statistically for determining a national championship vs. other sports methods of determining a national championship you're nuts.

Sports that have 5 and 7 game series produce the most qualified National Champion.

 

[JonDMiller]

More often than not the team who people believe to be the best team going into the tourney, doesn't win the tourney....which is one of the arguments I have used against the proponents of a college football playoff. It crowns a champion, but the best team doesn't always win.

For hoops, that has created fantastic drama and a great spectacle. I didn't want them to go from 64 to 68. I think that is stupid. I don't want to see them change any more of it.

Back to Mizzou...if you are the two seed, which means a national ranking of 4-7 and lose to a 15 seed, you were not worthy of winning a national title and not capable. A 15 seed isn't a team ranked 60-63...they are an auto bid...not an at large....Ken Pomeroy had Norfolk State ranked 188th in the nation. This tournament is not about the best 68...it's about the Top 35-ish then you add in the automatic qualifiers.

Now Lehigh, they were 72nd in Pomeroy's ratings...Duke had a much tougher draw than Mizzou, as did the other two seeds. Mizzou was the top rated two seed, or the 5th seed in the entire tournament...and they had a team ranked 188th in Pomeroy's rankings...and they lost to them and were beaten all game long.

The NCAA doesn't get this wrong...Mizzou laid an egg, which is what that program has done time and again in the tournament.

 

[JonDMiller]

First of all it's not 99%. Secondly, just because someone thinks it's a "great way" doesn't mean they think "it's the best way". The current NCAA Tournament is definitely one of the most exciting ways of determining a national championship.

But if you're going to sit here and say that March Madness is a great way statistically for determining a national championship vs. other sports methods of determining a national championship you're nuts.

Sports that have 5 and 7 game series produce the most qualified National Champion.

I concur with this. But it is real entertaining.

 

[Golfer]

From a marketing perspective the BCS and march Madness are both brilliant, although they now border on over saturation and marginalization if they get any larger.

I wonder if the too long, and too average bowl game season has already done this?

 

[JonDMiller]

From a marketing perspective the BCS and march Madness are both brilliant, although they now border on over saturation and marginalization if they get any larger.

I wonder if the too long, and too average bowl game season has already done this?

there are far too many bowls, played over too many dates. Cut the number of bowl games, make it so you have to have 8 wins to get a bid, and play the games over one week after Christmas and ending on New Years Day.

 

[tm3308]

First of all it's not 99%. Secondly, just because someone thinks it's a "great way" doesn't mean they think "it's the best way". The current NCAA Tournament is definitely one of the most exciting ways of determining a national championship.

But if you're going to sit here and say that March Madness is a great way statistically for determining a national championship vs. other sports methods of determining a national championship you're nuts.

Sports that have 5 and 7 game series produce the most qualified National Champion.

Is it better than what the NFL, MLB, NBA, or NHL do? No. But it's the best way for college basketball. There are simply too many teams to accommodate a best of 5 or 7 series.

 

[BILLBUCKNER]

Hawkforce...

The problem you're having is that your premise is wrong from the start.

The NCAA is not trying to find the best team in the nation. It's trying
to find a tournament winner. Subtle but important distinction.

It employs the tournament format in order to achieve it's true goal... to
make as much money as possible from the event. The format is exciting
precisely because it is unpredictable. Purists may be more inclined toward
a best of 7 between whichever teams they believe are the best but the
HUGE numbers of fans who watch in hopes of seeing David knock off Goliath
would be lost.

This is entertainment, pure and simple. The more widely appealing the
show, the more revenue to the principals. So, if you're hung up on looking
for the best team (subjective from the start) then you will save yourself
a ton of frustration by just watching something else.

Excellent post sir. Couldn't have said it better.