Where the tourney gets it wrong...

Are you serious??? You don't win games on paper dude, you do it on the court. Missouri didn't even have that bad of a game, Norfolk St earned that victory.
 
No, his point is valid. If they played ten times mizzou would probably win 8.

So USA never beat Russia for the Miracle on Ice, The Patriots actually won their last two matchups in the SB not the Giants, Iowa went undefeated in the regular season in '02...the list could go on and on.

I get your point, sometimes the 'better' team gets upset. That's why they're called upsets, but that's part of sports and why the games are played. On paper Missouri is definitely the better team, but you have to show up and play the game. Today Norfolk St was better and that's all that matters.
 
So USA never beat Russia for the Miracle on Ice, The Patriots actually won their last two matchups in the SB not the Giants, Iowa went undefeated in the regular season in '02...the list could go on and on.

I get your point, sometimes the 'better' team gets upset. That's why they're called upsets, but that's part of sports and why the games are played. On paper Missouri is definitely the better team, but you have to show up and play the game. Today Norfolk St was better and that's all that matters.

No I'm not saying that, I'm saying naming a true champion the NBA has it right and more often than not the BCS gets it right...sure there have been a few isolated cases but usually it is the best two teams in college football playing for the title.

I know there are upsets and games are played on the court.

The NFL I feel a little bit differently about...although it is pretty similar Green Bay had a VCU like run to the Super Bowl the year before last. Wild card etc.
 
Last edited:
So USA never beat Russia for the Miracle on Ice, The Patriots actually won their last two matchups in the SB not the Giants, Iowa went undefeated in the regular season in '02...the list could go on and on.

I get your point, sometimes the 'better' team gets upset. That's why they're called upsets, but that's part of sports and why the games are played. On paper Missouri is definitely the better team, but you have to show up and play the game. Today Norfolk St was better and that's all that matters.

And a series evens out that upset factor. Which is one reason why the NBA has a series.

Its funny, I am reading Feinstein's book on Red A. right now. He briefly talks about this very subject.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand how the tourny gets it wrong? The idea operates under the premise that the tournament was created to decide the best team in college basketball. The long season pretty much already did that. This tournament, and playoffs in other sports, were created to make money and for entertainment purposes.

The BCS does a fairly good job at determining the best team and for a long while the World Series was all that existed in baseball, also doing a good job at determining the best team, but the way things are set up now in baseball are more fun and the BCS sucks. I'd rather watch a playoff.
 
Even a series is flawed in determining the better team. It involves games vs each other (meaning one team may match up well with another but in terms of league play the other team is better, think Dallas and Golden State a few years ago) and it is a smaller sample size than that of a season.
 
And a series evens out that upset factor. Which is one reason why the NBA has a series.

Its funny, I am reading Feinstein's book are Red A. right now. He briefly talks about this very subject.

Yeah I would love to read that. hawktransplant understands the whole thing...the tourney is nice but I just don't think it does the best job of naming a "national champion" if that's the goal. It names a tournament champion, which isn't usually the best team, because the best teams get knocked out by some no name that is sky high on emotion and then go on to lay an egg against another team. (usually)
 
Yeah I would love to read that. hawktransplant understands the whole thing...the tourney is nice but I just don't think it does the best job of naming a "national champion" if that's the goal. It names a tournament champion, which isn't usually the best team, because the best teams get knocked out by some no name that is sky high on emotion and then go on to lay an egg against another team. (usually)

I am still waiting for you to tell me all the 32+ teams you think do not deserve to be in the tournament.
 
The best team in the nation is the one that plays good teams for two weeks without loosing. Mizzou didn't do that, they don't deserve to be champs. The NCAA gets it 100% right.
 
The best team in the nation is the one that plays good teams for two weeks without loosing. Mizzou didn't do that, they don't deserve to be champs. The NCAA gets it 100% right.

That's a good point. Whoever wins this thing went through a long string of very good teams. Even the 16 seeds are often teams with winning records who finished in the top half of their conference. You win this tournament you deserve to be called champ.
 
Yeah I would love to read that. hawktransplant understands the whole thing...the tourney is nice but I just don't think it does the best job of naming a "national champion" if that's the goal. It names a tournament champion, which isn't usually the best team, because the best teams get knocked out by some no name that is sky high on emotion and then go on to lay an egg against another team. (usually)

Don't watch. Problem solved, since you are the only one with a problem. This is the only way to get teams in that aren't riding the coat tails of media bias. Limit the number of teams and you'll have yourself an east coast tournament plus Kansas.
 
Top