Guynermer's NCAA Madness

[-Jrabbit]

Hey, this is fun, but it's dinner time.

Sorry I misspelled your name BTW.

[Guynemer]

No sweat, brother. Didn't even notice it until now.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why even have a regular season? You could just have conference tourneys, with the winners advancing to the NCAA tourney. You could cut the entire season down to about a month and a lot of people probably wouldn't even notice the change...

[Guynemer]

Fie on conference tourneys.

The regular season is better determinant of the best team in a conference.

Ideally, there would be no tournaments at all, but there's no other way to determine a national champion that is logistically feasible.

[-Jrabbit]

I'm still PO'd at the big Ten for going to a conference tournament. Unbalanced scheduling is a factor, but I still prefer the long-haul winner for an automatic bid.

But that's as far as I can go. It's a 64-team tournament, and it includes the 31 conference champs. The other 33 should be the best of the rest. IIRC it's up to the conferences to decide how they determine their champion. so your complaint is with them, not the NCAA.

The real problem is that over half the conferences suck. Your championship tournament would include less than half of the best 25 teams while guaranteeing spots to Backwater U. by virtue them winning the Big Suck Conference. Everyone else is told to go pound sand.

I'd hate to be the coach who has to try and motivate his kids once they're mathematically out of conference contention.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
But that's as far as I can go. It's a 64-team tournament, and it includes the 31 conference champs. The other 33 should be the best of the rest.

And there it is. They are "the rest". We know they are not the best in their conference. And if they aren't the best in their conference, how can they be the best in the country?

For instance, it would be a hard pill to swallow if Michigan State were to win the tournament this year.

(I have the same problem when non-division winners take the championship in the NBA, NHL, NFL, and MLB.)


Additionally, the totally arbitrary and subjective selection of the at-large teams simply does not sit well with me.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Guynemer


And there it is. They are "the rest". We know they are not the best in their conference. And if they aren't the best in their conference, how can they be the best in the country?

The logical problem with your argument, sir, is this:

Let's say Penn, Ivy league conference champion, advances through your 32 (+1) team tourney, beating UNC in an upset, and upsetting a few other teams on the way. They play $#@ hard, and win the tournament championship.

How do you feel if you're Wisconsin, Pitt, or any of the other dozen teams in the top 25 that aren't in the tourney, and had no opportunity to beat Penn? Clearly Penn isn't the best team in the country; but they won the tournament.

The argument that makes them the NCAA champions, is the same argument that gives Wisconsin, Pitt, and 30 plus other non regular season conference champions a berth in the NCAA tournament... that part of winning is playing your best during elimination play.

If you don't believe this, then you shouldn't support a tournament at all. Anything else is inconsistent.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by snoopy369


The logical problem with your argument, sir, is this:

Let's say Penn, Ivy league conference champion, advances through your 32 (+1) team tourney, beating UNC in an upset, and upsetting a few other teams on the way. They play $#@ hard, and win the tournament championship.

How do you feel if you're Wisconsin, Pitt, or any of the other dozen teams in the top 25 that aren't in the tourney, and had no opportunity to beat Penn? Clearly Penn isn't the best team in the country; but they won the tournament.

Why are they "clearly not the best team in the country"? They were clearly the best in their conference, and then when matched against the other conference champs in a fair competition, they won it all. I fail to see that connection. If fact, it seems that they clearly are the best team in the country; they beat the best that every other conference had...

[-Jrabbit]

Your contention that at-large selections are "totally arbitrary" is laughably self-serving.

Your concept for reconstructing the tournament is pathetically anti-competitive.

[Guynemer]

Why anti-competitive? Just because I want a smaller tourney?

[-Jrabbit]

No, because the last three weeks of the regular season would be an ever-increasing suckfest as teams fall out of tournament contention.

[Guynemer]

The whole freaking regular season is a suckfest now, except for the oh-so-mediocre "bubble teams" trying desperately to get into a tournament they have no chance at winning and no business competing in.

[Drake Tungsten]

The whole freaking regular season is a suckfest now

QFT