• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Would you change the NCAA tournament?

ProbationDeac

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
1,850
Reaction score
183
Location
Winston-Salem, NC
Yesterday in the NCAA topic after VCU won, a few of you posted that the NCAA tournament wasn't the best way to choose a National Champion in basketball. On Mike and Mike this morning they argued the same thing that and stated "they wouldn't change the tournament but it doesn't do the best job of selecting a national champion." On ESPN first take both analysts argued that the tournament was disappointing because of the upset's. Colin Cowherd argues this every year that underdogs wining is actually bad for sports.

I feel the NCAA tournament gives the most teams rather they are power houses like Duke, UNC, Ohio State, Kansas and other big schools an opportunity to compete for a national championship while allowing smaller low-mid major programs an opportunity to compete as well. I disagree that if the best team doesn't win the tournament that somehow the tournament "fails" or is "disappointing." I wouldn't change the tournament and I think it's one of the best things in sports.

Would you leave the tournament alone or change it? Would anyone support a BCS type system that would select the 2 teams that compete for a national championship? Even in a playoff system I have heard it argued for as many as 8 teams in football. If you did that in the NCAA basketball none of the teams left would have been allowed to compete for a national championship.

Just curious to hear what others think. I like the tournament and enjoy the "madness" but I think some don't and I am curious to hear other arguments.
 
Last edited:
Expand the field so we can get in.
 
Sports = entertainment. Anyone who thinks upsets are bad for sports take sports WAAAYYYY too seriously.
 
We'd be on the bubble of a 256 team tournament. We'd have a play-in against Campbell to see who makes it to play Ohio State.

The whole argument against VCU (and that's basically what it is) is crazy. If any other team beat Georgetown and Purdue by 18 and KU by 10 in a game that wasn't as close as the score, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 
No changes...minus Wake not being in it I have enjoyed this year's tournament as much as any I can remember. There have been so many great, close games and I love the upsets...

I think a lot of the "experts" are upset b/c it makes their picks and their ratings (AP poll) look bad....
 
Uhh, this is my favorite post-season sports event in the world. I wouldn't change a thing about it.

WRT to this specific tourney. I looove the upsets. I don't buy the whole "bad for the sport" thing at all.

Do we really want the championship of a sport going to the team "that's supposed to win every year" or the most talented? What's the point of that? The NCAA tournament championship goes to whichever team can survive the gauntlet of some of the best teams in the country, I don't know how that isn't a legitimate way to choose a champion.
 
To be serious though, the two best teams in the country may not be playing for the championship in a week.. But who were really the two best teams this year? This was a weak year for the upper echelon of college basketball, in my opinion. Why should we have to sit and watch a couple number one seeds inserted into a championship game when none of them could grind out a win against the likes of VCU, Kentucky, Arizona, or Butler? The teams that get this far deserve a chance to play in the championship game.

This is the best form of deciding a champion. Teams are rewarded for their regular season efforts with the CHANCE to win it all, if they can complete a truly great feat.
 
Last edited:
So a tournament isn't the best way to select a champ or a 68 team tournament isn't the best way? If they're saying the tourney isn't the best way, I completely disagree. It works for almost every sport, the major exception being college football. And there's a ton of controversy surrounding the BCS system.

If they're saying the 68 field tourney isn't the best way, then I agree. However, as a fan I prefer the 64 team tourney (not 68). The possibility of upsets and all the great games (there were a ton of close and exciting games this year) make it interesting and enjoyable.

But if you're trying to select the best team then giving a lot of mediocre and slightly above mediocre teams a chance isn't the best way to make that selection. Cinderella stories like VCU can be good for ratings and discussion but are not good for selecting the best team. The problem is that there are so many teams and conferences.

If they followed the professional sports formula, perhaps they could have a tourney composed of the top 2 or 3 teams from each conference. But then would you base this on regular season standings or the results of the conference championships? You would also have a ton of controversy allowing the Horizon and Patriot Leagues to have the same number of representatives as the major conferences. There is no easy and FAIR answer.

Overall, I think the tourney may not be the ideal way but it's the best available and provides a product that fans want.
 
I guess I'm less concerned with what team is "best" and could beat up on a shitty OOC schedule and romp a weak conference. If a team can put together a win streak in the highest pressure situation that the sport offers, I don't see why they aren't good enough to be the champ, even if they struggled at other times during the season.
 
I've never understand the idea behind judging the best team now based on what they did 4 months ago.
 
i'm guessing iappreciateit is in the midst of a 5000 word post and that's why he hasn't responded yet.
 
i'm guessing iappreciateit is in the midst of a 5000 word post and that's why he hasn't responded yet.

Hello there.

I don't think any rational person would argue that the NCAA Tournament does the best job of rewarding the best team the championship. Pretty much common sense -- single elimination with 68 teams. That doesn't mean it's a terrible format, and it is certainly exciting. Some people, like the OP, believe it's a positive to give lesser teams a chance to win the championship anyway.

What annoys me about the NCAA tournament is that is completely obsoleted the regular season. In March, everyone loves the NCAA tournament. For the four months prior, the vast majority of people have no clue what's going on in the sport. Even on a Wake Forest sports message board, the #1 team in the country could be upset without a thread going out about it. So I think that sucks.
 
Current format is unlikely to effectively award the true best team with the National Championship, but I don't think that matters. Best way to do that is the traditional European soccer format of only playing a regular season.

Problem with that is it means that all but a few teams' fans don't care at the end of a season. Plus, with 300 teams you can't really make it work anyway.

Excitement-wise, current format is great and I love it. I'd be okay with 96, too.
 
I guess I'm less concerned with what team is "best" and could beat up on a shitty OOC schedule and romp a weak conference. If a team can put together a win streak in the highest pressure situation that the sport offers, I don't see why they aren't good enough to be the champ, even if they struggled at other times during the season.

:werd:
 
Its the same with any playoff tournament. Were the Steelers the best team in the NFL the year they won the Super Bowl as the last wild card team?
 
I think the selection process should be overhauled so that it is more transparent and more empirically-(objectively)-based, but I haven't given much thought as to how the latter could be accomplished (if at all). As for the actual tournament itself, it's about as close to perfection as there is in sports. Maybe I'd cut the total number of teams back down to 64, but I actually enjoyed the USC/VCU and Clemson/UAB 12 seed play-ins.
 
No changes...minus Wake not being in it I have enjoyed this year's tournament as much as any I can remember. There have been so many great, close games and I love the upsets...

I think a lot of the "experts" are upset b/c it makes their picks and their ratings (AP poll) look bad....

I agree with this.

The supposed "best" teams have no argument to make. If you win 6 games then you are the champion. Kansas had the easiest road possible to make it to the Final Four, and they still lost. How anybody can say that Butler "doesn't deserve" to be playing for a title after beating the #9, #1, #4, and #2 seed in their bracket makes very little sense.

Maybe if the "best" teams had played better then they would have made it in to the Final Four. This tournament has been the best I can remember in a long time, and I am legitimately looking forward to the Final Four games this weekend. The storylines are compelling, and there are 2 coaches here that are on the verge of greatness. The other side has 2 coaches (whether or not you like them), that are already great. They should both be very good, competitive games.

People keep saying that VCU is an #11 seed, so they are not worthy of making the Final Four, and are not the "best" team, but I guarantee that if you took the names off the teams, and looked at the stats up to this point of the tournament so far blindly, that VCU would be one of the best 4-8 teams in the tournament. They have played fantastic basketball, and have defeated a lot of good teams in doing so.
 
Back
Top