Potential Final Four place in history..

[dw3dw3dw3]

I realize the chances of us making the final four are probably somewhere in the 5-15% range, but if it happened, where would this run to the final four rank in basketball for the last 30 years (80s and up)? Xavier (6), Cuse(3), NC(2), OSU(1)? Would it be more improbable than the George Mason run (Michigan St (6), North Carolina (3), Wichita State (7), UConn (1))? I can't really think of any other high seed making it that far.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I realize the chances of us making the final four are probably somewhere in the 5-15% range, but if it happened, where would this run to the final four rank in basketball for the last 30 years (80s and up)? Xavier (6), Cuse(3), NC(2), OSU(1)? Would it be more improbable than the George Mason run (Michigan St (6), North Carolina (3), Wichita State (7), UConn (1))? I can't really think of any other high seed making it that far.

Two 11 seeds have made the Final Four.  George Mason and LSU.

I would still say the George Mason Final Four is the most improbable because they had CAA talent.  LSU had SEC talent and we have Big East talent.  What Mason did was pretty ridiculous, but just goes to show that it's not about being one of the top 4 or 10 or whatever teams in the country overall, it's about being one of the best over a 3 week period in a specific tournament against the right opponents.

The tournament is and always will be a crapshoot on who you play, where you play, matchups, etc.  Mason that year got to play some games at the Verizon Center which was practically a home game for them in the Sweet 16 round.  To advance in the NCAAs you have to be good and lucky, not always the best.  Often the best team in the country does not win the national title. 

[HoopsMalone]

The eleventh place team in a conference making the Final Four would be a good storyline since not every conference even has 11 teams.

We do have multiple JUCO All-Americans, top-100 recruits, and a former member of Team USA so us making it would not be completely improbable. 

[muwarrior69]

Two 11 seeds have made the Final Four.  George Mason and LSU.

I would still say the George Mason Final Four is the most improbable because they had CAA talent.  LSU had SEC talent and we have Big East talent.  What Mason did was pretty ridiculous, but just goes to show that it's not about being one of the top 4 or 10 or whatever teams in the country overall, it's about being one of the best over a 3 week period in a specific tournament against the right opponents.

The tournament is and always will be a crapshoot on who you play, where you play, matchups, etc.  Mason that year got to play some games at the Verizon Center which was practically a home game for them in the Sweet 16 round.  To advance in the NCAAs you have to be good and lucky, not always the best.  Often the best team in the country does not win the national title. 

So if Ohio State wins the title they are the best team in the country, but if Marquette, Richmond, VCU or Butler win the title they were just lucky. Why play the games?

[GGGG]

I would also grade LSU's run to the Final Four below George Mason's because they actually played their first two games on their home court.  That was before the rule that you couldn't play on your home floor in the NCAAs.

So if Ohio State wins the title they are the best team in the country, but if Marquette, Richmond, VCU or Butler win the title they were just lucky. Why play the games?

Well, oftentimes the terms "best team" and "champion" aren't interchangeable.

[tower912]

It's why you play the games.   NC State 83, Villanova 85, Kansas 88, are teams that weren't close to being the best team in the country, but got hot at the right time.    This board revels in MU's flaws, so there is no need to address them.   But for two games, MU has played over them.    For 80 minutes,  the defensive rotations were good, the rebounding was solid, there was leadership, and the offense attacked.   The flashes that were glimpsed and then disappeared during the season became the norm, not the infuriating tease.   For 32 minutes, we were better than Duke.   For 34 minutes, we were 18 better than Louisville at their place.    For 30+ minutes, we were as good as Wisconsin.     We beat UConn.   If this team plays 40 more minutes of its best ball, it can beat UNC. Maybe.   We are in an awesome region and even our best may not be good enough.     But it sure is sweet to have the chance.

[muwarrior69]

It's why you play the games.   NC State 83, Villanova 85, Kansas 88, are teams that weren't close to being the best team in the country, but got hot at the right time.    This board revels in MU's flaws, so there is no need to address them.   But for two games, MU has played over them.    For 80 minutes,  the defensive rotations were good, the rebounding was solid, there was leadership, and the offense attacked.   The flashes that were glimpsed and then disappeared during the season became the norm, not the infuriating tease.   For 32 minutes, we were better than Duke.   For 34 minutes, we were 18 better than Louisville at their place.    For 30+ minutes, we were as good as Wisconsin.     We beat UConn.   If this team plays 40 more minutes of its best ball, it can beat UNC. Maybe.   We are in an awesome region and even our best may not be good enough.     But it sure is sweet to have the chance.

Exactly! The best team is determined  by who wins on the court, not who SHOULD of won in the court of public opinion.

[GGGG]

muwarrior69...that is not what tower said.  In fact he said the exact opposite:

It's why you play the games.   NC State 83, Villanova 85, Kansas 88, are teams that weren't close to being the best team in the country, but got hot at the right time.   

The champion is determined who wins on the court.  The champion is oftentimes not the best team.

[MDMU04]

muwarrior69...that is not what tower said.  In fact he said the exact opposite:

The champion is determined who wins on the court.  The champion is oftentimes not the best team.

Which is exactly why college basketball needs to move to a system where a combination of polling and computer formulation determine who plays to win the championship and who plays for consolation.

It's obvious that this whole tournament thing just isn't working out...

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

\Mason that year got to play some games at the Verizon Center which was practically a home game for them in the Sweet 16 round. 

Kentucky fans would maintain we had a somewhat similar advantage in Minneapolis 2003. And they may be on to something

[MUMac]

Kentucky fans would maintain we had a somewhat similar advantage in Minneapolis 2003. And they may be on to something

That was only an advantage because they lost?  UW had the same advantage two days earlier.

There were some comments at the time that Kentucky did not travel as they were waiting for the Final 4 that year.  We saved them some $.

[GGGG]

Which is exactly why college basketball needs to move to a system where a combination of polling and computer formulation determine who plays to win the championship and who plays for consolation.

It's obvious that this whole tournament thing just isn't working out...

Don't think that I am advocating for any sort of change.  I am perfectly comfortable with the fact that crowning a "champion" is what matters in American sports versus crowning "the best team" over the course of a year.  I mean, the New England Patriots were considered by most to be the "best team" during the past NFL season...but one bad game and they are not champions.  On the other hand, the Packers were clearly not the best team, but got hot at the right time, and they are champions.

[Hards Alumni]

Don't think that I am advocating for any sort of change.  I am perfectly comfortable with the fact that crowning a "champion" is what matters in American sports versus crowning "the best team" over the course of a year.  I mean, the New England Patriots were considered by most to be the "best team" during the past NFL season...but one bad game and they are not champions.  On the other hand, the Packers were clearly not the best team, but got hot at the right time, and they are champions.

I couldn't disagree more.  They were easily the most talented team.

[MDMU04]

Don't think that I am advocating for any sort of change.  I am perfectly comfortable with the fact that crowning a "champion" is what matters in American sports versus crowning "the best team" over the course of a year.  I mean, the New England Patriots were considered by most to be the "best team" during the past NFL season...but one bad game and they are not champions.  On the other hand, the Packers were clearly not the best team, but got hot at the right time, and they are champions.

I should have prefaced my comment by saying I completely agree with your point.  Being a champion is not necessarily analogous with being the best team.  We see it all the time.

I was simply using the college football comparison (mixed with a healthy amount of sarcasm) to illustrate the absurdity of criticizing this system we have in college basketball because it doesn't necessarily determine the "best team."

[GGGG]

Hards...that really isn't the point of my post so I'm not going to debate it, but my point is that sports history is full of teams that got hot at the right time, sneaked into the playoffs, and won the championship.  And full of teams that dominated the regular season only to have one bad game, and lose.

[Hards Alumni]

Hards...that really isn't the point of my post so I'm not going to debate it, but my point is that sports history is full of teams that got hot at the right time, sneaked into the playoffs, and won the championship.  And full of teams that dominated the regular season only to have one bad game, and lose.

I understand the point, I just think your premise is way off.

[brewcity77]

In regards to the original question, I'd still put George Mason over us in terms of being unexpected. I can't imagine that many of the GMU message boards were saying "we could go to an Elite 8, maybe even a Final 4" before the tournament. Granted, not many were saying that here, but I know at least one optimistic Warrior though this team could just as easily go to the Elite 8 as they could get knocked out in the first round. 

As far as the tourney, well clearly sometimes the champion in March isn't the most talented or even best team in the nation in terms of the five-month season. The tournament is all about single results. Look at Louisville and Morehead State. Does anyone really believe that Morehead State is the better team? The computers don't. The RPI doesn't. If they played 10 times, my guess is Louisville would probably win 9, and probably 7 of those would be in blowout fashion. But on that one day, Morehead state got their 1. The same thing could happen to any team. Is VCU really better than Georgetown and Purdue, or did they just have the right motivation at the right time?

You don't have to be the best team in the country to advance, and you don't have to be the best team in the country to win the title. All you have to do is win five games in March and one in early April.

[muwarrior69]

Good teams dominate. The best teams win championships. I am a Yankee fan, the best team in baseball and may I go so far as to say the best team in sports. However, they were not the best team last year, the Giants were and proved it on the playing field.

cham•pi•on \ˈcham-pē-ən\ noun
[Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin campion-, campio, of West Germanic origin; akin to Old English cempa warrior] 13th century
  1      : WARRIOR, FIGHTER
  2      : a militant advocate or defender 〈a champion of civil rights〉
  3      : one that does battle for another’s rights or honor 〈God will raise me up a champion —Sir Walter Scott〉
  4      : a winner of first prize or first place in competition also : one who shows marked superiority

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

[DrDestiny911]

Winning the most games does not mean you are the best team. It's all about how you perform when winning is everything. Call it luck, call it fate, call it whatever you want this tournament is what is because a certain group of guys were able to take their talent further when it counted than any other team in the country.

Additionally am I the only one that sees the problem with this entire thread, I realize its for fun and hypothetical. But isn't this whole concept blasphemy in the underdog sports rulebook. We take one game at a time no matter how fun it would to project.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So if Ohio State wins the title they are the best team in the country, but if Marquette, Richmond, VCU or Butler win the title they were just lucky. Why play the games?

It's a tournament.  It's to crown a national champion, that's why you play the games.  It's different than other sports, however, where over the course of a series the best team usually comes out on top.  In a one and done format (NFL and NCAA), anything can happen.  That's why it's called an UPSET when someone loses that isn't supposed to.

I think the Wall Street Journal pretty much nailed it last year..it's also what makes the NCAA tournament so great...anything can happen.  Rest assured, the NCAA tournament is to crown a NCAA champion, but that doesn't mean it's the best team.  Most people realize this.  It's what the tournament has always been about.

http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2010/04/02/the-count-the-best-ncaa-team-doesnt-always-win/

"Sports Reference’s Neil Paine calculated this two ways, using actual data and also using a simulation. Using the Reference site’s Simple Rating System, he figures that in eight of the last 30 years, the best team in the nation won the tournament — including the last two years, when North Carolina and Kansas won it all. That’s 27% of the time."

[ChicosBailBonds]

"Even though this sounds like blasphemy, they (UNLV) were the best team," Bilas said of the '91 Rebels. "The best team doesn't always win in college basketball and the NCAA tournament. But that was the best team. They had proven it all year long."
Jay Bilas

"Sometimes, in the NCAA Tournament, the best team doesn't always win. Sometimes it's the hottest team or the luck of the bounce or a shot going in or something happens. Why not give every kid an opportunity to create some type of magic for themselves?"
Billy Donovan



http://www.askmen.com/celebs/interview_300/390_jay-bilas-interview.html

http://collegehoops.dtmagazine.com/2009/03/big-east-snags-3-top-seeds-in-ncaa.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_glockner/09/07/unlv.20.years.later/1.html

http://www.nbadraft.net/ncaa-tournament-top-10-teams-not-win-past-decade

http://instant-replay-sports.blogspot.com/2010/03/does-best-team-win-ncaa-tournament.html

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sports/college/top-10-college-basketball-teams-not-win-ncaa-title

http://m.si.com/news/sp/to_cbb_sports/detail/2829411/full;jsessionid=A05277BB77DDA38E7355E77E2C1715E4.cnnsi2

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2010/03/does-kansas-loss-put-more-pressure-on-red-hot-kentucky/1

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=4057717

http://www.athlonsports.com/columns/national-notebook/history-professor

Etc, etc, etc

[NersEllenson]

Why are we dissecting the appropriateness of an NCAA champion as being the "best team?"!!

If you are the last team standing at the end of the season..you are the best team.  I think you can make an argument that it isn't always the MOST TALENTED team that wins the championship.

To Jay Bilas's point - The UNLV team that lost was the most talented team...but hey..they lost to the Duke "team"  Duke beat UNLV..end of story.

Green Bay beat every team seeded ahead of them in the NFC playoffs, and then the AFC Champion...so Green Bay was the best team..period...

[bilsu]

I do not see Marquette beating Ohio St. I would give MU a 1% changce in that game. That is why we need to root for Kentucky. Kentucky could beat Ohio St. I would give Kentucky a 30% chance of beating Ohio St. I would give us a 30% chance of beating Kentucky. I see two reasons that we have a chance against Kentucky. One because they are young and can be inconsistent. However, mostly I think they will be looking past MU after beating Ohio St.

[boyonthedock]

i think i will wait for kenpoms calculations rather than a bunch of numbers you just pulled out of your ass

[ChicosBailBonds]

Why are we dissecting the appropriateness of an NCAA champion as being the "best team?"!!

If you are the last team standing at the end of the season..you are the best team.  I think you can make an argument that it isn't always the MOST TALENTED team that wins the championship.

To Jay Bilas's point - The UNLV team that lost was the most talented team...but hey..they lost to the Duke "team"  Duke beat UNLV..end of story.

Green Bay beat every team seeded ahead of them in the NFC playoffs, and then the AFC Champion...so Green Bay was the best team..period...

Your opinion....interesting how many experts, NCAA coaches and NCAA players disagree with that opinion.  In a one and done format, it's often the best team doesn't win....the data from the WSJ article is very compelling.