MU 11th...fantastic year
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings
Still not completely sure how we are ranked behind Miami in this one after the tourney game, but hey, #11 is a good end.
Two qualms...Wichita State finished great but their body of work doesn't warrant 4th...should be in the 6-8 range, and we should be ahead of Miami. I was never much impressed by their record in a weak ACC and they were exposed as pretenders in the Sweet 16.
Quote from: JakeBarnes on April 09, 2013, 05:25:24 PM
Still not completely sure how we are ranked behind Miami in this one after the tourney game, but hey, #11 is a good end.
we just got lucky against them
Quote from: sixstrings03 on April 09, 2013, 05:28:10 PM
we just got lucky against them
I thought we pounded the piss out of them. We got lucky against Davidson
The AP poll does it right, they stop at the end of the season because they know the NCAA tournament is a crap shoot.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 09, 2013, 05:27:36 PM
Two qualms...Wichita State finished great but their body of work doesn't warrant 4th...should be in the 6-8 range, and we should be ahead of Miami. I was never much impressed by their record in a weak ACC and they were exposed as pretenders in the Sweet 16.
100% agree.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 09, 2013, 05:29:36 PM
I thought we pounded the piss out of them. We got lucky against Davidson
The AP poll does it right, they stop at the end of the season because they know the NCAA tournament is a crap shoot.
This.
FGCU is ahead of Butler? Yeah, right.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 09, 2013, 05:27:36 PM
Two qualms...Wichita State finished great but their body of work doesn't warrant 4th...should be in the 6-8 range, and we should be ahead of Miami. I was never much impressed by their record in a weak ACC and they were exposed as pretenders in the Sweet 16.
Aren't you arguing exact opposites in two different sentences here? ;D
Miami did it over the long haul but had one bad game against MU, thus they should be penalized? Yet Wichita State had a pretty good year, but because they had a great 4 games they should be top 10?
I just don't see how one game exposes anyone as a pretender...it means they had a bad game, that's all it means.
Maybe the voters saw us play against Davidson and slid us down a bit.
I felt that way about Miami the whole year. At no point to the season did I consider them legitimate top-five team, just my opinion but I definitely don't see them being worthy of being ahead of us.
EDIT: I see Miami the same way I see Gonzaga. Two teams that got over ranked because of attrition, not because they actually deserved to be there. The ACC was not good this year. They won a conference that had one other team in it.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 09, 2013, 05:49:12 PMThey won a conference that had one other team in it.
Wake Forest?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 09, 2013, 05:39:34 PM
Aren't you arguing exact opposites in two different sentences here? ;D
Miami did it over the long haul but had one bad game against MU, thus they should be penalized? Yet Wichita State had a pretty good year, but because they had a great 4 games they should be top 10?
I just don't see how one game exposes anyone as a pretender...it means they had a bad game, that's all it means.
Maybe the voters saw us play against Davidson and slid us down a bit.
While my initial reaction was to be frustrated with Miami's out-ranking of MU, common sense prevails. Chicos is spot on: you have to consider the entire "body of work" above the crapshoot, single-elimination tournament that is March Madness.
Quote from: MUFlutieEffect on April 09, 2013, 06:14:23 PM
While my initial reaction was to be frustrated with Miami's out-ranking of MU, common sense prevails. Chicos is spot on: you have to consider the entire "body of work" above the crapshoot, single-elimination tournament that is March Madness.
I disagree. I think our body of work is equal to Miami and we outplayed them when it matters. Advantage us. Also, if we consider the body of work, FGCU isn't ranked, Georgetown is several spots higher Gonzaga should be higher. And Wichita St. and Syracuse considerably lower.
Overall though as chico's rightfully comments, this final ranking is all for show and doesn't really matter. A way for them to get a few more page hits after the season is over.
#11 is pretty good. Banner?
Definitely something to be proud of.
And it should help with recruiting....... ;)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 09, 2013, 05:29:36 PM
I thought we pounded the piss out of them. We got lucky against Davidson
The AP poll does it right, they stop at the end of the season because they know the NCAA tournament is a crap shoot.
Respectfully disagree. The tournament games are the most important of the season - and the fairest measuring stick. No trap games, home court, short rest, etc. Not counting the biggest games in the final ranking seems silly.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 09, 2013, 05:27:36 PM
Two qualms...Wichita State finished great but their body of work doesn't warrant 4th...should be in the 6-8 range, and we should be ahead of Miami. I was never much impressed by their record in a weak ACC and they were exposed as pretenders in the Sweet 16.
We pounded Miami when it counts in the NCAA and were regular season Big East Champs which is also the conference that sent 3 to the elite 8 and two to the Final 4 and won the national championship. That's why you rank Marquette over Miami. I can see some rational for teams 1 through 9.
How is IU ranked ahead of Marquette? IU was humiliated in the Tournament; they should be in the 15-20 range.
Too funny.....
Weber State 1 vote
Belmont 1 vote
Minnesota 1 vote
Notre Dame 1 vote
Where was Davidson, the team the press so loved, ranked? You know, the team the press (and a number of coach "experts") considered to be superior to the Warriors and destined to be the "up-set" kings of the tournament.
Quote from: UticaBusBarn on April 10, 2013, 10:36:48 AM
Where was Davidson, the team the press so loved, ranked? You know, the team the press (and a number of coach "experts") considered to be superior to the Warriors and destined to be the "up-set" kings of the tournament.
You're right. Anybody who thought Davidson had even a prayer of upsetting Marquette ... what were they smoking?!?!?!
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 09, 2013, 07:08:26 PM
Respectfully disagree. The tournament games are the most important of the season - and the fairest measuring stick. No trap games, home court, short rest, etc. Not counting the biggest games in the final ranking seems silly.
Exactly... isn't the whole point of the tournament to determine who is the best team? If not then why bother?
Quote from: sixstrings03 on April 10, 2013, 10:56:52 AM
Exactly... isn't the whole point of the tournament to determine who is the best team? If not then why bother?
I'm sure Chico's will be along shortly to tell you it's all about match-ups and luck and how the best team doesn't always win. And then remind you which experts also agree with his viewpoint.
Quote from: jesmu84 on April 10, 2013, 11:00:07 AM
I'm sure Chico's will be along shortly to tell you it's all about match-ups and luck and how the best team doesn't always win. And then remind you which experts also agree with his viewpoint.
I'm sure whichever team he decides was the best this year will scramble to hang the "Chicos Opinion Champ" banner in their gym
Quote from: jesmu84 on April 10, 2013, 11:00:07 AM
I'm sure Chico's will be along shortly to tell you it's all about match-ups and luck and how the best team doesn't always win. And then remind you which experts also agree with his viewpoint.
And that games played in November and December are part of a team's "body of work" and relevant to their final ranking, but those played in late March, that teams point to all season and try to peak for, aren't.
Quote from: jesmu84 on April 10, 2013, 11:00:07 AM
I'm sure Chico's will be along shortly to tell you it's all about match-ups and luck and how the best team doesn't always win. And then remind you which experts also agree with his viewpoint.
Well, the best team doesn't always win in the tournament. Are you going to tell me that LaSalle and FGCU were better teams this year than Georgetown and Gonzaga?
I think Chico's worded his response poorly and really meant that these games should be considered, but not be the end to how we rank the teams from this year. Yes FGCU won two big tournament games this year, but in no way should they be considered a top-25 team.
Quote from: sixstrings03 on April 10, 2013, 10:56:52 AM
Exactly... isn't the whole point of the tournament to determine who is the best team? If not then why bother?
No, the point of the tournament is to determine a champion. In some cases, the best team wins, in some cases it doesn't. It most certainly doesn't determine who is the best team, it determines who won the title, a big difference.
Who am I to argue with John Wooden, Jay Bilas, CM Newton, some guy named Al McGuire, etc.
And you "bother" in order to determine a champion.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 01:30:07 PM
No, the point of the tournament is to determine a champion. In some cases, the best team wins, in some cases it doesn't. It most certainly doesn't determine who is the best team, it determines who won the title, a big difference.
Who am I to argue with John Wooden, Jay Bilas, CM Newton, some guy named Al McGuire, etc.
And you "bother" in order to determine a champion.
It's the same in every sport. You play the regular season to get to the postseason. How teams fare in the postseason is what matters most.
I'd rather be a champion than be "the best team."
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 01:30:07 PM
No, the point of the tournament is to determine a champion. In some cases, the best team wins, in some cases it doesn't. It most certainly doesn't determine who is the best team, it determines who won the title, a big difference.
Who am I to argue with John Wooden, Jay Bilas, CM Newton, some guy named Al McGuire, etc.
And you "bother" in order to determine a champion.
What is a champion? "A person who has defeated or surpassed all rivals in a competition"
So Louisville defeated all other teams in the league 1:1?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 10, 2013, 01:34:34 PM
It's the same in every sport. You play the regular season to get to the postseason. How teams fare in the postseason is what matters most.
I'd rather be a champion than be "the best team."
My point is that any claims that someone is "the best team" don't hold up if they didn't win the tourney. It's a weak argument to say Indiana was the best team, for example. Even though they arguably had the most talent on the floor. They lost and are not the best team.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 09, 2013, 07:08:26 PM
Respectfully disagree. The tournament games are the most important of the season - and the fairest measuring stick. No trap games, home court, short rest, etc. Not counting the biggest games in the final ranking seems silly.
We know that not to be the case. Michigan and Michigan State played their games in Michigan. Of course there is home courts out there. Seedings, we know have major issues as well...Gonzaga #1...please. Oregon #12...please. Who you draw it part of the "luck" of the tournament, it's what makes it great. Where you play, etc. A ton of randomness, yes some luck, and of course skill. It also means the best teams in the land can have a bad day, and they are gone, even if they were to beat those same teams 364 days out of 365. This is why so many have said time and time again, the best team doesn't always win the title. The NCAA tournament is about crowing a champion, not necessarily crowning the best team. This year, it was both. Arguably most years, that isn't the case. Al Mcguire...was right...again.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 01:36:39 PM
We know that not to be the case. Michigan and Michigan State played their games in Michigan. Of course there is home courts out there.
Was essentially an away game for Michigan. The MSU fans all showed up with the opposing team's colors cheering against them both nights.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 01:36:39 PM
We know that not to be the case. Michigan and Michigan State played their games in Michigan. Of course there is home courts out there. Seedings, we know have major issues as well...Gonzaga #1...please. Oregon #12...please. Who you draw it part of the "luck" of the tournament, it's what makes it great. Where you play, etc. A ton of randomness, yes some luck, and of course skill. It also means the best teams in the land can have a bad day, and they are gone, even if they were to beat those same teams 364 days out of 365. This is why so many have said time and time again, the best team doesn't always win the title. The NCAA tournament is about crowing a champion, not necessarily crowning the best team. This year, it was both. Arguably most years, that isn't the case. Al Mcguire...was right...again.
I get what you are saying. But I want to expand...
According to your philosophy.. there are zero sports leagues that determine a champion if they end in a postseason tournament. The closest you might have is the BCS with 1 vs. 2 or maybe european soccer with a "table" season. Is that right? NHL, NBA, NFL, MLB, MLS, any college sport save BCS, etc. No one determines best team, but merely champions?
Quote from: jesmu84 on April 10, 2013, 02:08:55 PM
I get what you are saying. But I want to expand...
According to your philosophy.. there are zero sports leagues that determine a champion if they end in a postseason tournament. The closest you might have is the BCS with 1 vs. 2 or maybe european soccer with a "table" season. Is that right? NHL, NBA, NFL, MLB, MLS, any college sport save BCS, etc. No one determines best team, but merely champions?
Totally incorrect. Most sports leagues do because it's based on a best of 5, best of 7 type format. Over that type of format, the best team comes out on top because they can afford to have a bad day...or even bad days. It's not one an done.
Case in point, the Chicago Bulls won 72 regular season games, but in the playoffs lost 3, including 2 games in the finals. Would anyone on planet earth not believe the Bulls were the best team in the world that year? Of course not, but in a one and done they could have lost it...in fact they did lose three playoffs games. Over a long series, the best are going to win, but in a one game playoff it's a crap shoot. So for baseball, hockey, and basketball, most often the champion is also the best. It gets a little tricky with baseball because of the mini-series format that can knock some of the best teams out.
NCAA hoops, NFL....any one and done scenario makes it much more possible that the best team doesn't actually win the championship.
Wall Street Journal article on this a few years ago
http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2010/04/02/the-count-the-best-ncaa-team-doesnt-always-win/
27% of the time the best team wins the NCAA tournament
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 02:11:14 PM
Totally incorrect. Most sports leagues do because it's based on a best of 5, best of 7 type format. Over that type of format, the best team comes out on top because they can afford to have a bad day...or even bad days. It's not one an done.
You are right that usually the NBA, NHL, and MLB the best tean wins. In the one and done the best team often does not win, look at the NFL, one bad game and your season is over. Do you consider the Ravens the best team last year? Or the Giants the year before? They got hot at the right time.
So in regards to end of the season rankings you don't completely drop a team for having one bad game and you don't bring a team that was never near the top 25 into it just because they won 2 games in March.
Quote from: MUMonster03 on April 10, 2013, 02:20:23 PM
You are right that usually the NBA, NHL, and MLB the best tean wins. In the one and done the best team often does not win, look at the NFL, one bad game and your season is over. Do you consider the Ravens the best team last year? Or the Giants the year before? They got hot at the right time.
So in regards to end of the season rankings you don't completely drop a team for having one bad game and you don't bring a team that was never near the top 25 into it just because they won 2 games in March.
Why should you be able to lose a game en route to a championship? Why should that be forgiven?
Quote from: MUMonster03 on April 10, 2013, 02:20:23 PM
So in regards to end of the season rankings you don't completely drop a team for having one bad game and you don't bring a team that was never near the top 25 into it just because they won 2 games in March.
Exactly. Those games should influence the final rankings, but we don't merely flip the results of the tournament and say in that order are the best teams of the year. We would then be saying that FGCU is better than Georgetown, Gonzaga, etc.
Is Wichita St a better team than Duke, Michigan St, Georgetown, Kansas, Florida, or Indiana?
Quote from: WarriorInDC on April 10, 2013, 02:41:50 PM
Is Wichita St a better team than Duke, Michigan St, Georgetown, Kansas, Florida, or Indiana?
yes
Quote from: sixstrings03 on April 10, 2013, 02:38:29 PM
Why should you be able to lose a game en route to a championship? Why should that be forgiven?
I'm not quite sure what your argument is here....are you saying best of 5 or 7 series should be removed from NHL/NBA/MLB?
Quote from: WarriorInDC on April 10, 2013, 02:50:53 PM
I'm not quite sure what your argument is here....are you saying best of 5 or 7 series should be removed from NHL/NBA/MLB?
its not an argument - it's a question. Why would a tournament that requires the eventual champion to win several straight less authentic than a playoff with best-of series?
Quote from: MUMonster03 on April 10, 2013, 02:20:23 PM
You are right that usually the NBA, NHL, and MLB the best tean wins. In the one and done the best team often does not win, look at the NFL, one bad game and your season is over. Do you consider the Ravens the best team last year? Or the Giants the year before? They got hot at the right time.
So in regards to end of the season rankings you don't completely drop a team for having one bad game and you don't bring a team that was never near the top 25 into it just because they won 2 games in March.
I did not consider the Ravens the best team, they were damn good but not the best. They are the Super Bowl champions, they got gifted a win by a moronic play by a defensive back at the end of the game in Denver...but that's part of winning a championship, there's usually
some luck along the way (which leads to some posters here inaccurately saying that I'm implying it's all luck...go figure, totally wrong but that's how some people are). But no, I would not consider them to be the "best" team. Some years the best team wins the Super Bowl, some years it doesn't.
I think Jay Bilas captured it pretty well, "I'm one of those that believes that the best team doesn't always win in this. In other words, in 1985, I thought Georgetown was the best team, and they lost to Villanova in what was an epic game, an epic upset. In 1991 I was an assistant coach on that Duke team that beat UNLV and I thought UNLV was the best team. We happened to clip them. So, the best team doesn't always win, and that's part of the beauty of this tournament."
Quote from: sixstrings03 on April 10, 2013, 02:50:38 PM
yes
No. Different opponents. Would IU beat Gonzaga...most likely yes. Would WSU beat Syracuse...most likely no, just as MU and IU lost to Syracuse. Not apples to apples, it's a tournament afterall. You don't throw away 4 months of basketball and all of a sudden say one performance for 2 hours defines how good you are.
That's why I agree with the AP because too many people get so damn caught up in the crap shoot they forget everything else. Is FGCU really a top 25 team? Hell no. They couldn't even win their own conference...they got hot for 2 weeks. There is a difference. FGCU might have 10 to 12 Big East losses in our conference. Half the battle in advancing in the tournament is who you play. Some teams advance further because other upsets happen clearing the deck for them, yet we're supposed to reward that good fortune to that team that continues to advance because they beat a 12 and a 13 instead of a 12 and a 4 seed, for example? Even though they had NOTHING to do with that 4 seed losing to a 13? Sorry, that's completely nonsensical.
Quote from: sixstrings03 on April 10, 2013, 02:55:53 PM
its not an argument - it's a question. Why would a tournament that requires the eventual champion to win several straight less authentic than a playoff with best-of series?
Six, you are a smart guy....I think you are more than capable of answering that question yourself. I'm sure you took statistics in college. Come on man. Really?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 02:11:14 PM
Totally incorrect. Most sports leagues do because it's based on a best of 5, best of 7 type format. Over that type of format, the best team comes out on top because they can afford to have a bad day...or even bad days. It's not one an done.
Case in point, the Chicago Bulls won 72 regular season games, but in the playoffs lost 3, including 2 games in the finals. Would anyone on planet earth not believe the Bulls were the best team in the world that year? Of course not, but in a one and done they could have lost it...in fact they did lose three playoffs games. Over a long series, the best are going to win but in a one game playoff it's a crap shoot. So for baseball, hockey, and basketball, most often the champion is also the best. It gets a little tricky with baseball because of the mini-series format that can knock some of the best teams out.
NCAA hoops, NFL....any one and done scenario makes it much more possible that the best team doesn't actually win the championship.
So the Cardinals teams that won the World Series in 2006 (13th-best record in MLB) and 2011 (6 games back in their division) were the best teams in baseball those seasons?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 03:19:45 PM
Six, you are a smart guy....I think you are more than capable of answering that question yourself. I'm sure you took statistics in college. Come on man. Really?
thanks Chicos - Ill rarely turn down a compliment.
There is no universal definition of "better" across sports. If Indiana won zero games and FGCU won all their games would Indiana be a worse team? Better? They have two potential lottery picks on their roster.
My point is knowing what the game is. Which is the "better" company: Apple or Google? Usually measured through margin, revenue and ultimately market cap. Arguments about design/Eco-friendliness, etc are interesting but opinions and besides the point.
This applies to college basketball in that becoming the champion of the tournament is the whole point. You are the best team if you accomplished the end goal which is a championship.
If you coached your team anticipating a best of 7 series you would have missed the point, even if you had more athletic players, etc.
I'm psyched about MU and our coach, players and their performance. But Louisville was the best team in 2013. That's objective, and I have the most convincing argument: they achieved what everyone else wanted to. They executed, came out on top, and are therefor the best.
The argument for any other measure comes across Crean-ish... Like you'd hang a banner for most NBA-bound kids on a team or highest ranked class of incoming freshman, GAS wins, etc.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 10, 2013, 03:59:39 PM
So the Cardinals teams that won the World Series in 2006 (13th-best record in MLB) and 2011 (6 games back in their division) were the best teams in baseball those seasons?
I believe I said usually. Let's put it this way, a team that has to make it based on their record through 162 games, then based on having to win (at the time) 11 games in the playoffs knowing any one loss doesn't eliminate them, is going to be a truer definition of the best team than a one and done.
If the Chicago Bulls, who won 72 games in the regular season were eliminated on a one and done, would you really argue they weren't the best team that year? It would be simply they lost that day, but that doesn't mean they weren't the best team.
If the Chicago Bulls, who won 72 games in the regular season were eliminated on a one and done, would you really argue they weren't the best team that year? It would be simply they lost that day, but that doesn't mean they weren't the best team.
[/quote]i would argue it because they blew their wad too early... The goal is a championship, not a moral victory.
Quote from: sixstrings03 on April 10, 2013, 04:11:16 PM
thanks Chicos - Ill rarely turn down a compliment.
There is no universal definition of "better" across sports. If Indiana won zero games and FGCU won all their games would Indiana be a worse team? Better? They have two potential lottery picks on their roster.
My point is knowing what the game is. Which is the "better" company: Apple or Google? Usually measured through margin, revenue and ultimately market cap. Arguments about design/Eco-friendliness, etc are interesting but opinions and besides the point.
This applies to college basketball in that becoming the champion of the tournament is the whole point. You are the best team if you accomplished the end goal which is a championship.
If you coached your team anticipating a best of 7 series you would have missed the point, even if you had more athletic players, etc.
I'm psyched about MU and our coach, players and their performance. But Louisville was the best team in 2013. That's objective, and I have the most convincing argument: they achieved what everyone else wanted to. They executed, came out on top, and are therefor the best.
The argument for any other measure comes across Crean-ish... Like you'd hang a banner for most NBA-bound kids on a team or highest ranked class of incoming freshman, GAS wins, etc.
Please, it's an argument that Al McGuire made...is it McGuirish? It's the same argument John Wooden made...is it Woodenish?
Let's play a little game...when you are cheering for MU in the NCAA tournament and you see that a worse seed has the chance to beat a better seed in our side of the bracket....who do you cheer for? I'd argue 99% of fans cheer for the worse seed....why is that? Simple, we want an EASIER path to the championship because we do not want to play the BETTER team. Because we know, the BETTER team has an easier chance of beating us. We also know, that in college hoops, the BEST teams don't always win, so if one of them can have a bad day and get knocked off, that's good for us. There's a reason for that....and it's pretty simple.
I'm not one to argue with Al McGuire, John Wooden, etc, etc. Best team doesn't always win...clear as day.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 04:46:33 PM
Please, it's an argument that Al McGuire made...is it McGuirish? It's the same argument John Wooden made...is it Woodenish?
Let's play a little game...when you are cheering for MU in the NCAA tournament and you see that a worse seed has the chance to beat a better seed in our side of the bracket....who do you cheer for? I'd argue 99% of fans cheer for the worse seed....why is that? Simple, we want an EASIER path to the championship because we do not want to play the BETTER team. Because we know, the BETTER team has an easier chance of beating us. We also know, that in college hoops, the BEST teams don't always win, so if one of them can have a bad day and get knocked off, that's good for us. There's a reason for that....and it's pretty simple.
I'm not one to argue with Al McGuire, John Wooden, etc, etc. Best team doesn't always win...clear as day.
We want to win the championship. No matter who we play we want to win the championship to prove we're the best. Be it a easier path or a hard path, the championship is the goal.
And of course you aren't going to argue with them when you support their particular viewpoint on this subject. No one argues when the viewpoints are the same... dumb statement. Al had a different viewpoint on JUCOs than you. Are you still not one to argue with him on that?
Quote from: sixstrings03 on April 10, 2013, 04:44:32 PM
If the Chicago Bulls, who won 72 games in the regular season were eliminated on a one and done, would you really argue they weren't the best team that year? It would be simply they lost that day, but that doesn't mean they weren't the best team.
i would argue it because they blew their wad too early... The goal is a championship, not a moral victory.
You answered it yourself. The goal is a "championship", that doesn't mean the best team....two different things. No one here is saying a championship is LESS than being the best team. Of course the goal is to win a championship. All people are saying is the best team doesn't always win that championship. If the Bulls lost, it wouldn't make them a champion, but they would still be the best team. I don't know why this is so hard for you to process. Al McGuire got. Jay Bilas got. John Wooden got. Chico got it. ;)
Quote from: UticaBusBarn on April 10, 2013, 10:36:48 AM
Where was Davidson, the team the press so loved, ranked? You know, the team the press (and a number of coach "experts") considered to be superior to the Warriors and destined to be the "up-set" kings of the tournament.
If the press truly considered Davidson to be superior, then why would they call them the "up-set" kings?
Quote from: The Equalizer on April 10, 2013, 05:49:04 PM
If the press truly considered Davidson to be superior, then why would they call them the "up-set" kings?
because of the seeds.
So in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's when teams that didn't win their conferences were not even invited, including #2 USC and #3 Maryland, did the "best" team win the title when those teams didn't even compete? Was UCLA fully challenged in 1970 as #8 MU chose to play in the NIT? The 1971 MU team, #2 in the nation, that lost to Ohio State....we were certainly better than Ohio State almost every day of the year, but not that day. One bad day, and you are gone. The goal is always to win the title, but most of the time the team that wins the title is not the best team. Conversely, usually the team that wins the conference title, is the best team in your conference because they proved it over many months and any outliers (a bad day), are overcome.
#11 ticks me off. Should be a Top Ten ranking.
>:(
Another chip on the shoulder for Buzz and Crew.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 06:16:01 PM
So in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's when teams that didn't win their conferences were not even invited, including #2 USC and #3 Maryland, did the "best" team win the title when those teams didn't even compete? Was UCLA fully challenged in 1970 as #8 MU chose to play in the NIT? The 1971 MU team, #2 in the nation, that lost to Ohio State....we were certainly better than Ohio State almost every day of the year, but not that day. One bad day, and you are gone. The goal is always to win the title, but most of the time the team that wins the title is not the best team. Conversely, usually the team that wins the conference title, is the best team in your conference because they proved it over many months and any outliers (a bad day), are overcome.
Were those conference winners based on a tournament or a season of play? Because you often say/argue that the larger body of work is what's important and how we should judge a team. Within that, you say conference season is more important compared to conference tournament. I gather, from your point of view, a regular season conference "title" is a predication of how good a team is compared to a single win. Therefore, wouldn't the "best" teams win their conferences due to the conference title not being a single elimination event? So, whichever teams won their conference (assuming season vs. tournament) are the "best" teams, according to your definition.
Quote from: jesmu84 on April 10, 2013, 06:14:11 PM
because of the seeds.
By definition, "superior" teams don't pull upsets. If the press considered Davidson to be the superior team, then Marquette would have been the team to pull an upset to beat them.
What's going on here is an argument for the sake of arguing, all about semantics.
Which is OK. That's what the interwebs are for.
There is no objective way to truly define "the best." This year, one might say that Louisville or Indiana or Michigan or Duke or any of the other teams that were ranked No. 1 at some point was the best. You could point to the rosters and do player-by-player rankings and so on. You could let rankings and computers decide it, as the BCS does to quite unsatisfactory results.
But the nice thing about college basketball, as opposed to college football, is that there is a system in place to determine who ultimately is No. 1.
Is Louisville the "best team"? Was Villanova the "best team" in 1985? Was Marquette the "best team" in 1977.
Well, yeah. Each was the last team standing in a cross-national tournament that is one of the ultimate tests in team sports. It's the only real way to measure the best.
So if somebody wants to say, "Well, Louisville is the champion but Indiana (or Duke or Kansas) was the best team," go ahead. It's a free world. But it's meaningless drivel.
Indiana and Duke and hundreds of other teams had a chance, on the court, to prove they were deserving of being called the "best team." Only one team actually did prove it -- and that would have been the case had Wichita State or LaSalle or Davidson been that one team, too.
The champion is the best team. Period. The champion is No. 1. Exclamation point.
Creighton beat Wichita State twice during the season. One of those times was on a neutral court in the conference tourney. Yet, here they are ranked 17 spots lower than Wichita. Is that not a bit of an indictment of these rankings?
Quote from: MU82 on April 10, 2013, 07:21:57 PM
What's going on here is an argument for the sake of arguing, all about semantics.
Which is OK. That's what the interwebs are for.
There is no objective way to truly define "the best." This year, one might say that Louisville or Indiana or Michigan or Duke or any of the other teams that were ranked No. 1 at some point was the best. You could point to the rosters and do player-by-player rankings and so on. You could let rankings and computers decide it, as the BCS does to quite unsatisfactory results.
But the nice thing about college basketball, as opposed to college football, is that there is a system in place to determine who ultimately is No. 1.
Is Louisville the "best team"? Was Villanova the "best team" in 1985? Was Marquette the "best team" in 1977.
Well, yeah. Each was the last team standing in a cross-national tournament that is one of the ultimate tests in team sports. It's the only real way to measure the best.
So if somebody wants to say, "Well, Louisville is the champion but Indiana (or Duke or Kansas) was the best team," go ahead. It's a free world. But it's meaningless drivel.
Indiana and Duke and hundreds of other teams had a chance, on the court, to prove they were deserving of being called the "best team." Only one team actually did prove it -- and that would have been the case had Wichita State or LaSalle or Davidson been that one team, too.
The champion is the best team. Period. The champion is No. 1. Exclamation point.
I personally have no problem with the tournament champion being crowned as the "best" team of the year. I think arguments can be made many years that the best team did not win the tournament, but thought that this year, the "best" team did win the tournament.
The problem I do have is with the rest of the field and the rankings. If we are to follow strictly where a team finished in the tournament with where they are ranked, then MU should be 5-8, FGCU 9-16, and Georgetown 33-64. But in these rankings they are 11, 25, and 17 respectively. This means that the whole body of work IS taken into consideration, as I believe it should be.
That said, these tournament games should not be thrown away when putting these together. At the same time though, they should not be given so much weight, that a team like FGCU (who lost to Maine, Mercer, East Tennessee St, Lipscomb, and Stetson) should make the top-25 because it beat Georgetown and SDSU near the end of the season, whereas a team such as Butler (who beat teams such as MU, North Carolina, Indiana, and Gonzaga).
Wichita State's run was great, but I will not buy into the notion that they are the 4th best team in the country this year. Their best wins this year were VCU, Creighton, Iowa, PITT, Gonzaga, and tOSU. Whereas a team such as Kansas loses their last game to title runner-up Michigan is ranked 8. I won't buy into that argument.
Quote from: WarriorInDC on April 10, 2013, 08:05:38 PM
I personally have no problem with the tournament champion being crowned as the "best" team of the year. I think arguments can be made many years that the best team did not win the tournament, but thought that this year, the "best" team did win the tournament.
The problem I do have is with the rest of the field and the rankings. If we are to follow strictly where a team finished in the tournament with where they are ranked, then MU should be 5-8, FGCU 9-16, and Georgetown 33-64. But in these rankings they are 11, 25, and 17 respectively. This means that the whole body of work IS taken into consideration, as I believe it should be.
That said, these tournament games should not be thrown away when putting these together. At the same time though, they should not be given so much weight, that a team like FGCU (who lost to Maine, Mercer, East Tennessee St, Lipscomb, and Stetson) should make the top-25 because it beat Georgetown and SDSU near the end of the season, whereas a team such as Butler (who beat teams such as MU, North Carolina, Indiana, and Gonzaga).
Wichita State's run was great, but I will not buy into the notion that they are the 4th best team in the country this year. Their best wins this year were VCU, Creighton, Iowa, PITT, Gonzaga, and tOSU. Whereas a team such as Kansas loses their last game to title runner-up Michigan is ranked 8. I won't buy into that argument.
Fair enough, Warrior. The beauty of it is that none of the rankings from 2 to 300-whatever matter.
Ten years from now, few from Marquette are gonna say, "Remember when we were No. 11 after the 2012-13 season?" Many will say, "Remember when we were in the 2003 Final Four?" and still more will say, "Remember when we were the best in the entire country in 1977?"
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 04:46:33 PM
Please, it's an argument that Al McGuire made...is it McGuirish? It's the same argument John Wooden made...is it Woodenish?
Let's play a little game...when you are cheering for MU in the NCAA tournament and you see that a worse seed has the chance to beat a better seed in our side of the bracket....who do you cheer for? I'd argue 99% of fans cheer for the worse seed....why is that? Simple, we want an EASIER path to the championship because we do not want to play the BETTER team. Because we know, the BETTER team has an easier chance of beating us. We also know, that in college hoops, the BEST teams don't always win, so if one of them can have a bad day and get knocked off, that's good for us. There's a reason for that....and it's pretty simple.
I'm not one to argue with Al McGuire, John Wooden, etc, etc. Best team doesn't always win...clear as day.
champion = best team
Quote from: MU82 on April 10, 2013, 07:21:57 PM
Was Marquette the "best team" in 1977.
Yes. What a stupid question.
Quote from: sixstrings03 on April 10, 2013, 09:55:46 PM
champion = best team
Who is the best golfer in the world? If that golfer doesn't win the Masters, must mean he is no longer the best because he isn't the champion.
Louisville women, runner-ups...by your logic they must be the 2nd best team because if they won, they would be the best. You are really going to tell us they were better than Notre Dame who they lost to by 29 points and by 24 points? But that's your logic and why it falls apart. Louisville got to play Cal in the Final Four, the true national title game was Uconn vs Notre Dame, the true two best teams.
This isn't hard...glad Al McGuire got it.
Quote from: Lighthouse 84 on April 10, 2013, 10:04:11 PM
Yes. What a stupid question.
No....even Al McGuire said his own team wasn't the best. That's the irony in all this. That's also what makes the NCAA tourney so great, to win the championship you don't have to be the best. It isn't best of 5 or best of 7, anything can happen....a team that can't finishing in the top 8 of a conference can win that national title. That's what makes it magical.
Quote from: sixstrings03 on April 10, 2013, 10:56:52 AM
Exactly... isn't the whole point of the tournament to determine who is the best team? If not then why bother?
That and to allow a whole bunch of $ to be made. ;)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 03:18:31 PM
one performance for 2 hours defines how good you are.
In the case of Crean I would submit the Syracuse game is the archetypal example of this Hardwood Wizard's game planning. The Bronzed Beast had the consensus favorite to win the Championship. His squad had clearly better talent. If ever there was an opportunity for Crean to show case his coaching genius this was the stage. What better venue to erase the enormous shame of Marquette's Final Four indignity at the hands of a lesser skilled Kansas team. Unfortunately, once again, he was humiliated by a superior mind and his lottery pick talent was run off the court in ignominy. I am afraid that those two hours speak more of Tom Crean's abilities than any season's worth of coaching. Once more Tom Crean is the lesser man.
Quote from: keefe on April 11, 2013, 12:22:10 AM
In the case of Crean I would submit the Syracuse game is the archetypal example of this Hardwood Wizard's game planning. The Bronzed Beast had the consensus favorite to win the Championship. His squad had clearly better talent. If ever there was an opportunity for Crean to show case his coaching genius this was the stage. What better venue to erase the enormous shame of Marquette's Final Four indignity at the hands of a lesser skilled Kansas team. Unfortunately, once again, he was humiliated by a superior mind and his lottery pick talent was run off the court in ignominy. I am afraid that those two hours speak more of Tom Crean's abilities than any season's worth of coaching. Once more Tom Crean is the lesser man.
Forget Syracuse. It took an epically bad performance by nearly the entire Temple team to get the Hoosiers out of the round of 32 and they were absolutely pummeled by Wisconsin in their final Big Ten tournament game. IU may have been the #1 team in the country at one point, but the ship was taking major water by the season's end. Not unusual for a TC coached team.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 10:42:20 PM
Who is the best golfer in the world? If that golfer doesn't win the Masters, must mean he is no longer the best because he isn't the champion.
Louisville women, runner-ups...by your logic they must be the 2nd best team because if they won, they would be the best. You are really going to tell us they were better than Notre Dame who they lost to by 29 points and by 24 points? But that's your logic and why it falls apart. Louisville got to play Cal in the Final Four, the true national title game was Uconn vs Notre Dame, the true two best teams.
This isn't hard...glad Al McGuire got it.
i don't and didn't know Al. I'm glad you think he agrees with you on whatever you're talking about, whatever that means.
This isn't a golf board and honestly I don't care who considers who the best and how... Im referring to basketball. I am also not trying to select a #2-whatever.
My point is that the champion = the best team that season, because they were the only team to achieve that goal that year, which every team had an equal shot at. If any other team was better this year than Louisville
they would have won.
Quote from: WarriorInDC on April 10, 2013, 11:48:13 AM
Well, the best team doesn't always win in the tournament. Are you going to tell me that LaSalle and FGCU were better teams this year than Georgetown and Gonzaga?
none of those four teams won the tournament.... So yes none of those four were "the best team."
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 01:30:07 PM
No, the point of the tournament is to determine a champion. In some cases, the best team wins, in some cases it doesn't. It most certainly doesn't determine who is the best team, it determines who won the title, a big difference.
Would you give me an example of the last time the best team did not win the championship?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 01:30:07 PM
Who am I to argue with John Wooden, Jay Bilas, CM Newton, some guy named Al McGuire, etc.
I don't believe you've ever argued with any of them. Is this some sort of weird name dropping technique?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 10:44:33 PM
No....even Al McGuire said his own team wasn't the best. That's the irony in all this. That's also what makes the NCAA tourney so great, to win the championship you don't have to be the best. It isn't best of 5 or best of 7, anything can happen....a team that can't finishing in the top 8 of a conference can win that national title. That's what makes it magical.
I really didn't expect to have to explain my comment to you CBB. We are Marquette. Of course we were the best in 1977. Duh.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 10:42:20 PM
Who is the best golfer in the world? If that golfer doesn't win the Masters, must mean he is no longer the best because he isn't the champion.
Louisville women, runner-ups...by your logic they must be the 2nd best team because if they won, they would be the best. You are really going to tell us they were better than Notre Dame who they lost to by 29 points and by 24 points? But that's your logic and why it falls apart. Louisville got to play Cal in the Final Four, the true national title game was Uconn vs Notre Dame, the true two best teams.
This isn't hard...glad Al McGuire got it.
Al also "got" the value in JUCOs and non-traditionals. I'm sure he also "got" a lot of other things you would disagree with. what's your point?
The tournament defines "best" as champion - an objective definition. You're defining "best" arbitrarily or subjectively.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 10:44:33 PM
No....even Al McGuire said his own team wasn't the best. That's the irony in all this. That's also what makes the NCAA tourney so great, to win the championship you don't have to be the best. It isn't best of 5 or best of 7, anything can happen....a team that can't finishing in the top 8 of a conference can win that national title. That's what makes it magical.
You are over stating your case. Yes a great regular season team can be upset in a one game playoff, but rarely does the underdog winner continue on and go all the way. It takes a damn good team to win 6 winner take all games in a row, probably the best team, if not close to it.
"Best team" is pretty subjective until you have a playoff or tournament to determine who is the best. That's why they play the tournament. For you to imply that the tournament is some kind of crap shoot that any team can win if it gets hot is ridiculous, but I am sure it fits your agenda somehow.
By the way, Al obviously said some brilliant things, but he often said some things for effect and for a purpose. I wouldn't take any coaches opinion as fact they all have reasons for the things they say.
Quote from: hairyworthen on April 11, 2013, 08:02:18 AM
You are over stating your case. Yes a great regular season team can be upset in a one game playoff, but rarely does the underdog winner continue on and go all the way. It takes a damn good team to win 6 winner take all games in a row, probably the best team, if not close to it.
"Best team" is pretty subjective until you have a playoff or tournament to determine who is the best. That's why they play the tournament. For you to imply that the tournament is some kind of crap shoot that any team can win if it gets hot is ridiculous, but I am sure it fits your agenda somehow.
By the way, Al obviously said some brilliant things, but he often said some things for effect and for a purpose. I wouldn't take any coaches opinion as fact they all have reasons for the things they say.
It absolutely takes a "pretty damn good team" to win the tournament. I agree with that completely. I'm not personally aware of any team that didn't fit that description ever winning the tournament. But, that doesn't necessarily mean that the "best" team wins the tournament. They're the champion, and nobody can take that away from them, but it doesn't mean they're the "best" team. I think part of the disagreement comes from the fact that you're focusing on what it takes to win the tournament -- six wins. It takes a "pretty damn good team" to win those six games. But to get knocked out of the tournament, it only takes one loss. So, it's possible that the "best" team can lose a game to a "pretty damn good team" (or even a mediocre team on a hot shooting streak) in an earlier round. Sometimes that opens things up for some "pretty damn good teams" to win the tournament.
I agree with those who are saying the goal is to win the tournament, and that every team has that goal. I just don't agree that the team that achieves that goal is necessarily the "best" team.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on April 11, 2013, 08:26:25 AM
It absolutely takes a "pretty damn good team" to win the tournament. I agree with that completely. I'm not personally aware of any team that didn't fit that description ever winning the tournament. But, that doesn't necessarily mean that the "best" team wins the tournament. They're the champion, and nobody can take that away from them, but it doesn't mean they're the "best" team. I think part of the disagreement comes from the fact that you're focusing on what it takes to win the tournament -- six wins. It takes a "pretty damn good team" to win those six games. But to get knocked out of the tournament, it only takes one loss. So, it's possible that the "best" team can lose a game to a "pretty damn good team" (or even a mediocre team on a hot shooting streak) in an earlier round. Sometimes that opens things up for some "pretty damn good teams" to win the tournament.
I agree with those who are saying the goal is to win the tournament, and that every team has that goal. I just don't agree that the team that achieves that goal is necessarily the "best" team.
I take it you like that "pretty damn good team" phrase.
I guess it depends on your definition of "best team". To me the best team is the one that steps up when it matters, avoids the upsets and wins the six games in a row needed for the championship. To others it may be who was ranked higher, who has the highest rated recruits, who won the toughest conference, or who has the best (or favorite) coach. Those are mostly subjective. Winning the games in the tournament to decide the championship is not subjective. You win or you lose.
Quote from: hairyworthen on April 11, 2013, 08:41:20 AM
I take it you like that "pretty damn good team" phrase.
I guess it depends on your definition of "best team". To me the best team is the one that steps up when it matters, avoids the upsets and wins the six games in a row needed for the championship. To others it may be who was ranked higher, who has the highest rated recruits, who won the toughest conference, or who has the best (or favorite) coach. Those are mostly subjective. Winning the games in the tournament to decide the championship is not subjective. You win or you lose.
Again, we agree. That's why winning those games makes you the tournament champion. It doesn't necessarily make you the best team. Whether or not a team wins the tournament is as objective as it gets. Some people, myself included, think that this is not necessarily the same thing as being the "best" team.
I get that it's subjective. Sometimes sports are subjective. Some people love that about sports; some don't. Objectively, UWGB was a "better" team than Marquette this past season -- you play the game; you win or your lose. I personally think that subjectively, Marquette was a better team this season. That's an admittedly subjective opinion based upon a number of factors. I personally don't have a problem using the same kind of analysis on the tournament. Granted, the six games helps assure that a strong team will win the tournament, but they don't assure that the "best" team will win the tournament.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 04:42:58 PM
I believe I said usually. Let's put it this way, a team that has to make it based on their record through 162 games, then based on having to win (at the time) 11 games in the playoffs knowing any one loss doesn't eliminate them, is going to be a truer definition of the best team than a one and done.
I don't know what you mean by usually, but I looked at the last 5 years in MLB and found the following:
2012 - tied for 3rd "best" team in the NL (San Francisco) beats 6th "best" team in the AL (Detroit) in World Series.
2011 - 4th "best" team in the NL (St Louis) beats 2nd "best" team in the AL (Texas) in World Series.
2010 - 2nd "best" team in the NL (San Francisco) beats 4th "best" team in the AL (Texas) in World Series.
2009 - "Best" team in AL (New York) wins World Series over 2nd "best" NL team (Philadelphia)
2008 - 2nd "best" team in NL (Philadelphia) beats 2nd "best" team in AL (Tampa Bay) in World Series.
So in the last 5 years, the "best" team in the AL has made 1 World Series, the "best" team in the NL zero. And off the top of my head, lots of other "non bests" have won recently - (St Louis in 06, Florida in 03, etc).
The "best" team since they went to 162 games is the 2001 Seattle team (116 wins) that lost in the ALCS. The best post WWII team in the 154 game schedule is the 1954 Cleveland Indians (111 wins) who lost the Series to Willie Mays and the NY Giants.
So if the "best" team is the one with the most regular season wins....
Here's how I view it. The regular season (college basketball, MLB, whatever) is a long and arduous qualifying process for the championship season. There are awards (banners?) to be won along the way, but the purpose is to prepare and position one's team for a championship run. The better a team does, the easier their path. But no guarantees. Being the best in December (or July) means nothing in March or October. They're are some "upsets" but not as many as you'd think. For every Villanova/Gtown '85, they are lots of "overseeds" (Gonzaga) and "underprepareds" (Georgetown pretty much every year). And teams who peak at the right time (Syracuse) versus teams that peak too early (Indiana). That game is called an "upset", but it wasn't - a 7 game series wouldn't have saved the Hoosiers.
Bottom line. Of course, the team with the most talent doesn't always win - in any sport, under any format. That said, the teams who shine the brightest during the regular season are rewarded. They're given the easiest routes to the championship - weakest opponents, friendliest venues, etc. If it's a "crapshoot" the dice are certainly loaded in their favor. "Best?" If they don't perform, they don't deserve the moniker.
In 2008, the Cubs and Angels were the 2 best teams in MLB. They combined to go 1-6 in the playoffs.
Quote from: sixstrings03 on April 11, 2013, 04:39:58 AM
Would you give me an example of the last time the best team did not win the championship?
Easy: the 2011 UConn Huskies. Does anyone believe that a team who was .500 in conference but had their star player go on a rampage over the final four weeks of the season was really the year's best team? I'm sure there were teams across the country who watched that Godawful title game with Butler and thought "We could have beat the CRAP outta these guys!" And they're probably right. But that doesn't matter, because those teams didn't earn their way into that matchup w/ UConn. UConn did one thing better than any other team that year: survive the tournament.
A lot of you are right in saying the point of a season is to win a championship. That's what wins trophies, not being the best team that year (just ask that 18-1 Patriots team). But because the best team is most equipped to win those six straight games, they have the best chance of winning it all, and often do (last year's Kentucky team, U of L this year).
As far as every ranking after #1, who cares? Are you honestly going to remember this as the year we were "snubbed" with an 11 in the final rankings, or are you going to remember it with that "2013" stitched neatly alongside "1955, 1959, 1974, 1976, 1977, 2003"?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 11, 2013, 09:57:40 AM
I don't know what you mean by usually, but I looked at the last 5 years in MLB and found the following:
2012 - tied for 3rd "best" team in the NL (San Francisco) beats 6th "best" team in the AL (Detroit) in World Series.
2011 - 4th "best" team in the NL (St Louis) beats 2nd "best" team in the AL (Texas) in World Series.
2010 - 2nd "best" team in the NL (San Francisco) beats 4th "best" team in the AL (Texas) in World Series.
2009 - "Best" team in AL (New York) wins World Series over 2nd "best" NL team (Philadelphia)
2008 - 2nd "best" team in NL (Philadelphia) beats 2nd "best" team in AL (Tampa Bay) in World Series.
So in the last 5 years, the "best" team in the AL has made 1 World Series, the "best" team in the NL zero. And off the top of my head, lots of other "non bests" have won recently - (St Louis in 06, Florida in 03, etc).
The "best" team since they went to 162 games is the 2001 Seattle team (116 wins) that lost in the ALCS. The best post WWII team in the 154 game schedule is the 1954 Cleveland Indians (111 wins) who lost the Series to Willie Mays and the NY Giants.
So if the "best" team is the one with the most regular season wins....
Here's how I view it. The regular season (college basketball, MLB, whatever) is a long and arduous qualifying process for the championship season. There are awards (banners?) to be won along the way, but the purpose is to prepare and position one's team for a championship run. The better a team does, the easier their path. But no guarantees. Being the best in December (or July) means nothing in March or October. They're are some "upsets" but not as many as you'd think. For every Villanova/Gtown '85, they are lots of "overseeds" (Gonzaga) and "underprepareds" (Georgetown pretty much every year). And teams who peak at the right time (Syracuse) versus teams that peak too early (Indiana). That game is called an "upset", but it wasn't - a 7 game series wouldn't have saved the Hoosiers.
Bottom line. Of course, the team with the most talent doesn't always win - in any sport, under any format. That said, the teams who shine the brightest during the regular season are rewarded. They're given the easiest routes to the championship - weakest opponents, friendliest venues, etc. If it's a "crapshoot" the dice are certainly loaded in their favor. "Best?" If they don't perform, they don't deserve the moniker.
Great post, L.T.
A championship playoff is the only thing even close to being a legitimate way to decide which team is the "best." If a team appears to have the best talent or if it has the best record during the season but then can't hack it when the lights shine brightest, can that team possibly be called the best?
There are still those who claim the 77-78 Warriors were "better" than their 76-77 predecessors but were simply derailed by the whole Whitehead elbow/choke job against Ball State. Well, sorry ... but if the 78 Warriors were better, they would have overcome adversity and won. The 77 Warriors faced huge, huge challenges over and over again and repeatedly met those challenges. That's part of being "best." Maybe even the biggest part!
Quote from: mikekinsellaMVP on April 11, 2013, 10:15:25 AM
Easy: the 2011 UConn Huskies. Does anyone believe that a team who was .500 in conference but had their star player go on a rampage over the final four weeks of the season was really the year's best team? I'm sure there were teams across the country who watched that Godawful title game with Butler and thought "We could have beat the CRAP outta these guys!" And they're probably right. But that doesn't matter, because those teams didn't earn their way into that matchup w/ UConn. UConn did one thing better than any other team that year: survive the tournament.
A lot of you are right in saying the point of a season is to win a championship. That's what wins trophies, not being the best team that year (just ask that 18-1 Patriots team). But because the best team is most equipped to win those six straight games, they have the best chance of winning it all, and often do (last year's Kentucky team, U of L this year).
As far as every ranking after #1, who cares? Are you honestly going to remember this as the year we were "snubbed" with an 11 in the final rankings, or are you going to remember it with that "2013" stitched neatly alongside "1955, 1959, 1974, 1976, 1977, 2003"?
Well, you can't prove that the 2011 Huskies weren't the best, as they rose to the challenge and won the championship. Meanwhile, I can prove that every other team in college basketball that season wasn't the best because not a single one of them was good enough to win the championship.
MU is coming out of the Champion's conference, had a great year, made the Elite 8, and NOT ranked in the Top 10 at the end. That's Bullsh:t !!!
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 10:42:20 PM
Who is the best golfer in the world? If that golfer doesn't win the Masters, must mean he is no longer the best because he isn't the champion.
Golf and tennis are entirely different animals. There is not one single tournament or event that defines the ultimate champion. One golfer might say the Masters defines the best, another might say the U.S. Open and still another (especially if he's from Europe) might say the British Open. There is no playoff, no matter how desperately the PGA tries to make the FedEx Cup seem like it.
On the other hand, there is a playoff in every major U.S. team sport (except college football), and the winner of that playoff is the best.
Long thread short: in many (most?) cases, it simply is not possible to reach unanimity as to who the "best" team is or even as to how to define "best." That's one of the things I love about sports.
Quote from: MU82 on April 11, 2013, 10:18:40 AM
Well, you can't prove that the 2011 Huskies weren't the best, as they rose to the challenge and won the championship. Meanwhile, I can prove that every other team in college basketball that season wasn't the best because not a single one of them was good enough to win the championship.
You can prove that every other team in college basketball wasn't that year's national champion because they couldn't string together six straight victories when it mattered most.
No, I can't prove that that the Huskies weren't the best team in college basketball. Like a lot of things we can't prove, I'm looking at the empirical evidence from that season and putting together an observation. I do think that there were teams that year that, if they played UConn 100 times, would beat them 70-80 times. I think by definition, that's the better team, and the team who holds that edge over more teams than anyone else is the best. But that's not how we decide national champions. That's where this argument starts and ends. I can say Ohio Sate was that year's best team 'til I'm blue in the face, but I'm pretty sure Jim Calhoun and Kemba Walker don't really care.
Six
I gave you a Wall Street Journal article in which 73% of the champions aren't the best team. I have you a number of other articles pointing out how the best teams didn't win. I have you quotes from Jay Bilas and Mike K about their own Duke team that won it all and they knew UNLV was the better team.
On the Al stuff, he knew. We didn't even know if we were getting a bid that year until halftime of our final game. Some say if was a bid to say thanks to McGuire. We lost that game. We went on to win the tournament. At the 77 championship anniversary we did in 1997 we had a wonderful presentation by Al, hung a banner to retire '77. He spoke to the crowd about the accomplishment. I got to work with Al on that project as well as Rag Meyer, Digger Phelps, Dick Vitale, Billy Packer, Lou Carnesecca, Rafftery, and others. Got to interview some of those men...it was to this day one of the best experiences I ever had in my life. Much of the theme was about how not only wasn't this Al's best team, it wasn't the best team in the field by any stretch...but the stars aligned and a champion was crowned.
I have shared some of those interviews here in the past, happy to do so again. What an experience.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 11, 2013, 10:56:27 AM
Six
I gave you a Wall Street Journal article in which 73% of the champions aren't the best team. I have you a number of other articles pointing out how the best teams didn't win. I have you quotes from Jay Bilas and Mike K about their own Duke team that won it all and they knew UNLV was the better team.
On the Al stuff, he knew. We didn't even know if we were getting a bid that year until halftime of our final game. Some say if was a bid to say thanks to McGuire. We lost that game. We went on to win the tournament. At the 77 championship anniversary we did in 1997 we had a wonderful presentation by Al, hung a banner to retire '77. He spoke to the crowd about the accomplishment. I got to work with Al on that project as well as Rag Meyer, Digger Phelps, Dick Vitale, Billy Packer, Lou Carnesecca, Rafftery, and others. Got to interview some of those men...it was to this day one of the best experiences I ever had in my life. Much of the theme was about how not only wasn't this Al's best team, it wasn't the best team in the field by any stretch...but the stars aligned and a champion was crowned.
I have shared some of those interviews here in the past, happy to do so again. What an experience.
One thing we can all say with certainty is that Chicos is far and away "the best" when it comes to name-dropping.
Here are some numbers that should forever put to rest the notion that the NCAA tournament is nothing but a crap shoot based on match ups, luck, etc.:
In the last 24 years, the NCAA tournament has been won 17 times by a #1 seed, 3 times by a #2, 3 times by a #3 and once by a #4. I think almost anyone would agree that if you win 6 straight as a #1 seed you deserve the "best team" designation. That's 71%. And most would say that a #2 that wins 6 straight is also deserving. That's 83%. And some would say that a #3 or #4 could be called "best" after a championship.
So depending on one's definition of "best" (the Wall Street Journal non withstanding) somewhere between 71% and 100% of the past 24 champs have earned the the right to be referred to as the "best team".
Some upsets? Sure. More teams who are over seeded or under prepared? Absolutely. But overall, the cream rises. Much more chalk city than crap shoot.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 11, 2013, 11:10:33 AM
One thing we can all say with certainty is that Chicos is far and away "the best" when it comes to name-dropping.
Reminiscent of TC. Chicos was Plato to his Socrates.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 04:42:58 PM
I believe I said usually. Let's put it this way, a team that has to make it based on their record through 162 games, then based on having to win (at the time) 11 games in the playoffs knowing any one loss doesn't eliminate them, is going to be a truer definition of the best team than a one and done.
If the Chicago Bulls, who won 72 games in the regular season were eliminated on a one and done, would you really argue they weren't the best team that year? It would be simply they lost that day, but that doesn't mean they weren't the best team.
You load all of your grand proclamations with qualifiers so you're never wrong. And then complain when people point out that you are sometimes wrong because they ignored your overuse of qualifiers. Coming from a lawyer, you should be a lawyer.
Quote from: mikekinsellaMVP on April 11, 2013, 10:15:25 AMEasy: the 2011 UConn Huskies. Does anyone believe that a team who was .500 in conference but had their star player go on a rampage over the final four weeks of the season was really the year's best team?
Yup. I did at the time and I still believe that. Won a lot of pride (and maybe a little more than pride) on that game as I was the only person in my pool to pick UConn to win it all. Despite being 9-9 in conference play, UConn was still a 3-seed. Pretty clear that the Selection Committee saw them as more than just a .500-in-the-league team.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 11, 2013, 02:55:58 PM
Yup. I did at the time and I still believe that. Won a lot of pride (and maybe a little more than pride) on that game as I was the only person in my pool to pick UConn to win it all. Despite being 9-9 in conference play, UConn was still a 3-seed. Pretty clear that the Selection Committee saw them as more than just a .500-in-the-league team.
Dead on Brew. UCONN was 9-9 in conference, but 32-9 overall. 23-0 combined in pre-conference, Big East tourney and NCAA tourney ain't too shabby. They beat 4 ranked teams in 4 nights in the Big East tournament, #2 Michigan St and #11 Kentucky in pre-conference in addition to their NCAA run.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 11, 2013, 11:23:22 AM
Here are some numbers that should forever put to rest the notion that the NCAA tournament is nothing but a crap shoot based on match ups, luck, etc.:
In the last 24 years, the NCAA tournament has been won 17 times by a #1 seed, 3 times by a #2, 3 times by a #3 and once by a #4. I think almost anyone would agree that if you win 6 straight as a #1 seed you deserve the "best team" designation. That's 71%. And most would say that a #2 that wins 6 straight is also deserving. That's 83%. And some would say that a #3 or #4 could be called "best" after a championship.
So depending on one's definition of "best" (the Wall Street Journal non withstanding) somewhere between 71% and 100% of the past 24 champs have earned the the right to be referred to as the "best team".
Some upsets? Sure. More teams who are over seeded or under prepared? Absolutely. But overall, the cream rises. Much more chalk city than crap shoot.
The Wall Street Journal, Fox Sports, ESPN, Albert McGuire, your favorite Jay Bilas, etc disagree with you
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 11, 2013, 09:57:40 AM
I don't know what you mean by usually, but I looked at the last 5 years in MLB and found the following:
2012 - tied for 3rd "best" team in the NL (San Francisco) beats 6th "best" team in the AL (Detroit) in World Series.
2011 - 4th "best" team in the NL (St Louis) beats 2nd "best" team in the AL (Texas) in World Series.
2010 - 2nd "best" team in the NL (San Francisco) beats 4th "best" team in the AL (Texas) in World Series.
2009 - "Best" team in AL (New York) wins World Series over 2nd "best" NL team (Philadelphia)
2008 - 2nd "best" team in NL (Philadelphia) beats 2nd "best" team in AL (Tampa Bay) in World Series.
You're comparing unequal schedules, records, etc. The Angels last year had a BETTER record than the Tigers, yet the Tigers made the playoffs and the Angels didn't. Just one example, but there are many. How is a 100-62 record in the AL Central vs a 100-62 record in the NL West? They're not the same, but that's what you're trying to do in assessing their rankings. So going down that path alone is troublesome.
The more important point was in proving it out, however, over a 7 game series vs a one game series, the more data points you have the more likely the better team will win. That's why USUALLY the NBA, NHL, MLB prove out who the best team is because it's over the long haul and not one and one.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 11, 2013, 11:10:33 AM
One thing we can all say with certainty is that Chicos is far and away "the best" when it comes to name-dropping.
Proud of that moment and I believe in honesty in my description and painting a full picture. Don't like the full, honest approach, don't read it.
Here's two of the videos of the Ray Meyer interviews we did. Coach Carnesecca was fantastic. As were all the others. Great times and warmly appreciated by Al who thanked us in several, personal ways....one of which I still have on my wall and is one of my most cherished items.
I love how Ray Meyer says you have to have luck in the NCAA Tournament....hmmmm....a few here that mock the "luck" portion might want to take notice from one of the greats.
http://www.youtube.com/v/MqAm3U8sorM
http://www.youtube.com/v/V6rJULv0aqo
Quote from: hairyworthen on April 11, 2013, 08:02:18 AM
You are over stating your case. Yes a great regular season team can be upset in a one game playoff, but rarely does the underdog winner continue on and go all the way. It takes a damn good team to win 6 winner take all games in a row, probably the best team, if not close to it.
"Best team" is pretty subjective until you have a playoff or tournament to determine who is the best. That's why they play the tournament. For you to imply that the tournament is some kind of crap shoot that any team can win if it gets hot is ridiculous, but I am sure it fits your agenda somehow.
By the way, Al obviously said some brilliant things, but he often said some things for effect and for a purpose. I wouldn't take any coaches opinion as fact they all have reasons for the things they say.
Agree, it takes a pretty damn good team to win 6, no one ever said differently. All that was said by me, Al McGuire, John Wooden, Jay Bilas, etc, etc, is that often the BEST team doesn't get through. Doesn't mean a really good team didn't win it, but often the best team doesn't. That's all anyone ever said.
I'd take Al's opinion for fact, because he said it when he was out of coaching. So did Bilas about his Duke team he was assistant coach of, so did Wooden, etc. They have nothing to prove at that point....they are just being honest.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 11, 2013, 07:47:19 PM
The more important point was in proving it out, however, over a 7 game series vs a one game series, the more data points you have the more likely the better team will win. That's why USUALLY the NBA, NHL, MLB prove out who the best team is because it's over the long haul and not one and one.
Except there's nothing in the data to support what you're saying.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 11, 2013, 07:43:52 PM
The Wall Street Journal, Fox Sports, ESPN, Albert McGuire, your favorite Jay Bilas, etc disagree with you
So say you, but they haven't voiced any disagreement with my post to me yet. Neither have you. I guess it's easier to try to make a joke than to respond to facts that contradict your opinion.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 11, 2013, 07:56:43 PM
I'd take Al's opinion for fact, because he said it when he was out of coaching. So did Bilas about his Duke team he was assistant coach of, so did Wooden, etc. They have nothing to prove at that point....they are just being honest.
and that's your opinion... One I'm choosing to disagree
Can someone give a definition of what they mean by "best" other than the winner of the tourney? Might help me have a clearer understanding of the other side.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 11, 2013, 07:43:52 PM
The Wall Street Journal, Fox Sports, ESPN, Albert McGuire, your favorite Jay Bilas, etc disagree with you
Some of us don't care who disagrees with us or agrees with us.
While I respect many of those people and media outlets, not one of them can prove that any particular team in any particular team is the "best." All they have are opinions, and you know what they say about opinions being like butt-holes.
I, on the other hand, can prove that the champion is the best. Because the champion is the champion, and there's nothing better than the champion.
So keep having fun with your semantics. I challenge you to show any irrefutable evidence that a non-champion is the best team in any year.
While it is hard to say that the best team is not the team that wins the championship, I think there is something to be said for looking beyond what a team does in a 3 week stretch of the year. When deciding on the best team, the team's entire body of work must be considered. If Wichita State had won this year, I don't think many people would be saying they were the best team in the nation. They were a very good team, that got extremely hot at the right time. If you look at their entire body of work over the whole season, there is no way they could compete with with teams like Louisville, Duke, Kansas etc... The NCAA tournament is set up so the best team does not always win. Anything can happen in a single game, teams have a poor shooting night, referees, injuries, unlucky bounces, yada yada yada. That is what makes the NCAAs so exciting, because anything can happen in a given game, unlike the NBA where it's extremely hard to get lucky in a 7 game series.
Quote from: MU82 on April 11, 2013, 10:37:17 PM
I challenge you to show any irrefutable evidence that a non-champion is the best team in any year.
I have provided plenty, from experts in the field. Post below has data to back it up, here's just another one....about 33% of the time in the NCAA tournament the best team wins championship. Wall Street Journal found something similar. NFL its about 24%. NBA and NHL have the highest probabilities, because of the longer series.
http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/blog/?p=102
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 11, 2013, 08:00:59 PM
Except there's nothing in the data to support what you're saying.
Data a plenty. I would start by reading Scorecasting, fantastic book....I mean that, absolutely fantastic.
http://scorecasting.com/
Or read the work done by Ben-Naim and Nicolas Hengartner....all data backed on more than 300,000 games played.
Just one of the studies they have done, includes NCAA tournament. http://cnls.lanl.gov/~ebn/talks/sports-mich.pdf
Or may I suggest
The Drunkard's Walk; How Randomness Rules Our Lives by Leonard Mlodinow....here's a good passage from his book:
"if one team is good enough to warrant beating another in 55% of its games, the
weaker team will nevertheless win a 7-game series about 4 times out of 10. And if the superior team could beat its opponent, on average, 2 out of 3 times they meet, the inferior team
will still win a 7-game series about once every 5 match-ups. There is really no way for a sports league to change this. In the lopsided 2/3-probability case, for example, you'd have to play a series consisting of at minimum the best of 23 games to determine the winner with what is called statistical significance, meaning the weaker team would be crowned champion 5 percent or less of the time. And in the case of one team's having only a 55-45 edge, the shortest significant "world series"
would be the best of 269 games, a tedious endeavor indeed! So sports playoff series can be fun and exciting, but being crowned "world champion" is not a reliable indication that a team is actually the best one."
Or famed Baseball guru, Bill James in his essay, "How Often Does the Best Team Actually Win?, "The belief that in a 162-game schedule the luck will even out is certainly unfounded --- but that unfounded belief may also be essential to the health of the game. Would people lose interest in baseball if they realized that the best team doesn't win nearly half the time?
Would it damage the perception of the World Series if people realized that the best team in baseball only emerges with the crown about 30% of the time? For me, no. It would not damage my interest, and for most of you also, I suspect. I am afraid that for some people, the answer would be the other one. I've learned a lot of surprising things in running these simulations, and I'm happy to have that knowledge....But I don't think it's something I'm going to talk about a whole lot."
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 11, 2013, 07:47:19 PM
That's why USUALLY the MLB prove out who the best team is because it's over the long haul and not one and one.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 11, 2013, 11:37:57 PM
Would it damage the perception of the World Series if people realized that the best team in baseball only emerges with the crown about 30% of the time?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 11, 2013, 11:23:26 PM
about 33% of the time in the NCAA tournament the best team wins championship
Hmmm, your own posts indicate that the NCAA tourney isn't any more random than any other sport, but I do actually agree with your premise. The team that wins the NCAA, Super Bowl, or World Series is often not universally thought of as the best team, and probably aren't, but in my opinion any team that can't complete the journey also can't be considered the best team that year. So in 1996, if the 72-10 Bulls lost to the Sonics in the NBA Finals, then I would say that the Sonics won the title and probably weren't the best team, but the Bulls don't have a stake to that claim either, since their regular season was all for naught in terms of the ultimate goal.
Of course, this whole argument is stupid and semantic. People are always only going to ever remember the champion, and that's what counts in the record book. Nobody cares who the "best" team is if they don't hoist the hardware.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 11, 2013, 11:23:26 PM
I have provided plenty, from experts in the field. Post below has data to back it up, here's just another one....about 33% of the time in the NCAA tournament the best team wins championship. Wall Street Journal found something similar. NFL its about 24%. NBA and NHL have the highest probabilities, because of the longer series.
http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/blog/?p=102
NONE OF THAT IS
PROOF.
NONE OF IT!!!UConn proved it was the best team in 2011 by winning the championship. What did Ohio State, Kansas and BYU -- the top 3 teams in the final regular-season polls that year -- prove other than that they were just good enough to not win when it really counted?
I'm done here. This is a silly semantics thing. Define "best team" however you'd like.
Goofy me, I'll stick with the team that wins when the championship is on the line.
Quote from: MU82 on April 11, 2013, 10:37:17 PM
Some of us don't care who disagrees with us or agrees with us.
This - I don't choose to outsource my critical thinking to others.
I think you have unlocked the core of the Chicos douchiness
Poster: I think Crean is a douche!
Chicos: Others would disagree with you
Why don't you take your own stance here and disagree without outsourcing your critical thinking?
Quote from: jmayer1 on April 12, 2013, 01:36:48 AM
Of course, this whole argument is stupid and semantic. People are always only going to ever remember the champion, and that's what counts in the record book. Nobody cares who the "best" team is if they don't hoist the hardware.
This is it. You don't get awards or accolades for being the perceived best team, (unless you are IU)
Quote from: jmayer1 on April 12, 2013, 01:36:48 AM
Of course, this whole argument is stupid and semantic. People are always only going to ever remember the champion, and that's what counts in the record book. Nobody cares who the "best" team is if they don't hoist the hardware.
Agree 100%.
Who cares who "the best team" is? Being the best team means absolutely nothing if you don't win a championship.
There obviously have been times when the obvious best team did not win and I still feel they were best time that year. Too lazy to look everything up but Houston was best team when Jimmy V beat them. I will remember that team a long time and will remember the shot that beat them as well. Every once in awhile a great team does lose, yet team was so stacked people remember. Georgetown losing to Villanova is another example to me.
To be clear I'm not taking the position that others are wrong because we have a different opinion on "best"
Goose - respect, especially since you're sticking to how you feel about it
Quote from: Goose on April 12, 2013, 07:52:29 AM
There obviously have been times when the obvious best team did not win and I still feel they were best time that year. Too lazy to look everything up but Houston was best team when Jimmy V beat them. I will remember that team a long time and will remember the shot that beat them as well. Every once in awhile a great team does lose, yet team was so stacked people remember. Georgetown losing to Villanova is another example to me.
I think those Houston and Gtown teams are remembered more due to the upsets that were pulled off, possibly not because of how good they were. If they had both lost to another really good team in the Championship, would they be remembered as much? Not sure either way, but I think they are the outliers of people remembering the "best" team if they didn't win a title.
JMayer
The Houston team was one of greatest teams I have ever seen in watching college ball. Two NBA HOF'ers on one college team is quite impressive.