MUScoop

I've always said no.  It CAN, but it doesn't always.  Not with a one and done crapshoot. 

No, but over time the best programs make final fours and win national championships.  Still a good measure of program success if not a clear determinant of the best bball team each season.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 16, 2015, 02:11:47 PM
I've always said no.  It CAN, but it doesn't always.  Not with a one and done crapshoot. 

The. Wouldn't the answer be both yes, and no?

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 16, 2015, 02:22:00 PM
The. Wouldn't the answer be both yes, and no?

Sounds like we need another thread to find out.

This is entering Ners level of (obsession+creating new threads) on one topic.

Quote from: g0lden3agle on March 16, 2015, 02:27:15 PM
This is entering Ners level of (obsession+creating new threads) on one topic.

"Does the NCAA Tournament throw the best team under the bus?"

Sometimes.     It always identifies the team who can win 6 straight under pressure. 

It determines the National Champion....which is all anyone cares about.......

Ditto for the Super Bowl, World Series, College Football Playoff and NBA Championship.

Quote from: MUfan12 on March 16, 2015, 02:28:30 PM
"Does the NCAA Tournament throw the best team under the bus?"

No, but it plays mind games.

Uconn was not the best team last year.

Who cares? Some years there's a clear "best team" (this year's Kentucky). Other years there's great debate after the regular season as to who was the "best". The purpose of the postseason (in any sport) is to crown a champion, not determine who was the best team a month or several months ago. Champions who win their titles on the court, the ice, the diamond, the gridiron, etc., make all the childish debating a moot point. A National Championship, Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, World Series dwarfs the regular season. Nobody wants to hear from some whiner about how they were really the "best" even though they lost when it mattered most. Childish.

The goal isn't to be the best team.  The goal is to win a championship.  Sometimes those align.  Oftentimes they don't.

Quote from: Johnny B on March 16, 2015, 02:45:37 PM
Uconn was not the best team last year.

Yeah, but they're the champs. What else matters? And who was the "best"? Florida? Arizona? Wisconsin? Kentucky? Nobody knows, nobody cares.

Do the Kid's Choice Awards determine the best cartoon?

Marquette wasn't the best team in 1977.

We might have been in 1971, 1972 or 1978.

Yes.  The list of past champions sure reads like a list of the best teams over history...

http://www.ncaa.com/history/basketball-men/d1

To me, the champion is the best team each year - period.

And it's all about me!

Quote from: GooooMarquette on March 16, 2015, 02:57:26 PM
Marquette wasn't the best team in 1977.

We might have been in 1971, 1972 or 1978.

MU and UNC were 1 or 2 in the pre-season wire service and magazine polls.  MU was derailed by Al's resignation announcement in December, 1976.  So much pressure along with the decision to start Bill Neary.  Worked out well in the end as Al started to use Toone and Dudleey more (see Kansas state, Cincinnati and UNC games).  In the end, I think it ended up being the best team.

The best team is defined as the one that wins the NCAA tournament, so yes.   :P 


If you use a different definition of "best team", probably not.  If there's a way to determine the best team that gets better consensus, is practical to implement, makes a ton of money, and is still gosh darn fun, I'm all ears.   

In '77 it did.

It *can*. The NCAA tournament determines the team that did the best in the tournament (e.g., as measured by not losing - which can be dependent on seeding/when and who you played/etc.). It's far from a "crapshoot," but there are always many possibilities.

I don't believe there are NCAA champions who didn't play some very strong games during the tournament.

But this is a topic for dumb sports talk shows. It does nothing for me except pass a little time while I'm eating and doing something else (wink wink).

Quote from: MuMark on March 16, 2015, 02:43:18 PM
It determines the National Champion....which is all anyone cares about.......

Ditto for the Super Bowl, World Series, College Football Playoff and NBA Championship.

This.  The regular season is to identify top teams.  The championships are to define who is the best when it matters.  All championships are equivalent in that matter

Quote from: rocky_warrior on March 16, 2015, 03:24:47 PM
Yes.  The list of past champions sure reads like a list of the best teams over history...

http://www.ncaa.com/history/basketball-men/d1

That was exactly my point.  It may not determine the best team each and every year, but over time the best programs win championships.  

If Kentucky loses in the tourney this year, I will still believe they were the best team this year.  That stated, History also tells us that if a team other than the Wildcats wins the trophy, it will probably be one of the top programs each year, e.g. Duke, Arizona, etc.

Quote from: MUSF on March 16, 2015, 02:14:30 PM
No, but over time the best programs make final fours and win national championships.  Still a good measure of program success if not a clear determinant of the best bball team each season.

Couldn't have said it better myself

Quote from: MUSF on March 16, 2015, 06:46:38 PM
That was exactly my point.  It may not determine the best team each and every year, but over time the best programs win championships.  

If Kentucky loses in the tourney this year, I will still believe they were the best team this year.  That stated, History also tells us that if a team other than the Wildcats wins the trophy, it will probably be one of the top programs each year, e.g. Duke, Arizona, etc.

If Kentucky doesn't win the NC few will care that they were undefeated in the regular season....like Wichita State last year.

Quote from: GooooMarquette on March 16, 2015, 02:57:26 PM
Marquette wasn't the best team in 1977.

We might have been in 1971, 1972 or 1978.

Shhhh, a lot of people say heresay to that.....even though Al agrees.


Thank you for the input.  I'm surprised that 25% think it determines the best team.  If Kentucky does not win this year, I wonder if those 25% would change their vote.  Anything can happen.  The tournament determines a champion, sometimes it crowns the best team as the champion and both scenarios happen, but the championship itself doesn't mean that is the best team, IMO (and Al's).

Quote from: rocky_warrior on March 16, 2015, 03:24:47 PM
Yes.  The list of past champions sure reads like a list of the best teams over history...

http://www.ncaa.com/history/basketball-men/d1

A lot of teams on that list that weren't the best team in that year. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 16, 2015, 07:37:29 PM

Shhhh, a lot of people say heresay to that.....even though Al agrees.


Thank you for the input.  I'm surprised that 25% think it determines the best team.  If Kentucky does not win this year, I wonder if those 25% would change their vote.  Anything can happen.  The tournament determines a champion, sometimes it crowns the best team as the champion and both scenarios happen, but the championship itself doesn't mean that is the best team, IMO (and Al's).

No I would not change my vote if Kentucky does not win it this year.  Do they have the most talent, yes, but they lack experience.  Talent alone does not make the best team.  Talent often cracks under pressure. 

Quote from: MuMark on March 16, 2015, 02:43:18 PM
It determines the National Champion....which is all anyone cares about.......

Ditto for the Super Bowl, World Series, College Football Playoff and NBA Championship.

As a life long Yankee fan I know they are the "Best Team in Baseball"; so no the winner of the World Series does not determine who the best team in Baseball is, unless it's the Yankees. Got it!

Quote from: forgetful on March 16, 2015, 08:07:58 PM
No I would not change my vote if Kentucky does not win it this year.  Do they have the most talent, yes, but they lack experience.  Talent alone does not make the best team.  Talent often cracks under pressure. 

Fair answer.  I'm just curious those that say Kentucky is the best team and it isn't close...the absolute die hard slam dunk, no chance they lose crew....then if UK loses, would they change their approach.

UNLV was clearly the best team in the country a number of years ago....they lost in the Final Four.  I'm not sure if UNLV played Duke 25 times if Duke would win more than 3 or 4 times, but that was a day they did.  Duke won the title, UNLV was the best team.  A gazillion examples like that over the NCAA tournament.  Just as Butler wasn't the second best team in the country both times they finished runner-up, but they still finished 2nd in the tournament.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 16, 2015, 02:11:47 PM
I've always said no.  It CAN, but it doesn't always.  Not with a one and done crapshoot. 

You should get a custom lincence plate "crapshoot." it's clearly your favorite word. if it's taken I'd recommend redundant dingleberry (or an abbreviation thereof).

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 16, 2015, 07:39:46 PM
A lot of teams on that list that weren't the best team in that year.  

They were better than the rest when it mattered most.  Therefore the best.

Maybe it's a snapshot in time, but they won the right number of games at the right time to be crowned the best in the country that year.

I know you'll never agree, and start 3,000,000,000 more topics about being a crapshoot.  But, to quote Kid Rock, "You could say I'm wrong but you ain't right"

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 16, 2015, 09:28:36 PM

Fair answer.  I'm just curious those that say Kentucky is the best team and it isn't close...the absolute die hard slam dunk, no chance they lose crew....then if UK loses, would they change their approach.

Yes. If Kentucky loses, I will immediately say they weren't the best team.

Here's the deal ...

If they lose, I can say, "My proof Kentucky isn't the best team? My proof is that they lost."

That might not be enough proof for some, but it's a hell of a lot more proof than the guy claiming that a losing team is the best can offer.

It's like when some asshat is talkin' trash even though his team is down by 20. All the guy on the winning team has to do is point at the scoreboard.

If Kentucky loses yet people keep claiming they're the best, all I have to do is point at the team holding the trophy.

Why do so many people try to make so many things more complicated than they need to be? I guess they just love arguing for funsies.

Quote from: RichardShaw on March 16, 2015, 09:34:48 PM
You should get a custom lincence plate "crapshoot." it's clearly your favorite word. if it's taken I'd recommend redundant dingleberry (or an abbreviation thereof).

Even in California we don't have that many letters for a personalized plate.  I opted for Redskins instead

Quote from: rocky_warrior on March 16, 2015, 09:52:59 PM
They were better than the rest when it mattered most.  Therefore the best.

Maybe it's a snapshot in time, but they won the right number of games at the right time to be crowned the best in the country that year.

I know you'll never agree, and start 3,000,000,000 more topics about being a crapshoot.  But, to quote Kid Rock, "You could say I'm wrong but you ain't right"

It's ok if I don't agree, that's what a message board is about.  The other 75% that disagree with you might feel differently....and Al Mcguire.   :)

The initial question is a destructive question rather than a constructive question. It is easy to tear down the NCAA tournament as a decider of the best team.

The proper question should be: What is the best manner of selecting the best team in any given year?

In order to come to a consensus on the best manner, I propose we have a "manner tournament" where we pit different manners of selecting the best team (ie. tournament, RPI, Ner's personal high school experiences, etc.) versus each other in a one 'n done, tournament style bracket.

The question then, however, will be, does the "manner tournament" determine the best manner for determining the best team? That is a difficult question. We would likely need to have a best manner of determining the best manner for determining the best team tournament. Each manner of determining the best manner for determining the best team would face off against each other in a one 'n done tournament style bracket.

And so and so forth...

Quote from: MUCam on March 17, 2015, 12:12:05 PM
The initial question is a destructive question rather than a constructive question. It is easy to tear down the NCAA tournament as a decider of the best team.

The proper question should be: What is the best manner of selecting the best team in any given year?

In order to come to a consensus on the best manner, I propose we have a "manner tournament" where we pit different manners of selecting the best team (ie. tournament, RPI, Ner's personal high school experiences, etc.) versus each other in a one 'n done, tournament style bracket.

The question then, however, will be, does the "manner tournament" determine the best manner for determining the best team? That is a difficult question. We would likely need to have a best manner of determining the best manner for determining the best team tournament. Each manner of determining the best manner for determining the best team would face off against each other in a one 'n done tournament style bracket.

And so and so forth...

Post of the week.

Quote from: MUCam on March 17, 2015, 12:12:05 PMThe proper question should be: What is the best manner of selecting the best team in any given year?

Boom. So simple question. How should the champion be crowned?

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 17, 2015, 12:21:43 PM
Boom. So simple question. How should the champion be crowned?

The champion should be crowned exactly as it is crowned.  The same way it's determined in all other sports (unless you are in the Ivy League....)  Sure a best of 7 makes it more likely to have the best team, but not reasonable here.
They get trophies at the other levels.... win the conference.... win the conference tournament... you are still rewarded for doing those things, but you just don't get the big reward unless you win on the biggest stage.

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 17, 2015, 12:21:43 PM
Boom. So simple question. How should the champion be crowned?

Final Pomeroy ranking.  Screw the tournament.

I would think 90% of the time there would be a different champion, if you immediately replayed the whole tournament. So in that sense it is not the best team.

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 17, 2015, 12:21:43 PM
Boom. So simple question. How should the champion be crowned?

FT%

Ok so I'm assuming that the people who said yes don't believe that the 11-12 team was any better than one of the best 16 teams and that the 08-09 team was only one of the best 32 teams.  But that meanwhile the 12-13 team was one of the best 8 teams?

The way I see it though if we'd ended up against Mizzou in the sweet 16 instead of Florida we likely would've been in the elite 8 or final four in 11-12.  The NCAA tournament shows us a lot about responding under pressure, the ability for coaches to prepare their players, player maturity, etc. But it is about match ups to. A team placed in a different spot could end up being in the final four instead of out in the first round. 

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 17, 2015, 12:21:43 PM
Boom. So simple question. How should the champion be crowned?

Already have a great tool for the champion...the NCAA tournament.   The key is to note that the champion doesn't mean the best team.  It means the team that won a 6 game tournament and played the right teams, in the right settings, and won them all.  It wasn't a round robin, they didn't play all 67 other teams, they might have had an easier path, might have played games in their backyard, could have faced teams that had off nights, so on and so forth, but they were the champion of that 6 game, 3 week tournament.   They might also be the best team in the country, too.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 17, 2015, 08:01:38 PMAlready have a great tool for the champion...the NCAA tournament.   The key is to note that the champion doesn't mean the best team.  It means the team that won a 6 game tournament and played the right teams, in the right settings, and won them all.  It wasn't a round robin, they didn't play all 67 other teams, they might have had an easier path, might have played games in their backyard, could have faced teams that had off nights, so on and so forth, but they were the champion of that 6 game, 3 week tournament.   They might also be the best team in the country, too.

So if the NCAA Tournament is the best way to crown a champion, what's the problem?

Quote from: bilsu on March 17, 2015, 01:24:36 PM
I would think 90% of the time there would be a different champion, if you immediately replayed the whole tournament. So in that sense it is not the best team.

Not a bad idea. Perhaps they should keep playing until next November.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 17, 2015, 08:01:38 PM
Already have a great tool for the champion...the NCAA tournament.   The key is to note that the champion doesn't mean the best team.  It means the team that won a 6 game tournament and played the right teams, in the right settings, and won them all.  It wasn't a round robin, they didn't play all 67 other teams, they might have had an easier path, might have played games in their backyard, could have faced teams that had off nights, so on and so forth, but they were the champion of that 6 game, 3 week tournament.   They might also be the best team in the country, too.

Will you at least concede that the best programs/coaches win national championships at some point?

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 17, 2015, 08:29:22 PM
So if the NCAA Tournament is the best way to crown a champion, what's the problem?

If I remember the genesis of this debate correctly, it was started over whether a coach should be judged on his/her regular season record or his/her postseason performance. Many judge coaches on their postseason performance which Chicos believes to be illogical due to the crapshootiness of the tournament. I actually agree with this.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 18, 2015, 10:13:03 AM
If I remember the genesis of this debate correctly, it was started over whether a coach should be judged on his/her regular season record or his/her postseason performance. Many judge coaches on their postseason performance which Chicos believes to be illogical due to the crapshootiness of the tournament. I actually agree with this.

Right. Let's not judge teams/coaches on how they do in Super Bowls, the World Series or the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Regular season winning % is much more important. And let's not judge golfers or tennis players on what they do in the majors. Two John Deere Classic wins > a Masters Green Jacket. I don't know what alternative universe you guys live in but the regular season, while great fun and an opportunity for solid accomplishment, is mostly to put your team in the best possible position (highest seed, home field, etc.,) to win the CHAMPIONSHIP decided in the postseason. Cutting the nets down in Anchorage or after a home loss in Bloomington is fine but it absolutely pales in comparison to cutting them down ay the Final Four.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 18, 2015, 10:40:48 AM
Right. Let's not judge teams/coaches on how they do in Super Bowls, the World Series or the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Regular season winning % is much more important. And let's not judge golfers or tennis players on what they do in the majors. Two John Deere Classic wins > a Masters Green Jacket. I don't know what alternative universe you guys live in but the regular season, while great fun and an opportunity for solid accomplishment, is mostly to put your team in the best possible position (highest seed, home field, etc.,) to win the CHAMPIONSHIP decided in the postseason. Cutting the nets down in Anchorage or after a home loss in Bloomington is fine but it absolutely pales in comparison to cutting them down ay the Final Four.

Exactly.

Doug Collins did a great job of getting the Bulls from Point B to Point B+. The Bulls were regular-season winners. But they wanted to get to Point A+, and they determined they needed to change coaches to do so. It worked out OK that the Bulls made such a judgment.

The Tampa Bay Bucs did the same with Dungy. That worked out OK, too.

Of course, there are many instances of teams firing successful coaches because they couldn't win only to find the teams tanking under the successors.

For me, I look at the total picture when I judge college basketball coaches. I like a history of regular-season success and I like to believe the coach is at least advancing the program toward the ultimate goal -- which, in the major conferences, should be a national title. I am realistic enough to know how difficult it is to win a title and how many factors are involved, so as an alum I was pleased with the direction of the program under Buzz (until his final season) and, generally, under Crean.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 18, 2015, 10:40:48 AM
Right. Let's not judge teams/coaches on how they do in Super Bowls, the World Series or the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Regular season winning % is much more important. And let's not judge golfers or tennis players on what they do in the majors. Two John Deere Classic wins > a Masters Green Jacket. I don't know what alternative universe you guys live in but the regular season, while great fun and an opportunity for solid accomplishment, is mostly to put your team in the best possible position (highest seed, home field, etc.,) to win the CHAMPIONSHIP decided in the postseason. Cutting the nets down in Anchorage or after a home loss in Bloomington is fine but it absolutely pales in comparison to cutting them down ay the Final Four.

Agreed.
In fact, I would argue that coach whose teams shine in the regular season but disappoint in the postseason often is judged much more harshly than a coach whose teams "play to their seed" in the postseason.

I'm just in it for the conference shares.

I don't disagree that winning in the postseason is important, but I think in college basketball, very few programs have the ability to judge their coaches based on postseason performance. Only the Kentuckys, Dukes, and UCLAs of the world will ever fire a coach for not advancing in the postseason. Mark Few will never be fired from Gonzaga despite consistently underperforming in the tourney. JT3 will never be fired from Georgetown. Etc. The bar for most college teams should be making the tournament. Anything else is gravy.

Bumpity bump

Quote from: forgetful on March 16, 2015, 08:07:58 PM
No I would not change my vote if Kentucky does not win it this year.  Do they have the most talent, yes, but they lack experience.  Talent alone does not make the best team.  Talent often cracks under pressure. 

In a 7 game series, Kentucky wins....they would see how stupid they played tonight and adjust.  In a one and down crapshoot environment, anything can happen.  That's the beauty of the NCAA tournament.

It's how a team with 5 NBA players as starters fail to advance to the NCAA title game and came within a whisker of missing the Final Four.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 05, 2015, 12:47:56 AM
In a 7 game series, Kentucky wins....they would see how stupid they played tonight and adjust.  In a one and down crapshoot environment, anything can happen.  That's the beauty of the NCAA tournament.

It's how a team with 5 NBA players as starters fail to advance to the NCAA title game and came within a whisker of missing the Final Four.

I actually think either UW or Duke beats Kentucky in a 7 game series.  Better coaching, smarter players.

In this case, if UW wins Monday night, total crapshoot.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 05, 2015, 12:47:56 AM
In a 7 game series, Kentucky wins....they would see how stupid they played tonight and adjust. 

You state the above as fact when, obviously, it's just your opinion.

But what if ... I don't know ... Wisconsin actually is the better team?

Maybe not necessarily the team with the best player at each position, but the better TEAM. Kind of like the '77 Trail Blazers, who arguably weren't as talented up and down the lineup as the 76ers but were the better TEAM. Or the 2011 Mavs, who arguably weren't as talented as the Heat but were the better TEAM.

Besides, why should one assume that Kentucky would be able to make adjustments but Wisconsin wouldn't be able to counter those with adjustments of their own?

This wasn't Nova over Ewing. Wisconsin didn't need to shoot an unreal percentage to win. This wasn't a fluke. As we sit here today, there is no reason to believe Wisconsin isn't the better team.

Quote from: MU82 on April 05, 2015, 03:43:44 PM
You state the above as fact when, obviously, it's just your opinion.

But what if ... I don't know ... Wisconsin actually is the better team?

Maybe not necessarily the team with the best player at each position, but the better TEAM. Kind of like the '77 Trail Blazers, who arguably weren't as talented up and down the lineup as the 76ers but were the better TEAM. Or the 2011 Mavs, who arguably weren't as talented as the Heat but were the better TEAM.

Besides, why should one assume that Kentucky would be able to make adjustments but Wisconsin wouldn't be able to counter those with adjustments of their own?

This wasn't Nova over Ewing. Wisconsin didn't need to shoot an unreal percentage to win. This wasn't a fluke. As we sit here today, there is no reason to believe Wisconsin isn't the better team.

I think if they played 10 games it would end up 5-5 or one team might have a 6-4 advantage.

When I look at offense vs. defense (UW's offense is as dominant as UK's defense) and defense vs. offense (UW's defense is better that UK's offense), the result was not surprising at all.

Bo Ryan was the difference, IMO. We all know that he is a stickler for doing things his way. Yet, once it came tournament time - he turned his stars loose. He's allowing Dekker to take shots that would have quickly put him on the bench last year.

I honestly think that Bo thought all along that he had the best team in the country. He has looked more relaxed on the sidelines, even smiling at times. He has been less grinch-like than I have ever seen him at UW.

Quote from: brandx on April 05, 2015, 04:12:00 PM
I think if they played 10 games it would end up 5-5 or one team might have a 6-4 advantage.

When I look at offense vs. defense (UW's offense is as dominant as UK's defense) and defense vs. offense (UW's defense is better that UK's offense), the result was not surprising at all.

Bo Ryan was the difference, IMO. We all know that he is a stickler for doing things his way. Yet, once it came tournament time - he turned his stars loose. He's allowing Dekker to take shots that would have quickly put him on the bench last year.

I honestly think that Bo thought all along that he had the best team in the country. He has looked more relaxed on the sidelines, even smiling at times. He has been less grinch-like than I have ever seen him at UW.

Agree with most of what you said but the bolded is wrong. UW ranks 55th in the country in adjusted defense while UK was 5th in Adjusted offense.

Quote from: MUEagle1090 on April 05, 2015, 04:26:38 PM
Agree with most of what you said but the bolded is wrong. UW ranks 55th in the country in adjusted defense while UK was 5th in Adjusted offense.

I'm not questioning the stats, but when I watch Kentucky there offense always looks out of sync. And, I think that may be because they have too many stars. While Towns is an outstanding player, he is dependent on someone getting him the ball in the right position. Same with Cauley-Stein, Johnson, and, even Lyles to an extent. The bigs are all one-dimensional. Their offense never looks like it has any sort of flow.

Compare that to Kaminsky, Hayes, and Dekker. All three can post up AND all three can get the ball 25 feet from the basket and initiate a play. The UK bigs do not have those abilities.

Quote from: MU82 on April 05, 2015, 03:43:44 PM
You state the above as fact when, obviously, it's just your opinion.

But what if ... I don't know ... Wisconsin actually is the better team?

Maybe not necessarily the team with the best player at each position, but the better TEAM. Kind of like the '77 Trail Blazers, who arguably weren't as talented up and down the lineup as the 76ers but were the better TEAM. Or the 2011 Mavs, who arguably weren't as talented as the Heat but were the better TEAM.

Besides, why should one assume that Kentucky would be able to make adjustments but Wisconsin wouldn't be able to counter those with adjustments of their own?

This wasn't Nova over Ewing. Wisconsin didn't need to shoot an unreal percentage to win. This wasn't a fluke. As we sit here today, there is no reason to believe Wisconsin isn't the better team.

Correct, my opinion and shared by experts across the country, by DePaul Mathematics professor that I interviewed for tournament odds, etc.    But yes, my opinion and theirs.

So question for you....is Wisconsin the best team?

Quote from: forgetful on April 05, 2015, 03:15:29 PM
I actually think either UW or Duke beats Kentucky in a 7 game series.  Better coaching, smarter players.

No question better coaching, perhaps smarter players...the beauty of a 7 game series is that adjustments can be made and usually the better players come to the top.  Usually...or another way to put it, less reliance on coaching.

Quote from: mu-rara on April 05, 2015, 03:30:37 PM
In this case, if UW wins Monday night, total crapshoot.

Yep, beating UNC, Arizona, Kentucky and Duke in succession would truly mean it's a crapshoot and the Badgers did not deserve to win.  ::) They are a 1 seed, for goodness sakes.

Quote from: statnik on April 05, 2015, 06:09:19 PM
Yep, beating UNC, Arizona, Kentucky and Duke in succession would truly mean it's a crapshoot and the Badgers did not deserve to win.  ::) They are a 1 seed, for goodness sakes.

Not near the crapshoot this year as other years, but UK was the overall #1 seed and Wisconsin was the 4th overall #1 seed.  What was "supposed" to happen is UK vs Villanova according to the committee.  Didn't happen.  Wisconsin is very good, not surprising they are there.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 05, 2015, 07:51:52 PM
Not near the crapshoot this year as other years, but UK was the overall #1 seed and Wisconsin was the 4th overall #1 seed.  What was "supposed" to happen is UK vs Villanova according to the committee.  Didn't happen.  Wisconsin is very good, not surprising they are there.

False.

The committee may have felt UK and Nova (?) were deserving of the top 2 seeds. That's something different than what you said.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 05, 2015, 05:15:16 PM
Correct, my opinion and shared by experts across the country, by DePaul Mathematics professor that I interviewed for tournament odds, etc.    But yes, my opinion and theirs.

So question for you....is Wisconsin the best team?

Oh yeah, we're still waiting for the big article to be published. LOL.

Three #1 seeds in the FF, two playing one another for the title. Awfully chalky. Biggest crapshoot in all of sports? Not this year, not ever.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 05, 2015, 05:15:16 PM

So question for you....is Wisconsin the best team?

Absolutely, if they win Monday night.

Otherwise, Duke is the best team.

See how easy that is?

Coach K wins his 5th National Title... man that guy is a really lucky crapshooter.

Once again, a team that couldn't even win it's conference, wins the national championship.

Quote from: MUSF on April 06, 2015, 10:26:53 PM
Coach K wins his 5th National Title... man that guy is a really lucky crapshooter.

Especially last year....losing to Mercer in the first round....or three years ago....losing to LeHigh in the first round.  How soon we forget.

Hell no, the best team didn't even make the tournament this year.  Or the NIT.  Wow, I wonder how often that's happened?

Quote from: Jay Bee on April 05, 2015, 08:05:07 PM
False.

The committee may have felt UK and Nova (?) were deserving of the top 2 seeds. That's something different than what you said.

They are seeded based on best to worst.....feel free to read what the chairman has said the last few years.

Nova got the overall number 2 seed, UK the overall #1 seed.  If it plays to the NCAA committees overall seeding, those two were supposed to meet for the title.   Didn't happen.

Sorry, you are wrong.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 06, 2015, 10:38:45 PM
Once again, a team that couldn't even win it's conference, wins the national championship.

Why don't you start a poll: Who's the better team? Regular season champ Virginia or National Champion Duke? Very few people dumb enough (other than you, I guess) to say Virginia.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 06, 2015, 10:40:33 PM
Especially last year....losing to Mercer in the first round....or three years ago....losing to LeHigh in the first round.  How soon we forget.

Upsets and the fact that "the best team" doesn't always win don't make the tournament simply a crapshoot.

I agree that the best team doesn't win, but I continue to maintain, that over time, the best programs win National Championships and have consistent tourney success.  That is why your depiction of the tourney as a crapshoot is disingenuous.  The term insinuates that tourney success is more about luck than ability and I don't think the data remotely backs that up. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 06, 2015, 10:38:45 PM
Once again, a team that couldn't even win it's conference, wins the national championship.

That's because conference tournaments are crapshoots, silly!

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 06, 2015, 10:38:45 PM
Once again, a team that couldn't even win it's conference, wins the national championship.

The Best two teams played in the championship and the Best team won.

More than any other year I think this season showed that the best teams in the nation play for the championship.

Incidently, the classiest team, the best coached team and the most talented team won tonight.