Final rankings

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.   

[The Equalizer]

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?   

[jesmu84]

If the press truly considered Davidson to be superior, then why would they call them the "up-set" kings?   

because of the seeds.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[77ncaachamps]

#11 ticks me off. Should be a Top Ten ranking.


Another chip on the shoulder for Buzz and Crew.

[jesmu84]

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.

[The Equalizer]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[source?]

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?

[WarriorInNYC]

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.

[MU82]

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?"

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

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

[Lighthouse 84]

Was Marquette the "best team" in 1977.

Yes.  What a stupid question.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[AZWarrior]

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.   

[keefe]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

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.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

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."

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

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?

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?

[Lighthouse 84]

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.

[jesmu84]

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.

[hairy worthen]

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.

[StillAWarrior]

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.