Final rankings

[hairy worthen]

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.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[MerrittsMustache]

In 2008, the Cubs and Angels were the 2 best teams in MLB. They combined to go 1-6 in the playoffs.

[mikekinsellaMVP]

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"?

[MU82]

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!

[MU82]

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.

[Sunbelt15]

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 !!!

[MU82]

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.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[mikekinsellaMVP]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[MerrittsMustache]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[slingkong]

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.

[brewcity77]

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?

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

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.