Does the NCAA tournament determine the best team?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[forgetful]

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. 

[muwarrior69]

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!

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[SWARM!]

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).

[rocky_warrior]

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"

[MU82]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.   

[MUCam]

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...

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[brewcity77]

The 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?

[RushmoreAcademy]

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.

[chapman]

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

Final Pomeroy ranking.  Screw the tournament.

[bilsu]

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.

[MU Buff]

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

FT%

[Galway Eagle]

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. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

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

[muwarrior69]

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.

[MUSF]

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?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.