Does the NCAA tournament determine the best team?

[JakeBarnes]

I'm just in it for the conference shares.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Bumpity bump

[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. 

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.

[forgetful]

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.

[mu-rara]

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

[MU82]

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.

[brandx]

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.

[BM1090]

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.

[brandx]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[statnik]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Jay Bee]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[MU82]

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?

[MUSF]

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

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Dawson Rental]

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

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[MUSF]

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. 

[MU82]

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

That's because conference tournaments are crapshoots, silly!