Jay Billas is one of the biggest squares alive.
That quote tells me you're really not a college bball fan. There were must see games almost every day (except fri and sun) and 2 or 3 every saturday.
How are they supposed to pick a champion in college bball? Have the computers pick Kansas and Ohio St to play each other after the conference tournies? That sounds horrible. The best team has to prove it...not just by winning one game...but by winning 6 or 7....Kansas got beat by a team "that shouldnt have even been in the tourney". yet they were a top 4 team....Why should they just have to win one game to get the championship when the obviously dont deserve it.
That quote tells me you're really not a college bball fan. There were must see games almost every day (except fri and sun) and 2 or 3 every saturday.
How are they supposed to pick a champion in college bball? Have the computers pick Kansas and Ohio St to play each other after the conference tournies? That sounds horrible. The best team has to prove it...not just by winning one game...but by winning 6 or 7....Kansas got beat by a team "that shouldnt have even been in the tourney". yet they were a top 4 team....Why should they just have to win one game to get the championship when the obviously dont deserve it.
That quote tells me you're really not a college bball fan. There were must see games almost every day (except fri and sun) and 2 or 3 every saturday.
How are they supposed to pick a champion in college bball? Have the computers pick Kansas and Ohio St to play each other after the conference tournies? That sounds horrible. The best team has to prove it...not just by winning one game...but by winning 6 or 7....Kansas got beat by a team "that shouldnt have even been in the tourney". yet they were a top 4 team....Why should they just have to win one game to get the championship when the obviously dont deserve it.
That's why it's called a question - there is potentially more than one answer to it. For you, there are (if my math holds up here) 50-70 "must-see" CBB games every year, even though the impact of any of those games on the season as a whole figures to be pretty minimal. That's fine. For you, the system as presently constituted works fine, and there's nothing wrong with that. Really. I find I watch about 20% of the college hoops I used to watch, as I have trouble buying into the concept that most of it means anything. I would, therefore, prefer a sysytem that places more emphasis on the regular season. There's nothing wrong with that either. For what it's worth, I have no prayer of getting my way, so you're going to have a lot better time during the regular season than I am for the foreseeable future; again, that's fine. So far, so good.
Here's where things skidded off the rails: How are they supposed to pick a champion in college bball? Have the computers pick Kansas and Ohio St to play each other after the conference tournies? That sounds horrible. The best team has to prove it....
Not only didn't I suggest that, I'm pretty sure I said I liked the Tournament. What's funny here though, is that you don't mean "the best team," even though it's easy to slip into that language if you're not very careful. Looking back over the past 40 years of the Tournament, it seems like the Tourney gives you a winner that could, at least arguably, be considered the BEST team in the country about 75% of the time. So, 25% of the time you get a winner that nobody thinks is the best team in country. And only about 40% of the time do you get a winner that probably was the best team. Seems like the Tournament is actually a really crappy way for trying to make sure "the best team.. prove[s] it." You, like me, like the Tourament because it's fun, not because it's good a figuring out who's the best.
That quote tells me you're really not a college bball fan. There were must see games almost every day (except fri and sun) and 2 or 3 every saturday.
How are they supposed to pick a champion in college bball? Have the computers pick Kansas and Ohio St to play each other after the conference tournies? That sounds horrible. The best team has to prove it...not just by winning one game...but by winning 6 or 7....Kansas got beat by a team "that shouldnt have even been in the tourney". yet they were a top 4 team....Why should they just have to win one game to get the championship when the obviously dont deserve it.
That's why it's called a question - there is potentially more than one answer to it. For you, there are (if my math holds up here) 50-70 "must-see" CBB games every year, even though the impact of any of those games on the season as a whole figures to be pretty minimal. That's fine. For you, the system as presently constituted works fine, and there's nothing wrong with that. Really. I find I watch about 20% of the college hoops I used to watch, as I have trouble buying into the concept that most of it means anything. I would, therefore, prefer a sysytem that places more emphasis on the regular season. There's nothing wrong with that either. For what it's worth, I have no prayer of getting my way, so you're going to have a lot better time during the regular season than I am for the foreseeable future; again, that's fine. So far, so good.
Here's where things skidded off the rails: How are they supposed to pick a champion in college bball? Have the computers pick Kansas and Ohio St to play each other after the conference tournies? That sounds horrible. The best team has to prove it....
Not only didn't I suggest that, I'm pretty sure I said I liked the Tournament. What's funny here though, is that you don't mean "the best team," even though it's easy to slip into that language if you're not very careful. Looking back over the past 40 years of the Tournament, it seems like the Tourney gives you a winner that could, at least arguably, be considered the BEST team in the country about 75% of the time. So, 25% of the time you get a winner that nobody thinks is the best team in country. And only about 40% of the time do you get a winner that probably was the best team. Seems like the Tournament is actually a really crappy way for trying to make sure "the best team.. prove[s] it." You, like me, like the Tourament because it's fun, not because it's good a figuring out who's the best.
Mr. Droxide, you don't fight fair either.
Really? One must see game in college basketball this entire year. With all due respect you might want to take a few weeks off of betting CBA and just watch. Watch a West Virginia at Pitt game, Georgetown at Syracuse, Kansas at Kansas St or North Carolina at Duke and tell me they don't matter...Meaningless? [I didn't ask whether you found them enjoyable, interesting, compelling. I asked how many were "must-see." Several of the games you mentioned were among my favorites from the CBB season, but I planned my night around none of them. I doubt you did either. I have already made arrangements to see that my calendar is free on several football Satrudays next fall] You need to look again because I watch those games and they have every bit the passion and matter for seeding and possible entry into the tournament [I think that's largely still true, which is a credit to the kids; further tournament expansion would jeopardize this; still, I am unable to get sufficiently interested in seeding issues to pretend that many are more than well-played exhibition games]
The rest of your post is fair. I don't agree with most of it, but I understand it.
Mr. Droxide, you don't fight fair either.
Really? One must see game in college basketball this entire year. With all due respect you might want to take a few weeks off of betting CBA and just watch. Watch a West Virginia at Pitt game, Georgetown at Syracuse, Kansas at Kansas St or North Carolina at Duke and tell me they don't matter...Meaningless? [I didn't ask whether you found them enjoyable, interesting, compelling. I asked how many were "must-see." Several of the games you mentioned were among my favorites from the CBB season, but I planned my night around none of them. I doubt you did either. I have already made arrangements to see that my calendar is free on several football Satrudays next fall] You need to look again because I watch those games and they have every bit the passion and matter for seeding and possible entry into the tournament [I think that's largely still true, which is a credit to the kids; further tournament expansion would jeopardize this; still, I am unable to get sufficiently interested in seeding issues to pretend that many are more than well-played exhibition games]
The rest of your post is fair. I don't agree with most of it, but I understand it.
Mr. Droxide, you don't fight fair either.
Really? One must see game in college basketball this entire year. With all due respect you might want to take a few weeks off of betting CBA and just watch. Watch a West Virginia at Pitt game, Georgetown at Syracuse, Kansas at Kansas St or North Carolina at Duke and tell me they don't matter...Meaningless? [I didn't ask whether you found them enjoyable, interesting, compelling. I asked how many were "must-see." Several of the games you mentioned were among my favorites from the CBB season, but I planned my night around none of them. I doubt you did either. I have already made arrangements to see that my calendar is free on several football Satrudays next fall] You need to look again because I watch those games and they have every bit the passion and matter for seeding and possible entry into the tournament [I think that's largely still true, which is a credit to the kids; further tournament expansion would jeopardize this; still, I am unable to get sufficiently interested in seeding issues to pretend that many are more than well-played exhibition games]
The rest of your post is fair. I don't agree with most of it, but I understand it.
Mr. Droxide, you don't fight fair either.
Really? One must see game in college basketball this entire year. With all due respect you might want to take a few weeks off of betting CBA and just watch. Watch a West Virginia at Pitt game, Georgetown at Syracuse, Kansas at Kansas St or North Carolina at Duke and tell me they don't matter...Meaningless? [I didn't ask whether you found them enjoyable, interesting, compelling. I asked how many were "must-see." Several of the games you mentioned were among my favorites from the CBB season, but I planned my night around none of them. I doubt you did either. I have already made arrangements to see that my calendar is free on several football Satrudays next fall] You need to look again because I watch those games and they have every bit the passion and matter for seeding and possible entry into the tournament [I think that's largely still true, which is a credit to the kids; further tournament expansion would jeopardize this; still, I am unable to get sufficiently interested in seeding issues to pretend that many are more than well-played exhibition games]
The rest of your post is fair. I don't agree with most of it, but I understand it.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.