Silly thread.
If you want commentators who won't say a bad word about coaches, players, the selection process, etc., watch the CBS Football Show.
Bilas isn't afraid to speak his mind. So VCU has surprised everyone. Good for them. How many teams would have done the same had they made the tourney? Are we sure Colorado would not have? We will never know.
The fact remains that the numbers say that VCU was a surprise team. They had a chance to make the tourney without the suspense and they failed, just like hundreds of other teams. Calling their inclusion a surprise and wrong was right, based on the numbers.
Silly thread.
If you want commentators who won't say a bad word about coaches, players, the selection process, etc., watch the CBS Football Show.
Bilas isn't afraid to speak his mind. So VCU has surprised everyone. Good for them. How many teams would have done the same had they made the tourney? Are we sure Colorado would not have? We will never know.
The fact remains that the numbers say that VCU was a surprise team. They had a chance to make the tourney without the suspense and they failed, just like hundreds of other teams. Calling their inclusion a surprise and wrong was right, based on the numbers.
Well, that's certainly one way to look at it; not the right one, of course, but one way to look at it. I'm sure people who drop $5,000/year on Pitt season tickets will be thrilled to know that they will get to watch Syracuse and Georgetown "work out the kinks" at the scenic Petterson Center on snowy Wednesday nights. Your applause for 9,000 meaningless games, methinks, is misplaced.
Well, that's certainly one way to look at it; not the right one, of course, but one way to look at it. I'm sure people who drop $5,000/year on Pitt season tickets will be thrilled to know that they will get to watch Syracuse and Georgetown "work out the kinks" at the scenic Petterson Center on snowy Wednesday nights. Your applause for 9,000 meaningless games, methinks, is misplaced.
Well, that's certainly one way to look at it; not the right one, of course, but one way to look at it. I'm sure people who drop $5,000/year on Pitt season tickets will be thrilled to know that they will get to watch Syracuse and Georgetown "work out the kinks" at the scenic Petterson Center on snowy Wednesday nights. Your applause for 9,000 meaningless games, methinks, is misplaced.
Well, that's certainly one way to look at it; not the right one, of course, but one way to look at it. I'm sure people who drop $5,000/year on Pitt season tickets will be thrilled to know that they will get to watch Syracuse and Georgetown "work out the kinks" at the scenic Petterson Center on snowy Wednesday nights. Your applause for 9,000 meaningless games, methinks, is misplaced.
OK, Let me try again. This is tricky, and I understand that not all people will agree with me.
First, I reject the notion that we have to settle who the best team is "on the field." As often as not, "settling it on the field" reults in someone other than the best team being crowned champion. What a playoff gives you is a playoff winner. Some years that's the 1989 UNLV hoops team (where the best team won the title). Some years it's the 1990 UNLV hoops team (where the best team didn't win the title). It is what it is.
Now, with that said, I basically like the NCAA Tourney. This is largely because I really don't give a rat's ass who the national champion is. I like the fun of the tournament, and if the most deserving team (say, Houston 1983 or Georgetown 1985 or Oklahoma 1988) doesn't win, that's ok. I'm willing to trade the chance that the best team doesn't get crowned for the "madness." Note also that basketball lends itself very well to this format. You can play two games in three days, four games in seven days, etc., and all basketball courts are essentially created equal. There are no "dome" or "warm weather" or "cold weather" or "astroturf" issues and the like. You could play the whole Tourney in Japan if you wanted to.
Now, the downside of March Madness is that you risk making an awful lot that leads up to it basically meaningless. By way of illustration, let me ask the following question? How many nust-see college basketball games were there this regular and conference tournament season? As I am sure you're aware, I'm a pretty big college sports fan, and for me there was exactly one such game - BYU at SDSU. That's it. One - and that game only qualified because I had seen so little of those two teams at the time.
How many must-see college football games are there each year? For me, I suspect the aswer is something like 20, probably more. Why? Because EVERYTHING matters in college football. And, I'm not willing to give that up just so there's no dispute about who the eventual national champion is. Again. I don't really care who the national champ is. I hope it's someone I don't hate. I hope it's someone deserving. But I really don't lose sleep. The season itself is too much fun to risk screwing it up just to get a "winner."
All this talk about real champions being settled on the field is bunk. Suppose LSU runs the table next year? Beats Oregon in Dallas, Bama and WVU on the road, Gators and Arky and Auburn at home. What would a post-season tournament that a 10-2 USC winds up winning in Los Angeles prove? Nothing, but we'd have a winner.
VCU probably shouldn't be in the Tournament. The same could be said for a UNC team that went to the Final Four a decade ago. When teams like that get in, and do well, you get dangerously close to having a college basketball regular season that means nothing at all. I"m not sure we're already not there.
OK, Let me try again. This is tricky, and I understand that not all people will agree with me.
First, I reject the notion that we have to settle who the best team is "on the field." As often as not, "settling it on the field" reults in someone other than the best team being crowned champion. What a playoff gives you is a playoff winner. Some years that's the 1989 UNLV hoops team (where the best team won the title). Some years it's the 1990 UNLV hoops team (where the best team didn't win the title). It is what it is.
Now, with that said, I basically like the NCAA Tourney. This is largely because I really don't give a rat's ass who the national champion is. I like the fun of the tournament, and if the most deserving team (say, Houston 1983 or Georgetown 1985 or Oklahoma 1988) doesn't win, that's ok. I'm willing to trade the chance that the best team doesn't get crowned for the "madness." Note also that basketball lends itself very well to this format. You can play two games in three days, four games in seven days, etc., and all basketball courts are essentially created equal. There are no "dome" or "warm weather" or "cold weather" or "astroturf" issues and the like. You could play the whole Tourney in Japan if you wanted to.
Now, the downside of March Madness is that you risk making an awful lot that leads up to it basically meaningless. By way of illustration, let me ask the following question? How many nust-see college basketball games were there this regular and conference tournament season? As I am sure you're aware, I'm a pretty big college sports fan, and for me there was exactly one such game - BYU at SDSU. That's it. One - and that game only qualified because I had seen so little of those two teams at the time.
How many must-see college football games are there each year? For me, I suspect the aswer is something like 20, probably more. Why? Because EVERYTHING matters in college football. And, I'm not willing to give that up just so there's no dispute about who the eventual national champion is. Again. I don't really care who the national champ is. I hope it's someone I don't hate. I hope it's someone deserving. But I really don't lose sleep. The season itself is too much fun to risk screwing it up just to get a "winner."
All this talk about real champions being settled on the field is bunk. Suppose LSU runs the table next year? Beats Oregon in Dallas, Bama and WVU on the road, Gators and Arky and Auburn at home. What would a post-season tournament that a 10-2 USC winds up winning in Los Angeles prove? Nothing, but we'd have a winner.
VCU probably shouldn't be in the Tournament. The same could be said for a UNC team that went to the Final Four a decade ago. When teams like that get in, and do well, you get dangerously close to having a college basketball regular season that means nothing at all. I"m not sure we're already not there.
OK, Let me try again. This is tricky, and I understand that not all people will agree with me.
First, I reject the notion that we have to settle who the best team is "on the field." As often as not, "settling it on the field" reults in someone other than the best team being crowned champion. What a playoff gives you is a playoff winner. Some years that's the 1989 UNLV hoops team (where the best team won the title). Some years it's the 1990 UNLV hoops team (where the best team didn't win the title). It is what it is.
Now, with that said, I basically like the NCAA Tourney. This is largely because I really don't give a rat's ass who the national champion is. I like the fun of the tournament, and if the most deserving team (say, Houston 1983 or Georgetown 1985 or Oklahoma 1988) doesn't win, that's ok. I'm willing to trade the chance that the best team doesn't get crowned for the "madness." Note also that basketball lends itself very well to this format. You can play two games in three days, four games in seven days, etc., and all basketball courts are essentially created equal. There are no "dome" or "warm weather" or "cold weather" or "astroturf" issues and the like. You could play the whole Tourney in Japan if you wanted to.
Now, the downside of March Madness is that you risk making an awful lot that leads up to it basically meaningless. By way of illustration, let me ask the following question? How many nust-see college basketball games were there this regular and conference tournament season? As I am sure you're aware, I'm a pretty big college sports fan, and for me there was exactly one such game - BYU at SDSU. That's it. One - and that game only qualified because I had seen so little of those two teams at the time.
How many must-see college football games are there each year? For me, I suspect the aswer is something like 20, probably more. Why? Because EVERYTHING matters in college football. And, I'm not willing to give that up just so there's no dispute about who the eventual national champion is. Again. I don't really care who the national champ is. I hope it's someone I don't hate. I hope it's someone deserving. But I really don't lose sleep. The season itself is too much fun to risk screwing it up just to get a "winner."
All this talk about real champions being settled on the field is bunk. Suppose LSU runs the table next year? Beats Oregon in Dallas, Bama and WVU on the road, Gators and Arky and Auburn at home. What would a post-season tournament that a 10-2 USC winds up winning in Los Angeles prove? Nothing, but we'd have a winner.
VCU probably shouldn't be in the Tournament. The same could be said for a UNC team that went to the Final Four a decade ago. When teams like that get in, and do well, you get dangerously close to having a college basketball regular season that means nothing at all. I"m not sure we're already not there.
I think this sums things up pretty well. I'll add that in college hoops, there are several must win games before the tourney and those several are your conference tourney if you wouldn't automatically qualify.
A team like VCU is fun for the sport, but in the end, it does point to the idea that Maine espoused...what does the regular season mean? And how many teams are there were capable of pulling off a VCU had they made it in? We will never know those answers.
In the end, are we more excited for a UConn/Butler championship or would we have been more excited for the prospect of KU/OSU had both teams made the final four?
The answer will vary depending on who you cheer for and how you see the game.
The VCU run isn't good for the sport...rather it IS the sport. And of course, with the more teams added, the more likely you have teams that make such runs (just by the numbers themselves). But you do move down a path where the regular season becomes obsolete. Do we start to see a trend where teams practice various defenses at the end of the year, completely in preparation for the tournament? Do we see players rested? Do we see intentionally losing the conference tourney?
The answers to the above is I doubt it because 14 of the Sweet 16 either won or were runners up in their conference tourneys. But conference tourneys really aren't the regular season. That same VCU lost 5/6 in that. Are we now telling teams that the regular season means nothing. That's the worry.
OK, Let me try again. This is tricky, and I understand that not all people will agree with me.
First, I reject the notion that we have to settle who the best team is "on the field." As often as not, "settling it on the field" reults in someone other than the best team being crowned champion. What a playoff gives you is a playoff winner. Some years that's the 1989 UNLV hoops team (where the best team won the title). Some years it's the 1990 UNLV hoops team (where the best team didn't win the title). It is what it is.
Now, with that said, I basically like the NCAA Tourney. This is largely because I really don't give a rat's ass who the national champion is. I like the fun of the tournament, and if the most deserving team (say, Houston 1983 or Georgetown 1985 or Oklahoma 1988) doesn't win, that's ok. I'm willing to trade the chance that the best team doesn't get crowned for the "madness." Note also that basketball lends itself very well to this format. You can play two games in three days, four games in seven days, etc., and all basketball courts are essentially created equal. There are no "dome" or "warm weather" or "cold weather" or "astroturf" issues and the like. You could play the whole Tourney in Japan if you wanted to.
Now, the downside of March Madness is that you risk making an awful lot that leads up to it basically meaningless. By way of illustration, let me ask the following question? How many nust-see college basketball games were there this regular and conference tournament season? As I am sure you're aware, I'm a pretty big college sports fan, and for me there was exactly one such game - BYU at SDSU. That's it. One - and that game only qualified because I had seen so little of those two teams at the time.
How many must-see college football games are there each year? For me, I suspect the aswer is something like 20, probably more. Why? Because EVERYTHING matters in college football. And, I'm not willing to give that up just so there's no dispute about who the eventual national champion is. Again. I don't really care who the national champ is. I hope it's someone I don't hate. I hope it's someone deserving. But I really don't lose sleep. The season itself is too much fun to risk screwing it up just to get a "winner."
All this talk about real champions being settled on the field is bunk. Suppose LSU runs the table next year? Beats Oregon in Dallas, Bama and WVU on the road, Gators and Arky and Auburn at home. What would a post-season tournament that a 10-2 USC winds up winning in Los Angeles prove? Nothing, but we'd have a winner.
VCU probably shouldn't be in the Tournament. The same could be said for a UNC team that went to the Final Four a decade ago. When teams like that get in, and do well, you get dangerously close to having a college basketball regular season that means nothing at all. I"m not sure we're already not there.
I think this sums things up pretty well. I'll add that in college hoops, there are several must win games before the tourney and those several are your conference tourney if you wouldn't automatically qualify.
A team like VCU is fun for the sport, but in the end, it does point to the idea that Maine espoused...what does the regular season mean? And how many teams are there were capable of pulling off a VCU had they made it in? We will never know those answers.
In the end, are we more excited for a UConn/Butler championship or would we have been more excited for the prospect of KU/OSU had both teams made the final four?
The answer will vary depending on who you cheer for and how you see the game.
The VCU run isn't good for the sport...rather it IS the sport. And of course, with the more teams added, the more likely you have teams that make such runs (just by the numbers themselves). But you do move down a path where the regular season becomes obsolete. Do we start to see a trend where teams practice various defenses at the end of the year, completely in preparation for the tournament? Do we see players rested? Do we see intentionally losing the conference tourney?
The answers to the above is I doubt it because 14 of the Sweet 16 either won or were runners up in their conference tourneys. But conference tourneys really aren't the regular season. That same VCU lost 5/6 in that. Are we now telling teams that the regular season means nothing. That's the worry.
VCU was a 2 point win in the CAA tournament in Round 1 of not even making this insane run....
But their Chuck N Duck offense has gotten hot at the right time...3 tourney games where they made 12 3's after not making more than 11 in their previous 30 games....
Great run for the Rams....
VCU was a 2 point win in the CAA tournament in Round 1 of not even making this insane run....
But their Chuck N Duck offense has gotten hot at the right time...3 tourney games where they made 12 3's after not making more than 11 in their previous 30 games....
Great run for the Rams....
I think this sums things up pretty well. I'll add that in college hoops, there are several must win games before the tourney and those several are your conference tourney if you wouldn't automatically qualify.
A team like VCU is fun for the sport, but in the end, it does point to the idea that Maine espoused...what does the regular season mean? And how many teams are there were capable of pulling off a VCU had they made it in? We will never know those answers.
In the end, are we more excited for a UConn/Butler championship or would we have been more excited for the prospect of KU/OSU had both teams made the final four?
The answer will vary depending on who you cheer for and how you see the game.
The VCU run isn't good for the sport...rather it IS the sport. And of course, with the more teams added, the more likely you have teams that make such runs (just by the numbers themselves). But you do move down a path where the regular season becomes obsolete. Do we start to see a trend where teams practice various defenses at the end of the year, completely in preparation for the tournament? Do we see players rested? Do we see intentionally losing the conference tourney?
The answers to the above is I doubt it because 14 of the Sweet 16 either won or were runners up in their conference tourneys. But conference tourneys really aren't the regular season. That same VCU lost 5/6 in that. Are we now telling teams that the regular season means nothing. That's the worry.
Hmm. I think you and me being in total agreement on something may be one of the first signs of the apocalypse.
I think this sums things up pretty well. I'll add that in college hoops, there are several must win games before the tourney and those several are your conference tourney if you wouldn't automatically qualify.
A team like VCU is fun for the sport, but in the end, it does point to the idea that Maine espoused...what does the regular season mean? And how many teams are there were capable of pulling off a VCU had they made it in? We will never know those answers.
In the end, are we more excited for a UConn/Butler championship or would we have been more excited for the prospect of KU/OSU had both teams made the final four?
The answer will vary depending on who you cheer for and how you see the game.
The VCU run isn't good for the sport...rather it IS the sport. And of course, with the more teams added, the more likely you have teams that make such runs (just by the numbers themselves). But you do move down a path where the regular season becomes obsolete. Do we start to see a trend where teams practice various defenses at the end of the year, completely in preparation for the tournament? Do we see players rested? Do we see intentionally losing the conference tourney?
The answers to the above is I doubt it because 14 of the Sweet 16 either won or were runners up in their conference tourneys. But conference tourneys really aren't the regular season. That same VCU lost 5/6 in that. Are we now telling teams that the regular season means nothing. That's the worry.
Hmm. I think you and me being in total agreement on something may be one of the first signs of the apocalypse.
Hmm. I think you and me being in total agreement on something may be one of the first signs of the apocalypse.
Never forget the scene in White Men Can't Jump where the crowd watches the Lakers game.
If politics makes for strange bedfellows, sports makes for intimately stranger bedmates.
Hmm. I think you and me being in total agreement on something may be one of the first signs of the apocalypse.
Never forget the scene in White Men Can't Jump where the crowd watches the Lakers game.
If politics makes for strange bedfellows, sports makes for intimately stranger bedmates.
OK, Let me try again. This is tricky, and I understand that not all people will agree with me.
First, I reject the notion that we have to settle who the best team is "on the field." As often as not, "settling it on the field" reults in someone other than the best team being crowned champion. What a playoff gives you is a playoff winner. Some years that's the 1989 UNLV hoops team (where the best team won the title). Some years it's the 1990 UNLV hoops team (where the best team didn't win the title). It is what it is.
Now, with that said, I basically like the NCAA Tourney. This is largely because I really don't give a rat's ass who the national champion is. I like the fun of the tournament, and if the most deserving team (say, Houston 1983 or Georgetown 1985 or Oklahoma 1988) doesn't win, that's ok. I'm willing to trade the chance that the best team doesn't get crowned for the "madness." Note also that basketball lends itself very well to this format. You can play two games in three days, four games in seven days, etc., and all basketball courts are essentially created equal. There are no "dome" or "warm weather" or "cold weather" or "astroturf" issues and the like. You could play the whole Tourney in Japan if you wanted to.
Now, the downside of March Madness is that you risk making an awful lot that leads up to it basically meaningless. By way of illustration, let me ask the following question? How many nust-see college basketball games were there this regular and conference tournament season? As I am sure you're aware, I'm a pretty big college sports fan, and for me there was exactly one such game - BYU at SDSU. That's it. One - and that game only qualified because I had seen so little of those two teams at the time.
How many must-see college football games are there each year? For me, I suspect the aswer is something like 20, probably more. Why? Because EVERYTHING matters in college football. And, I'm not willing to give that up just so there's no dispute about who the eventual national champion is. Again. I don't really care who the national champ is. I hope it's someone I don't hate. I hope it's someone deserving. But I really don't lose sleep. The season itself is too much fun to risk screwing it up just to get a "winner."
All this talk about real champions being settled on the field is bunk. Suppose LSU runs the table next year? Beats Oregon in Dallas, Bama and WVU on the road, Gators and Arky and Auburn at home. What would a post-season tournament that a 10-2 USC winds up winning in Los Angeles prove? Nothing, but we'd have a winner.
VCU probably shouldn't be in the Tournament. The same could be said for a UNC team that went to the Final Four a decade ago. When teams like that get in, and do well, you get dangerously close to having a college basketball regular season that means nothing at all. I"m not sure we're already not there.
OK, Let me try again. This is tricky, and I understand that not all people will agree with me.
First, I reject the notion that we have to settle who the best team is "on the field." As often as not, "settling it on the field" reults in someone other than the best team being crowned champion. What a playoff gives you is a playoff winner. Some years that's the 1989 UNLV hoops team (where the best team won the title). Some years it's the 1990 UNLV hoops team (where the best team didn't win the title). It is what it is.
Now, with that said, I basically like the NCAA Tourney. This is largely because I really don't give a rat's ass who the national champion is. I like the fun of the tournament, and if the most deserving team (say, Houston 1983 or Georgetown 1985 or Oklahoma 1988) doesn't win, that's ok. I'm willing to trade the chance that the best team doesn't get crowned for the "madness." Note also that basketball lends itself very well to this format. You can play two games in three days, four games in seven days, etc., and all basketball courts are essentially created equal. There are no "dome" or "warm weather" or "cold weather" or "astroturf" issues and the like. You could play the whole Tourney in Japan if you wanted to.
Now, the downside of March Madness is that you risk making an awful lot that leads up to it basically meaningless. By way of illustration, let me ask the following question? How many nust-see college basketball games were there this regular and conference tournament season? As I am sure you're aware, I'm a pretty big college sports fan, and for me there was exactly one such game - BYU at SDSU. That's it. One - and that game only qualified because I had seen so little of those two teams at the time.
How many must-see college football games are there each year? For me, I suspect the aswer is something like 20, probably more. Why? Because EVERYTHING matters in college football. And, I'm not willing to give that up just so there's no dispute about who the eventual national champion is. Again. I don't really care who the national champ is. I hope it's someone I don't hate. I hope it's someone deserving. But I really don't lose sleep. The season itself is too much fun to risk screwing it up just to get a "winner."
All this talk about real champions being settled on the field is bunk. Suppose LSU runs the table next year? Beats Oregon in Dallas, Bama and WVU on the road, Gators and Arky and Auburn at home. What would a post-season tournament that a 10-2 USC winds up winning in Los Angeles prove? Nothing, but we'd have a winner.
VCU probably shouldn't be in the Tournament. The same could be said for a UNC team that went to the Final Four a decade ago. When teams like that get in, and do well, you get dangerously close to having a college basketball regular season that means nothing at all. I"m not sure we're already not there.
Way too much love for the "power" conferences. Bilas is always talking about how the level of play is being hurt by the early departure of kids to the NBA or other leagues around the world. Well it isn't hurting the mid major schools. Mid major schools should have gotten more teams in the big dance. Butler and VCU prove that. Maybe the "power" conferences are just a little overrated.
Mid majors got fucked and to top it off the committee had Butler and ODU play in the first round.
Way too much love for the "power" conferences. Bilas is always talking about how the level of play is being hurt by the early departure of kids to the NBA or other leagues around the world. Well it isn't hurting the mid major schools. Mid major schools should have gotten more teams in the big dance. Butler and VCU prove that. Maybe the "power" conferences are just a little overrated.
Mid majors got fucked and to top it off the committee had Butler and ODU play in the first round.
Way too much love for the "power" conferences. Bilas is always talking about how the level of play is being hurt by the early departure of kids to the NBA or other leagues around the world. Well it isn't hurting the mid major schools. Mid major schools should have gotten more teams in the big dance. Butler and VCU prove that. Maybe the "power" conferences are just a little overrated.
Mid majors got fucked and to top it off the committee had Butler and ODU play in the first round.
Way too much love for the "power" conferences. Bilas is always talking about how the level of play is being hurt by the early departure of kids to the NBA or other leagues around the world. Well it isn't hurting the mid major schools. Mid major schools should have gotten more teams in the big dance. Butler and VCU prove that. Maybe the "power" conferences are just a little overrated.
Mid majors got fucked and to top it off the committee had Butler and ODU play in the first round.
OK, Let me try again. This is tricky, and I understand that not all people will agree with me.
First, I reject the notion that we have to settle who the best team is "on the field." As often as not, "settling it on the field" reults in someone other than the best team being crowned champion. What a playoff gives you is a playoff winner. Some years that's the 1989 UNLV hoops team (where the best team won the title). Some years it's the 1990 UNLV hoops team (where the best team didn't win the title). It is what it is.
Now, with that said, I basically like the NCAA Tourney. This is largely because I really don't give a rat's ass who the national champion is. I like the fun of the tournament, and if the most deserving team (say, Houston 1983 or Georgetown 1985 or Oklahoma 1988) doesn't win, that's ok. I'm willing to trade the chance that the best team doesn't get crowned for the "madness." Note also that basketball lends itself very well to this format. You can play two games in three days, four games in seven days, etc., and all basketball courts are essentially created equal. There are no "dome" or "warm weather" or "cold weather" or "astroturf" issues and the like. You could play the whole Tourney in Japan if you wanted to.
Now, the downside of March Madness is that you risk making an awful lot that leads up to it basically meaningless. By way of illustration, let me ask the following question? How many nust-see college basketball games were there this regular and conference tournament season? As I am sure you're aware, I'm a pretty big college sports fan, and for me there was exactly one such game - BYU at SDSU. That's it. One - and that game only qualified because I had seen so little of those two teams at the time.
How many must-see college football games are there each year? For me, I suspect the aswer is something like 20, probably more. Why? Because EVERYTHING matters in college football. And, I'm not willing to give that up just so there's no dispute about who the eventual national champion is. Again. I don't really care who the national champ is. I hope it's someone I don't hate. I hope it's someone deserving. But I really don't lose sleep. The season itself is too much fun to risk screwing it up just to get a "winner."
All this talk about real champions being settled on the field is bunk. Suppose LSU runs the table next year? Beats Oregon in Dallas, Bama and WVU on the road, Gators and Arky and Auburn at home. What would a post-season tournament that a 10-2 USC winds up winning in Los Angeles prove? Nothing, but we'd have a winner.
VCU probably shouldn't be in the Tournament. The same could be said for a UNC team that went to the Final Four a decade ago. When teams like that get in, and do well, you get dangerously close to having a college basketball regular season that means nothing at all. I"m not sure we're already not there.
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.
OK, Let me try again. This is tricky, and I understand that not all people will agree with me.
First, I reject the notion that we have to settle who the best team is "on the field." As often as not, "settling it on the field" reults in someone other than the best team being crowned champion. What a playoff gives you is a playoff winner. Some years that's the 1989 UNLV hoops team (where the best team won the title). Some years it's the 1990 UNLV hoops team (where the best team didn't win the title). It is what it is.
Now, with that said, I basically like the NCAA Tourney. This is largely because I really don't give a rat's ass who the national champion is. I like the fun of the tournament, and if the most deserving team (say, Houston 1983 or Georgetown 1985 or Oklahoma 1988) doesn't win, that's ok. I'm willing to trade the chance that the best team doesn't get crowned for the "madness." Note also that basketball lends itself very well to this format. You can play two games in three days, four games in seven days, etc., and all basketball courts are essentially created equal. There are no "dome" or "warm weather" or "cold weather" or "astroturf" issues and the like. You could play the whole Tourney in Japan if you wanted to.
Now, the downside of March Madness is that you risk making an awful lot that leads up to it basically meaningless. By way of illustration, let me ask the following question? How many nust-see college basketball games were there this regular and conference tournament season? As I am sure you're aware, I'm a pretty big college sports fan, and for me there was exactly one such game - BYU at SDSU. That's it. One - and that game only qualified because I had seen so little of those two teams at the time.
How many must-see college football games are there each year? For me, I suspect the aswer is something like 20, probably more. Why? Because EVERYTHING matters in college football. And, I'm not willing to give that up just so there's no dispute about who the eventual national champion is. Again. I don't really care who the national champ is. I hope it's someone I don't hate. I hope it's someone deserving. But I really don't lose sleep. The season itself is too much fun to risk screwing it up just to get a "winner."
All this talk about real champions being settled on the field is bunk. Suppose LSU runs the table next year? Beats Oregon in Dallas, Bama and WVU on the road, Gators and Arky and Auburn at home. What would a post-season tournament that a 10-2 USC winds up winning in Los Angeles prove? Nothing, but we'd have a winner.
VCU probably shouldn't be in the Tournament. The same could be said for a UNC team that went to the Final Four a decade ago. When teams like that get in, and do well, you get dangerously close to having a college basketball regular season that means nothing at all. I"m not sure we're already not there.
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.
I agree with Johnny Utah on giving VCU some fucking credit. They deserve it. I completely disagree with him, though, on Self being a prick just because he tells his kids to keep playing hard and tries to score when they have the ball. I try to tell people this all the time. Your job, in either football or basketball, is to score when you have the ball. I don't care what the score is. If you can't stop me, that's your problem. Don't bet against me then.
I like it when coaches play to the final buzzer.
I agree with Johnny Utah on giving VCU some fucking credit. They deserve it. I completely disagree with him, though, on Self being a prick just because he tells his kids to keep playing hard and tries to score when they have the ball. I try to tell people this all the time. Your job, in either football or basketball, is to score when you have the ball. I don't care what the score is. If you can't stop me, that's your problem. Don't bet against me then.
I like it when coaches play to the final buzzer.
The game you are talking about is the Ok State game....it was a sub who took the shot...who gives a shit, the kid wanted a basket.
And Bill Self isn't a prick for what it's worth.....but whatever you think is fine...
The game you are talking about is the Ok State game....it was a sub who took the shot...who gives a shit, the kid wanted a basket.
And Bill Self isn't a prick for what it's worth.....but whatever you think is fine...
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.