Is a tournament the best way to determine a champ?

[YearOfTheSteer]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[bierce]

Since we're trying to crown the best team, I don't see why we have any games played at all, since they allow for the best team to lose. Let's just take a preseason poll and go to the next sport.

 

[wadster]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[LITNIN HORN]

No you can't...It's double elimination up until the championship...then it's best two out of three.

 

[GoHornsGo90]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bluepies]

I'll play devil's advocate. I'm mostly on the OP's side.

I want the regular season to mean something. I want every game to be important. I don't like the idea that a dominant team can romp through a salty non-conference schedule, go undefeated through a tough conference, win the conference tournament, enter the playoffs 32-0, then not get a shot at the title because some team banked in a 3-pointer at the buzzer, or because of some BS fouls at the end (and we all know officiating can swing a game), etc. Then some 24-8 team wins the championship. Fair?

I just don't like the idea that one team was better ALL SEASON LONG, then lost one game at the wrong time, while another team was a better-than-average team during the season and just had a few good games in a row. Every game should be important. Yeah, maybe every game affects seeding. But every game should affect the end result.

I agree that 300 teams necessitates a playoff. So why not pare down from 300 teams? How about 100 teams, and only 8 make the playoffs? Better have a damn good season then. Better treat every game like it's important.

And the major upsets? They can now happen in the regular season. Think any team's going to make an eight-team playoff after losing to a cupcake? Upsets will still be ground-shaking. You'll just get the excitement during the regular season instead, rather than going to sleep until March. EVERY game will matter.

 

[HuskerNKingwood]

the original poster lost me when he mentioned soccer in his ideas. soccer sucks. best sport in the world my ***.

 

[BertHorn]

Silly soccer fan

 

[Sholehvar]

Sure lots of things about soccer suck but I think most people will admit that relegation kicks ***. Anyway, CWS related ideas seem good but, as other people have said, any change is going to be impossible. They are expanding the tournament and eventually it will be every team in. Just sayin that, as currently constituted and not just because I have no rooting interest for any of the teams left (though who doesnt against Duke), the NCAA tournament, as a whole, is pretty unsatisfying (for me at least). Not a lot of substance but fun for a couple of weeks.

But just to expand on relegation, why not split college sports (not just basketball) into more divisions. Each would have 20 or so teams. The bottom teams fall out each year and the top teams from the lower division move up. You build the facilities, you have the success, you get rewarded. I dont know, just dreaming here.

 

[bullzak]

The tournament rewards what John Wooden called Competitive Greatness, being at your best when your best is needed.

I think that succinctly describes the point of competition.

You go 32-0 and lose on some fluke then you werent the best.

And in court they stipulate to soccer sucking.

 

[Sholehvar]

Isnt that begging the question? I mean you are assuming that the tournament is the time to be great and what we are arguing about (sort of) is whether or not that should be the time to be great (as opposed to being great during the regular season or over the course of some longer period such as a series).

And despite that fact that soccer sucks, I am about to watch Man U and Bayern Munich and I am pretty sure it is going to be f***ing awesome and feature some of the worlds greatest athletes.

Which reminds me of a couple of other good ideas from soccer (even if you dont like the game itself) - pool play and home and away / aggregate series.

 

[GoHornsGo90]

The teams that do the best are rewarded with easier draws in the tournament. Then they play each other to see who is actually the best team. I thought this was obvious?

Another counterpoint to this rather frivolous debate. KU in 2003 started as the number 2 ranked team in the country (consensus). They lost more games than expected because Wayne Simien was out for the beginning of the season. One he was back, they started destroying people and eventually got to the NC only to lose to freakishly talented Carmelo Anthony and a very good Syracuse team by only 3 points. Did they not deserve a chance to play, or should we just have voted Arizona as national champion?

 

[blonthang]

With only 5 players on the court at a time, if one player, say your star player, is off, that's 20% of your team sucking.

OTOH, baseball has 9, though pitching is more than just one ninth of the team as compared to a fielder, unless the fielder is a great hitter.

Football has 11 on each of offense and defense, a total of 22 players. Of course, as we saw against Bama (with no criticism meant towards GG who did okay in the circumstances), the QB is worth more than one 22nd of the total count.

Point being, I understand the "one and done" criticism of the Big Dance. But as others have noted how else do you manage a playoff for a field of 300 or so candidate teams unless the selection for the tournament is reduced from 64/5 to 8 or so?

Unfortunately any playoff can result in the "best" team not winning it all and a "cinderella" upsetting the pre-ordained champ. See UH and NCState, among others.

I'm guessing the NFL record book doesn't asterisk Super Bowl champions with

" * everyone knows this wasn't the better team all season; they just scored more points than their opponent in the Super Bowl, so they are champions."

Oh, and the Lakers didn't meet the Cavs in the NBA fiinals last year; maybe that championship should be asterisked as well?