Two bad NCAA tourneys in a row

[Jason G]

For me the beauty of the college basketball postseason is the upsets that can occour.

Therefore, I thought last year's NCAA tournament was the worst in a long time because of the severe lack of upsets, at least the kind that feature the "have nots" or "no names" against the better known programs.

This year's tournament I thought was much better overall. However I have never been more disappointed in the Final Four. While I realize mid-majors or low majors will very rarely ever make it to college basketball's biggest stage I usually can at least root for a team that surprisingly made it to that level even if they were only a 3,4, or 5 seed and from a bigger name league. This year I have nothing.

So does anyone else out there find the upsets to be the most intruiging part of the NCAA tournament? Is anyone else disappointed in the Final Four simply because it is all #1 seeds?
Overall, though, this year with the performances by Davidson, Western Kentucky, and even San Diego and Siena I guess I can't be too disappointed.

[Spence]

I watch the games, but the outcomes rarely excite me one way or the other. It is the "any given night" scenerio and it is about finding the best team - just the hottest team. If they truely wanted the best team they would cut the field by 2/3 and play a best of three tournament. That would provide a more accurate picture of the best team in the country.

[Jason G]

In both football and basketball, I don't think there is any such thing as the "best" team. I honestly believe it is all about matchups. Sure talent level figures heavily into these matchups, and that is a key contributor to why the big name programs usually win, but it is not the only thing, not by a long shot.

How many times do we see the Team A beats Team B, Team B beats Team C, Team C beats Team A scenario play out? Then there is no "best" team. Given the right three teams, every college football or basketball team could fit into one of these threesomes. I think the only way one team could clearly claim to be the best is if they played every other team in the nation and went undefeated, otherwise somebody could claim to be "better".

That is why I say the NCAA tournament in basketball or the Bowl Championship Series in football is not about finding the best team. It doesn't exist. It is only about finding someone who plays well under pressure and has survived the trials and tribulations of their season in good standing.

I wouldn't want to see the NCAA basketball tournament change size at all. Many want it smaller, many want it larger. I like it right about where it is. It gives a good mix of reprentatives from different parts of the country, as well as from different types of schools, whether they be public, private, large, small, popular, or unknown. Putting more teams in waters down the regular season too much and cutting it to something like 32 would only allow one team from each conference This would presumably be the conference tourney champ, once again making the regular season much less important. The only other option is to leave out some conferences entirely, which would then create a system like we have in football where the "have nots" are rarely given a legitimate chance, which is my opinion unjust and unfair competitively speaking.

[Spence]

That is why I say the NCAA tournament in basketball or the Bowl Championship Series in football is not about finding the best team. It doesn't exist. It is only about finding someone who plays well under pressure and has survived the trials and tribulations of their season in good standing.

Oh I think a best team exists. The problem is that you would have to stage a best of five tournament to find that team and that is not likely in b-ball and impossible in football.

I wouldn't want to see the NCAA basketball tournament change size at all. Many want it smaller, many want it larger. I like it right about where it is. It gives a good mix of reprentatives from different parts of the country, as well as from different types of schools, whether they be public, private, large, small, popular, or unknown. Putting more teams in waters down the regular season too much and cutting it to something like 32 would only allow one team from each conference This would presumably be the conference tourney champ, once again making the regular season much less important. The only other option is to leave out some conferences entirely, which would then create a system like we have in football where the "have nots" are rarely given a legitimate chance, which is my opinion unjust and unfair competitively speaking.

I wouldn't change it either, unless I made it smaller. One thing I don't agree with is that the "have nots" aren't given a legitimate chance in football. If you use basketball as an example, the "have nots" have been given a legitimate chance (in your words) for quite some time and not one team has ever pulled down the trophy. The have made it into the elite eight a few times, just as some mid majors have made it into a high profile BCS game. While I can't say for sure one of them could have beaten the national champ, the data from the b-ball tourney would suggest that the odds wouldn't be in their favor. I think that the national polls are pretty accurate considering. They may not have the perfect order that we would all agree is correct, but as our fan poll on this site has proven, we generally agree with the national polls. Whether we like to admit it or not. If getting the best team isn't the goal of these tourneys, then I see no reason for football to upset the apple cart to try and get the best team when it is unlikely to produce a result that is much different then we have now.

[RazorHawk]

I am not unhappy about the top 4 seeds advancing to the final four. However, the lack of close games throughout the tourney has made it a not very exciting tournament. I do like the upsets, but close game make the tourney exciting.

Hopefully, this weekend will provide a couple of good games.

[Jason G]

Spence,

I think we pretty much agree on the basketball end of things. I know you have said before that the problem with the basketball tourney and the problem with one in football would be the creation of more unimportant regular season games. I just wouldn't shrink the tourney unless it meant fewr at-larges. I do think that there needs to be a reward for every team that wins their conference. I wish it was the regular season conference champ, though, and not the conference tourney champ. As long as the league tournament continues to be held at the end of the season, though, I don't see any feasible way for an auto bid to go to regular season champs, it would then make the conference tourney much less important for most teams.

As far as the "have nots" in football, I do still maintain that they don't have a truly legitimate shot at the title. The reasons for this are twofold. The first of these is the fact that the polls are used to indicate who makes it to the title game, and many voters either won't vote for a non-BCS school because of their own politics or won't vote for them simply because they cannot be convinced that a school from a conference that is not a traditional power can possibly be one of the best two teams in the country. I know that isn't all the voters, or even half for that matter, but there certainly seems to be a significant segment of the voters that feel that way. The second resaon is that strength of schedule is such a large component. This makes it very unlikely that a non-BCS school will play for a national title in the near future because the conference part of the schedule is weighed equally with the non-conference portion. This obviously gives the "haves" an advantage. My question is "If there truly is a best team why can't it play in a weak conference?" It certainly is possible that it could but the current system would still likely leave them out of the title game. They'd make the BCS but not the NC game.

Even though it isn't necessarily fair in all cases either, I still say without a systematic scheduling mechanism the non-conference portion of the schedule should be weighted more heavily than the conference portion. The current way penalizes or rewards teams based on their conference. It should be about the teams and not the leagues. Of course this still wouldn't solve the problems of thinking you're scheduling tough and having your opponents end up struggling all season, which once again would be no fault of your own.

[Spence]

As far as the "have nots" in football, I do still maintain that they don't have a truly legitimate shot at the title. The reasons for this are twofold. The first of these is the fact that the polls are used to indicate who makes it to the title game, and many voters either won't vote for a non-BCS school because of their own politics or won't vote for them simply because they cannot be convinced that a school from a conference that is not a traditional power can possibly be one of the best two teams in the country. I know that isn't all the voters, or even half for that matter, but there certainly seems to be a significant segment of the voters that feel that way. The second resaon is that strength of schedule is such a large component. This makes it very unlikely that a non-BCS school will play for a national title in the near future because the conference part of the schedule is weighed equally with the non-conference portion. This obviously gives the "haves" an advantage. My question is "If there truly is a best team why can't it play in a weak conference?" It certainly is possible that it could but the current system would still likely leave them out of the title game. They'd make the BCS but not the NC game.

I don't think we are that far off either. I would admit the BCS conference have an advantage with the poll voters. They have an easier path to the title game in that regard. In another regard, though, they usually play a tougher over all schedule. So that tips the scales the other way a little. A team from a mid major conference has to have a year like last year happen to make the championship game and they have to be undefeated. I believe if Boise State had their '06 season results last year they would have been in the championship game. Not just for the season they had had last year, but also their track record the last five to ten years. To make the championship game, right or wrong, you have to win consistently over more then just a year. You also have to play a moderate to strong SOS. No question that some teams have advantages over others in both football and basketball. If Ohio State was North Carolina in b-ball, Ohio State would have made the NCAA field this year. If North Carolina were Ohio State in football, they wouldn't have made the championship game.

[Eric]

This year was a lot more fun to watch than last. I mean, at least we had some solid upsets. But, even though I enjoy a Western Kentucky in the Sweet 16 or a Davidson in the Elite 8, all that does is make the road really, really easy for the higher seeds. I know ideally the higher the seed is, the easier it is to make it to the Final Four, but the upsets really threw things off for Kansas and UCLA.

Kansas had to face the daunting task of beating Portland State, UNLV, Villanova, and Davidson. Does anybody else think they'll be prepared for North Carolina? UCLA had to face Mississippi Valley State (who should have been in the play-in game, not Mt. St. Mary's), Texas A&M, Western Kentucky, and Xavier. I mean, come on! Would Kansas be there if they played Vanderbilt or Clemson and then Georgetown or Wisconsin in the next round?

[Jason G]

This year was a lot more fun to watch than last. I mean, at least we had some solid upsets. But, even though I enjoy a Western Kentucky in the Sweet 16 or a Davidson in the Elite 8, all that does is make the road really, really easy for the higher seeds. I know ideally the higher the seed is, the easier it is to make it to the Final Four, but the upsets really threw things off for Kansas and UCLA.

Kansas had to face the daunting task of beating Portland State, UNLV, Villanova, and Davidson. Does anybody else think they'll be prepared for North Carolina? UCLA had to face Mississippi Valley State (who should have been in the play-in game, not Mt. St. Mary's), Texas A&M, Western Kentucky, and Xavier. I mean, come on! Would Kansas be there if they played Vanderbilt or Clemson and then Georgetown or Wisconsin in the next round?

I agree although I wouldn't sell teams like Xavier, with their overall talent and senior leadership, and Western Kentucky or Davidson with their style of play, too short. They truly are tough matchups for anybody I believe. Davidson was very, very close to knocking off Kansas and the Jayhawks play for the title after beating UNC last night.

I look at it for the long term repercussions though. Recruits are seeing more and more that teams like Davidson (this yr.), Kent State (2002) and George Mason (2006)(just to name a few) can make it to a point where they only are one to two wins from playing for a national title. This is making more 3 and 4 star (out of 5) prospects look a little more at the non-traditionally power schools and conferences. That, in turn, will hopefully lead to teams like Davidson and Western Kentucky being even tougher outs for the "big boys" of college basketball and longer runs and better seeds in the NCAA tournaments of the future.

[BYUfan1]

This year was a lot more fun to watch than last. I mean, at least we had some solid upsets. But, even though I enjoy a Western Kentucky in the Sweet 16 or a Davidson in the Elite 8, all that does is make the road really, really easy for the higher seeds. I know ideally the higher the seed is, the easier it is to make it to the Final Four, but the upsets really threw things off for Kansas and UCLA.

Kansas had to face the daunting task of beating Portland State, UNLV, Villanova, and Davidson. Does anybody else think they'll be prepared for North Carolina? UCLA had to face Mississippi Valley State (who should have been in the play-in game, not Mt. St. Mary's), Texas A&M, Western Kentucky, and Xavier. I mean, come on! Would Kansas be there if they played Vanderbilt or Clemson and then Georgetown or Wisconsin in the next round?

My guess is that Kansas was ready for North Carolina. This tournament did lack in the number of close games in the later rounds. There were too many blowouts in the round of 16 and beyond.

Memphis might have been a #1 seed, but the so-called experts treated them like an underdog all tournament long. Having the NCAA champion come from Conference USA certainly would create some buzz.