2011 NCAA Tournament
- Thread starter deserteagles50
- Start date
I actually think it levels the playing field and brings more relevance to the game. No one complains about a team winning or not winning the super bowl because every super bowl champion or NCAA tournament team had to win the same number of games as everyone else in the tournament to be called National Champion. Every team in the tournament has that opportunity. However, the BCS is set up where the fate of who has the opportunity to play or who doesn't have the opportunity to play is based completely off one committee's decision on which two teams they THINK are better based on somewhat subjective data (usually who brings in the most $$$). It is the beauty of tournaments how cinderella teams and no names get a chance to really prove themselves on the same stage as the big schools who bring the most $$$. <div>
</div><div>*Edited to say that the "which team is hotter" rule applies more in one game as opposed to winning 6 games in a row against tough competition. A lot more fair, I think. Teams have to prove they have what it takes through time and not based on the result of one game. </div>
</div><div>*Edited to say that the "which team is hotter" rule applies more in one game as opposed to winning 6 games in a row against tough competition. A lot more fair, I think. Teams have to prove they have what it takes through time and not based on the result of one game. </div>
Money shouldn't be all that matters. I understand if it's a big part, but there's still a lot of money to be had in figuring out who the best is.
Just because teams are in the same conference doesn't mean that they always play the same level of competition. Just look at how our conference is set up. The East is stacked in comparison to the West. If there were a chance that one of the Western teams was honestly the best team in the conference, because how their division is perceived can hurt their perception. And not all the time the best team wins their conference hands down. It's better to see how teams react with great competition from top to bottom instead of just saying who you (generally speaking) think deserves to play for the championship or not. No one knows what one team is capable versus a particular situation.
the ncaa and the power presidents secretly want it to be all about the money. but that would cause a class action lawsuit. They didnt really want the BCS system but they had to do something otherwise the dominoes were going to fall with incoming lawsuits. they have threatened now to go back to the old bowl system where conference winners of certain conferences would be played at the certain bowls but to do that and to keep from the lawsuits to start up again they would have to concede the national championship and certain other things. As you see, you really cannot claim national champions if only a small portion or select portion would even have the opportunity.
There needs to be formed a committee to make sure that ncaa rules are enforced. Ohio State should have had 5 players out against Arkansas but we all know why they were allowed to play. That kinda stuff has got to stop.
There needs to be formed a committee to make sure that ncaa rules are enforced. Ohio State should have had 5 players out against Arkansas but we all know why they were allowed to play. That kinda stuff has got to stop.
What other way is there to do it? Certainly, there is a selection committee who decides who is in the tournament, but look at basic statistics. There is a VERY slim chance that the potential national champion is not in the top 20% (68 teams out of 346 teams in division 1 basketball). Now, VCU is pushing the line because if this were last year, they would not have been invited. But still, an 11 seed has only made it to the Final 4 twice before (since 1985) and no seed lower than an 11 has ever made it that far. The philosophy I love about tournaments is you have to play to win, and win to play. Simple as that. Prove you have what it takes to win against stiff competition in somewhat neutral environments. That's certainly better, to me, than "these 2 teams are playing for the national title because we say they are the best" while no one else even gets a shot (while most, including myself, believe there is a strong possibility of there being better teams left out).
G
Goat Holder II
Guest
I don't think single elimination tournaments are good for determining a champ. Football can get away with it because so much goes into single games.
I think you have to look at records over time. The NBA and MLB are the only sports where the best team wins the Championship. NFL gets it right sometimes, but what are they gonna do, play a best of three series. One game is all that's practical. Same thing with NCAA basketball - too many teams.
In the end you have to play the game I suppose. Sports has never really been about who has the best team. It's who wins the !++*%%% game. All you get by being the alleged 'best' is more pub on talking head radio.
I think you have to look at records over time. The NBA and MLB are the only sports where the best team wins the Championship. NFL gets it right sometimes, but what are they gonna do, play a best of three series. One game is all that's practical. Same thing with NCAA basketball - too many teams.
In the end you have to play the game I suppose. Sports has never really been about who has the best team. It's who wins the !++*%%% game. All you get by being the alleged 'best' is more pub on talking head radio.
fill the seats and you will have either Conn or Cats against a TV favorite....The way Butler and VCU are playing either one might just win the damn thing....
college football has been SAVED!!
2 top ten teams meet during the regular season and the loser gets to.... oh wait...NO WORRIES!!! they just get to meet that team again possibly at an early December bowl game in detroit after the regualr season....even after losing to said team at home during the regular season...
isnt that great? hey, but that's what life and football are all about though, 2nd chances...
won't it be great when 2 top 10 ten teams meet during the regular season and that game mean absoulute DICK regarding the national championship? wonder how many regular season games like that per year would happen in a 16 team playoff extravaganza? doesn't matter if your # 1 or # 16, you don't even have to play for homefield advantage... but why let winning big games in the greatest regular season in all of sports have so much of an impact on the final # 1 team? afterall we need something NEW!! Change you can count on so to speak.. but screw the details, let's just pass the bill and find out what's in it later...
how bout the top 8 teams, regardless of conference affiliation, square off with 1-4 hosting 5-8 so at least there's some incentive like say, home field advantage for the playoffs , to win key regular season games.... you know, like make those regular season big time games actually have an impact on the post season and eventual champ...
probably may even better with just 4 teams at the end...
16 teams squaring off at neutral sites would SO diminish key, historic games as far as their impact on the title... that is what has always made college football's regular season so unique and no doubt the best and most exciting regular season in all of sports...
the road to the national championship needs to start week 1 and continue thru the regular season...
2 top ten teams meet during the regular season and the loser gets to.... oh wait...NO WORRIES!!! they just get to meet that team again possibly at an early December bowl game in detroit after the regualr season....even after losing to said team at home during the regular season...
isnt that great? hey, but that's what life and football are all about though, 2nd chances...
won't it be great when 2 top 10 ten teams meet during the regular season and that game mean absoulute DICK regarding the national championship? wonder how many regular season games like that per year would happen in a 16 team playoff extravaganza? doesn't matter if your # 1 or # 16, you don't even have to play for homefield advantage... but why let winning big games in the greatest regular season in all of sports have so much of an impact on the final # 1 team? afterall we need something NEW!! Change you can count on so to speak.. but screw the details, let's just pass the bill and find out what's in it later...
how bout the top 8 teams, regardless of conference affiliation, square off with 1-4 hosting 5-8 so at least there's some incentive like say, home field advantage for the playoffs , to win key regular season games.... you know, like make those regular season big time games actually have an impact on the post season and eventual champ...
probably may even better with just 4 teams at the end...
16 teams squaring off at neutral sites would SO diminish key, historic games as far as their impact on the title... that is what has always made college football's regular season so unique and no doubt the best and most exciting regular season in all of sports...
the road to the national championship needs to start week 1 and continue thru the regular season...
I don't like the BCS, but I do like the fact that your ****** school doesn't have automatic access to a BCS bowl. And having occasionally read a Southern Miss message board strictly to be amused, I'm not the least bit surprised you brought up bringing a class action lawsuit against the NCAA. That seems to be a rather popular topic amongst the 11 fans who congregate on eaglepost.net.
USM sucks. That is all you really need to know about college athletics or academics.
USM sucks. That is all you really need to know about college athletics or academics.
wow you have some hatred. i have family and friends at all 3 MS schools so dont sit here and label me generically like you just tried to do. The point i was trying to make is that i dont think ANY school should have automatic access to a so called BCS bowl game... i.e. uconn this past year. and there is no way with 5 pairs of rose colored glasses on that i could have ever said that USM should have been even considered for a BCS bowl bid or for that matter any CUSA school.studentdawg87 said:
when you say USM sucks... well i guess opinions vary, but we must have sucked really really bad to make it to omaha a couple of years ago. as to the football side of things i guess we'll find out who sucks more come 2014 and 2015.
I just like to aggravate the few USM fans that post on here. Y'all are easy to agitate. No harm meant.
Some of that was meant in jest. Some it was, well.....
Some of that was meant in jest. Some it was, well.....
Most of the tickets are sold before the tournament starts. Shirley they can sell the couple thousand allotted to each school, and I'm sure Kentucky could pick up the rest. I'd imagine there will also be more interest from casual fans with the underdog story lines.</p>
Lets say they renegotiate in 2013.
They'll look at the ratings from the 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Lets say the ratings go 4 million (2010), 3.3 million (2011/Butler v VCU), 4.2 million, 5 (2012), and 4.4 million (2013).
They'll use those numbers to set the value of showing the Final 4. One bad year could cost them millions, because instead of it average 4.5 million viewers it averages 4.0 million. Seems trivial, but when the TV networks charge advertisers by the second * # viewership, that 500K could mean millions in lost advertising to the NCAA.
There was a guest on The Dan Patrick show the other day talking about how much a Cinderella team could cost the NCAA. He said they're great for the Sweet 16, but beyond that they start hurting ratings. People that say "Well I want to watch the small schools!" would watch no matter who's playing. The bottom line smaller schools have smaller followings and bring less interest from the average person - hence less $ for the NCAA.
They'll look at the ratings from the 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Lets say the ratings go 4 million (2010), 3.3 million (2011/Butler v VCU), 4.2 million, 5 (2012), and 4.4 million (2013).
They'll use those numbers to set the value of showing the Final 4. One bad year could cost them millions, because instead of it average 4.5 million viewers it averages 4.0 million. Seems trivial, but when the TV networks charge advertisers by the second * # viewership, that 500K could mean millions in lost advertising to the NCAA.
There was a guest on The Dan Patrick show the other day talking about how much a Cinderella team could cost the NCAA. He said they're great for the Sweet 16, but beyond that they start hurting ratings. People that say "Well I want to watch the small schools!" would watch no matter who's playing. The bottom line smaller schools have smaller followings and bring less interest from the average person - hence less $ for the NCAA.
but what is the current average over the last few years? Wasn't last year's final higher than the previous years?
Almost all of the NCAA's operating budget comes from the TV deal for the men's basketball tournament.
The NCAA champion isn't always the "best" team. In most cases, I'd bet that the "best" team fails to win the NCAA tournament since it is single elimination and involves so many teams.
It's about determining a national champion, and the team that wins the tournament does deserve to be called national champions. However, I think there is definitely still an argument about who the best team truly is.
If you played the tournament 100 times, you wouldn't get the same winner every time. You would get probably 30-40 different champions. The "best" team would be the team that would win it the most times, but given the fact that you can only play one tournament out of those 100, it's anyone's guess as to who will win the championship.
And I agree with Goat on this. If you play a 7 game set, you'll get the best team with a lot more certainty. That's not practical though, so you get the Madness.
It's about determining a national champion, and the team that wins the tournament does deserve to be called national champions. However, I think there is definitely still an argument about who the best team truly is.
If you played the tournament 100 times, you wouldn't get the same winner every time. You would get probably 30-40 different champions. The "best" team would be the team that would win it the most times, but given the fact that you can only play one tournament out of those 100, it's anyone's guess as to who will win the championship.
And I agree with Goat on this. If you play a 7 game set, you'll get the best team with a lot more certainty. That's not practical though, so you get the Madness.
Every team in that tournament, for the most part, has the same opportunity to win the thing. It is simple: win or go home. Sure, you are right that there are going to be arguments about who really is "best," but a tournament, let's say the NCAAT, you have 68 teams who essentially have the same opportunity. Most teams play easier games than others, but every team is going to have challenging games, as well. It is the nature of the tournament.<div>
</div><div>My point is how can you FAIRLY determine a champion? We can always go back to the old way of determining college football champions and just have some magazine claim a team the champion or whoever wins the Rose bowl, but who can say that is really fair? We are still arguing about the 1941 championship and how Bama didn't deserve it. That is the nature of just saying a team is the "best" so they are the champion. Double elimination tournaments for basketball are completely unpractical and would take far too much time, especially if there were 64 teams involved. If it were structured like baseball where there were regionals and super regionals, then a double elimination Final 4, it could make it more fair, but I think the current set-up is the most practical.</div><div>
</div><div>Tournaments level the playing field and bring overall relevance to the game. Every team entering the tournament wants to win it, and just because a team gets a favorable seed doesn't mean they will win it. The dynamics of the game itself and which team plays to win determines who deserves to be a NC. Now, your argument is certainly relevant and we can all say OSU is the best team this year in college basketball, but they lost to Kentucky. Heck, we could say we are the best basketball team in the SEC because we beat the regular season champ, but everyone would call me insane. So, I will stand by tournaments and playoffs to be the best method for determining who the "best" team is. </div>
</div><div>My point is how can you FAIRLY determine a champion? We can always go back to the old way of determining college football champions and just have some magazine claim a team the champion or whoever wins the Rose bowl, but who can say that is really fair? We are still arguing about the 1941 championship and how Bama didn't deserve it. That is the nature of just saying a team is the "best" so they are the champion. Double elimination tournaments for basketball are completely unpractical and would take far too much time, especially if there were 64 teams involved. If it were structured like baseball where there were regionals and super regionals, then a double elimination Final 4, it could make it more fair, but I think the current set-up is the most practical.</div><div>
</div><div>Tournaments level the playing field and bring overall relevance to the game. Every team entering the tournament wants to win it, and just because a team gets a favorable seed doesn't mean they will win it. The dynamics of the game itself and which team plays to win determines who deserves to be a NC. Now, your argument is certainly relevant and we can all say OSU is the best team this year in college basketball, but they lost to Kentucky. Heck, we could say we are the best basketball team in the SEC because we beat the regular season champ, but everyone would call me insane. So, I will stand by tournaments and playoffs to be the best method for determining who the "best" team is. </div>
...says a lot more about the decline of college basketball than it does about college football's postseason.<div>
</div><div>The early entry into the NBA has hurt both the pro game and the college game. For the latter, it's diluted the talent to the point where we have a Final Four with a 4th place team from the Colonial, the 9th place team from the Big East, the 3rd place team from the SEC, and Co-Champions of the Horizon.</div><div>
</div><div>To the an avid fan, that seems exciting. But to the marginal fan, the one the advertisers are trying to rope in, it's boring.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
</div><div>The early entry into the NBA has hurt both the pro game and the college game. For the latter, it's diluted the talent to the point where we have a Final Four with a 4th place team from the Colonial, the 9th place team from the Big East, the 3rd place team from the SEC, and Co-Champions of the Horizon.</div><div>
</div><div>To the an avid fan, that seems exciting. But to the marginal fan, the one the advertisers are trying to rope in, it's boring.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
If you set it up right, it wouldn't devalue the regular season much at all. If you made it 16 teams with automatic bids to all 11 conference champions, the you have to either win your conference (regular season obviously is the ultimate decider in that) or you have to be one of the top 5 at large teams, which almost always will mean losing no more than 2 games.
Plus, if you set it up that way, you'd have teams from the MAC, Sun Belt, WAC, and CUSA in the tournament, which would place a whole lot of value on getting one of the top 4 seeds. Usually you couldn't lose more than 1 game at most and still get one of those freebie games.
Then if you mix in letting the first rounds be played at home sites of the top 8 seeds, you'd put even more emphasis on the regular season.
Let's take just last year as a hypothetical. If you played that scenario out, here is what you'd have in the bracket:
1 Auburn (SEC Champ)
16 Florida International (Sun Belt Champ)
8 Arkansas (at large)
9 Michigan State (at large)
4 Standford (at large)
13 Central Florida (CUSA Champ)
5 Wisconsin (Big 10 Champ)
12 Virginia Tech (ACC Champ)
2 Oregon (Pac 10 Champ)
15 Miami (OH) (MAC Champ)
7 Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ)
10 Boise State (WAC Champ)
3 TCU (MWC Champ)
14 Connecticut (Big East Champ)
6 Ohio State (at large)
11 LSU (at large)
Just in this bracket, Arkansas would've played their way into the bracket with their win over LSU. Alabama blowing the lead against Auburn knocked them out of the bracket. LSU cost themselves a first round host and possibly a match with UCF by losing to Arkansas. Boise cost themselves a home game and a shot at UCF with their loss to Nevada late in the season.
Had Auburn or Oregon lost a late season game, they may have fallen all the way to a match up with Virginia Tech in the opening round rather than FIU or Miami (OH).
Also, in this bracket, no at large team has more than 2 losses. Missouri, Oklahoma State, Nevada, and Alabama would be the 4 teams that finished just outside the last at large spot. Nebraska would've lost their chance with the Big 12 title loss. Just some thoughts. Obviously, you can take more losses and have an off day, but you can't take very many.
Ultimately, college football's regular season would have more games that mattered. The last weekend of the year, the only games that mattered were Auburn-SC and Oregon-Oregon State. No other game had any implications. The week before, the same thing with those two teams.
Plus, if you set it up that way, you'd have teams from the MAC, Sun Belt, WAC, and CUSA in the tournament, which would place a whole lot of value on getting one of the top 4 seeds. Usually you couldn't lose more than 1 game at most and still get one of those freebie games.
Then if you mix in letting the first rounds be played at home sites of the top 8 seeds, you'd put even more emphasis on the regular season.
Let's take just last year as a hypothetical. If you played that scenario out, here is what you'd have in the bracket:
1 Auburn (SEC Champ)
16 Florida International (Sun Belt Champ)
8 Arkansas (at large)
9 Michigan State (at large)
4 Standford (at large)
13 Central Florida (CUSA Champ)
5 Wisconsin (Big 10 Champ)
12 Virginia Tech (ACC Champ)
2 Oregon (Pac 10 Champ)
15 Miami (OH) (MAC Champ)
7 Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ)
10 Boise State (WAC Champ)
3 TCU (MWC Champ)
14 Connecticut (Big East Champ)
6 Ohio State (at large)
11 LSU (at large)
Just in this bracket, Arkansas would've played their way into the bracket with their win over LSU. Alabama blowing the lead against Auburn knocked them out of the bracket. LSU cost themselves a first round host and possibly a match with UCF by losing to Arkansas. Boise cost themselves a home game and a shot at UCF with their loss to Nevada late in the season.
Had Auburn or Oregon lost a late season game, they may have fallen all the way to a match up with Virginia Tech in the opening round rather than FIU or Miami (OH).
Also, in this bracket, no at large team has more than 2 losses. Missouri, Oklahoma State, Nevada, and Alabama would be the 4 teams that finished just outside the last at large spot. Nebraska would've lost their chance with the Big 12 title loss. Just some thoughts. Obviously, you can take more losses and have an off day, but you can't take very many.
Ultimately, college football's regular season would have more games that mattered. The last weekend of the year, the only games that mattered were Auburn-SC and Oregon-Oregon State. No other game had any implications. The week before, the same thing with those two teams.
I've never understood how people make the argument that more regular season games matter because of the BCS. All you have to do is look at the end of the regular season to prove that isn't true. I think I went through and looked at it going into the next to last weekend of the year, and something like 20 games could have had playoff implications if there was one. As it stood, two games meant anything whatsoever.RebelBruiser said:
We'll be doing good to get a 4 team play off (Plus 1 system).
That would mean the National Champion would play 12 regular season games + 1 Conference Championship game + 4 playoff games = 17 games.
The Plus One system would only add 1 extra game for 2 teams. Will people still be upset about being left out? Yes. But, people complain about that with the NCAABB Tournament with 68 teams.
That would mean the National Champion would play 12 regular season games + 1 Conference Championship game + 4 playoff games = 17 games.
The Plus One system would only add 1 extra game for 2 teams. Will people still be upset about being left out? Yes. But, people complain about that with the NCAABB Tournament with 68 teams.
You only use 4, maybe even 3, starters in MLB playoffs. That's 40% of the starting rotation not even playing. And all the extra rest days makes a deep bullpen less important. That's like getting to a football playoff, and switching to 7-on-7.
And the wild-card process highly distorts things. There's always several teams vying for the WC, and usually whoever is on a hot streak gets it. Which is why you see WC teams succeed in the playoffs far more than statistically they should.
It'd be easy to have each round of the playoffs have no rest days, with rest days inbetween rounds. But that would make it harder to televise, which is why it isn't done.
And the wild-card process highly distorts things. There's always several teams vying for the WC, and usually whoever is on a hot streak gets it. Which is why you see WC teams succeed in the playoffs far more than statistically they should.
It'd be easy to have each round of the playoffs have no rest days, with rest days inbetween rounds. But that would make it harder to televise, which is why it isn't done.
it's actually worse. You are building no continuity with the team with a lot of one and done'ers. That's why these non-major teams are able to advance so far. They are having teams that have played together 2 or 3 years.
we (the sports-viewing audience in general) love these Cinderella teams, but we don't want them to advance TOO far, or heaven forbid actually WIN the thing. So when you see teams like Butler and VCU make the F4 (with the guarantee that one of them will actually play for the title), we get the talking heads wondering whether the tournament is actually "working".<div>
</div><div>I do think it's sad how college basketball has gotten so mediocre so quickly.</div>
</div><div>I do think it's sad how college basketball has gotten so mediocre so quickly.</div>
USM's ONE trip to Omaha to the fanbase of a school that's been 8 times? I bet you're one of those delusional fans that thinks USM's team last year was on par with ours...you believe that an 8-4 USMis equivalent to an 8-4 MSU or UM team, don't you (or any other SEC school for that matter)?usmsci said:
You have so many players now who go one and done (or never stay to play through their jr. or sr. season) and who struggle to play as a team, but have loads of individual talent. Then you have the teams like Butler and VCU who may lack in the individual talent department compared to say, Kentucky, but make up for it in their ability to work and play as a team. I think it provides an overall mismatch and with conferences struggling to have outstanding teams and the Butlers and VCUs are able to capitalize and continue to win when it counts. Just my opinion...