Running NCAA men's tournament thread 2012

Are you calling Arkansas, the overall No. 1 seed in the '94 tournament, a Cinderella?

 

I think the point is that those championship games didn't have a Cinderella in them and didn't come down to a buzzer-beating shot.

(I actually remember where I was for all three, FWIW.)

 

They only make the best tournaments if you've decided that a tournament can't be good without a Cinderella.

Remember that we had two 15 seeds win within six hours of one another after going 11 years without such an upset. Ohio very nearly became the lowest seed to make the Elite Eight. VCU was one gack job away from an unlikely return to the Sweet 16. It's not the women's tournament, where lower seeds went 4-28 in the first round and the Elite Eight was nothing but 1 vs. 2.

I remember watching the Duke vs. Kentucky game in 1992. It survived not having Princeton or LaSalle get there.

 

I won't say this tournament hasn't had its exciting moments – every tournament has some excitement – but outside of the two 15s winning hours apart, this has been a pretty ordinary tournament thus far.

No buzzer-beaters, only one OT game so far and all four teams in the Final Four are "big-time" programs. Louisville is the closest thing to a Cinderella, but they won the Big East Tournament, and their pedigree is lengthy.

And as exciting as last year's tournament was, with all the close games and last-second shots in the early rounds, it ended in one of the most boring finals ever. Still three games left, and it only takes one classic at this stage to turn an ordinary tournament into an extraordinary tournament.

 

So the fact that there are no "cinderellas" in the Final Four, this can't be a good tournament?

That's silly.

There have been a lot of good games but for once the real teams, for the most part, showed up to play and that is what a "national championship" tournament should be about.

 

The best combination is when there are a lot of upsets and crazy finishes early, but they only knock out the pretender teams, and there's good action left for the Final Four. I recall 1991 being excellent in this regard, and I think something like 2005 -- or whenever it was that Michigan State and Kentucky went to 3 OTs -- was similar.

This tournament has been boring as hell to watch so far, there's really no two ways about it. But the flip side is that when Mason made its run, which was awesome, eventually they fell hard and then the Final Four was no fun to watch.

 

There was more action on the Porcini's table for 15 seconds than there has been in this tournament.

 

Word for fucking word. I tried to explain this to a friend who is upset about the powerhouse Final Four. Give me 2008 over 2011 any day.

 

A perfect Final Four, for me, is one Cinderella and three other power houses.

People celebrating chalk in the tournament, to me, is celebrating what is expected, and most times, that is not fun.

 

So in the NFL were you rooting for the Broncos to make it to the Super Bowl this year or the Seahawks a few years ago when they were 7-9? Do you want to see the No. 8 seed in hockey or the NBA, a dogshit team, not a team that had injuries and finished in the 8 seed by a few points or games, but a dogshit team in a weak conference that finished in the 8 seed by default make the Stanley Cup Final of NBA FInals?

How about - Houston in college football, did you want to see them in the BCS game?

No, you didn't, cause you want to see the best teams play for the championship and it shouldn't be any different just because there are a bunch people hell bent on rooting for the "wittle guy".

This year was perfect, a few "wittle guys" won a couple of games early to keep the "mid-majors are da best" crowd happy, but not against real teams and then they went home before the Elite Eight.

That is how it should be.

 

What are your thoughts on mid-majors with legitimate NBA first-rounders? Valparaiso in '98, St. Joe's with West and Nelson, Davidson a few years back, Butler two years ago, etc., etc. Of course, at some point you can't even consider programs like that mid-majors any more: UNLV, Memphis, Gonzaga, etc., etc.

 

Zag, I think you are discounting what beating a team head to head really means. To me, when two teams play, the winner is the better team. I don't like choosing the better team on spreadsheets, random votes and +/-/WAR/WGAF/RPI.

The second Stanley Cup for Mario was low seed and the Steelers Cowher Super Bowl was a low seed. They proved not to be "wittle" guys. And if Houston is in a four-team or an eight-team playoff and beats two powerhouses, then yes, they are the best team in the country.

And VCU was not winning every game on buzzer beaters last year. They kicked the shit out of Purdue, Kansas and a few other major teams. That was not dumb luck. They were the better team.