Running NCAA men's tournament thread 2012

The best way to determine a national champion is probably the 64-team format that we had a couple years ago. Best combination of: (1) Gauntlet to make teams go through to determine whether they have the mettle; (2) Logistical concerns - series are just not possible at the college level; (3) TV/entertainment value.

 

"Well, if we multiply RPI by strength of schedule, subtract the number of non-Division I opponents, multiply that by the square root of how many teams beat them on the road and divide that by they're average win margin, we'll have a true champion."

 

No one would suggest that. I think that consensus is that 4-of-7 series in basketball pretty much determine the better team.

 

I hate best-of-seven series in basketball. At least in the first round. Love 'em in hockey, you can get a war in the 1-8 and 2-7 matchup, but in hoops all it does is create false drama and line David Stern's pocket.

 

Don't let this guy hear that talk:



There are more 1-8 and 2-7 upsets than you seem to realize.

 

How many times in recent memory has a team won the title that couldn't realistically claim that they were one of the best teams in the country? If a No. 1 or No. 2 seed wins, it's a pretty safe bet they were one of the best teams in the country for most of the season.

No. 3 seeds. UConn and Florida won as a No. 3 seeds, but had crazy talented teams that underachieved at times during the regular season. Syracuse won as a No. 3, but had the best player in the country. Even KU in 1988 had the best player in the country, even though the Jayhawks were just a No. 6 seed.

I remember Arizona in 1997 being a pretty big stunner. Obviously NC State and Villanova were huge stunners, but that was a long time ago.

 

Even Arizona in 1997 was a No. 4 seed with a 25-9 record and five future NBA draft picks. And Arizona had to beat three ridiculously stacked No. 1 seeds: Kansas with Paul Pierce and Raef Lafrentz; North Carolina with Antawn Jamison and Vince Carter; and Kentucky with a loaded cast that had won the year before and would win the year after.

It rarely works out that the team that wins it all doesn't have much of an argument as the best team in the country, but it often works out like it did last year: Connecticut was the hottest team and a great tournament team, but Ohio State and Kansas put together more impressive overall bodies of work. Keep in mind that the highest-seeded team Connecticut had to play in the NCAA tournament was No. 2 seed San Diego State.

 

I look forward to the proposal the Wimbledon final be made best of seven as well. The word tournament means what it means. You lose, you're out. It's not the NCAA playoffs.

 

Agreed.

 

That was a best-of-five.

Since the first round became best-of-seven in 2003, I count three "upsets" in the 36 series involving 1 and 2 seeds -- and one of the "upsets" was the 50-win Spurs knocking out the 55-win Mavs.

There are fewer upsets than you seem to realize.

 

OK, if we're eliminating the five-game sets, then you're right. I didn't read clearly enough.

 

The 1997 Arizona team lost its last two games before the NCAAs and was a very popular pick to be upset in the first round. It definitely had a lot of talent though...