Final Four

[LittleHurt05]

So Mike and Mike on ESPN, one of the dumbest radio shows out there, had a debate this morning about whether the tournament is "good" for deciding who the real "champion" of men's basketball is each year. In essence, Greenberg was arguing that any team can make a run and win, but they wouldn't be the "best" team that year.

 

I for one think that's stupid logic. I understand that teams have bad draws/matchups, that teams get cold and lose a game they would otherwise win, but that's the stakes for everyone, and over the course of six games, those "flukes" are going to even out. If VCU ends up winning the whole thing, then guess what, they ARE the best team because they played the best basketball over the last 3 weeks of the season.

 

For once, they are 100% correct. Same thing happens in baseball. Winning a single 7-game series doesn't make you the BEST team in baseball. It makes you the champion of the playoffs. Champion does not equal best team. See the 2006 Cardinals. No one remembers who the best team that year was, they just remember that the Cardinals got hot and won the World Series as an 83-win team.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

A bartender on saturday was actually saying that this year's tournament is a good argument for the BCS as something that determines champions.

 

That bartender obviously has no clue about what they're talking about.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

VCU is not the best team in the country even if they win the championship. I'm not sure how that is even debatable.

 

I don't think a team that loses in the tournament can be called the "best" team either. I think a team that can win 6 games against all sorts of competition is the best team at the right time.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

For once, they are 100% correct. Same thing happens in baseball. Winning a single 7-game series doesn't make you the BEST team in baseball. It makes you the champion of the playoffs. Champion does not equal best team. See the 2006 Cardinals. No one remembers who the best team that year was, they just remember that the Cardinals got hot and won the World Series as an 83-win team.

 

To me that's a stupid way of looking at it, especially when you talk about a 7 game series. A team that is supposedly the best and has the most potential crushes it during the regular season and then loses in the playoffs. Another team struggles in the regular season and then turns it on in the playoffs to win. On the one hand we say, oh well they were a fluke team that got hot, they were not the best. But on the other we somehow accept that the "best" team lost and still consider them the best? How does that work?

[Balta1701]

To me that's a stupid way of looking at it, especially when you talk about a 7 game series. A team that is supposedly the best and has the most potential crushes it during the regular season and then loses in the playoffs. Another team struggles in the regular season and then turns it on in the playoffs to win. On the one hand we say, oh well they were a fluke team that got hot, they were not the best. But on the other we somehow accept that the "best" team lost and still consider them the best? How does that work?

The Best team in MLB in 2006 went 82-80 in the regular season.

[RockRaines]

To me that's a stupid way of looking at it, especially when you talk about a 7 game series. A team that is supposedly the best and has the most potential crushes it during the regular season and then loses in the playoffs. Another team struggles in the regular season and then turns it on in the playoffs to win. On the one hand we say, oh well they were a fluke team that got hot, they were not the best. But on the other we somehow accept that the "best" team lost and still consider them the best? How does that work?

I dont think you can compare professional playoffs with a single elimination tournament anyway.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I dont think you can compare professional playoffs with a single elimination tournament anyway.

 

NFL?

[LittleHurt05]

The Best team in MLB in 2006 went 82-80 in the regular season.

 

the Houston Astros?

[CrimsonWeltall]

Being the 'best' doesn't matter. Being the champs does.

[LittleHurt05]

I don't think a team that loses in the tournament can be called the "best" team either. I think a team that can win 6 games against all sorts of competition is the best team at the right time.

 

Well if you think that VCU is a better basketball team than OSU or UNC because they advanced to the Final Four, then you haven't been watching the same basketball as me.

 

Being the 'best' doesn't matter. Being the champs does.

 

This is the truth. I guess I am the one arguing it, but the "best" argument doesn't matter in the long run anyway. Ten years from now, all that will be remembered was that VCU made an improbable run and that Connecticut was the national champion.

[YASNY]

The only legit way to determine the champion is on the field, court, rink or links.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well if you think that VCU is a better basketball team than OSU or UNC because they advanced to the Final Four, then you haven't been watching the same basketball as me.

 

 

 

This is the truth. I guess I am the one arguing it, but the "best" argument doesn't matter in the long run anyway. Ten years from now, all that will be remembered was that VCU made an improbable run and that Connecticut was the national champion.

 

Why? Give me a good argument to believe you. If VCU wins the title, how are they not at least in the discussion of best teams (which is good enough since no one would agree on who the "best" is if they all lost). Seems to me that people ignore what NC teams have to go through to win the whole thing. It's not a fluke. Sure, there are some easy roads to the title, but do you really want to claim that VCU has played no one so far?

 

UNC was incredibly overrated btw. Just because they played in a high caliber environment doesn't mean they were a high caliber team.

[Rowand44]

UNC was incredibly overrated btw.

How exactly is this true?

[LittleHurt05]

Why? Give me a good argument to believe you. If VCU wins the title, how are they not at least in the discussion of best teams (which is good enough since no one would agree on who the "best" is if they all lost). Seems to me that people ignore what NC teams have to go through to win the whole thing. It's not a fluke. Sure, there are some easy roads to the title, but do you really want to claim that VCU has played no one so far?

 

UNC was incredibly overrated btw. Just because they played in a high caliber environment doesn't mean they were a high caliber team.

 

I never said VCU hasn't played anyone. They have had an incredible run and if they win their next two games, they will be 100% worthy NCAA champions, just as Duke, UNC, KU, Florida & all the other champs before them were.

 

But in a single elimination tournament where luck of the draw and matchups can be just as important as how well you play, I can't just call the champion the "best" basketball team in the country. I also can't let the last 4 games override what I watched in the previous 4 months. Nothing at all I have seen on the court makes me think that VCU is a better basketball team than OSU, not this past week, not this past season.

 

Like someone said earlier, championships are won the court, OSU blew their chance while VCU is still alive. One of the final 4 teams will deservedly be crowned NCAA champions and that is all that will matter in the record book forever. But right now, I can't let that title cloud what my eyes have watched on the basketball court all year.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

How exactly is this true?

 

They were considered much better than they actually were.

[danman31]

UNC was incredibly overrated btw.

2 seed that won the ACC regular season title and played to its seed in the NCAA tourney. Not to mention earlier in the year they beat the team that knocked them out. Impossible for them to be overrated.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

2 seed that won the ACC regular season title and played to its seed in the NCAA tourney. Not to mention earlier in the year they beat the team that knocked them out. Impossible for them to be overrated.

 

The ACC was horrible this year.

 

And it was confirmed that if they had beaten Duke in the ACC title game they would have been a #1 seed.

 

Good team, yes, but still over rated at the end of the year. This was not a typical championship caliber UNC team that some people were making them out to be recently. They got hot at the right time.

[Rowand44]

The ACC was horrible this year.

 

And it was confirmed that if they had beaten Duke in the ACC title game they would have been a #1 seed.

 

Good team, yes, but still over rated at the end of the year. This was not a typical championship caliber UNC team that some people were making them out to be recently. They got hot at the right time.

UNC still had the 5th rated rpi and the 5 sos in the country, not too shabby. Two fantastic wins against Duke and Kentucky as well. No, the acc certainly wasn't terrific but who do you think deserved a 2 seed over them?

 

And as Dan said, they played exactly to their seed, so they certainly weren't overrated at all.

[whitesoxfan99]

UNC still had the 5th rated rpi and the 5 sos in the country, not too shabby. Two fantastic wins against Duke and Kentucky as well. No, the acc certainly wasn't terrific but who do you think deserved a 2 seed over them?

 

And as Dan said, they played exactly to their seed, so they certainly weren't overrated at all.

 

UNC definitely wasn't overrated. They were one of the best teams in a really lousy year for college basketball. That team wouldn't be a 2 seed in most years but they definitely were deserving a 2 seed and their high ranking this year.

[zenryan]

UNC definitely wasn't overrated. They were one of the best teams in a really lousy year for college basketball. That team wouldn't be a 2 seed in most years but they definitely were deserving a 2 seed and their high ranking this year.

 

 

 

 

Stole the words right from my mouth.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

UNC still had the 5th rated rpi and the 5 sos in the country, not too shabby. Two fantastic wins against Duke and Kentucky as well. No, the acc certainly wasn't terrific but who do you think deserved a 2 seed over them?

 

And as Dan said, they played exactly to their seed, so they certainly weren't overrated at all.

 

Honestly, and I know i'll get killed for this, but Texas or Kentucky and frankly after winning the BET UConn had an argument too.

 

Not saying UNC was a bad team at all, but they were being talked up as one of the main national title threats. The committee said if they won the ACC Tourney they would have been a #1. I know college basketball was weak this year but that was not a 1/2 seed. They should have lost to Washington in the second round, they got lucky Washington plays so out of control. I mean they had two top 25 wins all year. And RPI is kind of a joke, i'm sure you know that.

 

It's all a moot point right now but they just never struck me as a legitimate threat. They played erratically and then turned it on at the end. They were a young team and it showed. I just never bought into the end of year hype with them I guess.

[Palehosefan]

Honestly, and I know i'll get killed for this, but Texas or Kentucky and frankly after winning the BET UConn had an argument too.

 

Not saying UNC was a bad team at all, but they were being talked up as one of the main national title threats. The committee said if they won the ACC Tourney they would have been a #1. I know college basketball was weak this year but that was not a 1/2 seed. They should have lost to Washington in the second round, they got lucky Washington plays so out of control. I mean they had two top 25 wins all year. And RPI is kind of a joke, i'm sure you know that.

 

It's all a moot point right now but they just never struck me as a legitimate threat. They played erratically and then turned it on at the end. They were a young team and it showed. I just never bought into the end of year hype with them I guess.

 

Wasn't really erratic play. It was either before Kendall Marshall started and then with Kendall Marshall starting. UNC was 17-3 this season after Marshall got the nod. You can make the argument that they should have beaten Kentucky if not for a ridiculous 12-22 display from behind the arc. Kentucky was 0-16 from 3 in their loss last year against West Virginia. :-(.

 

UNC only had one bad loss on the year, and that was the reason for the player change, which was at Georgia Tech. Not a bad season for a team that was down 5 scholarship players in the tournament.

[Jenksismyhero]

Honestly, and I know i'll get killed for this, but Texas or Kentucky and frankly after winning the BET UConn had an argument too.

 

Not saying UNC was a bad team at all, but they were being talked up as one of the main national title threats. The committee said if they won the ACC Tourney they would have been a #1. I know college basketball was weak this year but that was not a 1/2 seed. They should have lost to Washington in the second round, they got lucky Washington plays so out of control. I mean they had two top 25 wins all year. And RPI is kind of a joke, i'm sure you know that.

 

It's all a moot point right now but they just never struck me as a legitimate threat. They played erratically and then turned it on at the end. They were a young team and it showed. I just never bought into the end of year hype with them I guess.

 

Agreed. The ACC was terrible, their only competition was Duke, and yes, Kentucky is also overrated. This is like saying Duke wasn't overrated because it was a #1 seed. That's BS. Duke wasn't deserving of a #1 seed (shocker there, Duke getting an inflated seeding). They won nothing but the ACC title and had one top 25 win all season. That's a crappy resume for a #1.

 

That elite 8 game between UNC and Kentucky was fantastic, but that's two decent teams, not two great teams. Kentucky is a no-call travel away from losing in the first round.

[YASNY]

Agreed. The ACC was terrible, their only competition was Duke, and yes, Kentucky is also overrated. This is like saying Duke wasn't overrated because it was a #1 seed. That's BS. Duke wasn't deserving of a #1 seed (shocker there, Duke getting an inflated seeding). They won nothing but the ACC title and had one top 25 win all season. That's a crappy resume for a #1.

 

That elite 8 game between UNC and Kentucky was fantastic, but that's two decent teams, not two great teams. Kentucky is a no-call travel away from losing in the first round.

 

Yes, but they also beat the top ranked team in the nation.

[whitesoxfan99]

Agreed. The ACC was terrible, their only competition was Duke, and yes, Kentucky is also overrated. This is like saying Duke wasn't overrated because it was a #1 seed. That's BS. Duke wasn't deserving of a #1 seed (shocker there, Duke getting an inflated seeding). They won nothing but the ACC title and had one top 25 win all season. That's a crappy resume for a #1.

 

That elite 8 game between UNC and Kentucky was fantastic, but that's two decent teams, not two great teams. Kentucky is a no-call travel away from losing in the first round.

 

There were no great teams. If you are saying Kentucky, Duke, UNC, etc. were overrated then who wasn't overrated? The Big East? College basketball sucked this year, so a lot of teams that would usually be top 15-20 type teams became top 5-10 teams.