(12-24-2014 01:26 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:07 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 12:31 AM)Danger in Carolina Wrote:  Not to take anything away from UConn, but how does the larger and already established national Duke brand have nothing to do with that rating?

It's just a 'Cuse fan jealous of the champs!


4>1

Danger in Carolina is a Cuse fan?

DefCONNone isn't one of those "logic" types.

(12-24-2014 01:38 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 12:30 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Duke drove those ratings. UConn was complimentary.

Both schools have four NC's, but UConn's have been more recent ... including one just eight months ago.

But I'm sure 99% of those that watched were wearing Duke merchandise.

sorry but to suggest UCONN has a fanbase that is equal to Duke for that reason is just flat out insane.

(12-24-2014 10:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 03:27 AM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 03:06 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:57 AM)CoogNellie Wrote:  It's hilarious how jealous Syracuse fans are of UConn.

I can't blame them, UConn is a superior basketball program.

Yuppers. If only we could be in their position.

4>1

*at least get the numbers right. It's 4>3.

No, just 1. No trying to count pre-NCAA dodgy stuff. Cuse has 1, zero in the 20th century.

Look, this isn't complicated. Yes, Duke is a bigger brand name than UConn, so was responsible for a majority of the viewership. But, UConn is obviously a pretty big brand name themselves, so they contributed significantly to it as well.

Bottom line, this was a game between a top-5 brand (Duke) and a top-15 brand (UConn) so of course the ratings would be good.

(12-24-2014 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 10:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 03:27 AM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 03:06 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:57 AM)CoogNellie Wrote:  It's hilarious how jealous Syracuse fans are of UConn.

I can't blame them, UConn is a superior basketball program.

Yuppers. If only we could be in their position.

4>1

*at least get the numbers right. It's 4>3.

No, just 1. No trying to count pre-NCAA dodgy stuff. Cuse has 1, zero in the 20th century.

Not talking as an SU fan here, I'm talking as a general college sports fan. The notion of discrediting helms, especially in basketball is absolutely ridiculous. Only a minority of fans may actually agree with this stance, but that minority represents the portion of fans who fully understand the various NC claims thoughout college sports history. Helms is incredibly accurate and is well respected due to it's reputation for being non-biased. There are dozens of other selectors from this time period and the general consensus is that it blew those other selectors away. Numerous CFB programs use helms as their primary claim to national titles. For example like Syracuse in basketball, Michigan, Alabama, Notre Dame, & USC use helms to make multiple national title claims in football. The NCAA even recognizes helms national titles.

Anyone who considers himself a true college basketball fan and thinks an NCAA tourny from an era where it was one team per conference, AQ bids for each region, 8 teams total, and played second fiddle to the NIT, is unquestionably valid whereas the validity of a helms is questionable, needs to be punched in the face.

(12-24-2014 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 10:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 03:27 AM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 03:06 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:57 AM)CoogNellie Wrote:  It's hilarious how jealous Syracuse fans are of UConn.

I can't blame them, UConn is a superior basketball program.

Yuppers. If only we could be in their position.

4>1

*at least get the numbers right. It's 4>3.

No, just 1. No trying to count pre-NCAA dodgy stuff. Cuse has 1, zero in the 20th century.

*zero except for 2. Arbitrarily starting in the mid 70's is dodgy.

(12-24-2014 10:40 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 03:36 AM)BE4evah Wrote:  I get that the Syracuse/UConn rivalry is a big deal, but the incredible amount of sniping that pops up is quite unsettling.

One of the surest ways to inflate this sniping is to point out to Syracuse fans that UConn's students have higher SAT's and a higher high school class rank upon entrance UConn students are smarter. And another thing, UConn has to admit students from diverse backgrounds that come from its urban areas, like Hartford, New Haven, etc. And even with this mission statement, Uconn's SAT's are still higher! Even at the lowest 25% of enrollees!!!

That gives a little color to the Syracuse jealousy/hatred/belittlement. Once upon a time Syracuse was the much "better" school. So much has changed!!!

The irony of a UCONN fan talking trash about academics is thick. Syracuse has a higher ranking. Sometimes it's not where you start. It's where you finish. Contrary to what you're trying to imply, SU has recently had a substantially bigger diversity push than UCONN. We recruit out of cities, too

UConn and Syracuse are tied in the U.S. News rankings (with SMU), and UConn has higher SAT scores than Syracuse.

UConn does ok academically.

(12-24-2014 10:52 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:26 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:07 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 12:31 AM)Danger in Carolina Wrote:  Not to take anything away from UConn, but how does the larger and already established national Duke brand have nothing to do with that rating?

It's just a 'Cuse fan jealous of the champs!


4>1

Danger in Carolina is a Cuse fan?

DefCONNone isn't one of those "logic" types.

For the record I'm not a 'cuse fan...or a 'cuse hater for that fact. I'm not a UConn fan or hater either (except when ECU plays them).

When I made my earlier point, I was merely suggesting that you can't attribute the rating soley to UConn which was the premise of the OP. I'm sure Duke AND UConn had a lot to do with the rating. It was a good match-up of two solid basketball brands, the match-up of two powers attracted a lot of fans from both of those teams and also people that like to watch good basketball.

And going back to the OP original premise, I don't that think TV ratings for this game suggests its a good idea for UConn to go monetize its brand separately(independently?).

(12-25-2014 05:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 10:40 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 03:36 AM)BE4evah Wrote:  I get that the Syracuse/UConn rivalry is a big deal, but the incredible amount of sniping that pops up is quite unsettling.

One of the surest ways to inflate this sniping is to point out to Syracuse fans that UConn's students have higher SAT's and a higher high school class rank upon entrance UConn students are smarter. And another thing, UConn has to admit students from diverse backgrounds that come from its urban areas, like Hartford, New Haven, etc. And even with this mission statement, Uconn's SAT's are still higher! Even at the lowest 25% of enrollees!!!

That gives a little color to the Syracuse jealousy/hatred/belittlement. Once upon a time Syracuse was the much "better" school. So much has changed!!!

The irony of a UCONN fan talking trash about academics is thick. Syracuse has a higher ranking. Sometimes it's not where you start. It's where you finish. Contrary to what you're trying to imply, SU has recently had a substantially bigger diversity push than UCONN. We recruit out of cities, too

UConn and Syracuse are tied in the U.S. News rankings (with SMU), and UConn has higher SAT scores than Syracuse.

UConn does ok academically.

No doubt. I never said or implied differently. UConn is a good school (as are the upper half of all the old BIG EAST football schools). I just said that hearing a UConn fan take shots at Syracuse academics is a little much.

(12-24-2014 01:57 AM)CoogNellie Wrote:  It's hilarious how jealous Syracuse fans are of UConn.

I can't blame them, UConn is a superior basketball program.

Uconn is a superior basketball program at this time, but SU fans arent jealous of Uconn. While we would love to have their championships, there is not an SU fan I know who would trade places with Uconn. If you take a look at the Duke/Syracuse games last year, they were the highest rated games of the year for basketball and beat out most fb ratings and were in the top 5 ratings in the history of college basketball on ESPN..

(12-24-2014 11:09 AM)john01992 Wrote:  The notion of discrediting helms, especially in basketball is absolutely ridiculous. Only a minority of fans may actually agree with this stance, but that minority represents the portion of fans who fully understand the various NC claims thoughout college sports history. Helms is incredibly accurate and is well respected due to it's reputation for being non-biased.

The issue I take up with are claiming Helms titles from years where there were post season tournaments, and the Helms champion was neither of those (note only three NIT winners won Helms titles: Temple in 38 when the NIT was the only tourney, LIU in 39, the first year of the NCAA tourney, and CCNY in 1950 who won both tournaments) . Or years where they retroactively awarded championships. Which leaves only about 4-5 valid years for the Helms championship, from 36-40. I think the pre-1936 Helms titles have some validity as there is no other national champion of record, but in general I don't like retroactive titles because hindsight comes into play too much.

(12-25-2014 08:32 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 10:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 03:27 AM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 03:06 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Yuppers. If only we could be in their position.

4>1

*at least get the numbers right. It's 4>3.

No, just 1. No trying to count pre-NCAA dodgy stuff. Cuse has 1, zero in the 20th century.

*zero except for 2. Arbitrarily starting in the mid 70's is dodgy.

I'd be the last to start in the mid-1970s. The NCAA tourney goes back to 1939 and by the 1950s was clearly the national title determiner. But Cuse has to go back to the 1920s to make their Helms claims, and those are retrospective titles, not even voted on at the time, by people who saw the teams play in real time and thus had a much greater sense of how good they were than can be discerned by reading historical stat sheets. I mean, imagine if the AP had a vote right now, in 2014, and decided that Alabama was really the 1966 football champion? That would be silly. So the Helms claims ARE major-league dodgy.

(12-26-2014 12:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 08:32 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 10:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 03:27 AM)CoogNellie Wrote:  4>1

*at least get the numbers right. It's 4>3.

No, just 1. No trying to count pre-NCAA dodgy stuff. Cuse has 1, zero in the 20th century.

*zero except for 2. Arbitrarily starting in the mid 70's is dodgy.

I'd be the last to start in the mid-1970s. The NCAA tourney goes back to 1939 and by the 1950s was clearly the national title determiner. But Cuse has to go back to the 1920s to make their Helms claims, and those are retrospective titles, not even voted on at the time, by people who saw the teams play in real time and thus had a much greater sense of how good they were than can be discerned by reading historical stat sheets. I mean, imagine if the AP had a vote right now, in 2014, and decided that Alabama was really the 1966 football champion? That would be silly. So the Helms claims ARE major-league dodgy.

The NCAA clearly determining the national championship starting in the 1950s is a crock of

Quote:As late as 1970, Coach Al McGuire of Marquette, the 8th-ranked team in the final AP poll of the season, spurned an NCAA at-large invitation because the Warriors were going to be placed in the NCAA Midwest Regional (Fort Worth, Texas) instead of closer to home in the Mideast Regional (Dayton, Ohio).[33] The team played in the NIT instead, which it won. This led the NCAA to decree that any school to which it offered a bid must accept it or be prohibited from participating in postseason competition.

The NCAA said their tourney champion was the national champion. But it wasn't necessarily true. Some schools chose to play in both tourneys. But many of the best teams chose to play in the NIT, rather than the NCAA tourney, until the NCAA changed the rule after Marquette's 1970 NCAA snub.

WVU even has a legitimate claim for a national championship in basketball with their 1942 NIT Championship. The NCAA doesn't recognize it, since it didn't occur in the NCAA tourney. If WVU were like some other schools I can think of, we would claim it. The NIT had the best teams playing in NYC. The NCAA tourney was a distant 2nd at the time.

(12-24-2014 10:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Look, this isn't complicated. Yes, Duke is a bigger brand name than UConn, so was responsible for a majority of the viewership. But, UConn is obviously a pretty big brand name themselves, so they contributed significantly to it as well.

Bottom line, this was a game between a top-5 brand (Duke) and a top-15 brand (UConn) so of course the ratings would be good.

Quo I said they were complimentary...my only point and this will send the UConn Drama Queens into orbit is: Duke was the main draw in the game.

No rational college hoops fan can deny that.

(12-26-2014 01:47 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 12:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 08:32 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 10:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  *at least get the numbers right. It's 4>3.

No, just 1. No trying to count pre-NCAA dodgy stuff. Cuse has 1, zero in the 20th century.

*zero except for 2. Arbitrarily starting in the mid 70's is dodgy.

I'd be the last to start in the mid-1970s. The NCAA tourney goes back to 1939 and by the 1950s was clearly the national title determiner. But Cuse has to go back to the 1920s to make their Helms claims, and those are retrospective titles, not even voted on at the time, by people who saw the teams play in real time and thus had a much greater sense of how good they were than can be discerned by reading historical stat sheets. I mean, imagine if the AP had a vote right now, in 2014, and decided that Alabama was really the 1966 football champion? That would be silly. So the Helms claims ARE major-league dodgy.

The NCAA clearly determining the national championship starting in the 1950s is a crock of

Quote:As late as 1970, Coach Al McGuire of Marquette, the 8th-ranked team in the final AP poll of the season, spurned an NCAA at-large invitation because the Warriors were going to be placed in the NCAA Midwest Regional (Fort Worth, Texas) instead of closer to home in the Mideast Regional (Dayton, Ohio).[33] The team played in the NIT instead, which it won. This led the NCAA to decree that any school to which it offered a bid must accept it or be prohibited from participating in postseason competition.

The NCAA said their tourney champion was the national champion. But it wasn't necessarily true. Some schools chose to play in both tourneys. But many of the best teams chose to play in the NIT, rather than the NCAA tourney, until the NCAA changed the rule after Marquette's 1970 NCAA snub.

WVU even has a legitimate claim for a national championship in basketball with their 1942 NIT Championship. The NCAA doesn't recognize it, since it didn't occur in the NCAA tourney. If WVU were like some other schools I can think of, we would claim it. The NIT had the best teams playing in NYC. The NCAA tourney was a distant 2nd at the time.

Exactly

(12-26-2014 01:47 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 12:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 08:32 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 10:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  *at least get the numbers right. It's 4>3.

No, just 1. No trying to count pre-NCAA dodgy stuff. Cuse has 1, zero in the 20th century.

*zero except for 2. Arbitrarily starting in the mid 70's is dodgy.

I'd be the last to start in the mid-1970s. The NCAA tourney goes back to 1939 and by the 1950s was clearly the national title determiner. But Cuse has to go back to the 1920s to make their Helms claims, and those are retrospective titles, not even voted on at the time, by people who saw the teams play in real time and thus had a much greater sense of how good they were than can be discerned by reading historical stat sheets. I mean, imagine if the AP had a vote right now, in 2014, and decided that Alabama was really the 1966 football champion? That would be silly. So the Helms claims ARE major-league dodgy.

The NCAA clearly determining the national championship starting in the 1950s is a crock of

Quote:As late as 1970, Coach Al McGuire of Marquette, the 8th-ranked team in the final AP poll of the season, spurned an NCAA at-large invitation because the Warriors were going to be placed in the NCAA Midwest Regional (Fort Worth, Texas) instead of closer to home in the Mideast Regional (Dayton, Ohio).[33] The team played in the NIT instead, which it won. This led the NCAA to decree that any school to which it offered a bid must accept it or be prohibited from participating in postseason competition.

The NCAA said their tourney champion was the national champion. But it wasn't necessarily true. Some schools chose to play in both tourneys. But many of the best teams chose to play in the NIT, rather than the NCAA tourney, until the NCAA changed the rule after Marquette's 1970 NCAA snub.

WVU even has a legitimate claim for a national championship in basketball with their 1942 NIT Championship. The NCAA doesn't recognize it, since it didn't occur in the NCAA tourney. If WVU were like some other schools I can think of, we would claim it. The NIT had the best teams playing in NYC. The NCAA tourney was a distant 2nd at the time.

I agreed with everything until this: If WVU were like some other schools I can think of, we would claim it. The NIT had the best teams playing in NYC. The NCAA tourney was a distant 2nd at the time.

You can claim the NIT championship rightfully but Stanford was awarded the Helms that year.

(12-26-2014 12:16 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 11:09 AM)john01992 Wrote:  The notion of discrediting helms, especially in basketball is absolutely ridiculous. Only a minority of fans may actually agree with this stance, but that minority represents the portion of fans who fully understand the various NC claims thoughout college sports history. Helms is incredibly accurate and is well respected due to it's reputation for being non-biased.

The issue I take up with are claiming Helms titles from years where there were post season tournaments, and the Helms champion was neither of those (note only three NIT winners won Helms titles: Temple in 38 when the NIT was the only tourney, LIU in 39, the first year of the NCAA tourney, and CCNY in 1950 who won both tournaments) . Or years where they retroactively awarded championships. Which leaves only about 4-5 valid years for the Helms championship, from 36-40. I think the pre-1936 Helms titles have some validity as there is no other national champion of record, but in general I don't like retroactive titles because hindsight comes into play too much.

I 100% agree that helms only before 1939 should be counted, same with football (1936) when the AP came out. which these helms titles in question fall under.

I 100% disagree with your opinion regarding retroactive titles not being claimed. Did you know the term "Final Four" was not coined until the late 70s? Because if this is the logic we are going with then we might as well take down all those banners as well.

Claiming retroactive titles is ingrained in college sports. While I understand the logic behind not wanting to claim them, the fact of the matter is that these were either A) the best teams in those years or B) won the exact same accomplishments as future teams that were rewarded for said accomplishments.

I really can't comprehend not claiming these titles. Both BB & FB saw a lot of changes over the years that were accepted, but to nullify helms because the concept of a national champion didn't emerge until the 30s seems arbitrary. There are too many changes to these sports to list, but that change but accept other changes without a problem doesn't add up.

it's the dilemma of following sports/teams that have existed for 100+ years

(12-26-2014 12:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 08:32 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 10:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 03:27 AM)CoogNellie Wrote:  4>1

*at least get the numbers right. It's 4>3.

No, just 1. No trying to count pre-NCAA dodgy stuff. Cuse has 1, zero in the 20th century.

*zero except for 2. Arbitrarily starting in the mid 70's is dodgy.

I'd be the last to start in the mid-1970s. The NCAA tourney goes back to 1939 and by the 1950s was clearly the national title determiner. But Cuse has to go back to the 1920s to make their Helms claims, and those are retrospective titles, not even voted on at the time, by people who saw the teams play in real time and thus had a much greater sense of how good they were than can be discerned by reading historical stat sheets. I mean, imagine if the AP had a vote right now, in 2014, and decided that Alabama was really the 1966 football champion? That would be silly. So the Helms claims ARE major-league dodgy.

big difference here is that those 1920s teams were played in an era where the concept of a national championship didn't really exist.

the proper analogy is the AP which only awarded FB titles starting in 1936 to retroactively award titles before then.

again I must stress you are arguing against something that is common practice in college sports.

(12-26-2014 02:35 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 01:47 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 12:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 08:32 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  No, just 1. No trying to count pre-NCAA dodgy stuff. Cuse has 1, zero in the 20th century.

*zero except for 2. Arbitrarily starting in the mid 70's is dodgy.

I'd be the last to start in the mid-1970s. The NCAA tourney goes back to 1939 and by the 1950s was clearly the national title determiner. But Cuse has to go back to the 1920s to make their Helms claims, and those are retrospective titles, not even voted on at the time, by people who saw the teams play in real time and thus had a much greater sense of how good they were than can be discerned by reading historical stat sheets. I mean, imagine if the AP had a vote right now, in 2014, and decided that Alabama was really the 1966 football champion? That would be silly. So the Helms claims ARE major-league dodgy.

The NCAA clearly determining the national championship starting in the 1950s is a crock of

Quote:As late as 1970, Coach Al McGuire of Marquette, the 8th-ranked team in the final AP poll of the season, spurned an NCAA at-large invitation because the Warriors were going to be placed in the NCAA Midwest Regional (Fort Worth, Texas) instead of closer to home in the Mideast Regional (Dayton, Ohio).[33] The team played in the NIT instead, which it won. This led the NCAA to decree that any school to which it offered a bid must accept it or be prohibited from participating in postseason competition.

The NCAA said their tourney champion was the national champion. But it wasn't necessarily true. Some schools chose to play in both tourneys. But many of the best teams chose to play in the NIT, rather than the NCAA tourney, until the NCAA changed the rule after Marquette's 1970 NCAA snub.

WVU even has a legitimate claim for a national championship in basketball with their 1942 NIT Championship. The NCAA doesn't recognize it, since it didn't occur in the NCAA tourney. If WVU were like some other schools I can think of, we would claim it. The NIT had the best teams playing in NYC. The NCAA tourney was a distant 2nd at the time.

I agreed with everything until this: If WVU were like some other schools I can think of, we would claim it. The NIT had the best teams playing in NYC. The NCAA tourney was a distant 2nd at the time.

You can claim the NIT championship rightfully but Stanford was awarded the Helms that year.

That doesn't mean Stanford was the best team. It merely means the NCAA said they were. It's an opinion, nothing more.

(12-26-2014 01:47 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 12:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 08:32 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 10:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  *at least get the numbers right. It's 4>3.

No, just 1. No trying to count pre-NCAA dodgy stuff. Cuse has 1, zero in the 20th century.

*zero except for 2. Arbitrarily starting in the mid 70's is dodgy.

I'd be the last to start in the mid-1970s. The NCAA tourney goes back to 1939 and by the 1950s was clearly the national title determiner. But Cuse has to go back to the 1920s to make their Helms claims, and those are retrospective titles, not even voted on at the time, by people who saw the teams play in real time and thus had a much greater sense of how good they were than can be discerned by reading historical stat sheets. I mean, imagine if the AP had a vote right now, in 2014, and decided that Alabama was really the 1966 football champion? That would be silly. So the Helms claims ARE major-league dodgy.

The NCAA clearly determining the national championship starting in the 1950s is a crock of

Quote:As late as 1970, Coach Al McGuire of Marquette, the 8th-ranked team in the final AP poll of the season, spurned an NCAA at-large invitation because the Warriors were going to be placed in the NCAA Midwest Regional (Fort Worth, Texas) instead of closer to home in the Mideast Regional (Dayton, Ohio).[33] The team played in the NIT instead, which it won. This led the NCAA to decree that any school to which it offered a bid must accept it or be prohibited from participating in postseason competition.

The NCAA said their tourney champion was the national champion. But it wasn't necessarily true. Some schools chose to play in both tourneys. But many of the best teams chose to play in the NIT, rather than the NCAA tourney, until the NCAA changed the rule after Marquette's 1970 NCAA snub.

WVU even has a legitimate claim for a national championship in basketball with their 1942 NIT Championship. The NCAA doesn't recognize it, since it didn't occur in the NCAA tourney. If WVU were like some other schools I can think of, we would claim it. The NIT had the best teams playing in NYC. The NCAA tourney was a distant 2nd at the time.

Regardless of an individual team here and there, all you have to do is look at the entrants in each tournament and the AP poll: there is simply no comparison between the two tournaments last 1940: the NCAA tournament was THE tournament, even if there were a few individual teams in the NIt better Han some teams in the NCAA tournament. Note that still happens today; yet doesn't undermine which tournament is tops.