(04-08-2015 10:39 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 09:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Duke was very fortunate. They didn't win the ACC regular season title, didn't win the ACC tournament title, but they were given a #1 national seed anyway. Then in the regional final, they got to play Gonzaga, the weakest of the #2 seeds by RPI, while Wisconsin had to play PAC champ Arizona, who many felt deserved a #1 seed.

Then in the Final 4, Duke got to play #7 seed Michigan State, who Wisconsin had already vanquished in Big 10 play, while Wisconsin had to face Kentucky.

Duke won the national title while never winning their conference, never winning their conference tournament, facing a quasi-Cinderella in the Final 4, and never facing the consensus best team all year, Kentucky.

Duke wasn't the best team, but the tournament is funny that way. Best doesn't always win.

Agreed. Didn't the same thing happen last year? Uconn won it all after finishing 4th in the AAC and not winning the AAC Tournament. During the NCAA Tournament, they were likewise helped by not having to play teams that would could have likely beaten them (i.e., Louisville being upset in an earlier round).

All this being said, I wonder how this is impacting college basketball on the whole. Stever20 and Maize's comments in this thread, IMO, probably reflect those of a lot of people who focus less and less on the RS and more on the three weeks in March.

IMO, sure, the Tourney is magical and there is nothing like it, but if it comes at the expense of the RS, then, IMO, It should be concerning to CBB Fans everywhere.

Contrast this to college football where EVERY regular season game is critical to a team's post season aspirations.

Sometimes its matchups. Sometimes its just who was hotter that night. Last year Kentucky was an 8 seed who lost 3 times to the SEC champ Florida. UConn lost 3 times to the BE champ Louisville. Yet Kentucky beat Louisville for the 2nd time that season to get to the final 4. UConn beat Florida for the 2nd time that season to get to the championship game. Louisville didn't match up well with Kentucky and Florida didn't match up well with UConn. End result was UConn beating Kentucky for the national championship. Yet if there had been a 40 game schedule with all 4 teams playing the same schedule, everyone would expect Florida and Louisville to finish ahead of both Kentucky and UConn.

I do think Wisconsin got overshadowed this year. When you look at their schedule, they blew out a lot of their opponents. Half their regular season wins were 15 points or more (11 by more than 20 points) and all but 5 were double digits. They had an inexplicable loss at B10 cellar dweller Rutgers, but their other losses were Duke and at Maryland.

I didn't mind Duke winning. At least Kentucky was denied the right to claim they lost to the national champion.

(04-08-2015 10:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:39 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 09:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Duke was very fortunate. They didn't win the ACC regular season title, didn't win the ACC tournament title, but they were given a #1 national seed anyway. Then in the regional final, they got to play Gonzaga, the weakest of the #2 seeds by RPI, while Wisconsin had to play PAC champ Arizona, who many felt deserved a #1 seed.

Then in the Final 4, Duke got to play #7 seed Michigan State, who Wisconsin had already vanquished in Big 10 play, while Wisconsin had to face Kentucky.

Duke won the national title while never winning their conference, never winning their conference tournament, facing a quasi-Cinderella in the Final 4, and never facing the consensus best team all year, Kentucky.

Duke wasn't the best team, but the tournament is funny that way. Best doesn't always win.

Agreed. Didn't the same thing happen last year? Uconn won it all after finishing 4th in the AAC and not winning the AAC Tournament. During the NCAA Tournament, they were likewise helped by not having to play teams that would could have likely beaten them (i.e., Louisville being upset in an earlier round).

All this being said, I wonder how this is impacting college basketball on the whole. Stever20 and Maize's comments in this thread, IMO, probably reflect those of a lot of people who focus less and less on the RS and more on the three weeks in March.

IMO, sure, the Tourney is magical and there is nothing like it, but if it comes at the expense of the RS, then, IMO, It should be concerning to CBB Fans everywhere.

Contrast this to college football where EVERY regular season game is critical to a team's post season aspirations.

Sometimes its matchups. Sometimes its just who was hotter that night. Last year Kentucky was an 8 seed who lost 3 times to the SEC champ Florida. UConn lost 3 times to the BE champ Louisville. Yet Kentucky beat Louisville for the 2nd time that season to get to the final 4. UConn beat Florida for the 2nd time that season to get to the championship game. Louisville didn't match up well with Kentucky and Florida didn't match up well with UConn. End result was UConn beating Kentucky for the national championship. Yet if there had been a 40 game schedule with all 4 teams playing the same schedule, everyone would expect Florida and Louisville to finish ahead of both Kentucky and UConn.

I agree with this; but, IMO, doesn't that also speak to advantages of the CFB system which, for all its supposed faults, does end up producing a national champion which is usually viewed as the "best team"? This year it was OSU. Last year it was FSU. While some may disagree, IMO, the vast majority of people would credit these teams as the best in CFB in 2013 and 2014. IMO, I am not sure the same can be said for the last two MBB National Champions for precisely the reason you stated.

(04-08-2015 10:02 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 09:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Duke was very fortunate. They didn't win the ACC regular season title, didn't win the ACC tournament title, but they were given a #1 national seed anyway. Then in the regional final, they got to play Gonzaga, the weakest of the #2 seeds by RPI, while Wisconsin had to play PAC champ Arizona, who many felt deserved a #1 seed.

Then in the Final 4, Duke got to play #7 seed Michigan State, who Wisconsin had already vanquished in Big 10 play, while Wisconsin had to face Kentucky.

Duke won the national title while never winning their conference, never winning their conference tournament, facing a quasi-Cinderella in the Final 4, and never facing the consensus best team all year, Kentucky.

Duke wasn't the best team, but the tournament is funny that way. Best doesn't always win.

Duke in the end did beat the team that Beat Kentucky-(and it wasn't a fluke that Wisconsin beat them) and they did best a #1 Seed and the B1G Regular Season and Tournament Champion...

Beating team A that beat team B isn't the same thing as beating team B. I follow tennis, which is 100% tournament play, and players talk about matchups and "someone else doing my dirty work", meaning benefiting from upsets of players who would give you trouble, all the time.

Some tournament paths are difficult, some are easier. Compared to Wisconsin, Duke's was a LOT easier. Part of that was their overly-high seed, part was benefiting from upsets. Getting to play Gonzaga and Michigan State in the E8 and F4 was a WHALE of a lot easier than playing Arizona and Kentucky.

(04-08-2015 12:34 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  I agree with this; but, IMO, doesn't that also speak to advantages of the CFB system which, for all its supposed faults, does end up producing a national champion which is usually viewed as the "best team"? This year it was OSU. Last year it was FSU. While some may disagree, IMO, the vast majority of people would credit these teams as the best in CFB in 2013 and 2014. IMO, I am not sure the same can be said for the last two MBB National Champions for precisely the reason you stated.

Good point. But, the NCAA tournament does produce a champion viewed as 100% legitimate, because the process by which the champ is picked is viewed universally as valid. In contrast, while college football usually picks the team regarded as "best", it does so via a process so messy and full of holes and biases that that same champ is often (at least before this year's CFP) viewed as "mythical" or somesuch.

Football: Messy, highly questionable process usually produces "best" team as champ.

Basketball: Rational, unbiased process produces champ always regarded as legitimate, but frequently not as "best" team.

(04-08-2015 12:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:02 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 09:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Duke was very fortunate. They didn't win the ACC regular season title, didn't win the ACC tournament title, but they were given a #1 national seed anyway. Then in the regional final, they got to play Gonzaga, the weakest of the #2 seeds by RPI, while Wisconsin had to play PAC champ Arizona, who many felt deserved a #1 seed.

Then in the Final 4, Duke got to play #7 seed Michigan State, who Wisconsin had already vanquished in Big 10 play, while Wisconsin had to face Kentucky.

Duke won the national title while never winning their conference, never winning their conference tournament, facing a quasi-Cinderella in the Final 4, and never facing the consensus best team all year, Kentucky.

Duke wasn't the best team, but the tournament is funny that way. Best doesn't always win.

Duke in the end did beat the team that Beat Kentucky-(and it wasn't a fluke that Wisconsin beat them) and they did best a #1 Seed and the B1G Regular Season and Tournament Champion...

Beating team A that beat team B isn't the same thing as beating team B. I follow tennis, which is 100% tournament play, and players talk about matchups and "someone else doing my dirty work", meaning benefiting from upsets of players who would give you trouble, all the time.

Some tournament paths are difficult, some are easier. Compared to Wisconsin, Duke's was a LOT easier. Part of that was their overly-high seed, part was benefiting from upsets. Getting to play Gonzaga and Michigan State in the E8 and F4 was a WHALE of a lot easier than playing Arizona and Kentucky.

They didn't have an overly high seed. Have no problem them putting Duke ahead of Wisconsin- for one, Duke beat Wisconsin during the season. I think it's safe to say if Wisconsin had beaten Duke in December, Duke would have been 4 and Wisconsin 3.

(04-08-2015 12:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 12:34 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  I agree with this; but, IMO, doesn't that also speak to advantages of the CFB system which, for all its supposed faults, does end up producing a national champion which is usually viewed as the "best team"? This year it was OSU. Last year it was FSU. While some may disagree, IMO, the vast majority of people would credit these teams as the best in CFB in 2013 and 2014. IMO, I am not sure the same can be said for the last two MBB National Champions for precisely the reason you stated.

Good point. But, the NCAA tournament does produce a champion viewed as 100% legitimate, because the process by which the champ is picked is viewed universally as valid. In contrast, while college football usually picks the team regarded as "best", it does so via a process so messy and full of holes and biases that that same champ is often (at least before this year's CFP) viewed as "mythical" or somesuch.

Football: Messy, highly questionable process usually produces "best" team as champ.

Basketball: Rational, unbiased process produces champ always regarded as legitimate, but frequently not as "best" team.

Yup. IMO, that's pretty much the way things stand; although, as you note, CFB has made strides in improving the process and making it a little less arbitrary. FWIW, I do prefer the CFB process as it makes the RS season comparatively more meaningful.

(04-08-2015 12:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:02 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 09:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Duke was very fortunate. They didn't win the ACC regular season title, didn't win the ACC tournament title, but they were given a #1 national seed anyway. Then in the regional final, they got to play Gonzaga, the weakest of the #2 seeds by RPI, while Wisconsin had to play PAC champ Arizona, who many felt deserved a #1 seed.

Then in the Final 4, Duke got to play #7 seed Michigan State, who Wisconsin had already vanquished in Big 10 play, while Wisconsin had to face Kentucky.

Duke won the national title while never winning their conference, never winning their conference tournament, facing a quasi-Cinderella in the Final 4, and never facing the consensus best team all year, Kentucky.

Duke wasn't the best team, but the tournament is funny that way. Best doesn't always win.

Duke in the end did beat the team that Beat Kentucky-(and it wasn't a fluke that Wisconsin beat them) and they did best a #1 Seed and the B1G Regular Season and Tournament Champion...

Beating team A that beat team B isn't the same thing as beating team B. I follow tennis, which is 100% tournament play, and players talk about matchups and "someone else doing my dirty work", meaning benefiting from upsets of players who would give you trouble, all the time.

Some tournament paths are difficult, some are easier. Compared to Wisconsin, Duke's was a LOT easier. Part of that was their overly-high seed, part was benefiting from upsets. Getting to play Gonzaga and Michigan State in the E8 and F4 was a WHALE of a lot easier than playing Arizona and Kentucky.

At the end of the day the Blue Devils handled their business....the others didn't...

(04-08-2015 12:34 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:39 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 09:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Duke was very fortunate. They didn't win the ACC regular season title, didn't win the ACC tournament title, but they were given a #1 national seed anyway. Then in the regional final, they got to play Gonzaga, the weakest of the #2 seeds by RPI, while Wisconsin had to play PAC champ Arizona, who many felt deserved a #1 seed.

Then in the Final 4, Duke got to play #7 seed Michigan State, who Wisconsin had already vanquished in Big 10 play, while Wisconsin had to face Kentucky.

Duke won the national title while never winning their conference, never winning their conference tournament, facing a quasi-Cinderella in the Final 4, and never facing the consensus best team all year, Kentucky.

Duke wasn't the best team, but the tournament is funny that way. Best doesn't always win.

Agreed. Didn't the same thing happen last year? Uconn won it all after finishing 4th in the AAC and not winning the AAC Tournament. During the NCAA Tournament, they were likewise helped by not having to play teams that would could have likely beaten them (i.e., Louisville being upset in an earlier round).

All this being said, I wonder how this is impacting college basketball on the whole. Stever20 and Maize's comments in this thread, IMO, probably reflect those of a lot of people who focus less and less on the RS and more on the three weeks in March.

IMO, sure, the Tourney is magical and there is nothing like it, but if it comes at the expense of the RS, then, IMO, It should be concerning to CBB Fans everywhere.

Contrast this to college football where EVERY regular season game is critical to a team's post season aspirations.

Sometimes its matchups. Sometimes its just who was hotter that night. Last year Kentucky was an 8 seed who lost 3 times to the SEC champ Florida. UConn lost 3 times to the BE champ Louisville. Yet Kentucky beat Louisville for the 2nd time that season to get to the final 4. UConn beat Florida for the 2nd time that season to get to the championship game. Louisville didn't match up well with Kentucky and Florida didn't match up well with UConn. End result was UConn beating Kentucky for the national championship. Yet if there had been a 40 game schedule with all 4 teams playing the same schedule, everyone would expect Florida and Louisville to finish ahead of both Kentucky and UConn.

I agree with this; but, IMO, doesn't that also speak to advantages of the CFB system which, for all its supposed faults, does end up producing a national champion which is usually viewed as the "best team"? This year it was OSU. Last year it was FSU. While some may disagree, IMO, the vast majority of people would credit these teams as the best in CFB in 2013 and 2014. IMO, I am not sure the same can be said for the last two MBB National Champions for precisely the reason you stated.

There are matchup issues there. Missouri's offense has given SEC defenses fits because they aren't set up for that. They are set up to stop an Alabama type offense.
The difference in football is that there are 22 players plus kickers + reserves. One player can't make as much difference as one player can do in basketball. In basketball most teams only use a 7 or 8 man rotation.