The NCAA Tournament is a TV show but it's essence is not. The FA Cup is what it is based from and they is by far a lesser TV show, yet the equal.

(12-24-2020 12:51 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  That 16-seed was an AQ!

Okay. So? My point is they had a shot to beat them, and they did. I’m not saying a 16-seed will win it all; what I am saying is they can win it all if everything goes right for them. We’ve seen underdogs like George Mason make the Final Four. How does that make March Madness like the CFP?

(12-23-2020 10:44 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I love March Madness, but agree it makes regular season far less interesting (even #1 vs. #2 games seem like exhibitions). Its also a weird way to declare a champion (after 30+ games, we can end up calling a team that finished 4th or worse in their conference the national champs?)

You might have loved March Madness more when there were a bunch of very good independent "at-large" teams and only two teams per conference in the NCAA tournament, and when most of the at-large teams that now play in the NCAA played in the NIT, instead, which made the NIT a whale of a good tournament!

For example, the 1979 NIT tournament featured 24 teams, including several from oustanding programs, such as:

Indiana
Kentucky
Maryland
Ohio State
Dayton
Purdue
Virginia

The 1979 NCAA tournament, with a field of 40 teams, had only 11 teams from the major conferences (imagine that!). The others were independents or teams from the non-major conferences, such as:

Louisville (#3 seed)
Marquette (#3 seed)
Georgetown (#3 seed; pre-Big East)
Penn
St. Johns (pre-Big East)
Indiana State (with Larry Bird; lost C.G. to MSU & Magic Johnson)
Temple
New Mexico State
Notre Dame (#1 seed)
Iona

......................................................................................................

Q: Didn't the quality of competition suffer when there were only 11 major conference teams in the NCAA?

A: No way! That was one of the most exciting tournaments ever, and it made the NIT a lot more exciting than it has been in decades!

The final four were: Michigan State, Indiana State, DePaul (indy), & Penn (Ivy)

.

Not only that, but the NIT was also fantastic!

The NIT final four were: Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, and Alabama

I don't acknowledge the OP at all.

Yes, they are sports competitions. And they are TV shows. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Every single sport has elements to their method of determining a champion that are "unfair" or even downright foolish, to accommodate a desire to draw in as many eyeballs as possible, while at the same time keep as many local audiences engaged for as deep into the regular season as possible.

Why? Because at its core, all sports are part of the entertainment industry. Hollywood doesn't go out of its way to make movies using lousy actors and scripts in the name of "fairness" to the hacks. They try to make movies that people want to watch. Sports should, and does, do the same thing.

(12-23-2020 10:57 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I don't see the comparison. 4 teams invited by some backroom meetings to win a chip vs a field of 64 [68] that all have a "chance" at the title. Not to mention, winning the conference in basketball equals an auto-bid to the postseason - winning your conference actually means something.

Well first, as Nick Saban says, winning a conference title is meaningful in and of itself, it's a moment worth celebrating no matter what else happens, it's something worthy of a trophy for the school and rings for the players.

Second, basketball needs a larger tournament because the nature of the sport is that it's harder to tell the best teams from each other. E.g., while most years a team ranked in the top 5 wins the NCAA title, occasionally you get a team like UConn in 2014, who was ranked #18 going in to the tournament. But that would never happen in football, e.g. last year there's no chance Memphis, the #18 team in the final AP poll, could have beat teams like Clemson or LSU to win the title.

As I've said, if anything, the CFP has shown that most years we don't even need four teams, two or three is good enough. We've never had both semifinal games be competitive, every year at least one is a blowout. This year is likely to be no different.

(12-24-2020 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 10:57 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I don't see the comparison. 4 teams invited by some backroom meetings to win a chip vs a field of 64 [68] that all have a "chance" at the title. Not to mention, winning the conference in basketball equals an auto-bid to the postseason - winning your conference actually means something.

Well first, as Nick Saban says, winning a conference title is meaningful in and of itself, it's a moment worth celebrating no matter what else happens, it's something worthy of a trophy for the school and rings for the players.

Second, basketball needs a larger tournament because the nature of the sport is that it's harder to tell the best teams from each other. E.g., while most years a team ranked in the top 5 wins the NCAA title, occasionally you get a team like UConn in 2014, who was ranked #18 going in to the tournament. But that would never happen in football, e.g. last year there's no chance Memphis, the #18 team in the final AP poll, could have beat teams like Clemson or LSU to win the title.

As I've said, if anything, the CFP has shown that most years we don't even need four teams, two or three is good enough. We've never had both semifinal games be competitive, every year at least one is a blowout. This year is likely to be no different.

Maybe it's because they throw in the same few teams year after year because of the name on their jersey?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(12-24-2020 09:16 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 10:57 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I don't see the comparison. 4 teams invited by some backroom meetings to win a chip vs a field of 64 [68] that all have a "chance" at the title. Not to mention, winning the conference in basketball equals an auto-bid to the postseason - winning your conference actually means something.

Well first, as Nick Saban says, winning a conference title is meaningful in and of itself, it's a moment worth celebrating no matter what else happens, it's something worthy of a trophy for the school and rings for the players.

Second, basketball needs a larger tournament because the nature of the sport is that it's harder to tell the best teams from each other. E.g., while most years a team ranked in the top 5 wins the NCAA title, occasionally you get a team like UConn in 2014, who was ranked #18 going in to the tournament. But that would never happen in football, e.g. last year there's no chance Memphis, the #18 team in the final AP poll, could have beat teams like Clemson or LSU to win the title.

As I've said, if anything, the CFP has shown that most years we don't even need four teams, two or three is good enough. We've never had both semifinal games be competitive, every year at least one is a blowout. This year is likely to be no different.

Maybe it's because they throw in the same few teams year after year because of the name on their jersey?

Alabama and Clemson do not make the CFP every year because of the names on the jersey. They are proven commodities. They win a ton of games and obviously are loaded with talent. Ditto for Oklahoma and Ohio State.

Do you really doubt that the current CFP playoffs contain the two best teams in the country this year?

(12-24-2020 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:16 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 10:57 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I don't see the comparison. 4 teams invited by some backroom meetings to win a chip vs a field of 64 [68] that all have a "chance" at the title. Not to mention, winning the conference in basketball equals an auto-bid to the postseason - winning your conference actually means something.

Well first, as Nick Saban says, winning a conference title is meaningful in and of itself, it's a moment worth celebrating no matter what else happens, it's something worthy of a trophy for the school and rings for the players.

Second, basketball needs a larger tournament because the nature of the sport is that it's harder to tell the best teams from each other. E.g., while most years a team ranked in the top 5 wins the NCAA title, occasionally you get a team like UConn in 2014, who was ranked #18 going in to the tournament. But that would never happen in football, e.g. last year there's no chance Memphis, the #18 team in the final AP poll, could have beat teams like Clemson or LSU to win the title.

As I've said, if anything, the CFP has shown that most years we don't even need four teams, two or three is good enough. We've never had both semifinal games be competitive, every year at least one is a blowout. This year is likely to be no different.

Maybe it's because they throw in the same few teams year after year because of the name on their jersey?

Alabama and Clemson do not make the CFP every year because of the names on the jersey. They are proven commodities. They win a ton of games and obviously are loaded with talent. Ditto for Oklahoma and Ohio State.

Do you really doubt that the current CFP playoffs contain the two best teams in the country this year?

Clemson and Alabama weren't who I was referring to. I'm not a believer in Oklahoma, they've shown they are paper tigers and that the B12 is not up to par. OSU is another paper tiger. The P12 is straight up garbage. ND has been heavily overrated. If we believe the CFP people then we'd have never seen the Boise upset of Oklahoma. They'd have never been able to compete, right? The system is broken because they want blue bloods only in the CFP. Do I think Coastal Carolina or Cincinnati is as good as Alabama or Clemson? No. But I'd still love to see those games and root for Cinderella. I'm tired of watching ND get beat by 3 TDs or more.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(12-24-2020 09:27 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:16 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 10:57 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I don't see the comparison. 4 teams invited by some backroom meetings to win a chip vs a field of 64 [68] that all have a "chance" at the title. Not to mention, winning the conference in basketball equals an auto-bid to the postseason - winning your conference actually means something.

Well first, as Nick Saban says, winning a conference title is meaningful in and of itself, it's a moment worth celebrating no matter what else happens, it's something worthy of a trophy for the school and rings for the players.

Second, basketball needs a larger tournament because the nature of the sport is that it's harder to tell the best teams from each other. E.g., while most years a team ranked in the top 5 wins the NCAA title, occasionally you get a team like UConn in 2014, who was ranked #18 going in to the tournament. But that would never happen in football, e.g. last year there's no chance Memphis, the #18 team in the final AP poll, could have beat teams like Clemson or LSU to win the title.

As I've said, if anything, the CFP has shown that most years we don't even need four teams, two or three is good enough. We've never had both semifinal games be competitive, every year at least one is a blowout. This year is likely to be no different.

Maybe it's because they throw in the same few teams year after year because of the name on their jersey?

Alabama and Clemson do not make the CFP every year because of the names on the jersey. They are proven commodities. They win a ton of games and obviously are loaded with talent. Ditto for Oklahoma and Ohio State.

Do you really doubt that the current CFP playoffs contain the two best teams in the country this year?

Clemson and Alabama weren't who I was referring to. I'm not a believer in Oklahoma, they've shown they are paper tigers and that the B12 is not up to par. OSU is another paper tiger. The P12 is straight up garbage. ND has been heavily overrated. If we believe the CFP people then we'd have never seen the Boise upset of Oklahoma. They'd have never been able to compete, right? The system is broken because they want blue bloods only in the CFP. Do I think Coastal Carolina or Cincinnati is as good as Alabama or Clemson? No. But I'd still love to see those games and root for Cinderella. I'm tired of watching ND get beat by 3 TDs or more.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I get that, but IMO, the weariness of watching Notre Dame or Oklahoma get beat by 3 touchdowns or more suggests going back to the BCS, not expanding it larger so even more teams can get blown out before we end up with Alabama or Ohio State or Clemson anyway.

It's not like if the committee passes over Notre Dame in favor of whoever they ranked #5 that they wouldn't get blown out too.

(12-24-2020 09:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:27 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:16 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well first, as Nick Saban says, winning a conference title is meaningful in and of itself, it's a moment worth celebrating no matter what else happens, it's something worthy of a trophy for the school and rings for the players.

Second, basketball needs a larger tournament because the nature of the sport is that it's harder to tell the best teams from each other. E.g., while most years a team ranked in the top 5 wins the NCAA title, occasionally you get a team like UConn in 2014, who was ranked #18 going in to the tournament. But that would never happen in football, e.g. last year there's no chance Memphis, the #18 team in the final AP poll, could have beat teams like Clemson or LSU to win the title.

As I've said, if anything, the CFP has shown that most years we don't even need four teams, two or three is good enough. We've never had both semifinal games be competitive, every year at least one is a blowout. This year is likely to be no different.

Maybe it's because they throw in the same few teams year after year because of the name on their jersey?

Alabama and Clemson do not make the CFP every year because of the names on the jersey. They are proven commodities. They win a ton of games and obviously are loaded with talent. Ditto for Oklahoma and Ohio State.

Do you really doubt that the current CFP playoffs contain the two best teams in the country this year?

Clemson and Alabama weren't who I was referring to. I'm not a believer in Oklahoma, they've shown they are paper tigers and that the B12 is not up to par. OSU is another paper tiger. The P12 is straight up garbage. ND has been heavily overrated. If we believe the CFP people then we'd have never seen the Boise upset of Oklahoma. They'd have never been able to compete, right? The system is broken because they want blue bloods only in the CFP. Do I think Coastal Carolina or Cincinnati is as good as Alabama or Clemson? No. But I'd still love to see those games and root for Cinderella. I'm tired of watching ND get beat by 3 TDs or more.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I get that, but IMO, the weariness of watching Notre Dame or Oklahoma get beat by 3 touchdowns or more suggests going back to the BCS, not expanding it larger so even more teams can get blown out before we end up with Alabama or Ohio State or Clemson anyway.

It's not like if the committee passes over Notre Dame in favor of whoever they ranked #5 that they wouldn't get blown out too.

The issue is the subjectivity. People will be okay with a blow out if there were more teams in. But when you see such a limited numbers of teams allowed in, completely based on "eye test", with huge blow outs every year, you will get annoyed. I'd also add that more opportunities probably distributes the top talent across more teams. Right now only 4 or 5 schools get the highest rated talent because those schools are the hyped chosen ones. Go to 8 or 12 or 16 and you'll see top talent become more widespread.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(12-24-2020 09:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I get that, but IMO, the weariness of watching Notre Dame or Oklahoma get beat by 3 touchdowns or more suggests going back to the BCS, not expanding it larger so even more teams can get blown out before we end up with Alabama or Ohio State or Clemson anyway.

It's the concentration of talent, not the same old teams that is the issue. I'm sure there were baseball fans in the 1950's who grew tired of seeing the Yankees and the Dodgers in the World Series nearly every year, separated by just 15 miles. But even if you had introduced playoffs, they still would have been there because the Yankees and the Dodgers were that good.

The SEC (and its neighbors in SEC country in Clemson, SC) are playing at a different level than everyone else right now.

From the marketing point, FBS is brilliant in keeping the talk going while after the season. The argument over who is four vs five. The G5 never getting a fair shot. While I did not agree with OSU being considered for a CFP. I prefer the go back to the computer rankings and the Harris poll instead of the committee. Use as much data as possible, and take the top 4 teams. The think I like about four, it does not provide spots for all P5 conferences. The CFP makes so much money, it prefers the controversy than what's fair. Not saying it is right, but is business.

My problem with the CFP is that tOSU, who barely played half a season, is in over Cincinnati and Coastal Carolina. Two teams with full, undefeated seasons. Would either win a NC? Probably not, but they deserve the shot.

(12-24-2020 10:22 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  My problem with the CFP is that tOSU, who barely played half a season, is in over Cincinnati and Coastal Carolina. Two teams with full, undefeated seasons. Would either win a NC? Probably not, but they deserve the shot.

They beat a bunch of nobodies. Whats the best win for each? BYU for Coastal. Tulsa for UC?

Stop playing Cumberland College OOC.

(12-24-2020 10:50 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 10:22 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  My problem with the CFP is that tOSU, who barely played half a season, is in over Cincinnati and Coastal Carolina. Two teams with full, undefeated seasons. Would either win a NC? Probably not, but they deserve the shot.

They beat a bunch of nobodies. Whats the best win for each? BYU for Coastal. Tulsa for UC?

Stop playing Cumberland College OOC.

Do you think they had an option? Last I saw the SEC and B1G played zero out of conference games this year. Cincinnati would have curb stomped Nebraska, who backed out because of B1G rules. Next year they have ND and Indiana on their schedule. Does that count or are you going to say their conference isn't good enough? Can't help those games unless a P5 conference is going to invite them. For the last 15 years Cincinnati has been a top 25 program, but schools like Purdue, Kentucky, etc., lose big and get paid big money.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

MLB: the issue you bring up,is EVEN WORSE in CBB.

(12-24-2020 11:31 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  MLB: the issue you bring up,is EVEN WORSE in CBB.

Except that there are 68 spots and a 30 game season to evaluate.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Mid-majors need OOC games to build their resumes, which the major teams won't give them. Too much risk.

(12-24-2020 11:54 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Mid-majors need OOC games to build their resumes, which the major teams won't give them. Too much risk.

I'm not saying it's perfect because clearly it is not. But it is much better than the CFP.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(12-23-2020 10:57 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I don't see the comparison. 4 teams invited by some backroom meetings to win a chip vs a field of 64 [68] that all have a "chance" at the title. Not to mention, winning the conference in basketball equals an auto-bid to the postseason - winning your conference actually means something.

Yup.

While the chances are very tiny, theoretically NAU could win the CBB title - all they have to do is win the conference tournament, then 6 games in a row. No artificial barriers to making the tournament. Every team in a conference has that same opportunity.

NAU can win the FCS Title.

But NMSU has zero shot at the CFP, even if they went undefeated.