Thought to Ponder: Here is one thing NCAA football does better than NCAA basketball

Toggle sidebar
S

SandraC

On Vacation
Original poster
Apr 10, 2008
7,302
0
NJ
OK, now that I got your attention, please be advised this is NOT a referendum on March Madness. This has quite possibly been the most AMAZING March Madness of my lifetime. From the two late games last Friday all through the weekend games, EVERY game was riveting. Just incredible drama game after game. Do not change that...do not ever change it.

That said, here is the statement I would like you to ponder...

There is a MUCH better chance you will get the two best teams in the BCS championship game than you will in the NCAA basketball championship game.

Think about it...the very thing that makes March Madness so exciting is the one-and-done nature of it. But that's also the very thing that mitigates against having the best teams in the finals.

Would have been nice to see Kansas-Ohio State, the two best teams play in the finals. If instead of one-and-done there was a seven game series (or even three game series), that's probably what we'd be looking at, with Duke and one of the Big East teams also a possibility.

Again, please don't reply that they need to keep March Madness the way it is. I think we ALL agree to that.

But it doesn't change the fact that the best basketball team has less of a chance to win a national championship than the best football team does.

Just sayin'...


Sandra
 
I agree with you Sandra, in principle, but it's not that easy. Deciding one and two is so arbitrary most years. If teams A, B, and C all go undefeated, then who gets left out? Usually it's the team that had the worst ranking in the preseason polls, which are absolutely worthless.

For that matter, was it two years ago that Texas beat OU but lost to Texas Tech but OU beat Tech? If you listened to the local Horn fans, Congress should have intervened that year. OU played for the MNC because their loss came earliest in the season. That's the way it's always been with the BCS (late losses hurting more than early ones), but is that really the best way to decide?

Then there was the 2003 MNC game, which by most opinions should have been USC versus LSU but resulted in a split title, the very thing that the BCS was meant to avoid.

For that matter go back to 2001. Miami beat Nebraska for the title. Nebraska didn't even win their conference, but they got to play in the title game? That should have been Oregon, and it would have been if not for absolutely bizarre circumstances. The weekend after the 9/11 attacks, all of the college football games were cancelled. Most schools made them up later in the season. One game that wasn't made up was Colorado at Washington State. When that game was scheduled, WSU was supposed to be a creampuff opponent for CU. However, this was when Mike Price was at WSU and Jason Gesser was their quarterback. They were a very good team. Had that game been played and WSU won, that would have helped Oregon enough with strength of schedule that they would have played for the title. Oregon, literally, missed a chance to play for a title because a game that didn't involve them was cancelled.

Until there is at least a four team playoff in football, this garbage will keep happening.
 
Will94 said:
I agree with you Sandra, in principle, but it's not that easy. Deciding one and two is so arbitrary most years. If teams A, B, and C all go undefeated, then who gets left out? Usually it's the team that had the worst ranking in the preseason polls, which are absolutely worthless.

For that matter, was it two years ago that Texas beat OU but lost to Texas Tech but OU beat Tech? If you listened to the local Horn fans, Congress should have intervened that year. OU played for the MNC because their loss came earliest in the season. That's the way it's always been with the BCS (late losses hurting more than early ones), but is that really the best way to decide?

Then there was the 2003 MNC game, which by most opinions should have been USC versus LSU but resulted in a split title, the very thing that the BCS was meant to avoid.

For that matter go back to 2001. Miami beat Nebraska for the title. Nebraska didn't even win their conference, but they got to play in the title game? That should have been Oregon, and it would have been if not for absolutely bizarre circumstances. The weekend after the 9/11 attacks, all of the college football games were cancelled. Most schools made them up later in the season. One game that wasn't made up was Colorado at Washington State. When that game was scheduled, WSU was supposed to be a creampuff opponent for CU. However, this was when Mike Price was at WSU and Jason Gesser was their quarterback. They were a very good team. Had that game been played and WSU won, that would have helped Oregon enough with strength of schedule that they would have played for the title. Oregon, literally, missed a chance to play for a title because a game that didn't involve them was cancelled.

Until there is at least a four team playoff in football, this garbage will keep happening.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, and the BCS system is FAR from perfect. But I still stand by my original point that you have a better chance of getting the two best teams (or at least two of the top three) in the BCS title game than you do in the NCAA basketball championship game.


Sandra
 
Last edited:
But I still stand by my original point that you have a better chance of getting the two best teams (or at least two of the top three) in the BCS titel game than you do in the NCAA basketball championship game.
Click to expand...
I agree entirely.
 
SandraC said:
Totally agree, and the BCS system is FAR from perfect. But I still stand by my original point that you have a better chance of getting the two best teams (or at least two of the top three) in the BCS titel game than you do in the NCAA basketball championship game.


Sandra
Click to expand...
That's true simply from a statistical and probability standpoint. To play in the BCS title game you are chosen to play based on your season. To play in the NCAA basketball championship game, you qualify for the tournament based on your season, then have to win 5 or possibly 6 games to get there.

Just like any other sport that has a one-and-done playoff format, the champion is not necessarily the best overall team. They could have just been playing the best during their playoff run...
 
The one and done is what makes it awesome though, and why it generates more interest than the NBA playoffs.

For a better comparison, the NFL also does one and done, doesn't lesson it anymoreso (and it's champion is no less worthy), so an NCAA football playoff would be just as successful.
 
Who is to say that Kansas and Ohio State were the two best teams? Just because a team has more losses doesn't mean they aren't better than another team.
 
Ramy said:
Who is to say that Kansas and Ohio State were the two best teams? Just because a team has more losses doesn't mean they aren't better than another team.
Click to expand...
Exactly, unless they play an identical schedule as the others, it's impossible to say.
 
Ramy said:
Who is to say that Kansas and Ohio State were the two best teams? Just because a team has more losses doesn't mean they aren't better than another team.
Click to expand...

Oh no, this sounds like a BCS discussion now!!! ;)


Sandra
 
Ahh, but no. MM is based, in the final decision, on the human intelect and reason of a human with actual thoughts. And, other than every conference getting one automatic bid, no conference has any contractural rights and, at least on a theoretical basis, every conference is the same. We might, and should, disagree with the committee and point out its mistakes (such as 11 teams from the ESPN Conference this year), but these are thoughtful disagreements between people.

The BcS is based on a computer formula, but, worse than that, at the end of the day, it is based on a contract that divides, artificially, the Division into two halves. The True Majors plus the mid-major Leastleftovers in one group, and the rest of the mid-majors in another. The BEST a "out" team can do is go undefeated and get into a seconday BcS bowl. The WORST whoever wins the woeful Leastleftovers can do, no matter their record, is the same. And, and this WILL HAPPEN some year, some team will go undefeated in the woeful Leastleftovers and actually get into the BcS "championship". Where it will lose by 40. Because 12-0 in the Leastleftovers is about 8-4 in the other True Majors and 6-6 in the SEC. A human knows that. A machine cannot and an unfair contract that, by its own terms, makes every "in" conference exactly the same, is not reasonable.
 
SamCdbs said:
Ahh, but no. MM is based, in the final decision, on the human intelect and reason of a human with actual thoughts. And, other than every conference getting one automatic bid, no conference has any contractural rights and, at least on a theoretical basis, every conference is the same. We might, and should, disagree with the committee and point out its mistakes (such as 11 teams from the ESPN Conference this year), but these are thoughtful disagreements between people.

The BcS is based on a computer formula, but, worse than that, at the end of the day, it is based on a contract that divides, artificially, the Division into two halves. The True Majors plus the mid-major Leastleftovers in one group, and the rest of the mid-majors in another. The BEST a "out" team can do is go undefeated and get into a seconday BcS bowl. The WORST whoever wins the woeful Leastleftovers can do, no matter their record, is the same. And, and this WILL HAPPEN some year, some team will go undefeated in the woeful Leastleftovers and actually get into the BcS "championship". Where it will lose by 40. Because 12-0 in the Leastleftovers is about 8-4 in the other True Majors and 6-6 in the SEC. A human knows that. A machine cannot and an unfair contract that, by its own terms, makes every "in" conference exactly the same, is not reasonable.
Click to expand...

I agree with MOST of this post .... all except that a undefeated team would be 6-6 in the SEC.

Not EVERY team in the SEC is a Powerhouse that would roll over everyone else, like MOST SEC fans feel. (were talking football here, as an SEC team didn't even make the Championship game in the BB format this year. :)
 
SandraC said:
OK, now that I got your attention, please be advised this is NOT a referendum on March Madness. This has quite possibly been the most AMAZING March Madness of my lifetime. From the two late games last Friday all through the weekend games, EVERY game was riveting. Just incredible drama game after game. Do not change that...do not ever change it.

That said, here is the statement I would like you to ponder...

There is a MUCH better chance you will get the two best teams in the BCS championship game than you will in the NCAA basketball championship game.

Think about it...the very thing that makes March Madness so exciting is the one-and-done nature of it. But that's also the very thing that mitigates against having the best teams in the finals.

Would have been nice to see Kansas-Ohio State, the two best teams play in the finals. If instead of one-and-done there was a seven game series (or even three game series), that's probably what we'd be looking at, with Duke and one of the Big East teams also a possibility.

Again, please don't reply that they need to keep March Madness the way it is. I think we ALL agree to that.

But it doesn't change the fact that the best basketball team has less of a chance to win a national championship than the best football team does.

Just sayin'...


Sandra
Click to expand...

So, did they get it right the last two times Ohio St. (The best team money can buy) were in the BCS championship? I think not.
 
OK. UConn was the Leastleftovers champion.

Auburn was the SEC, and National, champion. Auburn played LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Arkansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia and Alabama. Plus a solid ACC team in Clemson, and 3 cupcakes.

OK, UConn wins the three cupcakes. Find me 3 more wins in that schedule. I don't see them.

Wisconsin was the Big 10 champion (OK, co-champion). They played Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Iowa, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan and Northwestern. Plus two solid mid-majors in UNLV and San Diego State and a solid Pac 10 team in Arizona State and a I-AA. UConn beats Indiana and Purdue in conference, plus the I-AA, and maybe SDSU. Find me four more wins.

There is nothing wrong with the Leastleftovers. Just as there is nothing wrong with the MAC or your local Div III league. As long as you do not confuse and combine what goes on there with what goes on in the Big 10, Big 12, ACC, or Pac 10. Let alone the SEC.
 
Jimbo said:
Exactly !

I could add a few more to that list as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the Bulldogs for this year. Lost to UCF (of the MAC) in the bowl game. Somehow George O'Leary has their number, as he used to beat them regularly when he was our coach at Ga Tech.
 
SamCdbs said:
Auburn was the SEC, and National, champion. Auburn played LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Arkansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia and Alabama. Plus a solid ACC team in Clemson, and 3 cupcakes.
Click to expand...
umm... I would include Ole Miss, Miss St, Kentucky with the cupcakes, not to mention Georgia who possitivily reaked this year. Sorry, while I agree that the SEC is currently the best (mostly because it has the most top teams), it's bottom is as bad or worse (see Vandy) as any other conference.
 

Similar threads

S
The NBA Playoffs are SO much better than the NCAA tournament
Replies
27
Views
3K
The Sports Section
atl14dat
A

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Share this page

Share this page
Top