- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Does college basketball or football more accurately decide a champion?
Posted on 12/13/13 at 11:50 pm
Posted on 12/13/13 at 11:50 pm
Does anyone really believe that a 64 team tournament accurately decides a champion? As much hate as the BCS gets, over the past ten years which sport has had the best team be the champion more consistently? To me it is no doubt football, and I prefer college basketball to football.
This post was edited on 12/13/13 at 11:51 pm
16
Posted on 12/13/13 at 11:53 pm to Ed Wuncler III
quote:
Does anyone really believe that a 64 team tournament accurately decides a champion?
You can't say it doesn't give everyone a chance to prove it.
Posted on 12/13/13 at 11:56 pm to Ed Wuncler III
A playoff doesn't show who the BEST team is, it shows who the HOTTEST team is.
Posted on 12/14/13 at 12:08 am to Ed Wuncler III
The winner of college basketball is more deserving than football imo.
Posted on 12/14/13 at 12:50 am to Ed Wuncler III
The key word is "accurate"
The football champion over the last 15 years has been the more accurate champion.
The football champion over the last 15 years has been the more accurate champion.
Posted on 12/14/13 at 12:50 am to Ed Wuncler III
All it takes in CBB is one night when the shots don't fall and that's it. Might not even matter how the opposing defense is playing.
Posted on 12/14/13 at 12:58 am to Ed Wuncler III
Define "champion"
By definition college basketball and football are equally accurate in defining a champion, because they set parameters for determining who is allowed to compete in the championship, and they rightfully recognize the victor of the championship as the champion...
By definition college basketball and football are equally accurate in defining a champion, because they set parameters for determining who is allowed to compete in the championship, and they rightfully recognize the victor of the championship as the champion...
Posted on 12/14/13 at 1:05 am to Ed Wuncler III
Football easily. I enjoy the way basketball does it as it's entertaining and includes all the conference winners, but it's almost like the regular season does not matter at all as long as you can win a conference tourney or just be ranked.
In football by the end of the season you clearly know who the top teams are and usually can't argue against those chosen for the title game unless you are a fan of a team left out.
In football by the end of the season you clearly know who the top teams are and usually can't argue against those chosen for the title game unless you are a fan of a team left out.
Posted on 12/14/13 at 1:37 am to Ed Wuncler III
quote:It's the only thing a tournament does.
Does anyone really believe that a 64 team tournament accurately decides a champion?
To further support how awesome March Madness is, the champion must win six straight games (or possibly seven, depending on seeding) over tournament teams. I can't remember, but I think like five teams won six straight over tournament teams in the regular season last year. To win the tournament, you have to do something that almost no team in the country can ever do.
To the people who say that to be the champ, you only have to be hot at the right time, that's not a good argument. There's two possible paths to a championship:
1) Win your conference tournament and then win the NCAA tournament. That means you have to be perfect for an entire month. "Hot at the right time" doesn't really apply. Going undefeated for a month with at least 75% of that month coming against tournament teams means way more than "being hot at the right time."
2) Be in the 20th percentile of teams during the regular season and then win the tournament. That's not "hot at the right time." That's completely deserving of the title.
This post was edited on 12/14/13 at 1:43 am
Posted on 12/14/13 at 2:05 am to Ed Wuncler III
Both systems are flawed for somewhat opposite reasons
College football to date has been flawed by an arbitrary process in which different rules are applied to different teams with better or lesser names. Before the BCS even a consensus top two teams had no guarantees of playing each other in their bowl game. The upcoming four team playoff system has yet to reveal a set of objective rules which would be the same from year to year and for team to team to clean this up.
College basketball includes everyone with a pulse but they include so many teams that the element of chance becomes too overwhelming. If you cared about declaring a champion on the basis of the sum of your qualifications and quality of your year and your team in total you should be dissatisfied with this outcome. Basketball is about matchups and you can be the better team, have an off night against a team that is really not to be considered an elite team but matches up well, and eliminates you with no recourse. A lot of people would argue that is "fair" that at least everyone "has a chance" but I think that's incompletely true. Getting unlucky with your bracket opponents can be very unfair and becomes more likely to be unfair to more good teams the more surplus teams you invite.
College football to date has been flawed by an arbitrary process in which different rules are applied to different teams with better or lesser names. Before the BCS even a consensus top two teams had no guarantees of playing each other in their bowl game. The upcoming four team playoff system has yet to reveal a set of objective rules which would be the same from year to year and for team to team to clean this up.
College basketball includes everyone with a pulse but they include so many teams that the element of chance becomes too overwhelming. If you cared about declaring a champion on the basis of the sum of your qualifications and quality of your year and your team in total you should be dissatisfied with this outcome. Basketball is about matchups and you can be the better team, have an off night against a team that is really not to be considered an elite team but matches up well, and eliminates you with no recourse. A lot of people would argue that is "fair" that at least everyone "has a chance" but I think that's incompletely true. Getting unlucky with your bracket opponents can be very unfair and becomes more likely to be unfair to more good teams the more surplus teams you invite.
This post was edited on 12/14/13 at 2:25 am
Posted on 12/14/13 at 2:30 am to Ed Wuncler III
its bball and it aint close. you have to have the rating, ranking and schedule to get in and earn a respectable place in the bracket. then you have to win FIVE to SIX games to become the champ. plus the bbal pre and early season rankings are far less bullshite and favoring than cfb. cfg is about the almighty $$$ on all fronts. tOSU, bamma, usc, ND, OU are all money makers for the conf's, league and networks so they have the unfair favor. much of their success has been decided in offices and suites. just so happens that bamma is the only bcs era team to show mike slime and the slime balls of espn that they can hold up to their end of the bargain when given the obvious.
Posted on 12/14/13 at 3:18 am to Ed Wuncler III
Football. No doubt about it.
Posted on 12/14/13 at 4:04 am to Ed Wuncler III
im not sure as the answer to the question but the ncaa bball tourney does a much better job in crowning a champion than people like to give it credit for. the champion is ALWAYS a team that deserves it.
you can make a legitimate case that the best team in the country has ended up winning the tournament every year since '97. arizona '97 and kansas '88 are the only 2 teams of the last 25 years that stand out to me personally, so it's been 16 years since a "fluke" champion.
every year people act like the tourney is gonna provide some fluke, but it never does. upsets early, chalk late. the best teams win.
you can make a legitimate case that the best team in the country has ended up winning the tournament every year since '97. arizona '97 and kansas '88 are the only 2 teams of the last 25 years that stand out to me personally, so it's been 16 years since a "fluke" champion.
every year people act like the tourney is gonna provide some fluke, but it never does. upsets early, chalk late. the best teams win.
This post was edited on 12/14/13 at 4:05 am
Posted on 12/14/13 at 8:26 am to Ed Wuncler III
The BCS has warped people's view of what a champion should be. Only in college football do people seem to care if the champion is "the best".
And college basketball does a much better job of crowning a champion. Not necessarily the best, but the most deserving. Which no one had a problem with until 10 years ago.
And college basketball does a much better job of crowning a champion. Not necessarily the best, but the most deserving. Which no one had a problem with until 10 years ago.
Posted on 12/14/13 at 8:48 am to Ed Wuncler III
I think playoffs are a terrible way to determine a champion, however there's way too many teams in Div 1 in both football and especially basketball. That being said, I think college football has the best system because it at least guarantees 2 of the best teams will be the champion. Next year, it will definitely be football. I think there's rarely more than 4 teams that deserve to be in the NCG picture.
Posted on 12/14/13 at 9:32 am to Ed Wuncler III
Basketball without question. It's all done on the playing surface, whether it be a court or field and not based on human polls or voting.
To be the champion, you have to win the game and beat the teams you face.
This argument can take place just as well in the pros. This was the big discussion a few years ago when the Patriots were playing for an undefeated season. Folks were still saying , the best team didn't win, but it doesn't matter what the polls and human opinions said, the Giants won the game and therefore they were the SB champions.
In college basketball, there are 32 games to decide who the champion will be. No polls or human votes.
And that the OP's question, which one more accurately decides a champion.
To be the champion, you have to win the game and beat the teams you face.
This argument can take place just as well in the pros. This was the big discussion a few years ago when the Patriots were playing for an undefeated season. Folks were still saying , the best team didn't win, but it doesn't matter what the polls and human opinions said, the Giants won the game and therefore they were the SB champions.
In college basketball, there are 32 games to decide who the champion will be. No polls or human votes.
And that the OP's question, which one more accurately decides a champion.
Posted on 12/14/13 at 11:08 am to Ed Wuncler III
Considering their changing the BCS to a playoff, I think you have your answer right there.
And the fact that in most every other sport you have a playoff system, I would venture to say that's the most accurate way.
Being "hot" just means that the team is peaking; that it has been coached up to be playing its best ball.
Peaking doesn't mean you are in the sec and you only drop two spots in the polls after you lose to a shitty Florida team for instance.
Media bias and geographical bias affects cfb significantly more than any other college sport.
And the fact that in most every other sport you have a playoff system, I would venture to say that's the most accurate way.
Being "hot" just means that the team is peaking; that it has been coached up to be playing its best ball.
Peaking doesn't mean you are in the sec and you only drop two spots in the polls after you lose to a shitty Florida team for instance.
Media bias and geographical bias affects cfb significantly more than any other college sport.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News