- 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
re: Can we officially label Kansas hoops as underachievers.
Posted on 3/30/13 at 9:22 am to DrSteveBrule
Posted on 3/30/13 at 9:22 am to DrSteveBrule
quote:Wow.
It's pretty much the worst way ever to determine a national champion.
1
Posted on 3/30/13 at 9:23 am to aziz
quote:
If we're underachievers, what does that make Arkansas ?
KABOOM
Posted on 3/30/13 at 9:28 am to tgr4ever
So you think when VCU gets to the final four and when Butler gets to the national championship twice that they are among the 2-4 best teams in the nation?
Posted on 3/30/13 at 9:33 am to DrSteveBrule
quote:
So you think when VCU gets to the final four and when Butler gets to the national championship twice that they are among the 2-4 best teams in the nation?
That doesn't matter. If we're talking about best way to determine a champion, you can't disprove that assertion with teams that did NOT win the title. The cream eventually rises to the top. Only a very good team can win six straight tourney games. We've only had one "accidental champion" since 1988, and that was fourth-seeded Arizona in 1997, which could make the argument of being underseeded.
Posted on 3/30/13 at 9:36 am to Baloo
And what are you basing Arizona being accidental on. That makes absolutely no sense with the rest of what you just said.
Posted on 3/30/13 at 9:37 am to DrSteveBrule
Do you think the Giants were the best team in the NFL in 2007?
Posted on 3/30/13 at 9:41 am to CtotheVrzrbck
quote:
Can we officially label Kansas hoops as underachievers.
No we cannot.
Posted on 3/30/13 at 9:44 am to DrSteveBrule
An "accidental champion" is when a team that is not arguably the best team won the title. Since Manning and the Miracles in 1988, the only time an "accidental champion" managed to win six straight and take home the title is 4th seeded Arizona in 1997.
Why don't you understand about that?
People routinely assert how unfair the NCAA tournament is, but looking at the results, it does a really good job of crowning a team that had a legitimate claim, year in, year out. If you are going to claim the tournament does a horrible job of crowning a champ, you have to post examples of horrible champs. When has the system failed?
ETA: My point is that the objectively worst champ in the past 25 years is still pretty damn legit.
Why don't you understand about that?
People routinely assert how unfair the NCAA tournament is, but looking at the results, it does a really good job of crowning a team that had a legitimate claim, year in, year out. If you are going to claim the tournament does a horrible job of crowning a champ, you have to post examples of horrible champs. When has the system failed?
ETA: My point is that the objectively worst champ in the past 25 years is still pretty damn legit.
This post was edited on 3/30/13 at 9:46 am
Posted on 3/30/13 at 9:52 am to tgr4ever
No I don't and I never claimed the NFL playoffs provided more accurate results.
Posted on 3/30/13 at 9:53 am to Patrick_Bateman
quote:
I mean 14 Final Four appearances with only 3 titles is pretty frickin' bad, should have at least 5+.
Sounds like something an LSU "fan" would say.
Maybe not an LSU fan, but the rant for sure.
Posted on 3/30/13 at 10:00 am to Baloo
Um, I understand your point, no need to talk to me like a child. I was saying that based on your argument there can be no such thing as an accidental champion.
Posted on 3/30/13 at 10:00 am to Baloo
Um, I understand your point, no need to talk to me like a child. I was saying that based on your argument there can be no such thing as an accidental champion.
Posted on 3/30/13 at 10:04 am to UltimateHog
quote::|
I mean 14 Final Four appearances with only 3 titles is pretty frickin' bad, should have at least 5+.
Posted on 3/30/13 at 10:12 am to DrSteveBrule
You said you didn't understand, so I dumbed it down for you. So, there was a need to talk to you like a child, especially because you are still missing the point. Is it intentional? I'd have to say so at this point because:
That statement completely misrepresents my argument and is actually counter to what I said. Since I cant imagine any way to make myself clearer, you're either willfully missing the point or you really don't understand, and I don't know how to make my argument even simpler. But I'll try.
You see, an "Accidental champion" is a team that won the title, but has no claim at being the "best" team. As I showed earlier, the 1988 Manning and the Miracle Kansas squad was an "Accidental champion". They were a six seed, by the way.
Since 1988, a top three seed has won the title every year, which means they were ranked top 12, probably ten. Given that there are over 330 teams in college basketball, a top ten team has a legit claim at being the "best team". And every year since 1988, a top three seed has won the title.
Except 1997. That's when 4th seeded Arizona won the title. That is the lowest seeded team to win the title in 25 years. They are the "accidental champion" and if that is a tenuous claim. But if you would like to say that title is not that legit, I wouldn't argue that hard.
But my point is that we have a system in which the objectively worst champion in 25 years is 4th seeded Arizona in 1997, and they were pretty darn good. So, if your argument is that the tournament is unfair, then why is the worst result it has turned out in 25 years the 1997 Arizona Wildcats?
quote:
I was saying that based on your argument there can be no such thing as an accidental champion.
That statement completely misrepresents my argument and is actually counter to what I said. Since I cant imagine any way to make myself clearer, you're either willfully missing the point or you really don't understand, and I don't know how to make my argument even simpler. But I'll try.
You see, an "Accidental champion" is a team that won the title, but has no claim at being the "best" team. As I showed earlier, the 1988 Manning and the Miracle Kansas squad was an "Accidental champion". They were a six seed, by the way.
Since 1988, a top three seed has won the title every year, which means they were ranked top 12, probably ten. Given that there are over 330 teams in college basketball, a top ten team has a legit claim at being the "best team". And every year since 1988, a top three seed has won the title.
Except 1997. That's when 4th seeded Arizona won the title. That is the lowest seeded team to win the title in 25 years. They are the "accidental champion" and if that is a tenuous claim. But if you would like to say that title is not that legit, I wouldn't argue that hard.
But my point is that we have a system in which the objectively worst champion in 25 years is 4th seeded Arizona in 1997, and they were pretty darn good. So, if your argument is that the tournament is unfair, then why is the worst result it has turned out in 25 years the 1997 Arizona Wildcats?
Posted on 3/30/13 at 10:12 am to DrSteveBrule
I think you are crazy for picking on butler. They beat legit teams both years. And come on, they made it to the finals two years in a row. They probably were one of the best teams.
Posted on 3/30/13 at 11:03 am to DrSteveBrule
quote:
It's a single elimination tournament where you have to win 6 games in a row. It's pretty much the worst way ever to determine a national champion. People just don't complain about the format because the tournament is easy to get into and it's entertaining to watch unlike the BCS.
What? You don't like seeing a .500 Big East team battle the Horizon League co-champion for the national title?
Posted on 3/30/13 at 11:16 am to CtotheVrzrbck
Considering only 5 other teams have more championships, I'd say they aren't all that underachieving. I see what you're trying to say, that every year they come in and the hype is that they'll make it to the final four and/or win it, but it's pretty well impossible to have those results every year. I don't think they underachieve so much as people build up expectations too much.
Posted on 3/30/13 at 11:23 am to DrSteveBrule
quote:
It's a single elimination tournament where you have to win 6 games in a row. It's pretty much the worst way ever to determine a national champion. People just don't complain about the format because the tournament is easy to get into and it's entertaining to watch unlike the BCS
Completely agree. The issue is if they were to have it where a 3 game series determined who moved forward it would take a month and a half to determine the champion. Too many teams. The baseball playoffs and NBA playoffs are probably the most "fair," since, even if you're on fire one game, you don't advance until you can do the same thing 3 more times. That's why I think the NCAA football playoff system will have just as many haters as the BCS. Anyone honestly think A&M could've beaten Bama 2 or 3 more times last season in a best of 5 or 7? Of course, football is it's own beast and no one could ever do a best of 5 or 7 series, but you catch my meaning.
Posted on 3/30/13 at 11:25 am to CtotheVrzrbck
quote:
I'm going with no.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News