- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
Posted on 12/16/25 at 10:40 am to Kinderman
IMO, the lower seed teams make March Madness memorable. Nobody can recall what happened in a random first or second round game in the CFP or BCS from 3 years ago or 10 years ago -- if you are not pulling for one of the teams.
But if some 13 seed or 15 seed makes it to the Sweet 16 or Elite 8.....fans will be like: "FGCU or George Mason had a good run that year." (a decade or two later).
Let these small and midsize universities have a moment to enjoy.
But if some 13 seed or 15 seed makes it to the Sweet 16 or Elite 8.....fans will be like: "FGCU or George Mason had a good run that year." (a decade or two later).
Let these small and midsize universities have a moment to enjoy.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 10:44 am to Doctor B
it also is the only sport that seems to reward teams that don't win the title. So many sports now a days have the if you ain't first you're last attitude and it really ruined a lot of what made december and january fun for me as a football fan in the past when bowl apperances and wins were celebrated.
Small schools are happy with a sweet 16 birth. Schools hang banners for being in the final four or being the national runner up. Hell, a lot of schools hang banners just for making the tournament.
Small schools are happy with a sweet 16 birth. Schools hang banners for being in the final four or being the national runner up. Hell, a lot of schools hang banners just for making the tournament.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 10:46 am to Doctor B
Lehigh beating Duke, UMBC beating UVA, Fairleigh Dickinson beating Purdue, 150 year old Sister Jean being an internet celebrity. The tournament format truly gives us some fun memories.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 10:46 am to Kinderman
He’s right that it’s a bad way to determine a champion. Playoffs in general aren’t a great way because they place arbitrary meaning on games at the end of the season.
That said it’s an entertaining way to determine a champion, and the NCAA would need much smaller divisions like European soccer to determine a champion in a good way without a playoff.
That said it’s an entertaining way to determine a champion, and the NCAA would need much smaller divisions like European soccer to determine a champion in a good way without a playoff.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 10:50 am to Kinderman
He's not wrong. If, say, NcNeese played James Madison in the championship game for hoops, ratings would plummet.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 10:52 am to Eighteen
quote:
hes 100% right.
March Madness is entertaining for casuals or those who just want to watch games and pull for upsets because it’s fun and they have brackets/money on the line.
If you actually are a fan of a basketball team and care about it and the season, its one of the most frustrating/dumbest things about the sport
as a fan you invest all this time and energy into a team over the course of 4 months…yo through a conference slate…then a conference tournament…then await your seeding.
then you get shipped to god knows where and play a single elimination tournament in a sport where refs suck arse and any random game can see your best player get in foul trouble or the underdog team gets key free throws to keep them in a game and your season is over in the blink of an eye.
and the structure itself is wonky…you get a week to prepare for first team in your bracket, then one day to prepare for team 2, then a week for team 3, one day for team four
basketball is not a sport that should be played as a single game.
but again, everything above is great as a casual fan who just wants to take off work drink beer and watch the chaos and carnage
I agree with everything here. NCAA basketball is the hardest national title to win amongst all the sports. Yes, a 16 can beat a 1, but if were best of seven, the number of upsets would go down. Imagine if college baseball was single game elimination. The longer the series, the better chance the best team actually wins.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 10:52 am to nicholastiger
quote:
only thing I don't like is automatic qualifiers from winning a conference tourney
you disregard the whole regular season to give the tourney champ a bid and sometimes eliminating the best team from that particular conference doesn't make a whole lot of sense
all the talk about expanding the NCAA tourney would be great and you could eliminate conference tourneys and making teams play a lot of back to back games that for the most part are meaningless while risking injury to those teams players
Automatic qualifiers is one of the things that makes March Madness special. I'm quick to trash Sankey for multiple reasons and this is just another one, him wanting to eliminate so major conferences get more bids is a gross tactic that is another nail in the coffin of college sports.
Basketball unlike football, any team can win if the other team is just having an off night and you can't miss. I'd rather watch the best teams fighting in "lesser" conferences" than watching two mid teams from "better" conferences.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 10:53 am to Kinderman
I mean he’s right though. It’s a great tournament but it’s a terrible way to crown a national champion.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 10:54 am to SoFla Tideroller
quote:That is an "if" that will quite literally never come to fruition. #15 is the worst team that won the championship in the last 30 years.
He's not wrong. If, say, McNeese played James Madison in the championship game for hoops, ratings would plummet.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 10:55 am to Underwood
quote:
Basketball unlike football, any team can win if the other team is just having an off night and you can't miss. I'd rather watch the best teams fighting in "lesser" conferences" than watching two mid teams from "better" conferences.
All the talent is being funneled upwards by NIL though…
Posted on 12/16/25 at 10:56 am to saintsfan92612
quote:
Small schools are happy with a sweet 16 birth. Schools hang banners for being in the final four or being the national runner up. Hell, a lot of schools hang banners just for making the tournament.
Agreed. Yale beat Auburn in the first round a couple of seasons ago as a 13-4 matchup. I can still tell you John Poulakidas scored 28 points in that game for Yale without looking it up. Joel Klatt is acting as if these lower seeds create havoc every year. How often does a double digit seed make a huge run through 2 or 3 rounds. Once every decade or 15 years?
Posted on 12/16/25 at 10:57 am to Doctor B
quote:And so many Auburn fans blamed the tournament for "costing" them a shot, instead of their team losing to an Ivy League school
Agreed. Yale beat Auburn in the first round a couple of seasons ago as a 13-4 matchup. I can still tell you John Poulakidas scored 28 points in that game for Yale without looking it up. Joel Klatt is acting as if these lower seeds create havoc every year. How often does a double digit seed make a huge run through 2 or 3 rounds. Once every decade or 15 years?
Posted on 12/16/25 at 11:01 am to Harry Caray
You're reinforcing his point. You literally just admitted that half the field has no chance. So, half the tournament is unwatchable, I guess?
Posted on 12/16/25 at 11:10 am to Kinderman
quote:
Joel Klatt
quote:
dumbest
quote:
in all of sports
That's better
Posted on 12/16/25 at 11:14 am to SoFla Tideroller
The crumble continues..
They'll eventually end up with some kind of power ranking system that carries over from year to year.
"Sure McNeese had a great season but do we really think they could beat even a .500 Alabama team?"
College "playoffs" in all sports will eventually just be committees creating what they think will be the best TV ratings.
They'll eventually end up with some kind of power ranking system that carries over from year to year.
"Sure McNeese had a great season but do we really think they could beat even a .500 Alabama team?"
College "playoffs" in all sports will eventually just be committees creating what they think will be the best TV ratings.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 11:23 am to Kinderman
He's right in the sense that it doesn't crown a true champion in some cases.
The whole idea of playoffs in American sports is a weird one.
As a huge Atlanta Braves fan, I have no preconceived notion that the Braves were the best team in 2021. Didn't even win 90 games in the regular season. But thanks to a weak division, they got into the playoffs and had homefield advantage in the NLCS against the 104-win Dodgers who didn't win their division... a home field advantage that helped tremendously with us winning the first two games via a bottom of the 9th walk off.
European soccer is the best way to crown a "true" champion in the sense that there are no playoffs. At the end of the regular season, the team with the most points is the champion.
With all that said, sports is about entertainment first and foremost... and playoffs are entertaining for the most part.
I would argue that college football is the only American sport where the expanded playoff makes it less entertaining. There was something about living and dying across a 12/13 game season, knowing that one loss could frick up your shite.
The whole idea of playoffs in American sports is a weird one.
As a huge Atlanta Braves fan, I have no preconceived notion that the Braves were the best team in 2021. Didn't even win 90 games in the regular season. But thanks to a weak division, they got into the playoffs and had homefield advantage in the NLCS against the 104-win Dodgers who didn't win their division... a home field advantage that helped tremendously with us winning the first two games via a bottom of the 9th walk off.
European soccer is the best way to crown a "true" champion in the sense that there are no playoffs. At the end of the regular season, the team with the most points is the champion.
With all that said, sports is about entertainment first and foremost... and playoffs are entertaining for the most part.
I would argue that college football is the only American sport where the expanded playoff makes it less entertaining. There was something about living and dying across a 12/13 game season, knowing that one loss could frick up your shite.
This post was edited on 12/16/25 at 11:23 am
Posted on 12/16/25 at 11:24 am to msutiger
quote:
I legitimately wouldn’t watch a single second of the ncaa basketball tournament if it was just the power programs.
The highest rated NCAAT games have always been between two major programs with some very few exceptions.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 11:26 am to Kinderman
Klatt’s wrong here, but there’s some nuance to the reasoning. Basically, football and basketball are just different sports, and you shouldn’t make the same assumptions about what makes for a good playoff.
The difference comes down to injury risk and sample size.
Players get injured in football much more often than in basketball. This limits the number of games the teams can play. In turn, you don’t get a great sample size relative to the number of teams in the league. Compare to the NFL, which now has 32 teams playing 17 games, instead of 136 teams playing 12–13 games. Record is still a useful metric, but not useful enough to go on by itself.
Additionally, the games themselves are different in ways that limit building good sample sizes. Football scoring uses weird numbers, and the number of scoring opportunities is a lot lower. Basketball scoring is much more granular: the numbers are smaller, and you get a lot more scoring opportunities, so games have a smoother distribution of outcomes. This makes it easier to know who’s actually good and who’s not. If a basketball team is nuking everyone from orbit, you don’t find yourself asking “but have they played anybody?” the way you might with some football teams.
All of this adds up to different postseasons. In college basketball, you can spare a six-round tournament without worrying if all the contenders will suffer a meaningful injury from wear and tear. Great teams will also get plenty of chances, even in a single game, to shake off cold shooting streaks and assert their will on bad teams. In football, a six round tournament would get everybody killed lol. And if you have a few bad possessions, you might be cooked no matter how good the team is supposed to be. So the same formula that makes March Madness a success may just not fit football.
I’ll end by pointing out that people clearly care about more than just crowning the best team. People love a Cinderella story. Maybe football can’t spare indulgence of that desire like basketball can, but it’s worth pointing out that we don’t just want to crown the best team. That’s the most important thing but not the only thing.
The difference comes down to injury risk and sample size.
Players get injured in football much more often than in basketball. This limits the number of games the teams can play. In turn, you don’t get a great sample size relative to the number of teams in the league. Compare to the NFL, which now has 32 teams playing 17 games, instead of 136 teams playing 12–13 games. Record is still a useful metric, but not useful enough to go on by itself.
Additionally, the games themselves are different in ways that limit building good sample sizes. Football scoring uses weird numbers, and the number of scoring opportunities is a lot lower. Basketball scoring is much more granular: the numbers are smaller, and you get a lot more scoring opportunities, so games have a smoother distribution of outcomes. This makes it easier to know who’s actually good and who’s not. If a basketball team is nuking everyone from orbit, you don’t find yourself asking “but have they played anybody?” the way you might with some football teams.
All of this adds up to different postseasons. In college basketball, you can spare a six-round tournament without worrying if all the contenders will suffer a meaningful injury from wear and tear. Great teams will also get plenty of chances, even in a single game, to shake off cold shooting streaks and assert their will on bad teams. In football, a six round tournament would get everybody killed lol. And if you have a few bad possessions, you might be cooked no matter how good the team is supposed to be. So the same formula that makes March Madness a success may just not fit football.
I’ll end by pointing out that people clearly care about more than just crowning the best team. People love a Cinderella story. Maybe football can’t spare indulgence of that desire like basketball can, but it’s worth pointing out that we don’t just want to crown the best team. That’s the most important thing but not the only thing.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 11:36 am to OKBoomerSooner
quote:
a basketball team is nuking everyone from orbit, you don’t find yourself asking “but have they played anybody?” the way you might with some football teams.
You do if they’re not in the right conferences…
quote:
European soccer is the best way to crown a "true" champion in the sense that there are no playoffs. At the end of the regular season, the team with the most points is the champion.
But then you run into the issue that they may wreck shite early in the season, but they may not have to be great when it matters. Those seasons are so long
This post was edited on 12/16/25 at 11:39 am
Popular
Back to top


0





