"No, you are just being Monroe." makes it personal? Please - it's not like I called out third poster.
What irks me is when someone's opinion (their approach) flies in the face of their very own logic.
You say you craft your view based on what happens on the floor, yet limit, or certainly heavily weigh your view based on three weekends over the course of a 5 month season - when teams (who played in, or were hand picked by a committee), play only a select few teams in their bracket.
The reality - if we want to deal with that - is that every team except Louisville (I think we both agree to dismiss the NIT and CBI winners from this discussion) lost their last game of the year. Every team in the tournament and most every team in the country - lost their last game of the year. WE agree the last team standing Louisville is #1 - National Champion. After that it is opinion as to who is 2nd, 3rd, 11th, 35th, etc. Yet when they lost, you admit, is paramount to your ranking - "what they did on the court" only applies to three weekends in March - not the rest of the year. If, by your own admission, the tournament defines who is better, then the regular season is nothing more than an exercise to determine who gets in the tournament and their ranking - then everyone starts at ground zero - For someone who is fact based and makes decisions based on what happens on the court, you admit dismissing 80% of the season. That is odd.
Is Wichita State better than OSU? That's an argument you can win. Are they better than Kansas or Duke? We have no idea - none at all. You would say yes because they made it further in the year-end, three weekend tournament, and "looked good" when you saw them. I embrace your view that what takes place on the court does, indeed, matter. But I'm compelled to not dismiss 80% of their body of work.
Last Edited: 4/11/2013 10:39:21 AM by cc-cat