I like to handle these specific NCAA tournament, my team's better, agrguments in a way that's best described by example:

Last year,

Michigan wasn't OHIO's most important game. They were'nt even OHIO's second most important game. But guess what, OHIO was the co-BIG10 Champ's most important game.

Right. Kickball. That's funny.

"Should" vs "will" - Let's deal with reality.  They lose tonight they will finish lower than 16 - Indiana will not fall to 9 or worse.  Want some proof?  Michigan finished ahead of Ohio last year.

Is Florida Gulf Coast a top sixteen team? I'd say no. But are they better than the R.P.I., Sagarin, or whatever so-called objective measurement would tell you? Absolutely. Those measurements are important only to the extent the committee uses them to hand out at-large bids and seed teams. Once the games start, throw those so-called objective measurements out the window. Which is why it is crazy for some people to keep citing those numbers at the end of the year, about Florida Gulf Coast or Ohio last year. Was Ohio a top sixteen team last year? I don't think so. But I think they were a top twenty-five team, because that is how they played when it counted. I don't care they were not a top twenty five team on November 1st. They were top twenty five in March, and that is all that matters. And therein lies another limitation of the R.P.I. and Sagarin. They don't measure the team when it really counts.

And I doubt Florida Gulf Coast will care where they were ranked during the regular season. And the fact is this: Those so-called objective measurements are based largely on the quality of the teams you play. You could be a really good team, play lackluster opponents because you are in a weaker league and the Big Boys won't play you, and have a mediocre R.P.I. or Sagarin. Are you a mediocre team? I think Florida Gulf Coast is showing us they are not a mediocre team, despite what the R.P.I. and Sagarins would have us believe.

Now, how many of those big boy teams do you think will be lining up to play Florida Gulf Coast next year? Or the year after that? That tells me more about the quality of a team than the R.P.I. or Sagarin.

I knew that I could..that this would..do this.

I love the argument that 1) performance when it matters, when the whole world is watching and teams know that it's now or never, and 2) actual on court results (the same as #1 for you who can't reason) are not relevant to which team is better than other teams.

Let's try it another way for you peoples who just don't get it.  Let's say that FGCU wins it all.  Will you then not rank them #1?



I'll grant that USA victory over Russia in the Ice Miracle was somewhat an outlier here.  But the circumstances are not at all the same.  The Russkies were widely acknowledged as, and had proven for many years on the ice, that they were the best.  And, those players stayed for years.  Here we're talking about a college team in a given year--a lot different than prior or subsequent years teams.

 

The Cleveland Cavaliers were the NBA's best team a couple times, yet have never won a championship.

God bless you, I'm a Cleveland homer, but even I would say that it only took the San Antonio Spurs the minimum 4 games to convincingly prove the CAVS were not the best team in the NBA, at least in 2007.

OK smart guy.  How do you decide who the best team is?

I agree.  I sometimes get riled up by the insulting of the game that everyone else in the world plays.



Now, back to the original intent of the thread.  I'm all for the NCAA Tournament, but it can't always be that the BEST team wins a single elimination tournament format.  Think about Jimmy V's NC State team a long way back.  No way were they the BEST team in the NCAA that year.  They were the best team over the course of a few weeks.  The same could be said about George Mason getting to the Final Four.  Yes, they won enough to get to the Final Four, but a couple of the teams they beat would beat them 3 times out of 5. 

To say that March Maddness tells us who the best team is, is as arbitrary as saying the team that has the most 1st round NBA draft picks is the best team.  It's all a crap shoot.  Doing well in the NCAA is being better than the team you are on the same court playing - not being the best team in the field.  If that were the case the 'overall number one' team would win every year.

We never know who the best team is, we only know who the hottest team at this point in March is.  If the NCAA decided who the 'best' was, then you should be able to run the same tournament over and over again, with the same result, which we all know is not the case.

Everybody would agree that winning it all takes a few good breaks, bounces of the ball, luck...whatever you want to call it.  Miami beat ILL the other in part because of a blown call.  If that call is made correctly, maybe ILL wins.  If Miami wins the whole thing, are they the best team or one of the really hot teams with some luck mixed in?

Let's review:  Polls are done at the end of the season.  A tournament (NCAA) is held to determine who the best team is at the end of the season.  Save for an argument that a team that should have gotten into the NCAAs was left out, I love you guys who are arguing that the NCAA champ Should not be ranked #1.

I mean, YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!


Yes, if Liberty entered the tourney at 15-17 and won it, then they are #1.  Of course, I imagine that most of you would not have them ranked at all after they won it....because that's logical.


I am seriously amazed and amused that this is so difficult for so many of you.




Let's try it another way for you peoples who just don't get it. Let's say that FGCU wins it all. Will you then not rank them #1?

+1