Glad you agree.

Now, Let's review:  Best team at the end of the season =/= best team period.

Actually the logic's not the same and that's an apples-to-oranges comparison.  Chisenhall will face Verlander 2-3 more times within that very same game and at the end of the game Verlander may have the upper hand.  In the NCAA's, it's a one-and-done scenario.  And there are just way too many teams and way too little time to have to have all 68 teams play a 3, 5 or 7 game series against their opponent.

This whole argument is an argument in semantics anyway.  OK, so if FGSU wins the NCAA's and finishes #1, who cares if they're not "the best team".  Seriously.  They're champions!  JSF's right, March Madness isn't about figuring out who "the best team" is.  It's for determining who the CHAMPION is.  It's as is some think its more important to be the "best team" than to be champion.  I could care less who the "best team" is.  My hope is that one day, Ohio is the CHAMPION and not "the best team" under that type of reasoning.  See 2010 MAC Tourney: Ohio wasn't the best team in the MAC that year but who cares?  Ohio won the Tourney anyway.  I'd much rather be champion; everything else is just superfluous.

Why? What's in it for you?

Diagree; the NCAA is a season ending tournament toward which all teams aspire.  It's held to determine who the best team is.  Now, I admit that is an opinion and not a fact.

But you who argue that the team which wins The Big One is not the best team have a much weaker argument.

Does every coach/player/fan/follower aspire to be considered the best team or to win the NCAA?


[Trick question since they're one and the same, of course.}


Better at contract time to argue 1)  the team that I coached won the NCAA or 2)  we didn't win the NCAA but look at the whole year and you'll see that we were the best team anyway.



40 years later and most of you still don't get the 'Follow the money' aspect.


Ten years from now, do you rap rhapsodize with your mates about that Sweet Sixteen year that we had...or the year when we went 14-2 in conference.

OK, I have a proposal.  Let's just not have any games next season.  We'll have our computers analyze each team in terms of the ranking of the recruits, the amount of money their head coach makes, the conference they are affiliated with, the prestige of the school, the size of the market they play in, the number of past All-Americans they've produced, and a host of other current and historical data.  Then the computers will rank all the teams.  It'll save a lot of money for athletic budgets (particularly in the non-power conferences) which can then be channeled into departments like philosophy, Western religions, and Sanskrit studies. That way everyone wins.  We know who the best teams are without having to go through messy things like actual games and tournaments and we put more money into academics.  After all, sometimes messy things happen in tournaments -- teams that are thought to be better teams lose to teams from inferior conferences, with underpaid coaches, and small fan bases.  These losing teams are actually better, as everyone knows, so it's really unfair to the subject them to the scrutiny that ensues when they have to meet the kinds of teams they've avoided all season long on the court.  It's not your actual performance that counts, it's how good you actually are according to the experts and their computers that is the crucial and essential thing to know about a team.

Are you in a competition with yourself to see how stupid you can be?

Your satire sucked unless you were satirizing yourself. You flew over the line of satire and landed in ignorance. Nobody ever said anything about results on the court not counting. We just know enough not to throw out five months worth of data in favor of one weekend with extremely high randomness because it "counts more."

Coincidentally, I would argue both Cleveland and San Antonio have teams in the Top 5 best to miss out on a title when they were the best in the league.

Its all about matchups. 

You obviously overrate yours.



The Cavs have never been the best team in the NBA.

It's not just matchups.  It's team chemistry.  It's teamwork.  It's execution.  It's playing with intensity.  It's coaching.  It's synergism.  It's bringing your A game when everything is on the line. 

I'd go as far as to say that FGCU is one of the top 10 teams left.

Is it enjoyable to always be correct?

I hope that you are available for when the deity of your choice has a problem and needs advice.

Going back to Wichita State they are a perfect example of where the Ohio program should be which is a second weekend run in the NCAA tournament every 5 years or so. They average about 10,000 a game in men's basketball. Even a Wichita State has only made 3 NCAA appearance in 2006.