We're only  two posts away from someone claiming dinosaurs didn't exist.

Yes, and all agree with that process. But "being crowned National Champion" does not translate to best team - which is what make March Madness so fun - anyone can win on any given day.  But what the process does not even pretend to determine is which team is 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. - in the rankings or in ability.

The NCAA generally gets the best teams (as compared to NIT etc).  Would anyone dispute that?  So, I don't get the argument about 'there are four tournaments.'

Teams play about 30 or so games per year, with most of them counting toward getting into the NCAA and many of them being in the NCAAs.  So, you can compare teams.

Obviously, seeding and match-ups may have an influence.  But so what, that's always true.  Even if you go to the best of seven that some of you suggest is a more fair or accurate barometer than a single game elimination tournament.

What better criteria is there than NCAA games played...espec whan all know that getting in is a hallmark.

You can believe that final, on the court performance in NCAA is not determinative.  I'm a business man.  I judge on results.  You are welcome to go on theoretical achievement.

Good points, Monroe . . .  but wait, JSF will get in the last word and tell you in one pithy sentence why taking in a bigger "data set" is the only rationale way to determine the best team.  It's just too simplistic and sophomoric to think that a team like Wichita State that beats Ohio State when all the chips are on the table is really the better team.  No, no, he will say you have to consider the whole "body of work."  To me the best reply to this is a simple one word -- BALONEY!

NOTE: In the little poll I conducted on this question, it appears, Monroe, that more people agree with us than JSF and the other more vocal posters on this board. 

The four tournaments statement refers not to the NIT, etc., but to the four regions.

I am referring to the four regions where teams are assigned by a committee and have no ability to play the teams from another region.  The regions are hardly "equal" and become even more unbalanced based of upsets.  Because of the regional approach, it is impossible, and inappropriate to say Wichita State is better than, and should be ranked higher than, Duke because they won their regional tournament while Duke lost in the finals of theirs.  Or that Marquette is better than Kansas because they made it to the finals of their regional tournament while Kansas lost in their regional semis.


Agree, over the course of that body of work a comparison is more valid than over the course of two weekends.


As am I.  But your argument is like taking one criteria - sales - and using that to decide "best product."  Does Horton build the best home?  Trex build the best composite deck?  GM the best car?  My clients, would argue no - there are too many other influences to solely look at sales. Additionally, you are taking one criteria and compressing it into two weekends.  The only comparison in business that I have experienced like that is advertising sweeps and everyone (in the industry) knows how misleading and inaccurate that model is.

Wow..just...wow...really?...wow

What JSF et. all have been saying is you can't look at the results of the Wichita State v OSU game and conclude that Wichita is better then Kansas, who lost to Michigan, because they made it farther in the NCAA.  Why don't you seem to understand this?

Because they didn't want to exist when all the chips were on the table.  Other species just wanted to exist more.

Gary Larsen said it was because of smoking.

HA!

Monroe, Georgetown was better than Ohio as a whole in 2010.    We were better than them for one night in March.   No way we beat them two out of three.   No way.   None.

Theoretical and irrelevant.  I always like it when one states a hypothetical and then insists that the hypothetical is a universal truth that one only doubts at the risk of being labeled a lunatic.