March Madness 23

[MICHHAWK]

are you in south florida right now? are you surrounded by bandwagon fans.

is it ok for the sdsu fans to be happy. they have never been there.

[pdub]

They should be ecstatic.

And they can and should exclaim, if they win it all, "we're National Champions!" and be correct.
And they can exclaim, if they win it all, "we're the best team in college basketball this year!" but not be correct.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

are you in south florida right now? are you surrounded by bandwagon fans.

is it ok for the sdsu fans to be happy. they have never been there.

AGAIN, I have ZERO problem with FANS (bandwagon, casual, hardcore, whatever) supporting their team/s and being happy for their success.
My problem is with people who pretend they are college basketball experts AFTER the fact/s.

[jfish26]

They should be ecstatic.

And they can and should exclaim, if they win it all, "we're National Champions!" and be correct.
And they can exclaim, if they win it all, "we're the best team in college basketball this year!" but not be correct.

Pretty much!

[MICHHAWK]

get rid of those stupid AF first 4 games. and if they are not going to get rid of those stupid AF first 4 games. no automatic qualifiers in those stupid AF first 4 games. not fair that you win your conferences auto bid. and get rewarded with the first 4.

first 4 games should be for the last at large teams only.

[jfish26]

get rid of those stupid AF first 4 games. and if they are not going to get rid of those stupid AF first 4 games. no automatic qualifiers in those stupid AF first 4 games. not fair that you win your conferences auto bid. and get rewarded with the first 4.

first 4 games should be for the last at large teams only.

I don't personally disagree, but I've also seen low-major coaches speak to the appeal of being in those games, because they count as wins.

[UnholyLivingDead]

get rid of those stupid AF first 4 games. and if they are not going to get rid of those stupid AF first 4 games. no automatic qualifiers in those stupid AF first 4 games. not fair that you win your conferences auto bid. and get rewarded with the first 4.

first 4 games should be for the last at large teams only.

I wish conferences would also choose to give the auto-bid to the team that finishes in first place in the regular season rather than the winner of the conference tournament.

[randylahey]

get rid of those stupid AF first 4 games. and if they are not going to get rid of those stupid AF first 4 games. no automatic qualifiers in those stupid AF first 4 games. not fair that you win your conferences auto bid. and get rewarded with the first 4.

first 4 games should be for the last at large teams only.

100 percent agree. Consider it the bubble play in

[DrPepper]

Goodness. I did not know that people really believed March Madness crowned the best team.
It is great to win an NC title. Definitely gives bragging rights. But defining a program on only NCs separates the faithful from the bandwagon March-only so-called fans.

I just love how free the team not-wearing-white is. And watching the psyche of the team in white change when they switch from playing ball to 'trying not to lose.' It is painful in a right of passage of youth kind of way. Just right for a spring day in March.

[KUTradition]

unless it’s “your” team that’s playing not to loose

[DrPepper]

Yes, that is very painful. I’ve felt it many times.
Then we can debate if seeding matters, if experience helps deal with pressure, if a coach can inspire, if guys really can flip a switch, if lucky socks matters.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

I guess I am in the minority when I say I feel the tournament is a very good (not great or perfect) barometer of determining who is/was the best team. Looking back at the last 25 tournaments I believe the LARGE majority of the time the best team MAY have won the tournament.

2022 - Was 1 seed KU definitely not the best team?
2021 - Was 1 seed Baylor definitely not the best team?
2019 - Was 1 seed Virginia definitely not the best team?
2018 - Was 1 seed Nova definitely not the best team?
2017 - Was 1 seed UNC definitely not the best team?
2016 - Was 2 seed Nova definitely not the best team?
2015 - Was 1 seed Duke definitely not the best team?
2013 - Was 1 seed Louisville definitely not the best team?
2012 - Was 1 seed Kentucky definitely not the best team?
2010 - Was 1 seed Duke definitely not the best team?
2009 - Was 1 seed UNC definitely not the best team?
2008 - Was 1 seed KU definitely not the best team?
2007 - Was 1 seed Florida definitely not the best team?
2005 - Was 1 seed UNC definitely not the best team?
2004 - Was 2 seed UConn definitely not the best team?
2002 - Was 1 seed Maryland definite not the best team?
2001 - Was 1 seed Duke definitely not the best team?
2000 - Was 1 seed MSU definitely not the best team?
1999 - Was 1 seed UConn definitely not the best team?
1998 - Was 2 seed Kentucky definitely not the best team?

[pdub]

2022 - 60% chance not
2021 - 70% chance not
2019 - 10% chance not
2018 - 5% chance not
2017 - 30% chance not
2016 - 60% chance not
2015 - 70% chance not
2014 - 98% chance not
2013 - they didn't win technically
2012 - 2% chance not
2011 - 97% chance not
2010 - 50% chance not
2009 - 40% chance not
2008 - 0% chance not

So out of the last 13 champs, around half of them were likely not the best team.
Decent but could be better.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Which brings us to......
Is the tournament wonderful? A "Cinderella" has a chance to become the National Campions.
Doesn't the tournament suck? The best team often doesn't win the National Championship.
Or....
Doesn't the tournament suck? A Cinderella has a chance to become the National Champions.
Isn't the tournament wonderful? The best team often doesn't win the Championship.

How was that for a Gutter at his finest post?
How was that for a Gutter at his worst post?

[jfish26]

2022 - 60% chance not
2021 - 70% chance not
2019 - 10% chance not
2018 - 5% chance not
2017 - 30% chance not
2016 - 60% chance not
2015 - 70% chance not
2014 - 98% chance not
2013 - they didn't win technically
2012 - 2% chance not
2011 - 97% chance not
2010 - 50% chance not
2009 - 40% chance not
2008 - 0% chance not

So out of the last 13 champs, around half of them were likely not the best team.
Decent but could be better.

I would be pretty surprised if, statistically speaking, the tournament winner has been the "best team" anything close to half the time.

[ousdahl]

re: 08, wasn't there at least one poster at some point who suggested something like, thank the lord we didn't have to play Memphis in a best-of-7?

[jfish26]

re: 08, wasn't there at least one poster at some point who suggested something like, thank the lord we didn't have to play Memphis in a best-of-7?

I think if you run that Final Four a million times, all four teams win 20-30% of the simulations.

[pdub]

I agree.
I just had to give us 0% chance not because that team ruled.

[jfish26]

I agree.
I just had to give us 0% chance not because that team ruled.

I don't know exactly how you'd go about this - you have to use NBA minutes medians, or something more sophisticated (or, I guess, something less sophisticated like number of guys who played at least 41 NBA games or something) - but I wonder how many Final Fours ever have had that much talent.

Because a quick scan tells me that...

UNC had five NBA players
Kansas had seven NBA players
UCLA had four NBA players
Memphis had four NBA players

I'd guess there have not been many Final Fours, certainly in medium-term history, with that many NBA players.

[pdub]

I agree.
I just had to give us 0% chance not because that team ruled.

I don't know exactly how you'd go about this - you have to use NBA minutes medians, or something more sophisticated (or, I guess, something less sophisticated like number of guys who played at least 41 NBA games or something) -

Career PER's.
wink.