All year long we have heard from the talking heads that the Big 12 was the best conference top to bottom. Big 12 conference tournament champ Iowa State just went down to UAB.
Big 12 embarrasing itself already
- Thread starter cuzimacardfan
- Start date
They got 7 teams in versus the ACCs 6. Many of theirs with double digit losses. Feeling more confident about picking Buffalo to beat West Virginia.
I didn't follow the Iowa State game, but these results say nothing about most teams and conferences. They're just flukey game finishes.
It's just another example why this tournament does next-to-nothing to identify the best team in the country. It produces a champion in name only, and if it was played multiple times, it would produce multiple champions. In large part, it is becoming a joke.
And don't tell me how popular it is. That's irrelevant. Cockfighting in this state would be popular too. Does that make it relevant and suitable for TV?
"Elite program", my a$$...
It's just another example why this tournament does next-to-nothing to identify the best team in the country. It produces a champion in name only, and if it was played multiple times, it would produce multiple champions. In large part, it is becoming a joke.
And don't tell me how popular it is. That's irrelevant. Cockfighting in this state would be popular too. Does that make it relevant and suitable for TV?
"Elite program", my a$$...
Dayum...TWO 3 seed Big 12 teams eliminated by 14 seed teams on day one. Is 11 seed Texas the next Big 12 team to fall?
More ugliness from the Big 12. Butler goes nearly 11 minutes without making a basket and Texas still was only able to be up by 2 points during that stretch. The 2 teams combined to shoot 1-19 from the field to open the 2nd half.
Not over but it's another ugly performance so far for a Big12 team and a butt ugly game to watch.
Not over but it's another ugly performance so far for a Big12 team and a butt ugly game to watch.
Butler just downed Texas. Butler was higher seed though. Texas should have never been in the tournament.
Zipp, I usually follow the logic in most of your posts......but feel that you are way off base on this one......did you start drinking early today?
Flukey game finishes is what CBB has always been about as amateurs play the game ....not yet pros = unpredictability.
Your last bold sentence...well, that is way over the top and against the law is it not? That is definitely irrelevant.
Settle down and enjoy the games.....sometimes you try way too hard to persuade others to your way of thinking. Other than that....you make great posts that I enjoy.
Originally posted by Mayoman:
Zipp, I usually follow the logic in most of your posts......but feel that you are way off base on this one......did you start drinking early today?
Flukey game finishes is what CBB has always been about as amateurs play the game ....not yet pros = unpredictability.
Your last bold sentence...well, that is way over the top and against the law is it not? That is definitely irrelevant.
Settle down and enjoy the games.....sometimes you try way too hard to persuade others to your way of thinking. Other than that....you make great posts that I enjoy.No question I pour it on a little to make my points. But I haven't been pouring from a bottle...yet.
I don't have a problem with the occasional upset. Unpredictability is party of any contest--otherwise you just play the game on paper. But the NCAA tourney has become an athletic lottery in its current format. A OAD result tells you very little about the true ability of the participants. I wasn't smart enough to predict that, but I'm smart enough NOW to see that's what happens. And I'm losing interest. Is UAB vs UCLA on Saturday TV worth watching? Not for me.
If you want true excitement and unpredictability, why not just put two names in a drawing and advance by random draw? Make it completely unpredictable if that's so much fun!
You can't predict definitively that any change will be good or bad. That and money is what kept college football from changing. Now it can't change fast enough. What I can accurately predict is that a multiple elimination format will produce a truer national champion. Yes, there won't be as many cinderellas. But I've long ago lost interest in watching the NCAA tourney for that. They're too commonplace. Now the cinderellas predominate! That oughta tell you something.
The regular season needs to be more important--it's become less so with 68 teams in the tourney. And the teams invited need to be more legit. We've long ago gotten away from that.
Glad that I can usually entertain you!
"Elite program", my a$$...
I think you're right about the cinderellas. Way too many too often. I wonder how that happens so much nowadays.Originally posted by zipp:
No question I pour it on a little to make my points. But I haven't been pouring from a bottle...yet.
I don't have a problem with the occasional upset. Unpredictability is party of any contest--otherwise you just play the game on paper. But the NCAA tourney has become an athletic lottery in its current format. A OAD result tells you very little about the true ability of the participants. I wasn't smart enough to predict that, but I'm smart enough NOW to see that's what happens. And I'm losing interest. Is UAB vs UCLA on Saturday TV worth watching? Not for me.
If you want true excitement and unpredictability, why not just put two names in a drawing and advance by random draw? Make it completely unpredictable if that's so much fun!
You can't predict definitively that any change will be good or bad. That and money is what kept college football from changing. Now it can't change fast enough. What I can accurately predict is that a multiple elimination format will produce a truer national champion. Yes, there won't be as many cinderellas. But I've long ago lost interest in watching the NCAA tourney for that. They're too commonplace. Now the cinderellas predominate! That oughta tell you something.
The regular season needs to be more important--it's become less so with 68 teams in the tourney. And the teams invited need to be more legit. We've long ago gotten away from that.
Glad that I can usually entertain you!
"Elite program", my a$$...
Can't wait to hear about all the heart warming stories they have in store for us this year. Who lost who's mom or dad to this or that.
BTW, Mayo...
I realize that it's just a marketing expression..."March Madness". And no one should take what it means too seriously.
But if you think about it, it has stuck because it's fairly accurate. The results are often "madness". For those who think the NCAA tourney is a good thing and determines your true national champion, you're saying that outcome should be the result of "madness".
In the process of evolving the football playoff system, if the powers that be were asked if they want madness to determine their national champion, my guess is you'd get laughter--if you got an answer at all...
I realize that it's just a marketing expression..."March Madness". And no one should take what it means too seriously.
But if you think about it, it has stuck because it's fairly accurate. The results are often "madness". For those who think the NCAA tourney is a good thing and determines your true national champion, you're saying that outcome should be the result of "madness".
In the process of evolving the football playoff system, if the powers that be were asked if they want madness to determine their national champion, my guess is you'd get laughter--if you got an answer at all...
I'm of the opinion that there aren't nearly as many Cinderella's as people like to think. Back in the 70' WKU was called a "Cinderella".
BS. They could, and did, play with anybody.
I just think there are a hellava lot more pretty good, Sr laden teams out there today, with a lot of very good players.
Granted, a best of five tourney may end up with all "names". But I've a feeling a "Cinderella" or two just might win their series.
And yes, it would be fun to see.
BS. They could, and did, play with anybody.
I just think there are a hellava lot more pretty good, Sr laden teams out there today, with a lot of very good players.
Granted, a best of five tourney may end up with all "names". But I've a feeling a "Cinderella" or two just might win their series.
And yes, it would be fun to see.
"I honestly think they're contributing to the demise of this tournament."
In what way is the tournament moving towards its demise? The numbers would say differently. The 2014 tourney had the highest TV viewership in 21 years.
Well, you clearly said that the tourney was moving towards its demise. Unless you provide data to support that theory, then I'll just have to assume you are solely speaking in terms of your personal preference. I'll stick with the data.
Originally posted by Knucklehank1:
Well, you clearly said that the tourney was moving towards its demise. Unless you provide data to support that theory, then I'll just have to assume you are solely speaking in terms of your personal preference. I'll stick with the data.This chart doesn't look too compelling...
The reason ratings the last few years have been higher is the broadcasting of all games underway across four CATV stations. That started in 2011. You can see what the trend was when that variable was removed.
Quite simply, a 68-team playoff has greatly reduced the importance of the regular season. Roster quality has been watered down. And we have a postseason tournament that's increasingly a crapshoot in which teams with losing or marginal records are not uncommon.
Excitement, for the time being. Legitimacy, no.
"Elite program", my a$$...
Originally posted by cuzimacardfan:
All this debate about the NCAA tournament. I just wanted to make fun of the Big 12.The problem is you're doing it based on the NCAA tournament which is a crapshoot. That argument may not always hold water...
Zipp, I understand what you are saying, but I think if NCAA basketball went a "best of 5" type formula it would become too vanilla, like the NBA. The 1983 NC State and 1985 Villanova teams would not have been champions; most likely the overall #1 seeds would win every year.
Yeah, I could go along with that Cue Card. It would be like the College World Series, which I think has a good format.
I'm open to anything that moves away from the OAD format which doesn't advance the better team often enough. There's a lotta parity now in college basketball, but that doesn't justify allowing randomness or noise to determine outcomes. If you were in business and designing an experiment, you wouldn't accept that.
For those unfamiliar with a double-elimination format, you start with sixteen four-team double elimination pods and games played on back-to-back dates. You'd need 4-5 days to determine the winner. Those factors are not unlike what you have today with a large conference tournament.
32 games each on Wednesday and Thursday, with 32 teams eliminated on Thursday
16 games each on Friday and Saturday, with 8 teams eliminated on Friday
0-16 games on Sunday, with 8 teams eliminated on Saturday and Sunday combined
That's 64 teams starting the week and 16 emerging, the same numbers that you have now. The big difference is the number of games played. Today, there are 48 games that take place over 4 days. With double elimination, there would be 96-112 games across five days. Each site will have 1-4 games each day across 4-5 days, so there would be even more economic activity at and around the arena.
I would continue with the same double elimination format into the next two weekends.
If you like the current tournament, you'll have even more fun with double elimination. And more valid results...
For those unfamiliar with a double-elimination format, you start with sixteen four-team double elimination pods and games played on back-to-back dates. You'd need 4-5 days to determine the winner. Those factors are not unlike what you have today with a large conference tournament.
32 games each on Wednesday and Thursday, with 32 teams eliminated on Thursday
16 games each on Friday and Saturday, with 8 teams eliminated on Friday
0-16 games on Sunday, with 8 teams eliminated on Saturday and Sunday combined
That's 64 teams starting the week and 16 emerging, the same numbers that you have now. The big difference is the number of games played. Today, there are 48 games that take place over 4 days. With double elimination, there would be 96-112 games across five days. Each site will have 1-4 games each day across 4-5 days, so there would be even more economic activity at and around the arena.
I would continue with the same double elimination format into the next two weekends.
If you like the current tournament, you'll have even more fun with double elimination. And more valid results...
Zipp, the first week of the tourney would be even more insane than it is now, and each site would host more games = more money. I like the idea honestly.
It could also lead to best of 3 final if both teams in the title game have not yet incurred a loss, which would be cool.
It could also lead to best of 3 final if both teams in the title game have not yet incurred a loss, which would be cool.
Now your talking....that is an idea that many could get behind. I really like it. Back in my FP Softball days.....I absolutely loved competing in Double E tournaments....usually of the 32 team variety.
Indeed, this would provide the opportunity to be a huge money maker.....and the one bad game mulligan wouldn't totally knock you out of the tournament either. But it is hell for a team to come back out of that losers bracket to win it all....that I know from first hand experience.
Mayo,nothing quite like being in the loser's bracket in those tourneys and playing all day to that championship.I loved every minute of that feeling and that momentum.Originally posted by Mayoman:
Now your talking....that is an idea that many could get behind. I really like it. Back in my FP Softball days.....I absolutely loved competing in Double E tournaments....usually of the 32 team variety.
Indeed, this would provide the opportunity to be a huge money maker.....and the one bad game mulligan wouldn't totally knock you out of the tournament either. But it is hell for a team to come back out of that losers bracket to win it all....that I know from first hand experience.But it can be done. And the results would be more valid.