March Madness is Flawed

[SacramentoKat]

Is a 64 team single elimination tournament really the best way to determine the best college basketball team? Is it not true we could replay this tournament and have a completely unique Final Four each time? Do we really think South Carolina is a top 4 team? Would UNC get all the calls all the time? Ok, maybe that would not change as long as John Higgins is involved.!

Don't get me wrong, the event we have is awesome for TV, and creates so much emotion. Seeing Frank Martin get a platform this year and Cinderrella runs from years past is great. I love the mix of commentators with such differences like Barkley, Nance, Davis, and others. There is no better event in sports.

However, I do believe the parity in college basketball due to OAD is expising the flaw of the system. It is a format that does not statistically result in the best team winning. When you have teams like the 1996 cats, they are going to win no matter the format. However, in today's league, the results are almost completely random..

Where this matters is because of actions and perceptions based on the results. "Bill Self is the wrong man because he can't get past the E8." "Cal is underachiever, and we need to make a change." My point is, we base our feelings and decisions off a flawed system, and we mist remember that.

Personally, i think a 16 team best of 3 tournament, would be extremely exciting. Yes, we would lose Cinderella, but Cinderrella does not belong in a discussion about the best team. They had their chance in the regular season. Seeing a best of 3 with blue bloods, Gonzaga, and any other team that has proven themselves will result in the best team.

 

[barryn2000]

I don't consider a single elimination tourney a "flawed system" but assuming for the sake of discussion it is, what you suggest would not produce a clear undeniable champion. It would spawn a new single elimination tourney where the non elite schools crown a NC and the elitists crown one in their protected bubble tourney.

 

[WildMoon]

single elimination is good.

I want to see better even refs.

 

[akaukswoosh]

single elimination is good.

I want to see better even refs.

Agree. I like the format.

 

[3rex]

Leave the tournament format alone. Nothing's perfect, but it is as exiting as any sports event out there year in & year out.

 

[EmCats3]

I say once you get to the sweet 16 go to best of 3. Still get the early upsets but a clear champion would be crowned. There would still be flaws with this system but it would be a start

 

[John Henry]

The format is fine. Seeding and refs are suspect

 

[Kats23]

The Final Four this year is a perfect example that single elimination tournaments are flawed. Now I know, there are a lot of fans puffing their chest out about the SEC but there's no way in haites, someone is going to convince me South Carolina is one of the 4 best teams in the country or Butler is one of the best 8. Or that while other teams get to play lower seeds because of upsets and others get tougher matchups because of chalk or whatever. It's a flawed system.

With the money it generates, and so many teams eligible to play there isn't much of a better way to play. However, to tweak it, make it best of 3 once you get to the Final Four or double elimination once you get to the Elite 8. That's how the CWS does it.

 

[jockstrap_mcgee]

The NCAA makes endless dump trucks of money in three weeks. They are not changing march madness

 

[SacramentoKat]

I say once you get to the sweet 16 go to best of 3. Still get the early upsets but a clear champion would be crowned. There would still be flaws with this system but it would be a start

That is a lot more games, but I'm fine with that. Maybe reduce to a field of 32.

Try convincing the NBA to go to a single elimination tournament. You'd have 8 seeds knocking off Golden State and Clevelend every 3-4 years. It just does not work given the randomness of basketball (3 point shot...which leads me to another topic of wanting to move the line to the NBA distance).

I will post some statistical evidence if you want. I did not expect I'd have to defend the notion of the tournament being random.

 

[eppsfan]

I love the idea of double-elimination beyond the Sweet 16. If you aren't good enough to survive the 1st weekend, you go home. Fair enough. After that, it's double-elimination. Take a look at the baseball College World Series as an example of how it would work. Much better way of finding the best team in my opinion.

 

[StubbornPenny]

Everyone knows single elimination tournaments are completely flawed. No one has ever, or should, argue that they aren't. However, they're a lot more fun than games played in series.

I'd say the NBA has the fairest system. You can't really bawl that much when you had 7 games to get it done. If the NCAA was like that, we'd have a lot, lot more titles.

 

[JasonS.]

The NCAA Tournament is maybe the most perfect sporting event there is.

It makes a niche, regionally popular sport in college basketball the center of American life for an entire month.

 

[YourPublicEnemy]

It's a fun tournament but it makes the regular season completely worthless. Each team gets the same exact chance at the title despite success throughout the regular season. You think it's fair that 18-17 South Dakota State gets the same shot as a one seed?

March Madness is essentially like every NBA team makes it and then the Cavs get eliminated because the Knicks beat them one time.

It's never going to change but at the most, that tourney should be 32 teams.

 

[SacramentoKat]

The NCAA Tournament is maybe the most perfect sporting event there is.

It makes a niche, regionally popular sport in college basketball the center of American life for an entire month.

Yep, but we aren't deciding the best team. We are putting on a spectacle where Cinderrellas benefit at the expense of proven teams, which provides the excitement. My point is, maybe NCAAm is the platform where we want to put this dance on, but let's not hang our heads or fire coaches when the inevitable happens.

I am looking for a tool out there that will simulate a tournament given a team having say 90% chance of winning a game. You'll see greatly different results in the winners given the format.

 

[barryn2000]

The NCAA Tournament is maybe the most perfect sporting event there is.

It makes a niche, regionally popular sport in college basketball the center of American life for an entire month.

Not only that...the suggestions in this thread, if applied decades ago, do not guarantee that we'd have more than 8 NC's.

Also...allowing some umbrella group to choose who plays in this elitist championship, the seeding of that as well as the Ref's would still allow for the same complaints of bias and unfairness.

 

[*dezyDECO*]

The real flaw, as Kentucky fans know all too well, is that they don't place the seeds properly. The regular season accomplishments don't count as much as they should... well, if you're UK, that is.

 

[SacramentoKat]

Not only that...the suggestions in this thread, if applied decades ago, do not guarantee that we'd have more than 8 NC's.

Also...allowing some umbrella group to choose who plays in this elitist championship, the seeding of that as well as the Ref's would still allow for the same complaints of bias and unfairness.

I can prove we have a statistically much higher chance at having more than 1 championship in the 2000s if the format was different.

 

[JasonS.]

Yep, but we aren't deciding the best team. We are putting on a spectacle where Cinderrellas benefit at the expense of proven teams, which provides the excitement.

Yep, it ain't the NBA or NHL playoffs. It's the Kentucky Derby.

That said, you've got three teams that were in the Top 5 to 10 for almost the entire season in UNC, Gonzaga and Oregon in the Final Four. And obviously we were knocking on the door.

 

[barryn2000]

I can prove we have a statistically much higher chance at having more than 1 championship in the 2000s if the format was different.

Statistics doesn't shoot free throws, block shots, get tired, have cramps, etc. Statistically, violent crimes increase when ice cream sales increase. Statistics can prove whatever you want them to.

 

[ZakkW]

I think it sucks. The whole premise of the thing has become BUZZER BEATERS! CINDERELLA! UPSETS! That's how the NCAA sells it and that's how TV markets it. In fact, it's not really referred to as the NCAA Tournament anymore but MARCH MADNESS(check the mid-court decals in the first weekend for evidence). The idea of determining a champion is now secondary to the above. IMO.

 

[kb22stang]

The tournament isn't about crowning the best team, the tournament is about generating revenues. The system is not flawed at all, the goal of those running the sport is. It's all about greed and money.

 

[barryn2000]

I think it sucks. The whole premise of the thing has become BUZZER BEATERS! CINDERELLA! UPSETS! That's how the NCAA sells it and that's how TV markets it. In fact, it's not really referred to as the NCAA Tournament anymore but MARCH MADNESS(check the mid-court decals in the first weekend for evidence). The idea of determining a champion is now secondary to the above. IMO.

The NCAA and CBS do not create the buzzer beaters. Decals don't alter the game or tourney rules. Nothing wrong with selling the dream of March Madness and millions of people watching to some blue collar kid who's best shot is some mid major BB program. This doesn't have to be about the Blue Blood programs 24/7.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

It depends what you want.

Do you want the best team winning the majority of the time or do you want lesser teams to stand a chance?

In European soccer there is no playoffs. The team with the most points at the end of the season is crowned champ.

Whether that is the preferred format for the majority of sports fans here I don't believe so. I think most people like march madness the way it is.

As far as us having more titles you can't prove that. Even going to a best of format, the best team still doesn't always win. Also I'm not sure you can say with certainty we even had the best team. The only two years you could question is 2010 and 2015. I don't think we were the best team in 2010 tho.

Maybe it gives us a greater shot in 2015 but it would also mean that 2011 and 2014 runs to the title would have been less likely given we weren't the favorite those years

 

[TroutBum]

The real flaw, as Kentucky fans know all too well, is that they don't place the seeds properly. The regular season accomplishments don't count as much as they should... well, if you're UK, that is.

Or lack there of, if you're dook.

 

[barryn2000]

The tournament isn't about crowning the best team, the tournament is about generating revenues. The system is not flawed at all, the goal of those running the sport is. It's all about greed and money.

NCAA Tourney if you took out the money....

 

[SacramentoKat]

Here are some basics. If you awarded the championship to the #1 overall seed, we'd have 3 titles in the 2000s.

If you did a 4 team tourny, like CFB, we have been in 5 tournies, 3 times as the favorite. Possibly 1-2 titles in that format.

So maybe we have 1 more banner with a better format.

However, a more telling stat is only twice since 1995 has the #1 AP team coming in to the tournament actually won the tournament. You'd think the best team before the tournament would perform much better. They certainly do in other formats.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Here are some basics. If you awarded the championship to the #1 overall seed, we'd have 3 titles in the 2000s.

If you did a 4 team tourny, like CFB, we have been in 5 tournies, 3 times as the favorite. Possibly 1-2 titles in that format.

So maybe we have 1 more banner with a better format.

However, a more telling stat is only twice since 1995 has the #1 AP team coming in to the tournament actually won the tournament. You'd think the best team before the tournament would perform much better. They certainly do in other formats.

Yeah but overall 1 seed is only who the committee thought was the overall best. And in reality it's not even that. It's who had the best overall resume (which may or may not be the best team)

While having a 4 team playoff works in football I'm not sure it would work in basketball. There's just a lot more parity.

 

[barryn2000]

Here are some basics. If you awarded the championship to the #1 overall seed, we'd have 3 titles in the 2000s.

If you did a 4 team tourny, like CFB, we have been in 5 tournies, 3 times as the favorite. Possibly 1-2 titles in that format.

So maybe we have 1 more banner with a better format.

However, a more telling stat is only twice since 1995 has the #1 AP team coming in to the tournament actually won the tournament. You'd think the best team before the tournament would perform much better. They certainly do in other formats.

That's it? That's your proof?

Do you realize that the overall #1 seed is still just the opinion of a small group of people? And....that in many years, 2-4 teams have the resume to argue for the overall #1 seed, that sometimes it's more like a coin toss.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

btw I'm not sure where you are getting 3 titles. Kansas was the overall 1 seed in 2010.

I believe we were overall 1 in just 2012 and 2015.

 

[RDCat07]

why would anyone want to change the format. change the seeding and the screw jobs by the refs. march madness is what makes college basketball exciting. the 7 games series is terrible IMO. the single elimination format is what makes the NFL play offs better too.

 

[jc2010]

Our history shows that we can overcome the seeding, we can't overcome the refs. If they would let each coach blackball three refs I'd say we're good to go

 

[ClockCalamity]

Is a 64 team single elimination tournament really the best way to determine the best college basketball team? Is it not true we could replay this tournament and have a completely unique Final Four each time? Do we really think South Carolina is a top 4 team? Would UNC get all the calls all the time? Ok, maybe that would not change as long as John Higgins is involved.!

Don't get me wrong, the event we have is awesome for TV, and creates so much emotion. Seeing Frank Martin get a platform this year and Cinderrella runs from years past is great. I love the mix of commentators with such differences like Barkley, Nance, Davis, and others. There is no better event in sports.

However, I do believe the parity in college basketball due to OAD is expising the flaw of the system. It is a format that does not statistically result in the best team winning. When you have teams like the 1996 cats, they are going to win no matter the format. However, in today's league, the results are almost completely random..

Where this matters is because of actions and perceptions based on the results. "Bill Self is the wrong man because he can't get past the E8." "Cal is underachiever, and we need to make a change." My point is, we base our feelings and decisions off a flawed system, and we mist remember that.

Personally, i think a 16 team best of 3 tournament, would be extremely exciting. Yes, we would lose Cinderella, but Cinderrella does not belong in a discussion about the best team. They had their chance in the regular season. Seeing a best of 3 with blue bloods, Gonzaga, and any other team that has proven themselves will result in the best team.

I don't agree or disagree. I think the system is certainly flawed, however the solution has been debated before, as this is not a new topic of discussion. In the numerous "solutions" I've heard, I only really ever thought one could/should be implemented, and that is this. Leave the tourney as is, until the final four, then make the remaining games (final 4 and championship) 3 game series. At least in this format the teams that win 2 of 3 will more than likely be the better team. It's still not fool proof but it doesn't diminish the early round Cinderella stories that most fans enjoy while trying to add some value to truly being the best team in the end.

 

[barryn2000]

Our history shows that we can overcome the seeding, we can't overcome the refs. If they would let each coach blackball three refs I'd say we're good to go

There does need to be some sort of way to filter out bad or biased ref's....but not just for the Tourney, for all season.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

I don't agree or disagree. I think the system is certainly flawed, however the solution has been debated before, as this is not a new topic of discussion. In the numerous "solutions" I've heard, I only really ever thought one could/should be implemented, and that is this. Leave the tourney as is, until the final four, then make the remaining games (final 4 and championship) 3 game series. At least in this format the teams that win 2 of 3 will more than likely be the better team. It's still not fool proof but it doesn't diminish the early round Cinderella stories that most fans enjoy while trying to add some value to truly being the best team in the end.

I'm not sure how this helps anything. We have a final four with UNC, Gonzaga, Oregon and South Carolina. Whether they play one game or a best of 3, you've already eliminated the some of the best teams before you got to this point. I mean it might ensure that the best teams from those 4 end up winning, but you still have the same "problem".

 

[UKGrad93]

I knew this thread was coming. If any changes are made, it is clean up the officiating and maybe reduce the number of teams that are in. Too many meaningless games IMO.

Realistically, no one gives a rats *** about the kids. They are pawns. As ling as there are fans and games to be played, people will buy tickets and watch TV. It makes money for cities, hotels, restaurants, TV companies, schools, coaches, and on and on. I'm sure guys like Mark Emmert is just laughing inside every year as he hands out a trophy to the winning team. He has to be, unless he's a complete idiot.

"Hahaha, just made myself a few more millions, and Jamal thinks I give a damn about State U winning the title. Joke's on them.". <hands trophy over>

 

[JBHolmesfan]

Sports are purely entertainment. The NCAA Tournament is one of the best sporting events around. Why change that? We saw an incredible game yesterday. Sure it didn't go our way, but we've won more than our fair share of those games. How about the Aaron Harrison 3's against UL, Michigan and Wisconsin? Do we want to lose those memories because it didn't go in our favor one time? The Tournament is great. The refs were bad in the first half yesterday, but UNC got some terrible calls against them as well.

Probably the biggest flaw with the argument for changing to the format is that there is no way to determine who the best team is. Some people use #1 overall seeds, but like others have said that's not a great way to decide it either. Very rarely will we ever see a team that everyone says is the best. The "best team" is way too wildly subjective to determine a format that determines the best team.

 

[Cats_2010]

Of course it's a flawed system but that is the beauty of it. College basketball would not be the same (and not in a good way) if they ever turned from a single elimination tourney. I love it just the way it is, even if it rarely works out in our favor.

 

[ClockCalamity]

I'm not sure how this helps anything. We have a final four with UNC, Gonzaga, Oregon and South Carolina. Whether they play one game or a best of 3, you've already eliminated the some of the best teams before you got to this point. I mean it might ensure that the best teams from those 4 end up winning, but you still have the same "problem".

I'm considering solutions that actually have a chance of being implemented. No way in hell will the NCAA ever consider changing the tourney if the new format includes a 3 or more game series for every matchup. You're talking about a tournament that would last 2-3 months just for 16 teams (32 games minimum, 48 games max in a 3 game series). 32 teams would be (64 games min, 96 games max). Will. Never. Happen.

 

[SacramentoKat]

btw I'm not sure where you are getting 3 titles. Kansas was the overall 1 seed in 2010.

I believe we were overall 1 in just 2012 and 2015.

2004