Well March Madness has come to an end. I was disappointed in the game last night for a championship game. UConn will be listed as the champ, but Butler had a dismal showing. Their fgp was terrible, but sometimes you just can not get the ball in the basket.
Bill, I said "from the south". We all are aware that Corey is a transplanted left coaster. :wink: JO'Co, I agree wholeheartedly with your point. On that note, we can end the debate. :wink: Re: the game last night. What gets overlooked is that Uconn played great defense and completely dominated the middle. They completely befuddled Butler and did to them what everyone, including me, expected Pitt, Wisconsin, and Florida to do. There is no question in my mind that at the end of the season Uconn was the best team in the land. I also am proud to be a fan of a team that showed the country the true meaning of "team effort" throughout its improbably great run. They were the classic giant killer. They gave it all they had as long as they could and just had nothing left in reserve at the end.
It was a fun FF, we had great seats again, close to George and Barabara Bush. Net result was we saw a lot of celebs the funnies one was Dennis Rodman. All the celebs had to walk by the Bushes to get to their seats or on the court to be honored. All of them stopped and chatted with them. Except for Dennis Rodman who sort of sauntered by giving them a light wave and looking to quickly move on...but GHWB wouldn't have any of that he reached out to Dennis and motioned for him to come over, Rodman wasn't all that eager but did anyway. Well then they worked their charm on him and got him smiling and talking, no doubt Barbara wanted to know where he got his lip ring and GHWB wanted to know where he could get a jacket like that. Pretty funny, bet Dennis is glad he went over to them now. The woman in the bottom of the image with her back to the camera was a Secret Service Agent. Who later saw my ND cap and told the guy in the first row to tell my she was a ND fan and Go Irish! My family thought it was funny that she was keeping and eye on me like I was maybe suspicious, of course it was my ND hat though.
I say that we don't let in more that 8 teams. That way, since UConn was 9th in the Big East some more deserving team could win.
UConn was not deserving IMHO. When one league has that many teams get in, the statistical probability of one of them making it goes up. It's not fair. :roll:
Huh? Statistical probability? Come on, Jim. You've got to be kidding. How do you explain the "statistical probability" of VCU and Butler making the final four? Or of all the #1 and #2 seeds going down? Or of a team whose only losses were within its conference winning the national championship? I agreed with you on setting limits for # of teams per conference, but I can't agree with your "statistical probability" premise. I'm suspecting you dangled the bait and I took it. :roll:
Jim's right Sid, if there are 68 teams and you have 11 of the 68 and the next most from any league is 6 your league has a statistical advantage over the league with fewer teams. Doesn't mean it will happen of course since this isn't cards or craps, but it does give you an advantage.
So what's the probability if you are not a top team of winning the last 10 games you play in a row against good teams in tournaments?
Terry, I'm familiar with mathematical probability. I also am familiar with the human elements of coaching, desire, talent, teamwork, etc., which, as we see every year in March, tend to blow mathematical probability to smithereens. I can't sustain an argument about a BB tournament with someone who - IN HINDSIGHT - is basing their position on mathematical probability and failing to take into account the human element. Does this mean that the other "power" conferences who get shafted in terms of mathematical probability have a valid argument? Does it mean that we should forget about choosing the best teams in favor of equalizing participation on a per-conference basis? Sounds like the sports version of socialism to me. Jim's fundamental premise is that Uconn did not deserve to be in the tournament because they were among the 3 teams chosen with the lowest finishing Big East regular season records. Although I disagree, I don't have a problem with his opinion. It's shared by many. But I do disagree with the use of mathematical probability to denigrate a great performance (much as it hurts to say it) by a Uconn team that in hindsight had evolved into the best team in the country at the end of the season. Contrary to the belief that they did not deserve to be in the tournament, I would say that the final result proves beyond a doubt that they did. Obviously, the same goes for VCU. I guess I would suggest to someone holding onto the mathematical probability argument that next year they enter brackets based on that theory and see how they end up. :wink:
I'm just agreeing that the more players you have in the game the greater the chance of any one of those players wining. Hopefully you aren't disputing that. I will agree however that the stats can't be applied to individual teams chances of wining, for the reasons that you mentioned. We are talking teams who might be hot, might finally be healthy, and plethora of variables that can't be accounted for in a single elimination tournament. Unlike that deck of cards or pair of dice who are the same every time delt or tossed and thus are subject to the laws of mathematics/probability. Any arbitrary rule that eliminates a potential player of course can of course eliminate a potential winner as well. In some ways we could look to history and see what seeds have the ability, based on history, of winning the tournament or at least making the Final Four. If we did that we'd reduce the size of the tournament to no more than 44 team (I don't believe any seed lower than 11 has ever made the final four). No team seeded lower than 8 (Villanova) has ever won the tournament. So history teaches us that we could have a smaller tournament and still include all the teams with a chance of winning. I'm personally for eliminating the conference tournaments and taking the NCAA tournament to 96 teams. That will pretty much eliminate the griping about who did or didn't get in. Also it would bring back meaning to the regular season.
Terry, no, I'm not disputing the irrefutable logic of mathematics. I'm only questioning using that logic to the exclusion of other factors. In your examples of craps and blackjack, there is no human input other than the roll of the dice or the dealing of the cards. In that respect, it's much different from how the human factor influences the outcome of a basketball tournament. That said, let's move on. I like the last two paragraphs of your post directly above. Talk about logic. You apply it well to a controversial issue, especially the part about how based on past experience, you don't need more than 44 teams. I also would agree to the common sense solution of eliminating the conference tournaments and bumping the number to 96 teams.
Got it. BTW who is the player in your avatar? Stan Musial? Al Kaline? I don't think it's a Cub though. I can't figure out what uniform he's wearing.
hold on.. the Big East did not deserve 11 teams. HOWEVER UCONN is the one team in that league who deserved to be in. They have an auto birth into the tourney by winning their conference tournament. UCONN won that tournament and is therefor Big East Champion.
lol any truth to the rumor that Villanova got lost on the way back to their hotel after getting beaten in the tournament?