Time to move the NCAA basketball tourneys back to the 'swe..

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 15:54:40 -0500, jsh <hughes DeleteThis @uiuc.edu> wrote:

>In article <slrnf1l5ii.61m.djbSPAMSUCKS DeleteThis @gomer.donniebarnes.com>,
> Donnie Barnes <djbSPAMSUCKS DeleteThis @donniebarnes.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just seems like when you start with "only" 32 teams and do it double
>> elimination, your percentage of "good games" (by that I mean games against
>> two more elite teams that are both having pretty good years) is going to go
>> way up, which can't help but translate to higher ratings than all the 4-13
>> and worse mathchups would.
>>
>Ratings aside, I still don't really like the idea. Sometimes a "good
>game" is in the eye of the beholder (to some degree anyway). No matter
>how good (objectively) a game is, I'm not going to get the same thrill
>watching it as I would if I have some strong emotional tie-in with at
>least one of the teams playing. You'd be denying that experience for
>quite a few people by reducing the field by half.
>
>And I can't help but wonder if you're feelings on this aren't largely
>shaped by the fact that you will almost always see your favorite team
>playing in this new-style tournament. How about a little compassion for
>fans of the second-tier teams?

how about a little compassion for the ones that don't get in now?
The line has to be drawn somewhere, right? The idea as I see it is to
have a tournament where all the entrants have some reasonable chance
of winning it all, but that allows the best teams to overcome pure
dumb luck, including that caused by incompetent, inconsistent
officiating. A single elim tournament of 64 teams doesn't serve that
purpose very well, IMO. If one takes YOUR viewpoint, shouldn't we
just start earlier and let EVERYbody in?

Double elim over a reduced field elevates the level of play on average
per game. Of course, some fans are going to be less interested,
while other fans are going to be more interested. It's like playing
poker. The best poker players wouldn't be caught dead in a dealers
choice game, or tournament, but less serious players wouldn't be
caught dead in a serious game of poker to begin with.

Doesn't it make sense that the awarding of a so-called national
championship based on the outcome of a year-end tournament would take
the more serious approach? Isn't it pretty much common sense that
the tournament is supposedly structured to allow only the best teams
to compete? Isn't it obvious that the inclusioin of teams beyond that
are just a combination of appeasement and an accomodationf for ratings
that have been 'paid' for? If that's the case, which it of course is,
then this entire argument is about what type of fans we are. If we
are serious basketball fans, why introduce teams that have no chance
of being recognized as the best team in the country, even if they
somehow stumble into the championship game of a 'low hole, roll your
own' tournament?

Serious basketball fans, like serious poker players, want to reduce
the dumb luck factor and increase the reward for skill and competency
as much as possible......realizing of course, unlike those smug
retards who have routinely BENEFITTED from luck and questionable
officiating, that luck is always a factor to some extent, but that it
should be minimized.....the idea being to level the playing field as
much as possible.

Frankly, if my team isn't good enough to really stand a chance, like
say.... oh I don't know....well like dook this year for
instance...then I would actually be embarassed that they were
included, if I was a real fan. I know so many of them must have been
for that reason, and I feel badly that they were humiliated in that
way.

If I'm just a homer then it might be different.


>
>OTOH, if you ask me whether a double elimination tournament with the top
>32 teams might be a more accurate way to determine the year's best team,
>I'd probably say yes.
>
> -- jsh

"dd" <dieseldick.RemoveThis@mindspring.com> wrote

> >> Just seems like when you start with "only" 32 teams and do it double
> >> elimination, your percentage of "good games" (by that I mean games against
> >> two more elite teams that are both having pretty good years) is going to go
> >> way up, which can't help but translate to higher ratings than all the 4-13
> >> and worse mathchups would.
> >>
> >Ratings aside, I still don't really like the idea. Sometimes a "good
> >game" is in the eye of the beholder (to some degree anyway). No matter
> >how good (objectively) a game is, I'm not going to get the same thrill
> >watching it as I would if I have some strong emotional tie-in with at
> >least one of the teams playing. You'd be denying that experience for
> >quite a few people by reducing the field by half.
> >
> >And I can't help but wonder if you're feelings on this aren't largely
> >shaped by the fact that you will almost always see your favorite team
> >playing in this new-style tournament. How about a little compassion for
> >fans of the second-tier teams?
>
> how about a little compassion for the ones that don't get in now?
> The line has to be drawn somewhere, right? The idea as I see it is to
> have a tournament where all the entrants have some reasonable chance
> of winning it all,

Why do you hate the Jamaican bobsled team?

--Tedward