Final Four and NCAA Title Game Thread

[Michael_ Gee]

Another one I missed, Moddy. Blame CBS.

 

[zagoshe]

Zag, nobody's quarreling with the outcome, only the long, straight, dull stretch of sports interstate we took to get there. Aside from Pitt-Villanova, there were no games I will remember past Memorial Day. I'll admit I didn't see Ohio State-Siena.

What about Western Kentucky-Gonzaga -- that has all the makings of a game to remember considering it was won at the buzzer and featured two so-called cinderella teams and that automatically makes it a classic!!!

After years and years of mediocrity -- translation, lots of close games and upsets -- we finally have had a stretch of the best teams actually being the best teams -- that is not a bad thing.

 

[Oz]

After years and years of mediocrity -- translation, lots of close games and upsets -- we finally have had a stretch of the best teams actually being the best teams -- that is not a bad thing.

But your theory that top seeds advancing/Cinderellas falling by the wayside early would make for better games later in the tournament fell flat for a second straight season. Last year, only KU-Memphis and KU-Davidson provided drama from the Elite Eight on. This year, only Pitt-Villanova provided drama from the Elite Eight on.

Have a stretch of the best teams actually being the best teams -- that's not necessarily a bad thing. However, it's made for some really boring games the final two weekends of the past two tournaments. This year's tournament was far worse than last year's, when at least Davidson nearly upset Kansas.

 

[dargan]

Star, as I said last night, the matchups weren't there for them. They had nobody who could do anything resembling defense on Carolina's big people. Davis, Thompson, and Hansbrough got what shots they wanted at will.
No defense can fix that.

This is why, as others have touched on, Pitt and UConn would have been a far tougher road from a matchup standpoint for Carolina in the semis and title game.

 

[zagoshe]

After years and years of mediocrity -- translation, lots of close games and upsets -- we finally have had a stretch of the best teams actually being the best teams -- that is not a bad thing.

But your theory that top seeds advancing/Cinderellas falling by the wayside early would make for better games later in the tournament fell flat for a second straight season. Last year, only KU-Memphis and KU-Davidson provided drama from the Elite Eight on. This year, only Pitt-Villanova provided drama from the Elite Eight on.

Have a stretch of the best teams actually being the best teams -- that's not necessarily a bad thing. However, it's made for some really boring games the final two weekends of the past two tournaments. This year's tournament was far worse than last year's, when at least Davidson nearly upset Kansas.

Really? Kansas-Memphis was a terrible game last year? UConn-Mich State was not a close game this year? Villanova-Pitt? There are plenty of good games.

And the blowouts -- imagine how awful it would have been had it been a few cinderellas, as opposed to chalk teams, playing in those games.....

And how did George Mason do against Florida in the Final Four? That game was horse **** as well.

The bottom line is the best teams were the best teams and they handled their business the way they are supposed to. That is a good thing.

And now it is the mid-majors and the middle of the road BCS teams to raise their bar and get better so that they are more competitive in the tournament.

For too many years the middle dragged the top down and that produced a lot of mediocrity, now the top is starting to pull up and it will only be a good thing down the road.

 

[Oz]

Really? Kansas-Memphis was a terrible game last year? UConn-Mich State was not a close game this year? Villanova-Pitt? There are plenty of good games.

And the blowouts -- imagine how awful it would have been had it been a few cinderellas, as opposed to chalk teams, playing in those games.....

And how did George Mason do against Florida in the Final Four? That game was horse **** as well.

First, you might want to read my post a closer than you did -- I said KU-Memphis and Villanova-Pitt were good games. Unfortunately, they were among the exceptions to the rule the past two years. UConn-Michigan State was good for a while, got out of hand late.

Re: George Mason-Florida, the score was 73-58. In the championship game, the Gators beat UCLA 73-57. In other words, George Mason actually played Florida a point better than UCLA did. Of course, you would never mention that game because it doesn't agree with your theory that power-conference schools play close games against each other, while Cinderallas can't hold their own.

It's like Davidson nearly beating KU (59-57), which annihilated North Carolina (84-66, but led 40-12 to start) in the Final Four -- power teams playing deep in the tournament are no lock to provide good games.

 

[zagoshe]

Really? Kansas-Memphis was a terrible game last year? UConn-Mich State was not a close game this year? Villanova-Pitt? There are plenty of good games.

And the blowouts -- imagine how awful it would have been had it been a few cinderellas, as opposed to chalk teams, playing in those games.....

And how did George Mason do against Florida in the Final Four? That game was horse **** as well.

First, you might want to read my post a closer than you did -- I said KU-Memphis and Villanova-Pitt were good games. Unfortunately, they were among the exceptions to the rule the past two years. UConn-Michigan State was good for a while, got out of hand late.

Re: George Mason-Florida, the score was 73-58. In the championship game, the Gators beat UCLA 73-57. In other words, George Mason actually played Florida a point better than UCLA did. Of course, you would never mention that game because it doesn't agree with your theory that power-conference schools play close games against each other, while Cinderallas can't hold their own.

It's like Davidson nearly beating KU (59-57), which annihilated North Carolina (84-66, but led 40-12 to start) in the Final Four -- power teams playing deep in the tournament are no lock to provide good games.

No, my point about George Mason was they didn't provide a good game when they got to the Final Four, either.

And most of the worst games occur in the rounds after major upsets because the really good teams pound the **** out of the teams who pulled the upsets.

 

[Oz]

No, my point about George Mason was they didn't provide a good game when they got to the Final Four, either.

Right, and neither did LSU (lost 59-45). George Mason didn't have a weak path (Michigan State, UNC, UConn).

And most of the worst games occur in the rounds after major upsets because the really good teams pound the **** out of the teams who pulled the upsets.

Most of the worst games the past two years didn't happen after upsets. They happened after one power-conference team smacked another. Davidson didn't get run off the court by Kansas. Western Kentucky didn't get run off the court by UCLA.

Basically, the only team the past three years (I'm not going to all-out research this) you can make that argument about is George Mason, which actually played the Gators a point better at the Final Four than UCLA.

 

[zagoshe]

I'm too tired to research it as well but I will because I am sick like that.

The bottom line is this -- would you really rather watch Davidson or Western Kentucky play Kansas than North Carolina?

Yeah, that one time produced a horrible game.

Do you really think ten games between Kansas and North Carolina - two programs with long history, great tradition and NBA talent -- wouldn't and hasn't produced far better results than ten games between North Carolina and Davidson?

There will be **** games sometimes, but I'd be willing to bet the chances of **** games being produced over a significant sample are more often than not games in which "cinderella", or whatever you want to call them, teams pulled an upset.

And the problem I have with some people is they always want to wax poetic about these great upsets by little guys over the years, as if there have been so many that are really that memorable, when meanwhile the majority of the best games and most memorable games over the long haul have been produced by two power conference teams or two teams with a lot of talent going head to head.

And before you pull out Villanova and NC State from the 1980's -- I don't consider them to be cinderella's as they were both from major conferences and NC State was a much better team than its record.

 

[Oz]

Do you really think ten games between Kansas and North Carolina - two programs with long history, great tradition and NBA talent -- wouldn't and hasn't produced far better results than ten games between North Carolina and Davidson?

And the problem I have with some people is they always want to wax poetic about these great upsets by little guys over the years, as if there have been so many that are really that memorable, when meanwhile the majority of the best games and most memorable games over the long haul have been produced by two power conference teams or two teams with a lot of talent going head to head.

First, your KU-UNC-Davidson argument is a little slanted. KU and UNC are in the tournament basically every season, Davidson is not, so of course KU-UNC has the greater chance to produce the better game. But when Davidson (or a team like it) does produce a memorable team, you can bet that sense of urgency to do something with that one chance will end with a great game, more often than not.

And what's so wrong with rooting for mid-majors to provide some flavor that second weekend? Most of the time, they win a game or two, then the BCS-conference schools dominate the latter rounds. Why can't there be room for mid-major upsets and your top-heavy teams all in the same tournament? After all, didn't we have that a year ago with the four No. 1 seeds and Davidson? That, to me, is a great tournament.

The past three weeks? Not so much.

 

[KYSportsWriter]

Sam, you don't think Lawson or Ellington had heart in that game?

 

[Sam Mills 51]

Sam, you don't think Lawson or Ellington had heart in that game?

No, especially not Ellington. Great shooter, but still entirely too worried about looking pretty and not doing much of anything else.

Lawson has speed, but will he dive on the floor after a loose ball? Will he do those other little things that separate the good ones from the greats? He's capable but I haven't seen it yet.

 

[zagoshe]

Sam, you don't think Lawson or Ellington had heart in that game?

No, especially not Ellington. Great shooter, but still entirely too worried about looking pretty and not doing much of anything else.

Lawson has speed, but will he dive on the floor after a loose ball? Will he do those other little things that separate the good ones from the greats? He's capable but I haven't seen it yet.

No, he'll just play with a bad toe and try and fight through an injury that many athletes fear could end their careers........

 

[PeteyPirate]

As far as I could tell, Lawson was fast enough so that he didn't have to dive for anything. I'm not sure anyone worked harder on defense than Ellington on that team. The "no heart" argument you put forth about them, Sam, does not seem to have any merit based on my observation. I will not go so far as to call it bitter, although I think there is more evidence to support that than there is to support your argument.

 

[zagoshe]

Do you really think ten games between Kansas and North Carolina - two programs with long history, great tradition and NBA talent -- wouldn't and hasn't produced far better results than ten games between North Carolina and Davidson?

And the problem I have with some people is they always want to wax poetic about these great upsets by little guys over the years, as if there have been so many that are really that memorable, when meanwhile the majority of the best games and most memorable games over the long haul have been produced by two power conference teams or two teams with a lot of talent going head to head.

First, your KU-UNC-Davidson argument is a little slanted. KU and UNC are in the tournament basically every season, Davidson is not, so of course KU-UNC has the greater chance to produce the better game. But when Davidson (or a team like it) does produce a memorable team, you can bet that sense of urgency to do something with that one chance will end with a great game, more often than not.

And what's so wrong with rooting for mid-majors to provide some flavor that second weekend? Most of the time, they win a game or two, then the BCS-conference schools dominate the latter rounds. Why can't there be room for mid-major upsets and your top-heavy teams all in the same tournament? After all, didn't we have that a year ago with the four No. 1 seeds and Davidson? That, to me, is a great tournament.

The past three weeks? Not so much.

You are getting caught up in names, Davidson happens to be the last one we can think of -- a better way to say it is this -- I'd be willing to be major conference power vs major conference power over the long haul will produce better games overall than mid-major cinderella versus major conference powerhouse.

And I have no problem with a few cinderella teams winnning a few games and making a little run -- I just get tired of people acting as if the tournament -- which is still to decide a national championship, by the way -- has to be defined by upsets and cinderellas or else it is somehow lame.

I enjoy watching the best teams with the best players play against each other.

 

[Pancamo]

Sam, you don't think Lawson or Ellington had heart in that game?

No, especially not Ellington. Great shooter, but still entirely too worried about looking pretty and not doing much of anything else.

Lawson has speed, but will he dive on the floor after a loose ball? Will he do those other little things that separate the good ones from the greats? He's capable but I haven't seen it yet.

What will separate Lawson from the great ones will be his jump shot. Nothing to do with heart.

 

[Sam Mills 51]

As far as I could tell, Lawson was fast enough so that he didn't have to dive for anything. I'm not sure anyone worked harder on defense than Ellington on that team. The "no heart" argument you put forth about them, Sam, does not seem to have any merit based on my observation. I will not go so far as to call it bitter, although I think there is more evidence to support that than there is to support your argument.

And once again, FDP, you make assumptions. Bad ones at that.

Never said Chapel Hill didn't earn the title, never disputed their stake to what they obviously earned. I merely said they don't have a lot of heart. Their ability made it so no one found out. If Michigan State makes that a game in the last five minutes ... it's "what if?" and that only increases the anger of the pro-Chapel Hill crowd, so no go.

Pancamo, the jump shot for Lawson will be critical. It's supposedly why Ed Cota didn't get much of a chance, and it was supposedly the biggest obstacle in the way of Raymond Felton, too. Time will tell.

 

[PeteyPirate]

As far as I could tell, Lawson was fast enough so that he didn't have to dive for anything. I'm not sure anyone worked harder on defense than Ellington on that team. The "no heart" argument you put forth about them, Sam, does not seem to have any merit based on my observation. I will not go so far as to call it bitter, although I think there is more evidence to support that than there is to support your argument.

And once again, FDP, you make assumptions. Bad ones at that.

Never said Chapel Hill didn't earn the title, never disputed their stake to what they obviously earned. I merely said they don't have a lot of heart. Their ability made it so no one found out. If Michigan State makes that a game in the last five minutes ... it's "what if?" and that only increases the anger of the pro-Chapel Hill crowd, so no go.

I never said you said that. Whose assumptions are bad again?

You just stated that their ability made it so their lack of heart was not evident to the world. And yet it was evident to you. That's interesting.

 

[Oz]

You are getting caught up in names, Davidson happens to be the last one we can think of -- a better way to say it is this -- I'd be willing to be major conference power vs major conference power over the long haul will produce better games overall than mid-major cinderella versus major conference powerhouse.

And I have no problem with a few cinderella teams winning a few games and making a little run -- I just get tired of people acting as if the tournament -- which is still to decide a national championship, by the way -- has to be defined by upsets and cinderellas or else it is somehow lame.

I enjoy watching the best teams with the best players play against each other.

Only problem is that if the best teams with the best players play against each other, and those games happen to be boring, that makes for a boring tournament. Sometimes, those Cinderalls make for better games in the Sweet 16 and Elite Eight because there's a sense of urgency, of history, with those teams that BCS-conference schools (I'm looking at you '09 Arizona) might lack.

Talent doesn't always make for the best games. Sometimes, heart does.

 

[zagoshe]

In case anyone cares, you can watch Roy Williams outcoach Tom Izzo (or if you prefer "watch Michigan State choke" as lord knows there can't possibly be any other reason North Carolina won....) in the NCAA title game on CBS College Sports right now, which has been running all the tournament games back-to-back all week.