Worst tournament field ever?

[Dick Whitman]

I guess it's no big secret that this is probably the case, but still a good read by Michael Wilbon:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=wilbon/110315

The problem? I don't know what can really be done about it. I think that college basketball's best days are probably behind it.

 

[LongTimeListener]

A lot of the reason there are so many teams with so many losses is that schools and coaches are finally realizing the selection committee means business when it says it's going to evaluate your opponents. Used to be 23-7, 24-6 was automatic entry no matter what. Now you're better off scheduling five or six high-caliber non-conference opponents, particularly giving yourself road games, even if it means you're going to lose three or four of them. In effect, a good loss beats a bad win.

 

[Dick Whitman]

A lot of the reason there are so many teams with so many losses is that schools and coaches are finally realizing the selection committee means business when it says it's going to evaluate your opponents. Used to be 23-7, 24-6 was automatic entry no matter what. Now you're better off scheduling five or six high-caliber non-conference opponents, particularly giving yourself road games, even if it means you're going to lose three or four of them. In effect, a good loss beats a bad win.

Funny how different football and basketball are, isn't it?

 

[Armchair_QB]

You can't quantify this question. W-L record isn't enough to do it.

You also have to take into account the talent level of the teams in this field vs. every other tournament field before it and I'm not sure how you'd do that.

Even then it's still a stupid and shortsighted question. More of the "it has to be the best or worst because it's happening NOW!" mentality.

 

[Armchair_QB]

A lot of the reason there are so many teams with so many losses is that schools and coaches are finally realizing the selection committee means business when it says it's going to evaluate your opponents. Used to be 23-7, 24-6 was automatic entry no matter what. Now you're better off scheduling five or six high-caliber non-conference opponents, particularly giving yourself road games, even if it means you're going to lose three or four of them. In effect, a good loss beats a bad win.

Funny how different football and basketball are, isn't it?

Probably need to break down conference w-l vs. non-conference w-l before you make that comparison. Like football you don't get to pick your conference opponents each year but you can cream puff the hell out of your non-con schedule.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

The worst tournaments ever are the ones where there are barely any upsets and 3-4 No. 1 seeds make the Final Four. This field suggests there should be a ton of upsets.

 

[LongTimeListener]

The NBA flight question also doesn't do a whole lot for me because it has been going on for too many years to be cited as a factor now. If Wilbon and Bilas think it's a big deal that Derrick Rose and Kevin Love aren't in this year's tournament, did they also think the '97 and '98 tournaments sucked without Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Allen Iverson and Stephon Marbury?

 

[Dick Whitman]

The worst tournaments ever are the ones where there are barely any upsets and 3-4 No. 1 seeds make the Final Four. This field suggests there should be a ton of upsets.

Nah. Those years make for horrible Elite Eights and onward.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

The BCS conference at-large entries are, as a group, slightly weaker than usual. That's about all I can see to justify Wilbon's position. The four number one seeds are all damn fine teams, and Kansas and Ohio State could compete with any of the past champs of the last 5-10 years. It's not like those Florida back-to-back teams were the 1976 Indiana or 1991-2 Duke teams.

 

[mustangj17]

The BCS conference at-large entries are, as a group, slightly weaker than usual. That's about all I can see to justify Wilbon's position. The four number one seeds are all damn fine teams, and Kansas and Ohio State could compete with any of the past champs of the last 5-10 years. It's not like those Florida back-to-back teams were the 1976 Indiana or 1991-2 Duke teams.

You also have to think BYU's loss of their starting center, St. Johns loss of a starter and Purdue's loss of Robbie Hummel contributed to this.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Can't really count Hummel. He's been out all year.

 

[king cranium maximus IV]

The 2006 Final Four called.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

The BCS conference at-large entries are, as a group, slightly weaker than usual. That's about all I can see to justify Wilbon's position. The four number one seeds are all damn fine teams, and Kansas and Ohio State could compete with any of the past champs of the last 5-10 years. It's not like those Florida back-to-back teams were the 1976 Indiana or 1991-2 Duke teams.

The Florida teams that went back-to-back have already collectively had a better NBA career than those Duke teams did.

 

[Rhody31]

Deadspin brought this up the other day, but it begs the question - is ESPN doing everything in their power to show they're still pissed about not getting the NCAA rights?

 

[Armchair_QB]

Deadspin brought this up the other day, but it begs the question - is ESPN doing everything in their power to show they're still pissed about not getting the NCAA rights?

Yes.

We all know that the folks at the WWL are much more likely to negatively critique an event they don't broadcast.

 

[Mystery Meat II]

Ideal tournament: lots of upsets early, best four teams in the Final Four.

 

[Pancamo]

Deadspin brought this up the other day, but it begs the question - is ESPN doing everything in their power to show they're still pissed about not getting the NCAA rights?

Yes.

We all know that the folks at the WWL are much more likely to negatively critique an event they don't broadcast.

Douchebag Greenburg was saying that CBS showing all the games was a bad thing. He used some dumbass argument that he would like CBS to make switches so he wouldn't have to but it was code for ESPN would do it better.

A good tournament is one with high quality basketball. Upsets make for intrigue but doesn't make good basketball.

 

[poindexter]

I didn't read the article, but since when does Wilbon cover college bball?

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Ideal tournament: lots of upsets early, best four teams in the Final Four.

I prefer it when one No. 1 seed loses during the opening weekend. I like it when the best team wins the title.

One of the best tournaments I can remember was in 2000 when the Final Four had a No. 1, a No. 5, a No. 8 and a No. 9.

But, the Final Four did kind of suck that year, even if the best team won.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I didn't read the article, but since when does Wilbon cover college bball?

I wonder how many tournaments in a row the guy has covered. My over/under would be about 30.

He was the Georgetown beat writer when Ewing was there. He knows a thing or two about college hoops.