Sammie, Carson, Willie, et al

[Truman]

We're a learnin'..

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-basketball ... in/2614882

Not shown: Knight liked to've had an aneurism after that bout of homage to our new brethren...

[Carson]

Glad you got that done while it is still basketball season.

Now save it for bowl season.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

BTW, way to go wrapping up the league title on your way out.

KU won the "league title." Mizzou won the conference tournament.

Sorry, I've seen this a lot lately, and it bugs me. Not that I would expect SECers to know anything about college basketball.

[Van]

Yep. USC won the Pac's Cash Grab tourney in '09. How many people really thought of them as conference champs?

[Left Seater]

Actually, IMO conf tourneys make more sense today with unbalanced schedules in some leagues. If you don't get to play a home and home with every other conf member the league champ doesn't mean much. IE Iowa wins a b1G title in football without playing OSU or Michigan.

[Van]

Yeah, well...no. In hoops a last place team can win their conference tourney, rendering the entire regular season moot.

[Left Seater]

Right...and your point is?


My point was to counter Sam's in that with unbalanced schedules conf tourneys actually make some sense.

[Van]

And mine was to shoot down yours by pointing out the lunacy of allowing a last place team to become conference champs. Unbalanced schedules may give certain teams an advantage, sure, but they don't turn a last place team into a first place team.

[Left Seater]

I would argue that this is exactly what makes March Madness so appealing.

With only a few exceptions every D1 team is still alive at the end of the regular season. Despite what happened during the regular season if you can get hot you can play for the title. The fact that everyone has a shot is what makes it interesting. Honestly, the regular season in college basketball is nothing but seeding for your conf tourney and making a case for an at large bid.


This is exact opposite of college football and why I am against anything more than a plus one or 4 team playoff.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I think unbalanced scheduling would be a much bigger deal in college football under a 4-team playoff scenario. Some people put so much weight on win/loss records, and believe that a team with more than 1 loss would have no business competing in said playoff. It's not that simple for me. You can't tell me that a 1-loss team that played nobody is necessarily more deserving than a 2-loss that played a brutal schedule.

[Left Seater]

Maybe not, but I don't think a two loss team should have a shot at all given that they lost 1/6th of their games.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

So then what's the motivation for programs to schedule good teams OOC? Why not schedule 4 cupcakes OOC if going 4-0 vs Weathervane A&M is more impressive than going 3-1 vs top competition, in your mind?

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

This stuff cracks me up. I've heard people say Michigan State has no business of being a 1 seed because they lost seven games. They could've scheduled two horrid mid majors instead of Duke and Carolina and instead would have just 5 losses...which I guess would've validated a 1 seed then?

People put too much stock in win/loss records in college sports.

[Left Seater]

So then what's the motivation for programs to schedule good teams OOC? Why not schedule 4 cupcakes OOC if going 4-0 vs Weathervane A&M is more impressive than going 3-1 vs top competition, in your mind?

First point. I mentioned a team with 2 losses not a one loss team. Even if said 2 loss team played the hardest schedule they shouldn't be playing for the title due to those two losses.

Now onto your point above. The motivation to schedule good teams OOC is based on your conference schedule. Big East teams (Boise St) will need to schedule good teams OOC because their conf schedule is most likely going to be very weak. Florida on the other hand can schedule lite for OOC due to the strength of the SEC schedule.

That said no FBS teams should be scheduling FCS schools or if they do it should count as a loss in BCS rankings.

[Van]

People put too much stock in win/loss records in college sports.

If it weren't for the fact that I know what you're getting at, this would be an awesome Dan Vogel-style "Let's give everyone a trophy! Yay!" sig.

[Left Seater]

This stuff cracks me up. I've heard people say Michigan State has no business of being a 1 seed because they lost seven games. They could've scheduled two horrid mid majors instead of Duke and Carolina and instead would have just 5 losses...which I guess would've validated a 1 seed then?

People put too much stock in win/loss records in college sports.

I will agree with your last statement if you had written college basketball. I disagree about college football and they are two different animals so we need to discuss them separately.

Now about your people having an issue with seeds in college basketball. I don't have much of an issue with the overall seeds. Not much different between a 1 and 2 seed anyway. Izzo is a great tourney coach so I can defend it and I can also question it. Just to play devils advocate with you, if you think MSU deserves credit for playing both UNC and Duke OOC despite losing, shouldn't Florida State get credit for beating both TWICE? FSU got a 3 seed despite a 4-2 record vs UNC and Duke.

Again, college basketball and college football are totally different and you can't carry arguments over between them.

[Van]

So, an undefeated Sunbelt or C-USA team is more deserving than, say, a two-loss Bama team that lost to Arkansas and Oregon while beating LSU, Florida, Georgia, S. Carolina and Auburn?

[Left Seater]

Apples to streetcars, and you know it.

Now maybe if the champ of the sunbelt also beat Virginia Tech, Auburn, Michigan State and Texas then we will talk since this is a now a make believe world.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I mentioned a team with 2 losses not a one loss team. Even if said 2 loss team played the hardest schedule they shouldn't be playing for the title due to those two losses.

Which is silly. It should not be that simple. Consider this scenario:

Team A plays nobody out of conference and goes 4-0. Then they lose one game in conference to a .500 or below team. They finish 11-1. Team B plays a brutal out of conference schedule and goes 3-1. Then they lose one game in conference to a top 15 type team and finish 9-2. You're telling me it's some given that Team A is more deserving than Team B?

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Just to play devils advocate with you, if you think MSU deserves credit for playing both UNC and Duke OOC despite losing, shouldn't Florida State get credit for beating both TWICE? FSU got a 3 seed despite a 4-2 record vs UNC and Duke.

They should get credit, yes. And they were rewarded with a 3 seed. That was pretty much their ceiling given their overall resume.

[Left Seater]

It is almost impossible to consider that as a stand alone.

Did anyone go undefeated?

Were there no other one loss teams?

How did ND finish?


Given that there are now 120 FBS schools, as a general rule two loss teams shouldn't be playing for a title. Now if we want to go to some crazy scenario that has yet to happen so we can talk what ifs, so be it.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

You seemed definitive in your argument at the time, then when I bring up a scenario you raise questions and caveats. So it seems you agree with me that it should not be as simple as win/loss records.

[Left Seater]

It is pretty damn simple. For the most part a school that wins only 83% of their games shouldn't be playing for the title.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

It is not that crazy to think that two BCS conference teams could be separated by just one win, and miles apart in strength of schedule. This isn't some once-a-decade fantasy scenario.

[Left Seater]

All the more reason we don't really need a playoff.

If there is this much disagreement about two loss teams, just imagine how differently we must feel about three loss teams for an 8 team playoff.

[Van]

How would a three-loss team ever make an eight-team playoff?











Other than ND, of course. Yes, your ND caveat made me laugh.

[Left Seater]

They shouldn't, just like a 2 loss team shouldn't be in the top 4.

[Van]

And yet 2007 showed us that multiple two-loss teams could make it to the top four.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure we've yet to see a three-loss team crack the top eight during the BCS era.

[Left Seater]

All the more reason we don't need a playoff.

KSU finished in 8thin the early 2000s with three losses.

[Goober McTuber]

Correct me if I'm wrong

The protasis is impossible, the apodosis is inevitable.