Page 33 of 46 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast
Results 641 to 660 of 904
  1. #641
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by MChambers View Post
    I do, too, but I still think it was exciting. Even Jordan Davidson stripping Henson as he tried to dunk in the final minute was exciting.
    No one ever said it wasn't exciting. I'm pretty sure everyone was thoroughly entertained. Or at least that's how it seemed from where I was standing. It was like threading together a string of masterful chess moves: you might know what the outcome is going to be, but that doesn't make the execution any less thrilling.

  2. #642
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Allawah, NSW Australia (near Sydney)
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    So was Villanova the best team in 1985? Despite the fact that they were unranked, and had already lost to Georgetown twice that season? Were they really better than Georgetown? No. They just happened to play better that day. In that tournament (as in many other years), the best team didn't win.

    The 1985 Villanova championship is the best example of why the argument that the best team is the team that wins doesn't hold. The better team doesn't win every game. Sometimes, a lesser team simply has a better day. And in a six-game, single-elimination format, there are lots of chances for the best team to have an off day.

    I'm not saying Duke wasn't the best team. I'm just saying that winning a championship isn't proof of it, though I agree that it is supporting evidence. The best team doesn't always win. I'm with Kedsy - I don't understand why people don't get this.

    Yes, Villanova was the best team. Why? Because when the championship was determined, when the chips were down, they won the game. That has to be the answer. Otherwise, why bother with a tournament? Just do what college football does. Forget about deciding championships on the field and all that nonsense. Let's just have everyone guess who the best team is and give the trophy to them. Everyone gets the same deal: you win, you advance, you lose, you go home. Villanova had several losses that year but by the time the tournament rolled around, nobody was able to beat them. So yes, they were the best.

    Just like NC State in 1983 and every other winner that wasn't a no.1 seed. Don't talk to me about what somebody did two months ago. You can argue that the team that won the tournament didn't accomplish as much as somebody else did during the regular season or whatever but when a team goes 6-0 in a single-elimination championship tournament, in which everyone entered is on equal footing and knows every time they step on that floor may be their last, they're the best and to suggest that they aren't is bogus and cheap.

    This isn't a matter of not understanding you. It's a matter of simply disagreeing. Vehemently.

  3. #643
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Allawah, NSW Australia (near Sydney)
    Quote Originally Posted by MisterRoddy View Post
    Good argument, had that Hayward shot gone in, was Butler the best team in the 2009-2010 season?
    Of course. My answer is obviously yes but even by Kedsy and CDu's way of thinking they would've been. 26 straight wins to end the year, beat 2 no. 1 seeds -- one in the sweet 16, one in the title game. What would they be missing, besides a brand name?

  4. #644
    Quote Originally Posted by devildownunder View Post
    Yes, Villanova was the best team. Why? Because when the championship was determined, when the chips were down, they won the game. That has to be the answer. Otherwise, why bother with a tournament? Just do what college football does. Forget about deciding championships on the field and all that nonsense. Let's just have everyone guess who the best team is and give the trophy to them. Everyone gets the same deal: you win, you advance, you lose, you go home. Villanova had several losses that year but by the time the tournament rolled around, nobody was able to beat them. So yes, they were the best.

    Just like NC State in 1983 and every other winner that wasn't a no.1 seed. Don't talk to me about what somebody did two months ago. You can argue that the team that won the tournament didn't accomplish as much as somebody else did during the regular season or whatever but when a team goes 6-0 in a single-elimination championship tournament, in which everyone entered is on equal footing and knows every time they step on that floor may be their last, they're the best and to suggest that they aren't is bogus and cheap.

    This isn't a matter of not understanding you. It's a matter of simply disagreeing. Vehemently.
    That's some highly questionable logic. And the flaw in the logic is this:
    the tournament format wasn't chosen because it determines the best team. It was chosen because it's the easiest/clearest/most entertaining way to try to determine a champion given that we can't have a round-robin with everyone. Just because it has become the format of choice doesn't mean that it's a fool-proof way of determining who the best team was.

    So saying "that has to be the answer because it's what we chose to do" is questionable logic. Villanova was the NCAA champion in 1985. They won the tournament. That makes them the champion (which was the point of the tournament). It does not make them the best team. Those are two different things.

  5. #645
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Quote Originally Posted by devildownunder View Post
    Yes, Villanova was the best team. Why? Because when the championship was determined, when the chips were down, they won the game. That has to be the answer. Otherwise, why bother with a tournament? Just do what college football does. Forget about deciding championships on the field and all that nonsense. Let's just have everyone guess who the best team is and give the trophy to them. Everyone gets the same deal: you win, you advance, you lose, you go home. Villanova had several losses that year but by the time the tournament rolled around, nobody was able to beat them. So yes, they were the best.

    Just like NC State in 1983 and every other winner that wasn't a no.1 seed. Don't talk to me about what somebody did two months ago. You can argue that the team that won the tournament didn't accomplish as much as somebody else did during the regular season or whatever but when a team goes 6-0 in a single-elimination championship tournament, in which everyone entered is on equal footing and knows every time they step on that floor may be their last, they're the best and to suggest that they aren't is bogus and cheap.

    This isn't a matter of not understanding you. It's a matter of simply disagreeing. Vehemently.
    This is an absurd contention. If there's one maxim in sports it's that the best team does not always win. Especially in a single game. That's what makes sporting events so exciting. That's why they play the NCAA tournament in the first place. And that's also why they have different words for "best" and "champion" and those words have different meanings.

    But my biggest issue with saying things like "don't talk to me about what somebody did two months ago" is the implication that only the tournament matters. The 2006 Duke team can go 30-3 going into the NCAAT and if they happen to lose a third-round tournament game then the team was "fatally flawed," as so many people have said on these boards. The 2010 Kentucky team can go 32-2 before losing in the Elite Eight, and people present that as definitive evidence that the coach is substandard and they can never win using their current recruiting strategy. It's ridiculous.

  6. #646
    Quote Originally Posted by devildownunder View Post
    Yes, Villanova was the best team. Why? Because when the championship was determined, when the chips were down, they won the game. That has to be the answer. Otherwise, why bother with a tournament? Just do what college football does. Forget about deciding championships on the field and all that nonsense. Let's just have everyone guess who the best team is and give the trophy to them. Everyone gets the same deal: you win, you advance, you lose, you go home. Villanova had several losses that year but by the time the tournament rolled around, nobody was able to beat them. So yes, they were the best.

    Just like NC State in 1983 and every other winner that wasn't a no.1 seed. Don't talk to me about what somebody did two months ago. You can argue that the team that won the tournament didn't accomplish as much as somebody else did during the regular season or whatever but when a team goes 6-0 in a single-elimination championship tournament, in which everyone entered is on equal footing and knows every time they step on that floor may be their last, they're the best and to suggest that they aren't is bogus and cheap.

    This isn't a matter of not understanding you. It's a matter of simply disagreeing. Vehemently.
    I will go ahead and disagree with you. Vehemently, if you like. "Champion" does not equal "best team." With that simple point, your argument unravels.

    In fact, that is one of the reasons why my two favorite sports are college basketball and the NFL -- the best team does not always win the championship. Far too often, the World Series and NBA Finals have no drama, despite the underdog winning a game or two, even in exciting fashion. In the best of 7 format, it is much harder for the lesser team to come out on top.

    With all of the variables in sports (players having exceptional/off nights, luck, vagaries of the whistle), you can't really determine the "best team" in a one and done format.

  7. #647
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    But my biggest issue with saying things like "don't talk to me about what somebody did two months ago" is the implication that only the tournament matters. The 2006 Duke team can go 30-3 going into the NCAAT and if they happen to lose a third-round tournament game then the team was "fatally flawed," as so many people have said on these boards. The 2010 Kentucky team can go 32-2 before losing in the Elite Eight, and people present that as definitive evidence that the coach is substandard and they can never win using their current recruiting strategy. It's ridiculous.
    Ridiculous is right. Sorry to add nothing but my agreement here, but I have been seriously getting the feeling that the people who analyze teams for how they perform and improve over an entire season (instead of just the last game) are in a distinct minority. Good to see that there are a few others out there.

  8. #648
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    raleigh
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    "Champion" does not equal "best team."
    With all of the variables in sports (players having exceptional/off nights, luck, vagaries of the whistle), you can't really determine the "best team" in a one and done format.
    TRUE TRUE TRUE.......that's why we need a playoff to determine the college footbal "champion"


    last team standing and all that...

  9. #649
    Quote Originally Posted by devildownunder View Post
    Yes, Villanova was the best team. Why? Because when the championship was determined, when the chips were down, they won the game. That has to be the answer. Otherwise, why bother with a tournament? Just do what college football does. Forget about deciding championships on the field and all that nonsense. Let's just have everyone guess who the best team is and give the trophy to them. Everyone gets the same deal: you win, you advance, you lose, you go home. Villanova had several losses that year but by the time the tournament rolled around, nobody was able to beat them. So yes, they were the best.

    Just like NC State in 1983 and every other winner that wasn't a no.1 seed. Don't talk to me about what somebody did two months ago. You can argue that the team that won the tournament didn't accomplish as much as somebody else did during the regular season or whatever but when a team goes 6-0 in a single-elimination championship tournament, in which everyone entered is on equal footing and knows every time they step on that floor may be their last, they're the best and to suggest that they aren't is bogus and cheap.

    This isn't a matter of not understanding you. It's a matter of simply disagreeing. Vehemently.
    Your premise about equal footing is false. They are all not on equal footing. That would mean every team plays the same team with the exact same conditions. What about if a team plays 15 minutes down the road versus 700 miles away? What if you have a rock, paper, scissors effect? Team A beats Team B, Team B beats C, but C beats A? Which team is better there? What if one team has more fans at the game than the other? What if a team played in a conference tourney for four straight days the previous weekend? What if a key player has food poisoning one game? I could go on and on...

    I think 2010 Duke was a really good team and deserving of the championship, but I still believe that there were ten other years that Duke was better.

  10. #650
    Quote Originally Posted by BattierBattalion View Post
    I think 2010 Duke was a really good team and deserving of the championship, but I still believe that there were ten other years that Duke was better.
    Which ones?

  11. #651
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bowie, Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    Which ones?
    1986, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2006............There is 11
    The Terrapin Assassin

  12. #652
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedevil114 View Post
    1986, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2006............There is 11
    And at least five of them are wrong.

    Why is still hard for people to accept that this Duke team was no worse than one of the top three teams in the country? Duke's championship was not a fluke of the tournament, it was a sign of the success the team enjoyed all year.

  13. #653
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Allawah, NSW Australia (near Sydney)
    Quote Originally Posted by BattierBattalion View Post
    Your premise about equal footing is false. They are all not on equal footing. That would mean every team plays the same team with the exact same conditions. What about if a team plays 15 minutes down the road versus 700 miles away? What if you have a rock, paper, scissors effect? Team A beats Team B, Team B beats C, but C beats A? Which team is better there? What if one team has more fans at the game than the other? What if a team played in a conference tourney for four straight days the previous weekend? What if a key player has food poisoning one game? I could go on and on...

    I think 2010 Duke was a really good team and deserving of the championship, but I still believe that there were ten other years that Duke was better.
    When I talk about equal footing, I mean two things: first, that it is single-elimination for all and second, that every team comes into the game with the exact same stakes and knows what they are before they even step on the floor. This is as opposed to the regular season or the conference tournaments, when there can be a huge gap betweeen what the game means for one team and what it means to the other.

  14. #654
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Allawah, NSW Australia (near Sydney)
    So the best team, in your estimation, is frequently the one that couldn't perform when it was most important. That makes no sense. Performance is all that matters when you discuss who is best. Coming up with reasons for why team X is really the "best team" when team Y is the one that performed when it mattered is just what fans do when things don't work out the way they want.

    There's a reason there is no NCAA banner hanging anywhere that says "Best Team 2010".

  15. #655
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Connersville, IN
    FYI, the game is on CBSC right now until 8

  16. #656
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Allawah, NSW Australia (near Sydney)
    The 2006 Duke team was fatally flawed. It was overwhelmingly dependent upon the scoring of one player. Said player had a bad shooting night and that was the end of the story. Contrast that with the 2010 team, on which Kyle Singler goes something like 1-for-10 in a FF game and the team still wins.

    The 2006 accomplished a lot but it did have a fatal flaw. That doesn't mean everything it accomplished out the window, though. I've made no statements about Kentucky, other than that experience still counts and they didn't have any of it.

    You seem to want to equate my statement about the champion being the best with saying something like "and everybody else is crap". There is no reason that one has to mean the other.

  17. #657
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Allawah, NSW Australia (near Sydney)
    How does declaring the winner of the tournament the best mean that you're not analyzing the regular season?

  18. #658
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Allawah, NSW Australia (near Sydney)
    OK then, what does make someone the best team then? Your position assumes there is some metric, other than performance when it counts most, that makes sense. I contend that is a fallacy. The only thing that matters is the result. The point of a team isn't to impress. It's to win.

    And with that, I'm leaving this topic. Posting too often about one thing can get you into trouble around here.

  19. #659
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Connersville, IN
    Quote Originally Posted by devildownunder View Post
    Contrast that with the 2010 team, on which Kyle Singler goes something like 1-for-10 in a FF game and the team still wins
    It was actually the Elite Eight game against Baylor. Watched it today. But your point is made and I completely agree

    Maybe the worst thing to happen to Duke was Dockery hitting the half court shot that year. It's always good to have a game that rattles you and brings you back down to earth. That team really didn't have that (not that I recall at least). And as you mentioned, they were a lot of times just simply watching J.J. or more focused on getting J.J. open instead of playing as a team

  20. #660
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Quote Originally Posted by devildownunder View Post
    When I talk about equal footing, I mean two things: first, that it is single-elimination for all and second, that every team comes into the game with the exact same stakes and knows what they are before they even step on the floor. This is as opposed to the regular season or the conference tournaments, when there can be a huge gap betweeen what the game means for one team and what it means to the other.
    When everyone else talks about equal footing, they mean a whole lot of other things, none of which are true in the NCAAT. The teams are absolutely not all on an equal footing.

    Quote Originally Posted by devildownunder View Post
    How does declaring the winner of the tournament the best mean that you're not analyzing the regular season?
    If you assert that the sole measure of which is the best team is who won a six game single-elimination tournament, then by definition you are discounting the regular season (and the conference tournaments, as well).

    Quote Originally Posted by devildownunder View Post
    OK then, what does make someone the best team then? Your position assumes there is some metric, other than performance when it counts most, that makes sense. I contend that is a fallacy. The only thing that matters is the result. The point of a team isn't to impress. It's to win.
    Well, you don't seem to care about winning, only winning in the NCAAT. That is the true fallacy. Even if you believe getting hot at the end of the year is all that matters, there is so much luck involved in a one-and-done tournament that it can't possibly be used as a measure of who is best.

    For example, in 1985 there were a lot of teams that won a lot more games than Villanova. Villanova happened to get hot for a couple weeks at the end (and also very lucky; they won their first three games in that tournament by a total of 9 points, even before they shot 79% in the championship game and only won by 2 points).

    I'll take it further. In 1985, Villanova was 19-10 going into the NCAAT, finished 4th in their conference (9-7 record), lost in the semifinals of their league tournament, and lost twice (out of two) to Georgetown.

    Georgetown was 30-2 going into the NCAAT, finished 2nd in their conference (14-2), won their league tournament, and swept Villanova.

    Villanova was certainly the national champion. There is no rational argument that would say they were the best team.

    Quote Originally Posted by devildownunder View Post
    And with that, I'm leaving this topic. Posting too often about one thing can get you into trouble around here.
    If you honestly believe that the best team always wins and that all that matters is the NCAA tournament, then you leaving the topic is probably a good thing.

Similar Threads

  1. Butler 2010 and Duke 1978
    By Spam Filter in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-25-2010, 05:00 PM
  2. Charting Duke vs. Butler (NCAA Tournament)
    By Jumbo in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-09-2010, 01:24 AM
  3. NCAA Champs gear
    By Daniel tosh in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-07-2010, 09:06 AM
  4. MOTM: Duke vs. Butler, NCAA Championship Finals
    By JBDuke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-06-2010, 10:19 AM
  5. MBB: Duke vs. Butler for the NCAA Championship
    By Welcome2DaSlopes in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 675
    Last Post: 04-05-2010, 11:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •