Don't Read Too Much into NCAA Tournament Victories

by user Jamesmouton

So after four days and two rounds of games in the NCAA Tournament we now have 16 "sweet" teams left. Thanks to some very close losses and a miracle comeback by Ohio State, the Big Ten has only one team left playing. But what do all of these results mean? Should we be impressed with the quality of play from Big Ten teams like Michigan State, Purdue and Indiana, who all gave more than a little scare to "Power" #1 and 2 seeds North Carolina, Florida and UCLA? Or as in year's past, does the fact that Ohio State is the lone member of the Sweet 16 show us a continuing decline of quality teams from the Big Ten? What if I told you that neither were true?

I was listening to Billy Packer this morning on the Tony Bruno Show on Sporting News Radio, when he kept referring to the NCAA Tournament as the "ultimate report card of a team's performance." I usually don't need to think very long in order to disagree with Packer, but that quote really struck me as wrong. We (and by "we" I mean talking heads like Packer, ESPN's "experts", sportswriters, and fans) all put way too much stock into a team's performance in the NCAA Tournament. In today's age of college basketball it has never been more true that any team can beat anybody on a given day. All it takes is one game for a team to be uncharacteristically cold or extremely hot to send a high seed packing or a "cinderella" on to the next round. Early exits and deep runs in the tournament should not be weighted so greatly. Would anyone seriously argue that George Mason was one of the best 4 teams in the nation last season? Of course not. The Patriots just got hot at the right time and further proved that even the little guy can play with anybody this day and age.

So many factors determine NCAA Tournament success, it really isn't a level playing field. Nothing is more important than seeding, and your tournament draw. Certain teams get matched up with teams that play a familar style as theirs, while others are forced to go against another team that plays a different tempo. Also, where these games are played has a major effect on the outcomes as well. I bet Michigan State feels they may still be playing if North Carolina had to travel to Detroit to play them instead of the Spartans going to Winston-Salem. And yes UNC was rewarded for their play in the regular season, but do you think Ohio State is going to be very happy if they have meet Texas A&M in the Regional Final in San Antonio?

The "best team" or #1 overall seed very rarely wins the NCAA Tournament. Whether they get knocked out in the Championship game or the 2nd or 3rd round doesn't mean they weren't the best team throughout the season. They got the #1 overall seed for a reason, they deserved it. All it means is that this is college basketball, the most unpredictable of all major sports. There is a reason why we call it "Madness" and this is why we love it so much. This makes the NCAA Tournament the most entertaining sporting event in the world. But as far as Billy Packer's "ultimate report card", I'd rather judge a team on 30+ games rather than 6 or less. Billy can do whatever he wants, but tell him I quit listening.

Read more at The Big Ten Chronicle

False ProphetAll-Star

988 days ago

Score 0

I'll judge a team on how they play when they have to win to stay alive. The Tournament puts the 65 best teams in the country against each other to crown a champion. If we should judge teams by the regular season, then there shouldn't have been a playoff season. I agree that the playoffs are a teams "Ultimate Report Card", which is why I disagree with the BCS.

Permalink | Reply

JamesmoutonWaterboy

988 days ago

Score 1

I'm all for playoffs, don't get me wrong. I just think it is unfair after an early loss in the NCAAs to call a team's season a disappointment based on just one game.

Permalink

Davis21wylieMVP

988 days ago

Score 1

In a single 40-minute game, anybody could beat anybody. I know there weren't many big upsets in the first round, but the nature of sport is that randomness -- a bounce of the ball, etc. -- can dictate who wins and who loses a close game, and it has nothing to do with the strength of the respective teams. That's why we play 7-game series in pro basketball and hockey: they know that in a single-elimination setting, too many fluke things can determine who moves on and who goes home. Now, it would be completely impractical to have 64 teams play 7-game series, but you also have to acknowledge that the winner of the NCAA Tournament (whoever it may be) might not be the best team, but rather a team that got hot at the right time and had the lucky breaks go their way.

Permalink | Reply

False ProphetAll-Star

988 days ago

Score 0

but it's a better way to decide who is the best team. You get every team playing tougher oppenents, and playing for everything every single game. No more conference Biases, no more big programs getting voted higher because they are a big program, no of that happens in a playoff system. The NFL Playoffs brings out the best in every team, and the idea is that oncethe bottom teaams have been eliminated, lets see how the Top dogs do when they have to win to stay alive. Which teams can play their best game each and every time they go out to play? Thats what the single elimination playoffs are about. Series puts more value into strategy. For Instance, if the yankees are the 2 seed and facing the Twins(who would be the 1 seed) in the ALCS, the yankees are going to try and split the first 2 games because they know they have an advantage the next 3 games, and if they lose 1, then the pressure is on the twins to go home and survive. Teams in series playoffs have to spend more thought on playing the series instead of the individual games.

Permalink