Fantastic Final Four

I agree with you Chris, but only about the first two rounds or so. Starting in the Sweet 16, it's gotten a lot better, culminating with Georgetown-UNC (and, to a lesser degree, UCLA-Kansas). I think we're going to be in store for one of the better Final Fours in recent memory, simply because the teams are so evenly matched. God bless the NBA age restriction!

and somebody with LeBron or Oden's "once a generation" talent WILL come along, get screwed by the rule and pull a Shawn Livingston knee-special during some meaningless non-conference game and THEN they'll review the stupid rule (after it's too late)

I have no opinion on the games, I haven't watched a SECOND of play yet but will probably catch some Final Four action (maybe some pregame prognostication with the Sports Shaman?)

I'd be in favor of players being able to apply for a exemption for the rule. LeBron is still Maturing. I think he is going to be one of the greatest players ever, but he's still not even to the age when MJ entered the league

Oh, from a legal or social perspective, the rule is completely crazy. But from a college basketball perspective, it definitely improved the general state of the game. Without the rule, we get George Mason again -- a total fluke Final Four team that was lucky to be there in the first place (I know this isn't the most popular opinion around, but hey).

DiceDub, that's the beauty of a playoff system. It crowns the team champion that can perform the best when each game is lose and go home. George Mason got a few lucky breaks, and capitalized them. Good teams do that. When opeertunities are presented to the good teams, they are capitalized upon and used to gain ground

Wow, I was wrong this whole time! You're right, we should definitely crown the luckiest team champion, not the most skilled team!

Isn't that how the St Louis Cardinals got their rings?

Yeah, that's how they won all nine of their World Series Championships. They have won more World Series Championships than any other National League team. Luck doesn't lend itself to making you the most successful N.L. team. And just because Detroit's defense was atrocious in the 2006 Fall Classic doesn't mean the Cards got lucky. It means Detroit made an outrageous amount of fielding errors and didn't deserve to win.

luck is set up by skill. Talented teams are able to capitalize on the "lucky" plays they create. Crowning the most skilled team wouldn't determine the best team. The best teams are those that figure out how to win each and every time, regardless of how its done. Look at the 05 Steelers, George Mason last year, 05 Longhorns, 04 Red Sox, all teams that got "lucky" at some point and managed to win when they needed to.

The 05 Steelers survived a streak without their Starting QB, and then found a way to beat the Colts. They got lucky and Rothlesburger was able to stop the colts defender off of the Jerome Bettis Fumble, and saved the game. They stopped the play, and Vanderjagt choked, allowing them to survive the game. They found a way to win then, and had a few lucky plays that helped them win.

I'm not going to explain George Mason, as we all know about them. But remember that they beat some pretty elite Talent to get to the final four. It was no fluke. They beat MSU, UNC and UConn. All three are good teams.

05 Longhorns were able to find a way to use VY to beat a far superior talented USC team. They were able to get lucky on the VY lateral that should have been down earlier. They capitalized on that, and were able to pull out a win.

Now, we get to your precious 04 BoSox. You cannot honestly say that they did not have their fair share of luck in order to rebound from a 3-0 series deficit to a superior talented Yankee team. They were able to do what it took to pull of the wins, and maintained that Discipline in the World Series. They were lucky Shilling could pitch. That someone with a dislocated Achilles tendon was able to Pitch was a miracle.

What have we learned? Some of the great recent champions were able to get lucky when they needed to against superior talented teams, and were able to find a way to win at all costs to win the Championship.

The most talented team is normally what you get in the BCS. In a playoff systenm, you get a team that may not be the most talented, but are able to capitalize off of their luck, and find ways to pull out wins when they shouldn't be able to.

"Pulling out wins" is luck. The 2004 Boston Red Sox were lucky. Is that what you want me to say? Fine, I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. Getting to the playoffs, winning 98 of the 162 games that come before, that's not luck. But guess what? Any team that wins any playoff is lucky. And luck is not a skill. Luck is not repeatable. Contrary to what you may have heard, athletics do not represent tests of character -- otherwise, we would have never even heard of Mike Tyson, or Rae Carruth. There is no such thing as "knowing how to win", aside from the obvious key to winning -- being really good at your sport. There is no such thing as "wanting it more" -- both teams want it; otherwise, why the hell would they be playing in the first place? Whether we want to admit it or not, luck plays a massive role in sports. In fact, I'll quote Rob Neyer on the matter:

"The thing I'm learning more and more as I learn more and more about baseball is the role of luck. I just think everybody underestimates it.

This goes back a long time, but in 1989, Bill James did a computer simulation where essentially he assigned values to teams. He assigned qualities to teams and then ran a computer simulation to see how many times the best team actually won. And the best team actually didn't win all the time. Twenty or 25 percent of the time the best team in the division didn't win the division.

Essentially what it simulates is the role of luck. I've written about this a number of times over the years. Fans don't want to admit how much luck is involved. But it seems obvious to me when you look at how many games are settled by one run every season. And you know, or I know, I believe, there's a great deal of luck involved in close games.

And when you actually watch the games, watch day in and day out, and you see how many home runs clear the fence by a foot, or how many singles just get through the infield, it's clear that the luck factor is huge.

Whether it's five games or eight games or 12 games per season on average, I don't know. It's true that the same teams typically win every year, or at least the Red Sox and the Yankees and the Cardinals do. But it's true that luck plays a huge role, and it's true that the great majority of fans and writers and broadcasters underestimate the role of luck."

And who says the Steelers were less talented than the Colts, anyway? Who says Texas was less talented than USC? Are they "more talented" because ESPN overhyped them?

The 2006 Cardinals were lucky they were in a division where 83 wins could take the division crown.

YES, that is luck. There are plenty - MANY MANY MANY teams that won 83 games and didn't even make the playoffs...

And DiceDub, the 2004 Red Sox were worthy, luck or no. But the Cardinals are a farce champion!

Oh, they were worthy, no doubt. 98 wins in the regular season ensures that much. Beating the Yankees after being down 0-3, yeah, we had some breaks. But, hey, NY caught some breaks to be up 3-0, so it evened out. My main point is that the playoffs are a crapshoot in any sport. And more so in NCAA hoops than any other.

7-11, 7-11, 7-11!!! No snake eyes, no snake eyes

and I firmly stand by my theory that the team that prays for victory more OBVIOUSLY wants it more... =) even though GOD wanders both sidelines (or the same one in basketball's case)

You go to school to get an education, basketball or another sport is an extra-curricular event. You want a job, I'm sure the cafeteria or bookstore can find you something. Paying college athletes, what a stupid, stupid idea.

2005 Colts are looked at as one of the better teams ever. Some guy known as Aaron Schatz, president of footballousiders.com and foxsports.com volunteered to reseed my teams in my NFL tourney. He did it basically by putting the top few seeds as the best Pyth wins Super Bowl Champions, and when I sorted the teams by Pyth wins, the 2005 Colts were the 25 best team. the 2005 Steelers were the 41.

Name another player on the Texas team that is in the NFL, or going to be in the NFL besides VY and Michael Huff. No looking it up.

Now, name another USC team player that is in the NFL, or going to be besides Bush and Leinart. I can't name another texas player, but I can name several USC players: Dwayne Jerret, Steve Smith, Frostee Rutcker, LenDale White. USC was regarded as one of the best teams ever befor the game, and were favored. All of those factors together prove that USC was a more talented team than Texas was.

<scarcasm>Kelsdad. Yeah, paying kids who chose to paritcipate in sports and are unable to hold a job because of the team's schedule, and earn their School and the NCAA more money in one year, than you and your family have together is a horrible idea...</scarcasm>

Wow, I was wrong this whole time! You're right, we should definitely crown the luckiest team champion, not the most skilled team! Well, when you use a playoff system, a necessary evil is that the team that wins will not always be the most skilled. If you want, I guess we could just use the English Premiere league table for the professional leagues and the polls for college. Thats much more exciting.

Couldn't an 86 win season in the Central Division point to a more evenly matched division rather than luck?

they were lucky that Jeter was not playing at double play depth, that's for sure... Tony Blomack may have been the luckiest D-Back of them all!

both assumptions are correct. But again, the NCAA earns more off of these kids in one year, than your entire family has saved up. They pocket it all, despite the kids not being able to keep a job during the season. I don't even think they need minimum wage. They just deserve a small bit of money in season so they can compensate for not being able to play and hold down a job

just for the sake of my response, how old are you?

all right, so when you played almost 30 years ago, the NCAA wasn't earning a fortune off of you and your teammates. Nowadays, they earn so much money, but refuse to reinvest it into the cause for all of our spending. Instead, money ends up in the hands of the presidents of the big schools

read the stuff in SI and TSN. Football and Basketball help fund other sports. You don't think that the NCAA doesn't draw in a couple thousand extra viewers to their games because of the athletes? Do you honestly believe anyone would give a damn if they didn't have the big name athletes?