Originally Posted by Figgie123
The problem as I see it, is that you've proven over the course of the season that you're not good enough to beat NCAA tournament teams. If you are sub-.500, that means you can't win half the games in your own league, that should translate to the fact you can't win half the games in the NCAA.
This is only anecdotal. Just because some of these teams made it into the second weekend when most people didn't think they should be in the field is because of matchups. Some games are good matchups for a team, some are not.
If it's all about good wins, then they should define what a "good win", and totally get rid of win-loss record.
The underlying question is, "What defines a NCAA tournament berth worthy team?" The answer usually seems to be, "the eye test".
|
Let's use Indiana as an example. They're what, 8-12 in conference? But I certainly feel like they've proven themselves as good enough to beat NCAA tournament teams. I feel like they've beaten 6 or 7 of them.
Agree that it's somewhat anecdotal. Reading your post, you seem to suggest that those teams ONLY made the 2nd weekend because of good matchups. That's not always the case and may not even be the majority of cases. Same can be said for a 12-seed from the SoCon or MAC. And because said P5 team made the Sweet 16 doesn't validate that they belonged in the tourney. I simply used that as an example to Cannonball's post that suggested the "garbage" P5 team that loses in the first round. Those "garbage" P5 teams don't always lose in the first round.
Not a big fan of the "eye test". IMO, it devalues winning/losing. But per my "eye test", I would vote OUT tOSU.
