KK's Korner

Agreed about the NCAA tournament. No 16 seed has ever won a game, meaning the 61-64th best teams have never won a single game, let alone the entire tournament. And they want to let in 64 teams WORSE than those teams?

 

March Madness is great for the gambling industry, but it's a lousy way to crown a champion. They'd be better off CUTTING teams from the tournament and switching to a double elimination format.

It's a better way than how Division 1-A crowns a football "champion." Also, do you think a 16 seed will ever beat a 1? I do.

It has to happen and this year it seemed like it would. I do think by 2010 (assuming the people in charge don't go with the stupid expansion) we will see that 16 over 1 in Men's tournament (it has happened in Woman's but since when does anyone care about that?)

It's a better way than how Division 1-A crowns a football "champion." Also, do you think a 16 seed will ever beat a 1? I do.

The problem with college football's championship is that it was designed to solve a specific problem when there are two qualified teams. It fails when there's just one dominant team, or more than two. Personally, I think the real problem is the obsession with the idea that there HAS to be a champion in sports. I say abolish the national championship and return to the old format. If you adopt a playoff system, you'll end up devaluing every bowl except for the championship, just like the BCS has done.

 

I think a 16 seed will eventually defeat a no. 1. But so far there have been (I think) 84 instances of a 1 vs. 16 matchup, and the 1 seed has won every single time. When the 16 seed wins, it'll be a 100:1 shot. And that's for one game. A 16 seed needs to win six games to win the whole tournament. For all intents, that's statistically impossible. But here's the real problem. You would more than double the number of games in the tournament. And a majority of those would be bigger mismatches than a 1 vs. 16. I can't even see it creating many exciting games.

I agree with what you said about college football regarding going back to the old format. If you want to keep your hippie bowls, that's all fine and dandy. If you're from a Pac-10 school, then your championship goal would be to win the Rose Bowl, regardliess of what your end-of-season "ranking" turns out to be. However, don't then get into a debate as to which team is the best for that year. You either determine a "national champion" via playoff system, or you just say "screw it" and play the bowl games. You can't have it both ways.

 

And you mean to tell me that a 1 v. 32 seed wouldn't have you skipping work early to watch with some friends at a local bar?