I realize I’m in the minority, but I hate having 64 teams and wish the tournament would be reduced dramatically. If the intent of the tournament is to crown that year’s champion, and that champion is supposed to be the best team that year, then the NCAA tournament fails miserably at that.
When a 21-9 UConn team that lost 7 of its last 11 regular season games is crowned champion, then I question the value of the tournament as structured. And I felt that way prior to 2011, so this isn’t simply sour grapes.
The tournament is really just an overgrown Maui Invitational played at the end of the season instead of the beginning. I get that there’s exciting basketball played and it’s fun to watch, but I fail to see why anyone thinks this is an effective way of determining a champion.[/QUOT
I realize I’m in the minority, but I hate having 64 teams and wish the tournament would be reduced dramatically. If the intent of the tournament is to crown that year’s champion, and that champion is supposed to be the best team that year, then the NCAA tournament fails miserably at that.
When a 21-9 UConn team that lost 7 of its last 11 regular season games is crowned champion, then I question the value of the tournament as structured. And I felt that way prior to 2011, so this isn’t simply sour grapes.
The tournament is really just an overgrown Maui Invitational played at the end of the season instead of the beginning. I get that there’s exciting basketball played and it’s fun to watch, but I fail to see why anyone thinks this is an effective way of determining a champion.
UCONN wasn't "crowned" champion, the won 6 games in a row and won the championship. That's what makes the tournament better than the football playoff - every D-1 team has a legit chance to win the championship, and the "best" teams as decided by talking heads, get knocked off.