Can I ask a question? Are you guys basketball fans?

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Or are you just Pitt fans? Serious question. Because I see posts and a lot of posts bringing it back to Pitt or our failures and justifying them or our style.

And I can tell you this, I didn't think of Pitt one time today. I just enjoyed the moments. Man, that is what this tourney is about. The moments. Ga State just gave us another all timer. Two 14 seeds have won, and we haven't even made dinner time on the first day.

It is called March Madness for a reason. Enjoy it and live in the moment, stop trying to compare it to Pitt It's beautiful, just enjoy and don't over think it.

 

[pittman71]

only time I thought of Pitt today was when the thread was started asking what this board would be like if Pitt lost in the manner in which Baylor lost.

Watching these small schools take down these overrated Power 5 conference teams during March Madness never gets old

 

[pitt-girl]

Personally, I take offense to the "guy" reference....

Just kidding. I love this time of the year and an opening day full of upsets. CHALK IS BORING.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Re: Personally, I take offense to the "guy" reference....

Originally posted by pitt-girl:
Just kidding. I love this time of the year and an opening day full of upsets. CHALK IS BORING.

Eaxctly. I hate when a big upset happens (and a 3 vs 14 qualifies as "BIG") and some moron is upset because it ruins his bracket because he picked the 3 seed. I always look at the dude and say "you don't get it do you?"

 

[Pitt79]

Originally posted by recruitsreadtheseboards:

Or are you just Pitt fans? Serious question.

I am more of a Pitt fan to be honest. I try to watch every Pitt game, that's 30+ games, so to me, that means I watch a lot of basketball, then you add in that I also watch Euroleague when my favorite team is playing, and glance at the NBA sometimes, so yes, I'm a basketball fan, who is more interested when I have a rooting interest. I do watch the NCAAs even when Pitt isn't playing, but not with much intensity anymore.

I find it hard to care to sit and dedicate to a single game with teams I don't care about, in any sport anymore. Tonight, I plan to flip between the various games, but not with much enthusiasm, since I really don't care who wins. Tomorrow I might go to the Baltimore Blast indoor soccer game if it's not snowing or icy as they are calling for, it's game 1 of the MASL Championship Series, and to be honest, I've been following them and care more about this game than the NCAAs...it's the rooting interest thing.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

This is the only sport where I will watch any game regardless of who is playing. I love college hoops. Don't mind the NBA, but love it in the postseason where you see 100% effort game in and game out.

 

[Pitt79]

Re: Personally, I take offense to the "guy" reference....

Originally posted by recruitsreadtheseboards:

...some moron is upset because it ruins his bracket because he picked the 3 seed. I always look at the dude and say "you don't get it do you?"

It's the "rooting interest" thing! I find it hard to care and be intense if I don't literally LOVE one of the teams! Or like the guy mad about the #3 seed, if I have something significant on the line, like I can win a couple hundred bucks or something like that. Like the Super Bowl was a great game this year, but that last play where teh Pats picked off the seahaks and won the title, I was like "ho hum", sitting there quietly saying "wow" really quietly! if it had been the Steelers playing I would have exploded through the roof if they where on either side f that play. Like your scenario, the #14 beats the #3, I'd be like "ho hum", sitting there quietly saying "wow" really quietly.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

I stopped filling out brackets about 4 years ago.
No regrets.
Just like to watch and enjoy.

Actually took a vacation day today.

 

[geeman2001]

I would like the tournament better if it were the 16 best teams. Wishing for freakish upsets of the clearly better teams by teams from low level conferences isn't my thing. But since it's the pop culture "thing" this time of year, I still watch casually even with Pitt not in it, though more after the first couple rounds when it's serious. Only glimpsed at today's games so far.

And po'ed at the traffic it caused down town today around rush hour ... wasn't a hoops fan at ALL, right about then ... grrr.

 

[JSSTartan]

Re: Personally, I take offense to the "guy" reference....

Originally posted by recruitsreadtheseboards:

Originally posted by pitt-girl:
Just kidding. I love this time of the year and an opening day full of upsets. CHALK IS BORING.

Eaxctly. I hate when a big upset happens (and a 3 vs 14 qualifies as "BIG") and some moron is upset because it ruins his bracket because he picked the 3 seed. I always look at the dude and say "you don't get it do you?"

Amen.

 

[Piranha]

Re: Personally, I take offense to the "guy" reference....

I am a big college bball fan. I like rooting for chaos.

 

[King Of All Message Boards]

College basketball fan here. Haven't missed a Pittsburgh game since they started coming here including today.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Originally posted by SoufOaklin4Life:
I stopped filling out brackets about 4 years ago.
No regrets.
Just like to watch and enjoy.

Actually took a vacation day today.

That's it Souf. You get it. I kind of did, I stopped playing almost all of my brackets, except my office pool this year. For the first time, I really have no brackets. I always found myself paying more attention to the games, and not my brackets then thinking to myself "why do I even play these, I don't care if I win or not?"

I actually had a funeral this week, so I am off of work, and obviously have missed some games yesterday. But the thrilling end of some of these games, especially Ga State really helped buoy some needed spirits.

 

[Pitt79]

Originally posted by geeman2001:
I would like the tournament better if it were the 16 best teams. Wishing for freakish upsets of the clearly better teams by teams from low level conferences isn't my thing. But since it's the pop culture "thing" this time of year, I still watch casually even with Pitt not in it, though more after the first couple rounds when it's serious. Only glimpsed at today's games so far.

And po'ed at the traffic it caused down town today around rush hour ... wasn't a hoops fan at ALL, right about then ... grrr.

That would be horrible! That would make it like football! The best thing about it all is that HUNDREDS of schools all over the country can have hope, not just 20 or 30. but then again, I'm always happy when the best teams don't become the champion! I love when freakish things happen and some mediocre team raises the trophy. Makes it fun.

 

[Pitt79]

I watched some of it last night. The Purdue/Cincy game was really exciting, buzzer beating drive by Cincy to send it to OT, then Purdue losing when a buzzer beater rims out in OT, but then again, HO-HUMM, my emotion meter barely registers, it's the whole "rooting interest" thing, I can't get to "moved" when I don't love one of the teams. Harvard too was good, I was rooting hard for them to take down UNC and they almost did. When I don't have MY TEAM in it, all I end up doing is rooting for the have nots to embarrass the haves and bust everybody's brackets and give us an "undeserving" champion at the end! that's what I want to see!

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Originally posted by Pitt79:

I watched some of it last night. The Purdue/Cincy game was really exciting, buzzer beating drive by Cincy to send it to OT, then Purdue losing when a buzzer beater rims out in OT, but then again, HO-HUMM, my emotion meter barely registers, it's the whole "rooting interest" thing, I can't get to "moved" when I don't love one of the teams. Harvard too was good, I was rooting hard for them to take down UNC and they almost did. When I don't have MY TEAM in it, all I end up doing is rooting for the have nots to embarrass the haves and bust everybody's brackets and give us an "undeserving" champion at the end! that's what I want to see!

Again, I can. This maybe the only event like that where I can watch it with great interest even if "my team" is not in it. That shows you how strong of an event it is.

 

[Pitt79]

Originally posted by recruitsreadtheseboards:

Originally posted by Pitt79:

I watched some of it last night. The Purdue/Cincy game was really exciting, buzzer beating drive by Cincy to send it to OT, then Purdue losing when a buzzer beater rims out in OT, but then again, HO-HUMM, my emotion meter barely registers, it's the whole "rooting interest" thing, I can't get to "moved" when I don't love one of the teams. Harvard too was good, I was rooting hard for them to take down UNC and they almost did. When I don't have MY TEAM in it, all I end up doing is rooting for the have nots to embarrass the haves and bust everybody's brackets and give us an "undeserving" champion at the end! that's what I want to see!

Again, I can. This maybe the only event like that where I can watch it with great interest even if "my team" is not in it. That shows you how strong of an event it is.

I can too, just not really moved by it, I said I watched for probably 2 hours last night, just not with the intensity I would have if I cared who won.

 

[Harve74]

I absolutely LOVE watching the tournament. I still don't believe a single elimination tournament has much to do with which is the best team, but it is truly Must-See TV.

I actually opted not to buy tickets for the Pittsburgh games for the first time. If Pitt had made the Dance I would have tried to follow them if practical but with no particular rooting interest, I decided watching as much of EVERY game as possible made more sense than sitting in the Consol, which I detest, and only seeing a few games.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

Originally posted by geeman2001:
I would like the tournament better if it were the 16 best teams. Wishing for freakish upsets of the clearly better teams by teams from low level conferences isn't my thing. But since it's the pop culture "thing" this time of year, I still watch casually even with Pitt not in it, though more after the first couple rounds when it's serious. Only glimpsed at today's games so far.

And po'ed at the traffic it caused down town today around rush hour ... wasn't a hoops fan at ALL, right about then ... grrr.

It's strange, because it's clearly a horrible way to determine the best team, there are upsets galore by clearly inferior teams, and yet it's still given an inordinate amount of weight.

I've tried thinking of a way to make it better (i.e. determine who the actual best team is and truly reward the top teams in a given year) and best I could do was that the Regular Season Champs from each P5 conference gets in, you have 3 at-larges, and then you have best-of-5 series' until there's one team left.

That would totally diminish the Conference Tourneys, though, which are the only thing that comes close to being as big a money grab as the NCAA Tourney itself.

The Tournament will probably expand before it contracts and tries to do what it's regarded by some as doing (determining the best team).

 

[Pitt79]

Originally posted by Harve74:
I absolutely LOVE watching the tournament. I still don't believe a single elimination tournament has much to do with which is the best team, but it is truly Must-See TV.

I actually opted not to buy tickets for the Pittsburgh games for the first time. If Pitt had made the Dance I would have tried to follow them if practical but with no particular rooting interest, I decided watching as much of EVERY game as possible made more sense than sitting in the Consol, which I detest, and only seeing a few games.

This is what people don't get, CHAMPION has nothing to do with BEST TEAM. All sports set up some structure, to determine the Champion, typically known as a playoff, very often the #1 seeds don't win, sometimes an NHL 8th seed, or an NFL 6th seed, or an MLB wild card or a lower NCAA seed wins the "games that where scheduled to decide the champion". Are they legit Champions? Hell yes! That's what the rule is, "these particular games" are set up, whoever wins them is the Champion! BEST TEAM is some sort of subjective thing, like in figure skating, somebody just looks at them and votes. That's what makes sports great! The BEST TEAM isn't always the CHAMPION, they still have to win the actual games. I really don't understand why people bemoan it when an underdog ousts the subjectively percieved Best Team? Those are the greatest, most unforgetable moments in sports, A good thing, not something to feel sorry about.

 

[Harve74]

'79, I completely understand the championship vs best team distinction. It not understood by many, including a lot of posters on here and it IS flawed.

My point is that a single elimination tournament is a mediocre way to determine a season champion. It's fine in a conference as a money-maker and a way to keep lesser teams and their fans interested till the end of the season. But, most conferences differentiate between regular season and conference tournament championships.

Most sports have their ultimate championship tournament that is not single elimination. Football is the only major exception but with the physical nature of a football game, it seems more likely likely that the better team wins more often.

Baseball has frequent upsets and has a best of 5 or 7 games to advance. Even World Cup soccer has a pool play round before the elimination round begins. Olympic sports have qualifying rounds and many sports award titles based on aggregate scores from several runs or trials.

With the three point shot, basketball is particularly rife with upsets. The current NCAA tournament is great theater and a real spectacle. It makes lot of money, which is its main objective.

If college basketball really wanted to determine a true champion, something with the structure of The College World Series would do that more accurately.

 

[oldpantherfan]

For once boards i agreee with you. The ncaa tournament (both mens and womens') is one of the best sporting events ever.

If you can't get excited about these games, you can't get excited about sports. Pitt playing would have made it better, but either way you gotta love the games.

 

[PantherO]

This is my second year without filling out a bracket and I am fully enjoying the games.

I flipped back and forth on the TV yesterday until I found a game that looked interesting. Unfortunately, I had to do a lot of back and forth yesterday between games I was actually interested in. There were a lot of great games!

 

[Pitt79]

Originally posted by Harve74:
... it seems more likely likely that the better team wins more often.

That doesn't matter. Why do you care? It's simple enough, win these games, you're named champion. And to be honest, the big boys, the Power 5 guys always win, UNLV in '90 was the last team outside that group to win, before that Marquette in '77 and Texas Western in '66. 30 times since 1976 the Champion has been a 1, 2 or 3 seed. So the vast majority of the time THE BETTER TEAMS win the NCAA Tournament, at least just by how the commitee seeds them and even when a low seed like #8 Nove in '84 or #7 UConn last year, the teams came from a top conference, and 1 year removed from the REAL Big East, I'll give UConn top conference credentials. So very, very few times has somebody won that is really undeserving, if deserving means having good competition all year.

 

[OriginalEther]

Pitt fan. Not much of a basketball fan, especially the NBA.

I used to enjoy the tournament. Not really anymore, largely because of my disillusionment with college sports and this message board this time of year.

 

[TD_6082]

Originally posted by Pitt79:

Originally posted by Harve74:
I absolutely LOVE watching the tournament. I still don't believe a single elimination tournament has much to do with which is the best team, but it is truly Must-See TV.

I actually opted not to buy tickets for the Pittsburgh games for the first time. If Pitt had made the Dance I would have tried to follow them if practical but with no particular rooting interest, I decided watching as much of EVERY game as possible made more sense than sitting in the Consol, which I detest, and only seeing a few games.

This is what people don't get, CHAMPION has nothing to do with BEST TEAM. All sports set up some structure, to determine the Champion, typically known as a playoff, very often the #1 seeds don't win, sometimes an NHL 8th seed, or an NFL 6th seed, or an MLB wild card or a lower NCAA seed wins the "games that where scheduled to decide the champion". Are they legit Champions? Hell yes! That's what the rule is, "these particular games" are set up, whoever wins them is the Champion! BEST TEAM is some sort of subjective thing, like in figure skating, somebody just looks at them and votes. That's what makes sports great! The BEST TEAM isn't always the CHAMPION, they still have to win the actual games. I really don't understand why people bemoan it when an underdog ousts the subjectively percieved Best Team? Those are the greatest, most unforgetable moments in sports, A good thing, not something to feel sorry about.

Pitt79 nailed it.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Originally posted by TD_6082:

Originally posted by Pitt79:

Originally posted by Harve74:
I absolutely LOVE watching the tournament. I still don't believe a single elimination tournament has much to do with which is the best team, but it is truly Must-See TV.

I actually opted not to buy tickets for the Pittsburgh games for the first time. If Pitt had made the Dance I would have tried to follow them if practical but with no particular rooting interest, I decided watching as much of EVERY game as possible made more sense than sitting in the Consol, which I detest, and only seeing a few games.

This is what people don't get, CHAMPION has nothing to do with BEST TEAM. All sports set up some structure, to determine the Champion, typically known as a playoff, very often the #1 seeds don't win, sometimes an NHL 8th seed, or an NFL 6th seed, or an MLB wild card or a lower NCAA seed wins the "games that where scheduled to decide the champion". Are they legit Champions? Hell yes! That's what the rule is, "these particular games" are set up, whoever wins them is the Champion! BEST TEAM is some sort of subjective thing, like in figure skating, somebody just looks at them and votes. That's what makes sports great! The BEST TEAM isn't always the CHAMPION, they still have to win the actual games. I really don't understand why people bemoan it when an underdog ousts the subjectively percieved Best Team? Those are the greatest, most unforgetable moments in sports, A good thing, not something to feel sorry about.

Pitt79 nailed it.

It is who is playing the best of the teams that qualified. I look at the 92-93 Penguins as the perfect example. They already won the two years prior, so they were going for 3 in a row. They set an all time NHL record for wins in a row going into the playoffs. They were loaded, with like 8 guys who would be NHL Hall of Famers. And they got upset in the 2nd round by a plucky Islanders team that had no business beating them, but they did.

Same with the 1960 Pirates, the Yankees were so superior in almost every way and blew out the Pirates in each of their 3 wins. But the Pirates managed to win.

Really have few quibbles with who ultimately wins the NCAA tourney. If not the best team, it is usually one of the 2-3 best teams. I think the NC State team is lauded for its upset, but hindsight, that was a pretty talented team. Nova in 1985 definitely wasn't the best team, but again, the played in the best conference so they weren't our of its element either.

Baseball is the one sport where if you have one super ace pitcher, you can dominate a series if he goes 3 games like we saw last year with Madison Baumgartner and the SF Giants.

 

[Harve74]

My quibble is, asalways, that for many people, the results of a single elimination tournament are the only criteria considered in evaluating the success or failure of a team or a coach.

One made or missed shot may decide a game. That IS why we keep score. But, mostly one close game does virtually nothing to assess a team, player or coach as a success or failure. That should be a bigger body of work.

Why does Dereck Wittenberg go down as a champion when he MISSED the winning shot? Lorenzo Charles rebounded his air-ball and dunked it at the buzzer. That rebound dunk meant NC State won the game and the tournament. They were not a great team before or after the tournament. They were a 6 seed.in an era when only 12 teams were seeded per region. Even after their 6 tournament wins, their record as 26-10.

On Thursday we saw 5 games decided by a single point. Two were 14/3 upsets. Does anybody REALLY think that those 14 seeds would win again if thegames were played again tomorrow?

It's entertaining. It's great theater. It does a fine job of raising interest in the sport and raising money so many schools can continue to compete at the D-1 level.

But all the title really means is they won a post season tournament. A championship, with resulting parades and honors should be based on more.

I realize I look at the NCAAT differently than many folks. Over the years, I have often wearied of it by the Final game and, as often than not, may not watch it at all.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Originally posted by Harve74:
My quibble is, asalways, that for many people, the results of a single elimination tournament are the only criteria considered in evaluating the success or failure of a team or a coach.

One made or missed shot may decide a game. That IS why we keep score. But, mostly one close game does virtually nothing to assess a team, player or coach as a success or failure. That should be a bigger body of work.

Why does Dereck Wittenberg go down as a champion when he MISSED the winning shot? Lorenzo Charles rebounded his air-ball and dunked it at the buzzer. That rebound dunk meant NC State won the game and the tournament. They were not a great team before or after the tournament. They were a 6 seed.in an era when only 12 teams were seeded per region. Even after their 6 tournament wins, their record as 26-10.

On Thursday we saw 5 games decided by a single point. Two were 14/3 upsets. Does anybody REALLY think that those 14 seeds would win again if thegames were played again tomorrow?

It's entertaining. It's great theater. It does a fine job of raising interest in the sport and raising money so many schools can continue to compete at the D-1 level.

But all the title really means is they won a post season tournament. A championship, with resulting parades and honors should be based on more.

I realize I look at the NCAAT differently than many folks. Over the years, I have often wearied of it by the Final game and, as often than not, may not watch it at all.

But that is how it is measured. Sorry. And Harve you have a point in a single year, but year after year when you fall short, you can't fall back on "well the best team doesn't always win". Like I said, the '93 Pens, if they played the Islanders 100 times, they would win at least 75. But they lost 4 out of 7. Does it take away from their record setting season, yes, yes it does. If UK doesn't win the tourney, they are going to be considered underachievers. Fair or not, that is how it works.

 

[Pitt79]

Originally posted by Harve74:


But all the title really means is they won a post season tournament. A championship, with resulting parades and honors should be based on more.

You mean JUST like...

The Super Bowl Champ
World Series Champ
Stanley Cup Champ
NBA Champion

?????

VERY OFTEN lower seeds win those titles. It's far more rare that a seed less than a 3 or a team from outside the Power 5 conferences wins the NCAAs.

 

[Pitt79]

Originally posted by recruitsreadtheseboards:

If UK doesn't win the tourney, they are going to be considered underachievers. Fair or not, that is how it works.

Just like the 2007 New England Patriots, and what was their crime? Losing a post season tournament!

 

[Pitt79]

People today complain that this tourney doesn't crown a true champion, I say it does so better than back in the day. Look at the 1973-74 ACC standings...

NC State 30-1 (12-0)
Maryland 23-5 (9-3)
UNC 22-6 (9-3)

Consider, ONLY NC State made the 25 team NCAAs, each league was allowed only one rep! Leaving out a lot of powerful teams, think about that? UCLA was great, but consider they played in weaker, not stronger tourneys than are played today. The percieved "best team" doesn't always win, of course they don't, the competition is now too tough for teams to breeze through like Lew Alcindor and Coach Wooden usually did back in the day.

 

[Harve74]

Football IS a single elimination playoff but one football game usually did tell everyone which team was better. Now, football has became mostly pitch and catch and the winner is too often determined by which team's offensive lineman was called for holding, at the critical time, although generally they ALL were.

World Series, Three rounds with at least best 3/5, 4/7 and 4/7 wins required

Hockey- 4 rounds of best of 7

NBA Championships- 4 rounds of best of 7

I have no problem if the NCAA wants to run a single elimination tournament. But the winner shouldn't be considered the national champion, just the tournament winner.

 

[Pitt79]

Originally posted by Harve74:
Football IS a single elimination playoff but one football game usually did tell everyone which team was better. Now, football has became mostly pitch and catch and the winner is too often determined by which team's offensive lineman was called for holding, at the critical time, although generally they ALL were.

World Series, Three rounds with at least best 3/5, 4/7 and 4/7 wins required

Hockey- 4 rounds of best of 7

NBA Championships- 4 rounds of best of 7

I have no problem if the NCAA wants to run a single elimination tournament. But the winner shouldn't be considered the national champion, just the tournament winner.

No, they should be considered National Champion if that's what the NCAA and THE PEOPLE want. Simply because Champion has nothing to do with proving who's the best team. I laugh at the attitude that people seem upset when the best teams get upset and think they still "deserve" to be champion because they are SUBJECTIVELY PERCEIVED TO be "The Best Team".... If you're the best, then WIN. If they lose on a fluky shot at the buzzer, why did they let it stay so close if they are so damn good?

 

[Harve74]

One data point is not enough to call a trend.

Every other major team sport except football plays multiple games to decide their champion. And, the logistics of football would make that difficult.

The NCAA wants the MONEY from a big playoff. If they wanted a real championship, they'd do it like the College World Series.


FWIW, you are completely misinterpreting my opposition to the structure. I LOVE the upsets. They are very entertaining. My point has always been that the results of one single game is arbitrarily selected to determine the "National Championship."

One game is one game among 30,or 40 on the year. It really doesn't mean that much more than any if the previous games.
This post was edited on 3/22 11:43 AM by Harve74

 

[ricflair4LIFE]

If Pitt isn't in it I don't have as much interest. The only reason I pay attention now is because of the pool I'm in. Right now I'm in first place in a local pool I'm involved in. (I actually picked Ga. St) So I go through the channels to see how I'm doing. If I weren't in the pool. I wouldn't check on the scores.

 

[OriginalEther]

Originally posted by Pitt79:

. Simply because Champion has nothing to do with proving who's the best team. I laugh at the attitude that people seem upset when the best teams get upset and think they still "deserve" to be champion because they are SUBJECTIVELY PERCEIVED TO be "The Best Team"

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Isn't the champion being the best team pretty much implied? I mean, if that wasn't the case, we'd let every team into a post season tournament.

It's not subjective either. The best team is getting that distinction based off what they did in the regular season. You'd be on to something if the champion was just randomly declared based off a preseason poll.

The NCAA hoops tournament has such a crapshoot feel to it, given how the at large bids and seeding have very little structure to it. Compare that to say, the NFL playoffs, where you have an idea who is going to play who and where well before it starts, and there's no complaints or controversy.

The conference tournaments are worse, especially for the 1 bid conferences. It's not fair for a team to go 13-3, win the conference in the regular season, but not get the bid because they had a bad game (or someone else had a great game) in a 3/4 game tournament.

Geeman's 16 team idea would be a better way, as it would leave out a lot of teams that don't deserve a chance and those who don't have a chance, but it's obviously not going to happen.

 

[Pitt79]

Originally posted by OriginalEther:

Originally posted by Pitt79:

. Simply because Champion has nothing to do with proving who's the best team. I laugh at the attitude that people seem upset when the best teams get upset and think they still "deserve" to be champion because they are SUBJECTIVELY PERCEIVED TO be "The Best Team"

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Isn't the champion being the best team pretty much implied? I mean, if that wasn't the case, we'd let every

No,not at all. Champion is just the team that qualifies for the games that the ruling body decided would be used to determine who the champion is. It's a process, they play a regular season to determine which of the teams play good enough to qualify for the games that determine who the champion is. So the champion is usually one of the better teams. But no,champion doesn't have to be the team subjectively believed to be the best. I really wonder why some people make a big fuss about the perceived best teams not being the Champion, I love when the big boys get upset most of the time. I don't care at all about the Champion being "deserving", because truth is most of them are. And most of the time the BETTER teams are the champs, that's why teams like Kentucky, Duke, UNC, UCLA etc. have so many banners, are you upset that they don't have even more?