The Real Top 68

[Pitt79]

I never said I had any problem with the field. Stop fighting windmills, man.

I just said that if a hypothetical P5 team existed that managed to lose every game by only 1 point, that team would be pretty talented. Pitt lost to UNC twice by about 20. If Pitt had lost both of those games by only 1, I imagine that team would be better than what we have today.

I apologize, I just can' stand the idea that some people have that it has to be the "68 best" teams. Part of what makes March Madness great, is that it's NOT the "68 best" teams, it's better not worse because some 10-17 Sun Belt team pulls and upset at the buzzer to get in and there's this frenzied celebration in from of 4000 fans in some high school size gym, selecting 19-14 Florida, to me, over a team like that, because Florida is likely "better" ruins the intensity of the whole March Madness! Who would be at all interested to watch the Patriot League Tourney on ESPN if it meant nothing and nobody would be celebrating like fools after winning it? It's called FUN. And all those "better" teams weren't ripped off, they had all season to be better than 19-14, then if that wasn't good enough, they could have just gone out and won their conference tourney, they had a fair chance to get in.

 

[GrowthHormone]

Harve, your system would not accomplish what you want it to. Your system would say that beating UAB, 26-6, is significantly better than beating Duke, 23-10. You are taking what is absurd about the RPI, that the strength of a team and therefore of a schedule is based solely on record, and doubling down on that absurdity.

If you want to remove the human element then make it some sort of amalgamation of Pomeroy and Sagarin and whomever else and condemn the RPI to the statistical scrap heap where it belongs.

This was the exact approach of the BCS. Over and over, we see that human polls are inferior to the math.