|
Title: Historic Final Four Post by: YoFuggedaboutit on March 27, 2006, 07:49:23 am Guys, I've done some digging into the NCAA Tournament's history. With all the upsets and comebacks and collapses, I've found out that this will be the second Final Four played without a #1 seed, and the first since they've expanded the Tournament to 64 teams back in 1985. Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Historic Final Four Post by: gocowboys31 on March 27, 2006, 04:03:12 pm It's not that big of a deal to me. The landscape of college basketball has changed tremendously over the last 10 years. The gap between a 16 seed and a 1 seed isnt what it used to be. ALL of this years number 1 seeds had flaws.
Duke- A- 2 man team without much depth. Everyone who followed duke knew if redick could be held in check they were in trouble. UCONN- Great individual talent, but didnt play as a unit and was very suspect defensively. Villanova- Not alot of height which forced them to play that 4 guard rotation alot. They ran into a gator team with to much height and muscle. Memphis- Very athletic team, but couldnt adjust to the halfcourt game. UCLA shut down their transition game, and forced memphis into playing a slowdown game. So this isnt suprising neither of the number 1 seeds were dominant. George mason's run is truly remarkable. Beating 3 hall of fame coaches in tom izzo, roy williams, and jim calhoun. Beating playerS who were very highly recruited. This is why the NCAA tournament is the single best sporting event around. No polls, no voting, the games are won on the court. 1 bad game your done. You must be on your A game at all time or you will be sent packing. Title: Re: Historic Final Four Post by: Spider-Dan on March 27, 2006, 09:02:53 pm Actually, I dislike the NCAA tournament because of its randomness. I like to see the better (read: more consistent) teams win.
But I know that most people disagree with that. Title: Re: Historic Final Four Post by: Philly Fin Fan on March 28, 2006, 09:01:18 pm I think the fact that larger programs (like UNC) lose players every year to the NBA draft plays a part in it as well.
Teams like Wichita State and George Mason have guys that have played together for several seasons, so they are able to play as a unit better. A team like UNC that loses starters every year has lots of guys playing together for the first season. This leads to a lot of parity in college basketball. Title: Re: Historic Final Four Post by: YoFuggedaboutit on March 28, 2006, 09:05:45 pm I think the fact that larger programs (like UNC) lose players every year to the NBA draft plays a part in it as well. Teams like Wichita State and George Mason have guys that have played together for several seasons, so they are able to play as a unit better. A team like UNC that loses starters every year has lots of guys playing together for the first season. This leads to a lot of parity in college basketball. You're right.... but what I would like to see is more consistency in the college game, not parity. What you have now are high school kids jumping to the NBA. With the new rules, they can go pro after only one year of college, which will still result in a bunch of unskilled players going after the bucks. The NBA should adopt MLB's policy, which states that kids can get drafted out of high school, but if they choose to go to college, they must wait three years before being able to be drafted again. This will give kids a choice, and also let them know that if they want to play college ball, they must commit to it for a certain period of time. It will also give college coaches the security knowing if they can snag a top recruit, they will have him for at least three years. If that policy was in place today, Duke would easily win the national title, with Chris Duhon and Luol Deng as juniors. |