Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I watched the game last night with mixed feelings. Yes, before you ask I'm not a Duke fan but here's what I felt:

- The NCAA Tournament is normally a great event & no doubt Butler captured the country's imagination with their run.

- Does anyone really think Duke was the best team in the country? Two types of people can answer that & maybe get 2 different answers, those that watched college hoops all year long & those that just start paying attention when March Madness rolls around.

- Is the tournament the best way to figure it out & how cheapened will it/could it be when it expands to 96 and then 128 teams?

bluehenbillk wrote:I watched the game last night with mixed feelings. Yes, before you ask I'm not a Duke fan but here's what I felt:

- The NCAA Tournament is normally a great event & no doubt Butler captured the country's imagination with their run.

- Does anyone really think Duke was the best team in the country? Two types of people can answer that & maybe get 2 different answers, those that watched college hoops all year long & those that just start paying attention when March Madness rolls around.

- Is the tournament the best way to figure it out & how cheapened will it/could it be when it expands to 96 and then 128 teams?

I agree the tournament is a great event and Butler made a great run.

As much as I dislike dook, they earned the title. They were a good team all year long in a season where there were no really great teams. They had size, depth and shooting ability.

I like the tournament as is, but the NCAA hasn't contacted me yet for input. It seems like 96 teams is inevitable. I hope that when the expansion happens, the NCAA drops the NIT altogether. I feel like that would mitigate some of the cheapening. I haven't heard about 128 teams until now, and that seems excessive.

Not sure if it matters if they were the best team or not. They won all 6 of their games, that is all that is require to win the national title. Should we revert to a computer system to pick the two best teams and just have one national championship game without a playoff?

A tournament is the only way to figure it out. Just like in our own playoff system, there will always be some who argue did the best team win. But the key is the champion won when it matters most.

Dook earned the championship, just as Butler would have had they won (oh how I wish they would have). Expansion to 96 is inevitable, and I think the NIT will go away. I am wholeheartedly against expansion, but as AA said, the NCAA hasn't asked me. I do think the tournament is the best way to determine the champion...as BCS type system for college basketball would be one of the most horrible things I can imagine. And lastly, FOK DOOK!

Of course it is the best way, I can't stand Duke but they earned the title. What would you prefer a BCS style system where Kansas & Kentucky would have just played a best of five?

Duke did not win last night. That game was stolen by the zebras.

I don't know, I agree that the way hoops decides is light years better than the stupid BCS. Whether you wanna say easier draws, chips fell the right way for them, etc. There have been years teams snuck up and won, like Villanova & NC State in the 80's.

I guess it's fair that everyone knows the stakes, play well enough in the regular season to get in the tourney or get a good seed & then peak in March.

bluehenbillk wrote:I watched the game last night with mixed feelings. Yes, before you ask I'm not a Duke fan but here's what I felt:

- The NCAA Tournament is normally a great event & no doubt Butler captured the country's imagination with their run.

- Does anyone really think Duke was the best team in the country? Two types of people can answer that & maybe get 2 different answers, those that watched college hoops all year long & those that just start paying attention when March Madness rolls around.

- Is the tournament the best way to figure it out & how cheapened will it/could it be when it expands to 96 and then 128 teams?

Do you really think that Butler was the second best team in the nation? Do you think George Mason was the 3rd or 4th best team in the nation a couple years ago? What about Davidson being top 8 a couple years ago?

Do I think Duke was the best team? Honestly, yes I do. They won 35 games, went 13-3 in the regular season against the ACC (even though it is down that is a hell of a feat). They had the #3 regular season RPI, played the 8th toughest schedule in the nation, all 5 of their losses came on the road (@ Wisconsin - tough as hell to play there; @Georgetown during a time that G'town was rolling, and regardless of that loss in the first round they were a hell of a team; @Maryland - always a tough game for Duke; @ NC State - can't say much about that loss). They were 18-5 against the RPI top 100. If you don't think Duke was a top team this year you didn't pay attention all year long.


Is this the best way? Hell yes it is.

clenz wrote:
Do I think Duke was the best team? Honestly, yes I do. They won 35 games, went 13-3 in the regular season against the ACC (even though it is down that is a hell of a feat). They had the #3 regular season RPI, played the 8th toughest schedule in the nation, all 5 of their losses came on the road (@ Wisconsin - tough as hell to play there; @Georgetown during a time that G'town was rolling, and regardless of that loss in the first round they were a hell of a team; @Maryland - always a tough game for Duke; @ NC State - can't say much about that loss). They were 18-5 against the RPI top 100. If you don't think Duke was a top team this year you didn't pay attention all year long.

Well you could call them a "top team", but I'd counter that you weren't paying attention if you thought during the season they played as well as Kansas, Kentucky or Syracuse. 13-3 in a bad ACC doesn't make me go bananas, put them in the Big East or the Big 12 & how many conference losses do they get?

bluehenbillk wrote:

clenz wrote:
Do I think Duke was the best team? Honestly, yes I do. They won 35 games, went 13-3 in the regular season against the ACC (even though it is down that is a hell of a feat). They had the #3 regular season RPI, played the 8th toughest schedule in the nation, all 5 of their losses came on the road (@ Wisconsin - tough as hell to play there; @Georgetown during a time that G'town was rolling, and regardless of that loss in the first round they were a hell of a team; @Maryland - always a tough game for Duke; @ NC State - can't say much about that loss). They were 18-5 against the RPI top 100. If you don't think Duke was a top team this year you didn't pay attention all year long.

Well you could call them a "top team", but I'd counter that you weren't paying attention if you thought during the season they played as well as Kansas, Kentucky or Syracuse. 13-3 in a bad ACC doesn't make me go bananas, put them in the Big East or the Big 12 & how many conference losses do they get?

I'm not going to argue this with you, I have better things to do. But if you don't think that Duke was one of the top 3 or 4 teams I can't help you. Out of all those teams you listed how many made the Final Four?

Kansas lost to UNI
Syracuse lost to Butler
Kentucky lost to WVU.

Duke beat two of those three en route to their title.

bluehenbillk wrote:I watched the game last night with mixed feelings. Yes, before you ask I'm not a Duke fan but here's what I felt:

- The NCAA Tournament is normally a great event & no doubt Butler captured the country's imagination with their run.

- Does anyone really think Duke was the best team in the country? Two types of people can answer that & maybe get 2 different answers, those that watched college hoops all year long & those that just start paying attention when March Madness rolls around.

- Is the tournament the best way to figure it out & how cheapened will it/could it be when it expands to 96 and then 128 teams?

This is how I take it. The way the NCAA has it is a team has to win 6 straight games over a grueling three week period against the toughest competition they've seen all year. Any team that does that deserves to be called National Champions. You can say well this team was better, that team was better, they just had an off night. The tournament rewards consistent play and does not play favorites towards those who did not play their best on one night (unlike the major conference tournaments). All teams, regardless of who they are, have to come to play every night. Those that succeed survive, those that don't go home.

Based on what we saw, you have to say Duke was one of the best teams in the country (if not the best). You also have to say that Butler was right up there, too, no questions. They both came to play against tough competition (some tougher than they thought, but they both got to the end) and survived.

The tournament is the best and fairest way to crown a national champion. How else would you do it? Polls? That is BCS stuff, and we don't go for that, do we?