skyvue
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 8,463
- Reaction score
- 1,015
I pretty much agree with this.
Some people will point to the upsets and say "such and such clearly wasn't better than that team they beat, it was just lucky, or a good matchup."
I'm not saying a team like SFA, or Yale, or whomever could compete night in and night out over the course of 3 months or so with Big 12 or ACC teams. But I will tell you that they can compete for one night with them. And that is what this tournament is built for. Who can you beat with short prep time, over the course of 2, 3 or however many games.
Football is kind of the same way. It's why a Boise State could beat OU in a bowl game, but would have lost 3-4 games had they played in the Big 12 that season.
I agree with everything you said, so I don't understand you saying you agreed with the previous post.
The tournament doesn't give us the "truth." It gives us upsets, and that makes for exciting watching. But giving more weight to the tourney in assessing a team's (or a conference's) overall strength is as iffy as relying on the bowl season to do the same in football.
Syracuse is on a nice little run (aided greatly by upsets that allowed them to play nothing but relatively low-seeded teams so far), but they lost 13 games this season. So is the "truth" that they were one of the 8 best teams in the country this season? No, the truth is they got hot at the right time and caught some breaks. That's the nature of the tourney and it's entertaining, but it's hardly the truth -- certainly not the whole truth.