Is the champion the best team

Okay Josh, why not use the NIT or CBI or Maui or Battle for Atlantis to determine the best team?

Why is the NCAA Tournament the end-all-be-all determining factor on who the best is?

No really. I want to know. Serious question.

Because of the pressure.  Those tournaments are small preseason tournaments where it's understood that the champion is the champion of that event.  It's forgettable. 

It's understood that the NCAA tournament is the event where it's winner take all.  The expectations, pressure and understanding of the event is what separates the NCAA tournament.

I love the fact that it's one and done.  Bring your A game or go home.  It's the stuff of champions.  It's why the team that goes through all that and emerges victorious deserves to be called the best team. 

If a team loses along the way, they don't deserve to be called the best.  Perhaps they were overrated by the media.  Perhaps their A game wasn't good enough.  Perhaps their schedule was inflated by the competition.  They lost.

The champion deserves the title of the best.

IMO

Okay Josh, is there any tangible reason why the NCAA tournament winner is the best in your opinion, or is it all just marketing speak?

Decades ago the NIT was actually the premier tournament and the NCAA was more of a consolation prize.  In that era when all of the pressure was on the teams in the one and done NIT, were the NIT winners the best? 

 

Like I said before, different teams hit their strides at different times. Some teams start out hot in Nov and Dec, others peak later. If basketball season went on year round, I am sure the best team would change every 6-8 weeks, depending on which team was hitting on all cylinders at that time. Generally  speaking, the "National Champion" is the team hitting on all cylinders when the tournament is going on. So I suppose, there is some luck involved. I also feel that the tournament draw and which matchups teams get on the way to the championship, has a lot to do with it.

Teams go into the NCAA tournament understanding the gravity of the situation.  These are the conference winners and best teams in the country.  If you can absorb all that pressure, media overload, and every team's best shot to win 6 games in a row against the country's best, you deserve to be called the best team.

It seems pretty simple to me.  When I've seen arguments that somebody who couldn't handle all that is the true best team, I take it as sour grapes.  You're the best team?  Prove it or shut up.

Again, IMO.

So Josh, I ask again, when the NIT was the premier torunament and the NCAA an afterthought (even though it was the one to crown the champion) All of the pressure was on the teams playing in the NIT.

Was the winner of the NIT the best team back then or the winner of the NCAA tournament?

Is it handling the pressure that makes them the best team or are they the best team because of an arbitrary designation? 

Almost all champions in any sport, be it team or individual sports, winning comes down to 95 % skill and hard work and 5 % luck, or whatever you want to label it. Anyone remember the 1980(?) USA hockey team's miracle or the 1972 Olympic game of Russia against team USA? There are several other examples where the best team did not win because of lady luck, officiating, or any other strange occurance that might have  happened. That being said, the cream (& crimson) usually rises to the top.

when the NIT was the premier torunament and the NCAA an afterthought

According to who? 

Handling the pressure is great, winning is key.  Win and celebrate.  You're the best.  You did what nobody else could do.

What's your tangible argument?  (No, I haven't read through this whole thread.  Feel free to copy/paste if you like)

I have read most of this thread, and have seen the arguments on both sides.  I'll try to sum up my reasoning as to why I don't think "best" and "champion" are not always the same thing.  And keep in mind, I'd rather be the champ than the best team.

I realize it takes a six game winning streak to win the national title.  However, winning the championship actually only comes down to one specific game.  There are lots of ways to actually get to the title game, be it prior round upsets, momentum, particularly favorable draws and matchups, and so on.  One of the current "top" coaches - don't recall if it was Coach K, Izzo or who - said that it's actually harder to get to the Final Four than it is to actually win the title.  I think that's kind of right.  The tournament really is all about matchups and upsets - get the right road laid out for you and your path should be smooth.  Hit the wrong speed bump and you're out on your arse.

Consider this scenario, which isn't all that unusual.  Let's assume that in three regions, the #1 (including the overall #1) came through to the Final Four. and let's assume that the Sweet Sixteen in those three regions were all the top 4 seeds.  Upsets in those regions occurred, but not with the top 4 seeds.  That's pretty plausible, don't you think? 

In the fourth region, that's not the case.  In that region, let's say you're a 4 seed.  In a chalk bracket, you'd play a 13, a 5 and the 1 seed.  If you upset the 1, you should play the 2 to get to the final four.  Now let's suppose that in the first round, the 12 beats the 5 - that happens a lot.  Let's also assume that the 8 beats the 1, which happens as well, but not as much.  On the other side of the bracket, the 10 beats the 7, then takes out the 2, and the 6 beats the 3, then the 10 beats the 6.  Now to get to the Final Four, all the 4 seed needs to do is beat the 10 seed.  The 4 played the 13, the 12, the 8 and the 10 to get to the Final Four - a relatively smooth road. 

We know the 4 isn't the "best" team - by seeding they're generally considered to be the 13th to 16th best team.  They had good fortune in the tournament so far, having benefitted by playing lower seeds by virtue of upsets in earlier rounds.  Now they're two games from the title.  We all know that a top 15 team, on any given night, is capable of pulling the upset and beating a higher ranked team.  All they have to do is do that twice and they're champions.  And that's what really matters.

Champion and "best team" are different things, IMO. The term " best team" is subjective and the National Champion is not. That is how the term Cinderella team came about....they, or even a good, but not proven best team during regular season play can get on a hot streak in the tournament and win the Championship. Then, they are unequivocally the Champions, but clearly not the "best team," just the best team during the tourney that particular year.

Good points. Like I said before, teams usually peak at a certain point and eventually stop hitting on all cylinders and fade somewhat. It's plausible that most years, the best team might change every 6 or 8 weeks.

Maybe we can agree that the best writer doesn't use "ect" as an abbreviation for "et cetera".

According to who? 

"In the tournaments' early years, the NIT often drew the nation's best collegiate basketball teams for several reasons. First, there was limited national media coverage of college basketball, therefore playing in New York City provided tremendous media exposure for the team and players."
http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php?title=National_Invitation_Tournamen
t_(NIT)

"In 1939, Long Island University finished the regular season undefeated and accepted an invitation to the NIT (which they won) instead of the NCAA tournament, as the NIT was more prestigious. It wasn't until the early 1950s that the NCAA required that its tournament would have "first choice" in determining teams for their field. Before then, many of the more successful teams during the regular season chose to play in the NIT instead of the NCAA tournament."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation
al_Invitation_Tournament

"There was a time when an NIT Championship was as prestigious -- often, more prestigious -- than an NCAA Title."
http://basketball.about.com/od/then
it/a/nit-champions.htm

Go to google and type "NIT more" and it will autofill with "prestigious than NCAA"

So to answer your question... anybody who has basketball knowledge that goes back more than a couple of decades.

Handling the pressure is great, winning is key.  Win and celebrate.  You're the best.  You did what nobody else could do.

So again I ask, when the NIT was a more prestigious tournament than the NCAA tournament, and the participants were under more pressure than (and won as many games as) the NCAA tournament participants, was the NIT winner the best team?

If it's about pressure, then the NIT trumped the NCAA
If it's about level of competition, the NIT trumped the NCAA

So was the NIT winner the best team back in those days or not?

What's your tangible argument?  (No, I haven't read through this whole thread.  Feel free to copy/paste if you like)

The best team doesn't always win.  Last season Duke beat Kansas who beat Ohio State who beat Duke.  If the best team always won then one of those teams would have swept the other two.  They didn't.  The best team doesn't always win. 

If the best team doesn't always win, it is a fallacy to expect the best team to always win in the tournament.

If you define the best team as the Champion, and the Champion as the best team you are simply using the worst and most obvious form of circular logic. 

Go to google and type "NIT more" and it will autofill with "prestigious than NCAA"

So to answer your question... anybody who has basketball knowledge that goes back more than a couple of decades.

LOL.  You're so condescending.

I've heard people say the NIT was "more presitigious", but I can't get anybody to give definitive proof.  In a way, it's like people who say that the tournament winner is not the best...it's just an opinion.

Let me give you an example.

In the 1939-1940 season, the NIT championship was Colorado over Duquesne.  Those two teams also played in the NCAA tournament.  Colorado lost in the first round and Duquesne lost in the second.

Based upon that fact, can you positively conclude that the NIT champion was better than the NCAA champion?  In fact, it provides proof that the NCAA field was much stronger.

Where's your proof besides "google says so"?

The best team doesn't always win. Last season Duke beat Kansas who beat Ohio State who beat Duke. If the best team always won then one of those teams would have swept the other two. They didn't. The best team doesn't always win.

Those are single games.  The NCAA tournament is a series of games.  I thought I made myself clear on that.  One win doesn't make a teamthe best.  Six straight wins in the NCAA tourney does.

LOL.  You're so condescending.

Don't take it personally, Josh.  It's only because I'm smarter (and let's face it, better) than you.

I've heard people say the NIT was "more presitigious", but I can't get anybody to give definitive proof.  In a way, it's like people who say that the tournament winner is not the best...it's just an opinion.

If you're looking for concrete proof, you'll probably not find it as the whole point of the thread is the idea of "better" is subjective.  That being said, if logic and common sense doesn't lead you to the same conclusion that every other basketball fan has arrived, then maybe the problem is you.

Let me give you an example.

In the 1939-1940 season, the NIT championship was Colorado over Duquesne.  Those two teams also played in the NCAA tournament.  Colorado lost in the first round and Duquesne lost in the second.

Based upon that fact, can you positively conclude that the NIT champion was better than the NCAA champion?  In fact, it provides proof that the NCAA field was much stronger.

I certainly wouldn't say that the NIT Champion was necessarily better than the NCAA champion that year.  But last time I checked, no one was arguing that the NIT was always better than the NCAA so you'll have to come up with more than one example.

Where's your proof besides "google says so"?

"In the tournaments' early years, the NIT often drew the nation's best collegiate basketball teams for several reasons. First, there was limited national media coverage of college basketball, therefore playing in New York City provided tremendous media exposure for the team and players." 
http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php?title=National_Invitation_Tournamen
t_(NIT)

"In 1939, Long Island University finished the regular season undefeated and accepted an invitation to the NIT (which they won) instead of the NCAA tournament, as the NIT was more prestigious. It wasn't until the early 1950s that the NCAA required that its tournament would have "first choice" in determining teams for their field. Before then, many of the more successful teams during the regular season chose to play in the NIT instead of the NCAA tournament."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation
al_Invitation_Tournament

"There was a time when an NIT Championship was as prestigious -- often, more prestigious -- than an NCAA Title."
http://basketball.about.com/od/then
it/a/nit-champions.htm

At least the above is based on logic and reason, instead of "A Committee decided to call this tournament the 'Championship' so it must be the best"

Those are single games.  The NCAA tournament is a series of games.  I thought I made myself clear on that.  One win doesn't make a teamthe best.  Six straight wins in the NCAA tourney does.

Guess what Josh?  You can't play six games without playing one.  Just like the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, thou shalt not play six unless first playing five, four, three two and one.  If it isn't true for one game it *can't* be true for six.

I certainly wouldn't say that the NIT Champion was necessarily better than the NCAA champion that year. But last time I checked, no one was arguing that the NIT was always better than the NCAA so you'll have to come up with more than one example.

Let's be clear here.  You referenced the years that the NIT was more prestigious in your eyes (and your awesome google reference), and I gave you an early year NIT example.  You provided no examples (besides your awesome google reference) and told me my example was worse than yours.

That's awesome.

That's why it's impossible to debate with you.

Can you provide examples why you demand that the NIT was better than the NCAA?  I'm looking for teams and stats.  Not "because you can autofill on google".

Can you provide examples why you demand that the NIT was better than the NCAA?

I don't care for the arguement, but it is well known that the NIT was what everyone considered to be the prestigous tournament pre NCAA.

I've heard that.  I'm just wondering about the truth behind it.  So far I can't find any besides "everybody says that".

Let me elaborate a little bit more if I may.

I've heard a million people tell me about Bigfoot.  Nobody can give me a Bigfoot.  This is how I feel about everybody telling me the NIT was better.  Where's the proof?  Just because you can google it? 

I'm open to seeing this proof.  I just haven't seen it yet.

So Josh, you're saying the general consensus held by most people concerning the NIT was wrong? You ask for proof, but I didn't know that common knowledge required proof.

By definition, common knowledge needs basis.  When this basis existed before any of us were born, it's an interesting conversation.  When this basis also has no proof, it makes me skeptical.  Nobody can give me any examples.  Have you noticed that too?  There's no examples, just.....accept it because I've heard it's true.   In fact, the only example shown in this thread shows that this "common knowledge" is false.  There's no example that shows this common knowledge to be true. 

Does anybody understand what I'm saying here?

So what you're saying is that it's common knowledge that bigfoot exists? Really, Josh?

You said that the reason that the tournament winner is the best was because of the pressure involved with the game, no?

Where did that pressure com from, Josh?  Would it have anything to do with the perception that those games are more important than the other games?  Because that's the only reason I can think of short of some sort of magic. You aren't saying it's magic are you Josh?

Assuming you don't believe the pressure comes from magic NCAA pixie dust, and instead that it comes from the perception that those games are more significant, than isn't the perception that the NIT was a more prestigious tournament enough to create that same pressure?

If I said that Marylin Monroe was considered the biggest sex symbol of here generation, you've essentially dug up a really hot picture of Lana Turner and called me wrong.  Your "evidence" has nothing to do with my posit.  It doesn't matter if Lana Turner was the hottest woman in the universe, Marylin Monroe was still considered the biggest sex symbol of her generation.

Now if you want to be a pedantic asshole**** and point out that I didn't originally say that the NIT was considered to be the most prestigious, that's fine.  But that was the obvious point I was trying to make, and everyone else clearly got it.  If you were to dim to miss, it again... maybe the problem is you.

So I ask you, Josh...  Since the NIT was considered to be the more prestigious tournament for a time, (common knowledge) and it had a much bigger media spotlight (fact) would you say that the winner of the NIT was the best team?

Hell even if you have your tinfoil hat on and you think that everyone is conspiring against you to trick you into thinking the NIT was a bigger deal, and that Google is even in on the conspiracy, and you're going to stick to your guns and say that in reality the NCAA was always a bigger deal...  Hypothetically IF the NIT was a more prestigious tournament (I said "IF" so that way you don't have to actually fall for the clever ruse that we've all planned) would the hypothetical NIT winner be hypothetically considered the hypothetical best team? 

Wait... I have a better hypothetical... it's not so close to your conspiracy theory so maybe you can look at it objectively.

Imagine, if you will, that prior to this season starting, the Big East, B1G, Big12, ACC, SEC and Pac12 told the NCAA to go suck eggs.  The season played out just like it has thus far, but at the conclusion of the tournament the NCAA held its tournament as expected (minus the teams on from the previously mentined conferences) and due to the split the NCAA lost their deal with CBS so the ended up showing games on the Oprah Network.  Meanwhile the other conferences went on to have their own tournament which was aired on ABC/ESPN and called the JIAIT (Josh is Awesome Invitational Tournament)

So let's say nothing crazy happens in the NCAA tournament and Gonzaga and some team from the MWC meet in the finals and Gonzaga wins.  They are the NCAA Champion.

Now let's say that in the JIAIT, Indiana, Miami, Florida and Syracuse end up in the Last Four (the NCAA would still have the trademark on Final Four, no doubt) after narrowing down the field of 69 and oh... why not, Indiana wins.  Crimson confetti all around.  

Who was the best team?  Gonzaga, Indiana or someone else?

In the 1939-1940 season, the NIT championship was Colorado over Duquesne. Those two teams also played in the NCAA tournament. Colorado lost in the first round and Duquesne lost in the second.

This is why your made up scenario isn't worth anything.  I can provide actual events, you can make up your own scenarios.

As for conspiracy theories.....I represent actual events.  You provide the hypothetical scenario you typed above.

What's the theory and what's the factual event?

You do understand the difference, right?

I appreciate your name calling Trolly.  It shows your intelligence. 

I brought you evidence.  You brought none except "it's common knowledge".  I can tell you that it's common knowledge that water quenches thirst.  There's plenty of evidence to back that up.  There is zero evidence to back your "common knowledge" up.  There's evidence that your "common knowledge" is not in fact based in fact.

I tell you to look at the 1940 postseason.  It's proof positive that the NIT was in fact not the better postseason.  You've given me zero specifics that the NIT was better.  Do you have any at all?  Yes, I'm calling you out.  You have no proof.  None.

None

None.

You resort to name calling. 

I appreciate your name calling Trolly.  It shows your intelligence.  

And I appreciate your willingness to completely ignore the point I'm making.  It shows your intelligence too.  At least I'm showing a sense of humor at the same time.

The poin tthat you seem to be ignoring is that it isn't about reality.  It's about PERCEPTION.  That is where the pressure comes from, right?  RIGHT?  That was YOUR point, RIGHT?  Isn't that what you said, Josh?  It was about the pressure?  Where did that pressure come from Josh?  It comes from perception, Josh.  That's where it comes from.

So what I've shown you is what the perception was at the time, Josh.  I was addressing teh point that you made Josh.  Is it too hard to do the same in return, or are you just too caught up with that red herring to bother with talking about the poi nt that YOU brought up?

I have all the proof in the world about the point I made.  The world *is* my proof. 

LOL.  You can spin into whatever position you like.

The NIT was never more prestigious than the NCAA.  We've seen proof about that.

The winner of the NCAA tournament deserves to be called the best team.  Anything else is sour grapes and theories.

The NIT was never more prestigious than the NCAA.  We've seen proof about that.

Wow, Josh.  That's pathetic even for you.  Based on ONE YEAR you're going to say it was NEVER more prestigious?  

You aren't very good at this at all.

You've yet to show a single year where the NIT was better.  The way I see it, I've proven a year, you've proven nothing.

Give me one year to make it even.  Just one.  A single year.

You can't.