Wednesday, March 24, 2010

I Actually Agree With People Who Say Upsets are Bad for The NCAA Tournament

I know there is a faction of people out there who scoff at those who say upsets are bad for the NCAA Tournament but to those deniers I say (with respect) that you are wrong.  Would you rather see Kentucky-Kansas in the National Championship or Cornell-Northern Iowa?  I don't think there is any question that a matchup between Bill Self and John Calipari would be far more interesting to those outside of Ithaca, New York and Cedar Rapids, Iowa.  If a 12 Seed were to play a five seed in the National Championship the fallout would be catastrophic, so while I root for upsets.. I also root for a competitive final four in which there is actually some interest.  I know I sound like a prick or an elitist, but sometimes being an elitist is in the best interest the sport.  The 2005 Rose Bowl, which is widely considered to be the Greatest College Football Game ever was a matchup between two perennial powerhouses with big name coaches and two future first round draft picks starting for the opposing teams.  How can you top that? The simple answer is, you can't.  While Cornell and Northern Iowa have done something awesome this year and I would love to see them keep winning, I cannot say in good faith that it would ultimately be a good thing for the NCAA Tournament in it's current iteration for them to keep winning. 


  1. Well you do sound like an elitist. And I absolutely think that a Cornell-UNI final would be more interesting. John Wall, Wesley Johnson and their respective programs and coaches have been fellated by the media all season to the point where nobody cares anymore. I can't even remember the last time I watched more than 15 minutes of the national title game (that's a lie, it was '01 when Duke beat Arizona), because if teams that I possess real rooting interest are no longer in it, I want to see teams with whom I have developed a bond over the course of the tournament, such as a Cornell, a Northern Iowa, an '08 Davidson, an '06 George Mason, an '05 West Virginia, an '03 Kent State, or an '01 Gonzaga. When the tourney goes chalk it invalidates the format itself because there would be no need to play the games if all four 1 seeds were just supposed to meet in the Final Four. If you think that a Kansas-Kentucky matchup in the final would have been in the best interest of the sport, then you're essentially advocating a Basketball BCS. Tell me honestly that you would not have liked to see Boise and TCU both get shots to play for the title. Or Cincy for that matter. Or the Gators getting another shot at Bama. This is the reason everyone from Jesus to Barack Obama want to see an NCAA football playoff. The best teams aren't always the best teams, ya dig?

  2. You must listen to Colin Cowherd a lot :-P

  3. Didn't say I like him, but I listen to him every now and again, and the other day he basically took the same view as this article. I personally think the best final four would be three 1 and 2 seeds, and one underdog. Cornell vs. Kentucky is by far the most interesting game in the sweet 16, and it's because everyone wants to see how a bunch of ivy leaguers will do against a bunch of NBA guys. When you have a game like Cornell vs. Northern Iowa, there's no interest from the casual sports fan, but if you have the david vs goliath matchup, it makes the game very interesting to watch (Obviously goliath vs. goliath is a good matchup too - it's just the david vs. david matchup that's lame).