If you're good enough, you win the damn thing... if not, well... you weren't good enough.

It's really that simple.

Because the majority always has it right? LMAO

People want their excitement each March regardless of whether it awards the most deserving teams or not.

If you're hot enough over a three week, six game stretch, you win the damn thing. And you can just ignore the entire four months before that.

Uhhh, actually I was the 3rd in a series of posts to talk about KU. Please try to follow along.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with KU (and their supposed tournament failures which really aren't failures at all) and everything to do with the tournament's format.

I mean...you can't seriously tell me that if Texas goes on a ridiculous hot shooting run this March and wins the NCAA tournament that they're a better team than MU, KU, and everybody else that's been great over the last four months, right?

The reward for having a great regular season is in the seeding. You get the easier shot to advance... more favorable match-ups. You know this.

No matter how many times KU lost early, you're gonna have to learn to accept it. It's not that the system is broken, or that the other team was amazingly lucky.... it's just that your team got beat. They weren't good enough.

Now take this shit to the KU thread.

I notice that you didn't actually answer my question, but I think I know what your answer would be.

Once again, though, the difference is negligible. The top teams aren't rewarded nearly enough for their seasons of excellence. Every team still plays the same amount of games (regardless of whether you were the best team in the country or the 64th best). And while the committee tries their best, there are often very good teams that are underseeded and lesser teams that are overseeded. It all adds up to the best teams only having a small chance of winning it all each year (last season, for example, the best teams only had a slightly better than 10% chance). Nearly the same small chance as the mediocre teams that had far worse seasons than them. Sorry, but that's no reward at all.

No matter how many times you say this is about KU, it's not. The NCAA tournament has actually been very kind to the school over its history (check the championships, Final Fours, and winning percentage).

No, it's just about the NCAA tournament being a luck-filled crapshoot that rewards nothing other that a period of hot play in March while basically ignoring everything that came before it. I'm not the only person on this board (or even in this thread) to have pointed this out.

Pretty sure you guys were the ones talking about KU in this thread first. Though, I should once again mention that this discussion really has nothing to do with them.

That's actually embarrassing to think that Charlotte, Dayton, Drake, Duquesne, Florida State, George Mason, Georgia, Indiana State, Iowa State, Jacksonville, Loyola (IL), Mississippi State, New Mexico State, Notre Dame, Oregon, Penn, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Princeton, Rutgers, Santa Clara, Seattle, Seton Hall, SMU, St. Bonaventure, UTEP, Virginia Commonwealth, Wake Forest, Washington, Washington State, Wichita State, and Wyoming all have more final four appearances than Mizzou. To think a school like Wyoming has a NC in men's BBall and Mizzou doesn't makes me sick. Hopefully Mizzou can right this ship this year.

Respect.

http://media.columbiatribune.com/img...7501865a0e2373

It's bound to happen at some point if you give yourself enough opportunities. Missouri's had some bad stretches where they haven't even made the tournament, which has really hurt them.

This shot is funny as hell.

http://i.imgur.com/wGDHd.jpg

I just hope Missouri actually pours the money necessary into their athletic programs to make them truly competitive, like the big boys do. There is no reason why Mizzou should not be dominant in either football or basketball, or possibly both.

That looks like an Obama Hope picture.