Bearcat |
03-07-2016 10:38 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiefs Pantalones
(Post 12117018)
Over the years and already in the last week, I've heard numerous people (Seth Davis, Bilas, DeCourcy to name a few) mention that people will falsely judge conferences on NCAA tournament success. Six games is not > 30+ regular season games.
When I was younger I used to be like this. Until I understood CBB more anyway. And to the people that just tune in for March it's a common misjudgment. People are obsessed with titles and them being the above-all statistic. True to a degree, but CBB is a different animal because of the format. Hell, in what other sport is making the semis a coveted feat? College hockey I think (forgive me I don't follow hockey). Do we get celebrated at our jobs for being in the top four of the employee of the month ballet? No. The Final Four in CBB is so ****ing hard to achieve for obvious reasons most of us know. Like Bearcat, now I just sit back and enjoy the ride and hope we get some good fortune and try to make some of our own as well.
|
College hockey only starts with 16 teams, so while the team I follow raised a banner for making it to the Frozen Four last year (and losing in the semifinal), I think overall it's more of an attempt to market the event than to say it was some huge accomplishment to get there.
I've always viewed college sports differently. It's one thing to demand success from millionaires, but I've just never seen it that way when it comes to college kids.
As far as the sample size, it would be more interesting to see conference ranks at the end of the regular season along side tournament success... and by tournament success, teams playing to or beyond their seed. Even then, it can be a mess... was the Big East awesome for getting all those teams in 2011, with a 9-9 UConn winning it all, even if #1 Pitt lost to #8, and #6 St John's and #6 Georgetown lost in the first round to an 11, and #2 Notre Dame lost to a 10... but, they won the NC? :shrug:
|