Steve wrote:
 
>The purpose of the NC$$ tournament is to crown the National Champion, that
>is, again IMHO, to find the BEST team in the country.  Seems only logical
>we should start with the BEST 12 (or 64, for hoops) teams.
 
 
I agree in theory, but not in practice.  Yes, the Idea of the tournament is to
crown a national champion.  And yes, in THEORY it is to find the best team.  But
it doesn't really work this way.  The NC$$ tournaments in basketball and hockey
merely showcase the sport in question.  In both hockey and basketball, for the
most part, any team can beat any other team on any given night.  That's why the
games are played in the first place.  If the outcome was predetermined, the
event would have no useful purpose.
 
These tournaments are not round-robin tournaments.  Every team does not play
every other team.  Let's say the team ranked 9th in the AP basketball poll gets
the 3rd seed in the east bracket.  By being in the top ten, this team has a
legitimate shot at being the best in the country, but gets knocked off in the
first round to a 14th seed (as usually happens in one of the brackets every
year) in a fluke game.  That 14th seed isn't the best team in the country, but
they denied that 3rd seed from trying to prove they were..
 
Another example.  Let's say UNC and Duke, both #1 seeds, make it to the finals.
In the championship, UNC beats Duke 80-77 to win the NCAA championship.  But,
during the regular season, Duke beat UNC 3 times.  Is UNC the best in the
country?  Was Villanova in 1985?
 
The combination of automatic and at-large bids is a good system.  Automatic bids
keep interest in the sport from areas that do not necessarily have the talent
base of other areas.  This is good for the college sport's widespread
recognition and advancement.  At-large bids allow for the "mistakes" that happen
with the automatic bids in the powerful conferences as well as for several
awesome teams from one conference.
 
Dave / RPI '91
LETS GO RED!!