Funk and tourney success - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

jay santos · 02-18-2008, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahDan

On the other hand, while I do understand BYU fans' desire to emphasize the positive, the truth is that only BYU fans remember conference championships. Everywhere else in the country you are define by your post season performance.

I'm not saying that the post season ought to matter more to BYU fans, I'm speaking purely from the standpoint of nation perception. Maybe that doesn't/shouldn't matter.

Are you sure it's BYU fans underemphasizing post-season performance because our achievements have been more on the regular season...or is it that Utes overemphasize post-season as a criteria because your resume is so strong on that, comparatively?

20 years from now, no one will ever argue that the 2007 Giants were better than the Pats or Eli better than Brady or their coach more successful than Pats coach...even if you were to just isolate the 2007 season.

Like others have said, I'm not sure what people remember or if they remember much at all, but NCAA tourney play is definitely not the only criteria. Especially when the difference is a Sweet 16 vs a one and done. I want a Sweet 16 more than anyone for my team, but it's pretty silly to just look at NCAA record and ignore everything else as a measuring stick.

il Padrino Ute · 02-19-2008, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos

Are you sure it's BYU fans underemphasizing post-season performance because our achievements have been more on the regular season...or is it that Utes overemphasize post-season as a criteria because your resume is so strong on that, comparatively?

20 years from now, no one will ever argue that the 2007 Giants were better than the Pats or Eli better than Brady or their coach more successful than Pats coach...even if you were to just isolate the 2007 season.

Like others have said, I'm not sure what people remember or if they remember much at all, but NCAA tourney play is definitely not the only criteria. Especially when the difference is a Sweet 16 vs a one and done. I want a Sweet 16 more than anyone for my team, but it's pretty silly to just look at NCAA record and ignore everything else as a measuring stick.

20 years form now, people will remember that the Giants beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl. It doesn't matter that the Pats were 16-0 in the regular season because they didn't win the title.

RockyBalboa · 02-19-2008, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

20 years form now, people will remember that the Giants beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl. It doesn't matter that the Pats were 16-0 in the regular season because they didn't win the title.

Actually because the Pats went 18-0...and had a chance...and ended up choking away...during the Belicheat era.....usually teams say nobody remembers who took 2nd place.

They'll always remember this team that took 2nd place.

il Padrino Ute · 02-19-2008, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Actually because the Pats went 18-0...and had a chance...and ended up choking away...during the Belicheat era.....usually teams say nobody remembers who took 2nd place.

They'll always remember this team that took 2nd place.

Which is why I posted that people will remember that the Giants beat the Pats.

I believe the Patriots have finally given Bills fans a reason to be happy. the '07 Patriots are the biggest chokers ever.

livecoug · 02-19-2008, 03:13 AM

I agree, people will remember a champ no matter the circumstance, but nobody really cares who made it out of the first and/or second round back in 1987. That is way over blown unless it's a huge upset like 15 over 2.

cougjunkie · 02-19-2008, 04:01 AM

Conference Championships are a lot harder to come by than NCAA tourney wins, therefore more emphasis should be placed on conference titles. Anybody can get hot going in to the tournament and run of a win or two, but to be consistent for 16 or 18 games night in and night out takes a lot more skill.

Brian · 02-19-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cougjunkie

Conference Championships are a lot harder to come by than NCAA tourney wins, therefore more emphasis should be placed on conference titles. Anybody can get hot going in to the tournament and run of a win or two, but to be consistent for 16 or 18 games night in and night out takes a lot more skill.

Anybody "can", but very few do.
I think you underestimate the difficulty of winning in the tourney.

Brian · 02-19-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by livecoug

I agree, people will remember a champ no matter the circumstance, but nobody really cares who made it out of the first and/or second round back in 1987. That is way over blown unless it's a huge upset like 15 over 2.

especially if you can't remember the last time you made it out of the first round (c:

DrumNFeather · 02-19-2008, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by livecoug

Nobody remembers A win at the tourny. More important is record and ending ranking.

I think this is probably the case in Football, but not really basketball. Halfway through the basketball season, the top 25 becomes irrelevant and is replaced by bracketology.

Is it more important right now that BYU is ranked #26 in the nation? Or that they could potentially be a 5 seed.

Because of the structure of the college basketball season,and automatic bids going to tourney winners, tournament seeding and success defines a season.

Sure, individual teams can look back and say that they had a great season, but it all hinges on how they ended in the tournament.

Who had more success? The 97-98 Utes that lost in the championship game as a 4 seed? or the 98-99 Utes who went in as a 2 seed having lost 3 or 4 regular season games (if that) and got bounced by Miami of Ohio in the second round of the tournament.

In football, record and ending ranking matter, in basketball, not so much, IMO.

Brian · 02-19-2008, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

I think this is probably the case in Football, but not really basketball. Halfway through the basketball season, the top 25 becomes irrelevant and is replaced by bracketology.

Is it more important right now that BYU is ranked #26 in the nation? Or that they could potentially be a 5 seed.

Because of the structure of the college basketball season,and automatic bids going to tourney winners, tournament seeding and success defines a season.

Sure, individual teams can look back and say that they had a great season, but it all hinges on how they ended in the tournament.

Who had more success? The 97-98 Utes that lost in the championship game as a 4 seed? or the 98-99 Utes who went in as a 2 seed having lost 3 or 4 regular season games (if that) and got bounced by Miami of Ohio in the second round of the tournament.

In football, record and ending ranking matter, in basketball, not so much, IMO.

Exactly, 97-98 is the season I remember.
I had completely forgotten about the 98-99 situation until you mentioned it.

02-19-2008, 04:01 AM	#16
cougjunkie Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Utah Posts: 5,741	Conference Championships are a lot harder to come by than NCAA tourney wins, therefore more emphasis should be placed on conference titles. Anybody can get hot going in to the tournament and run of a win or two, but to be consistent for 16 or 18 games night in and night out takes a lot more skill. __________________ LINCECUM!

02-19-2008, 03:13 AM	#15
livecoug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,176	I agree, people will remember a champ no matter the circumstance, but nobody really cares who made it out of the first and/or second round back in 1987. That is way over blown unless it's a huge upset like 15 over 2.