01-04-2014, 09:34 AM
(01-03-2014, 11:22 PM)JPRI link Wrote:OK, what definition of "best team" would you come up with that you think most people would accept and is possible to determine.
None, I think the idea of trying to determine the best team is somewhere between "pointless" and "foolish distraction". You set up a system where every team knows what they have to do in order to get into the tournament (IE win conference), and then the winner of the tournament is your winner. Will the best team always win? Not in the sense of "the team who would win the most times if we ran the tournament 100 times" (which is the most sensible definition of "best" that I can come up with), but I don't care and I don't see why anyone else would care. It doesn't delegitimize tennis or pro football or non-Div 1A college football or baseball or hockey or basketball or water polo or soccer or any other sport that uses a tournament that the "best team" doesn't always win, and the only sport where people seem to care is Div-1A college football (it really is amazing to me that the FCS can somehow manage to run a 24-team playoff with the state of the FBS). I think it's just status quo bias and in 20 years no one will care any more about who the "best team" is.
