Are too many upsets bad for the NCAA Tournament?
The greatest upset in NCAA Tournament, March Madness history happened last weekend when we finally saw a 16 seed take down a 1 seed. It was the UMBC (University of Maryland, Baltimore County) Retrievers that took down the Virginia Cavaliers 74-54, it was an utter beat down.
There were a lot of other teams that pulled off significant upsets, #4 Arizona losing to #13 Buffalo, #11 Loyola-Chicago downs #6 Miami AND #3 Tennessee. In addition, #7 Nevada erasing a 22 point second half deficit against #2 Cincinnati, #9 Florida State defeating #1 Xavier, #2 North Carolina losing to #7 Texas A&M by 22, #11 Syracuse over #6 TCU and #3 Michigan State, plus a couple more.
Are too many upsets bad for the NCAA Tournament? There are two schools of thought on this subject.
1. Too many upsets result in lack of talent and quality of games.
The fear here is that the quality of game-play will decrease as the higher seed forges on to face a much tougher lower seeded opponent. That can result in more lopsided games, blowouts, sloppy play, and an overall lack of competition. Basically, you want to see the most talented kids in the country on the floor when the lights are shining the brightest.
2. The more upsets the better, underdog power!
Who doesn't love a great Cinderella story? When people typically don't have a dog in the fight or a team they're specifically rooting for year in and year out, they'll pull for a feel good story aka the underdog. This creates intrigue and human interest if there are teams that shouldn't be defeating these ordinarily great, powerhouse basketball schools. Maybe there's improbable shot, after improbable shot made?
For me, I'm of the belief that more upsets the better, when my team isn't in it or directly involved, I'm rooting for craziness and chaos. Upsets and craziness are at the core of the true essence of what makes March Madness so great, I mean, madness is in the title.
Which side of the fence are you on?