Championships and UCLA Basketball

Cnnsi's campus clicks (I know, I know it's written by college interns who don't know much and should not be criticized) features this bit of wisdom:

You Just Pulled a Buffalo
These are words no basketball fan wants to hear: "Your team's the Buffalo Bills of basketball." But, alas, those are the words Storming the Floor just threw UCLA's way, because try though they may to bring home the hardware, the Bruins keep tantalizing their fans with Final Four appearances and then pulling a Buffalo when it counts.

First, this is just dumb. UCLA overachieved to make three consecutive Final Fours. After each season, it lost a first round NBA Draft pick - earlier than expected (Farmar, Afflalo and Westbrook) - and still maintained its success. Winning a championship takes some luck; heck, just making the Final Four takes some luck. If UCLA loses to Texas A&M in the 2nd Round last year, rather than making it to the Final Four, or if UCLA had lost to Adam Morrison and Gonzaga in the Regional Final, would UCLA's street cred be better off? Better to lose early than to make it to the Final Four and lose? Only one team wins the championship. I don't understand why people like to criticize the other top teams (I'm arguing the same thing about Mike D'Antoni's Suns' teams). Making the Final Four is an achievement in and of itself.

And, if you want to criticize teams, why not criticize the programs that hang banners for NCAA Tournament appearances or Sweet 16s? UCLA hangs championship banners. That's it. No Final Four banners in Pauley Pavillion. So, if you're all about the 'ship, cnnsi, write up some of these "major" programs with the Sweet 16 banners, the programs celebrating two wins over low ranked teams. Criticizing the only team in the country to go to three straight Final Fours downplays the consistency of excellence required to accomplish such a feat.

Second, it illustrates a fundamental problem with sports in the U.S.A. In the U.S.A., regular season success means nothing. Who cares that the California Angels were the best team in baseball for eight months? They lost a seven-game series and are all but forgotten. Who cares that New England went 16-0. They lost, and that is all that people focus on.

The shorter the series, the greater the potential for upset. In the NCAA Tournament, win a win-or-go home format, upsets happen all the time. One bad day and your season is over. Five game series have fewer upsets than tournaments and seven-games series have fewer upsets than five-game series. However, nobody can fluke their way to a regular season championship. Nobody leads a league in victories in an 82-game or 162-game regular season by accident. The regular season chamionh shows a consistency of excellence: the ultimate champion peaks at the right moment and catches the right breaks.

Now, no undeserving team can win six straight games and win the NCAA Championship. However, the best team does not always win. That is part of the excitement of the tournament.

I love the English Premiere League because every team plays every team twice and the EPL Championship is a coveted crown. It makes every game exciting when teams are playing for a true championship every night. A mid-week, late January game still has an impact on the trophy; now, it only has an affect on a seed for the play-offs. Do you think the San Antonio Spurs would attack the season differently if we valued the regular season champion as much as the play-off champion? Would that create better basketball?

Bad teams are allowed to stay bad and remain in the NBA. Great teams pace themselves for the play-offs. Is it any wonder than the NBA regular season receives as much criticism as any pro league, but it's play-offs are as highly anticipated as any? Same with college basketball: everyone loves March Madness, but there is not the same intensity and environment for each and every game because nobody really cares who wins the league championships, only the National Championship. That's unfortunate.