10 best players in NCAA Tournament's Expanded Bracket Era

[Stainmaster]

Love or Hate him, the player from Dook should be there with Kemba and Bazz.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. I know that there are many talented players from other programs who did extremely well in the tournament -- I have no problem admitting that.

As for the board as a whole, not too sure.

 

[Inyatkin]

That's not what this list is arguing. But that's besides the point.

I don't get why lists like these are even posted here and put up for discussion. We all know that everyone here's list looks like this:

1. Kemba
2. Shabazz
3. The rest can all go to hell

You act like this is unreasonable.

 

[CallMeBruce]

Cleaves was a stud at Michigan State, and that was a powerhouse team while he was there. But not having a single UConn player, when UConn has 4 titles in that stretch, is indefensible.

 

[Deadrody]

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-ba...tball-best-players-in-history-ranking/slide/1

I like Mike DeCoury's work, but leaving off Bazz and Kemba is utterly ridiculous. He did mention to me on twitter that he "was so tempted" on Bazz.

Thoughts?

Beyond ridiculous. You cannot put Danny Manning on the list and then ignore Shabazz or Kemba. Least of all, Kemba.

 

[Deadrody]

Robinson and Ewing don't belong. Unless you take scoring in losses over championships.

To fault Ewing for only being on one final four team because the previous year when they won the title, it wasn't a full field of 64 is fairly stupid. Going to 3 final fours and winning one championship is fairly impressive. It's fairly likely they would not have lost in their opening round game if it were a 64 team field since they were a #1 seed in both 1982 and 1984.

David Robinson clearly does not belong. Scored a lot, but never got to the final four. Kind of a minimum prereq, isn't it ?! The whole point of the tournament is to win it.

Cleaves and Dixon are pretty weak.

Also, the "can't choose between the two, so neither make the list" logic is about as dumb as it gets.

 

[caw]

To fault Ewing for only being on one final four team because the previous year when they won the title, it wasn't a full field of 64 is fairly stupid. Going to 3 final fours and winning one championship is fairly impressive. It's fairly likely they would not have lost in their opening round game if it were a 64 team field since they were a #1 seed in both 1982 and 1984.

David Robinson clearly does not belong. Scored a lot, but never got to the final four. Kind of a minimum prereq, isn't it ?! The whole point of the tournament is to win it.

Cleaves and Dixon are pretty weak.

Also, the "can't choose between the two, so neither make the list" logic is about as dumb as it gets.

If you are making it about players who played in expanded tournaments, then it's actually pretty silly to include Ewing. You have to discount his previous years or you run into the slippery slope of having to consider how other players who played in a shortened tournament did. If this was just NCAAT players without the expanded tournament qualifier then he belongs without question. If you are going to make a qualifier then you should stick to it.