Best Athlete Ever - Second Round

We are now moving into the second round of voting for the Best Athlete Ever. There were some surprising results (12th seeded Joe DiMaggio advancing over Dale Earnhardt; 14 seed Lou Gehrig taking down 3rd seeded Richard Petty; 13th seeded Oscar Robertson besting Mario Lemieux) as well as some expected dominance by the top seeds.

Apparently there is little respect for NASCAR or for women. Of the four NASCAR drivers, none advanced (with none putting up much of a fight). Out of the six women included (sorry Mia Hamm fans) none advanced. Lisa Leslie and Serena Williams put up the best fights, with each only losing by one vote. Alas, not all groups can make it to the next round and so we continue.

Let's check out the updated bracket...

2



Don't forget to vote below and let us know who you should make the Sweet Sixteen. I sense a few upsets will happen again, but I don't anticipate any 1 or 2 seeds losing in this round. You neve know though! Again, feel free to vote based on whatever criteria you see fit. After selecting one of each pair, scroll over to the right within the survey box and select "finished."



And if that does not load for you, click the link below to vote!
Click here to take the survey now.

Best Athlete Ever Bracket

Welcome to our new side project - creating brackets for your pleasure! Below is our first bracket, "Best Athlete Ever." The image below is the bracket for you to view as a whole. We ranked the best 64 athletes ever. The criteria we used was threefold:
1.) How dominant were they of their respective sports?
2.) How culturally relevant, popular, and important were they?
3.) Could they play any other sports?
These criteria were weighted from the first being the most important to the last being the least important.


Best Athlete Bracket



Below here is the survey used to collect your answers. Pick one of each pair with who you personally think was the better athlete. Once you are finished, scroll over to the right within the survey box and click "finished." Feel free to use whatever criteria you see fit. Each round of the bracket will last approximately 3-4 days depending on the response. We will post updated brackets and surveys for each round. Remember, this is for fun so have fun!



If the survey does not load, click the link below and it will take you to a seperate website to take the survey!
Click here to take the survey now.

Lastly, feel free to comment your thoughts on the bracket and post any other bracket ideas you have!

Bubble Illusion

I had an interesting argument with Jay Bilas on Twitter yesterday, and I feel the need to elaborate more on my side of the argument. The conversation was as follows....

I'll admit, I got a little carried away with saying the Colonial Athletic Association should be a power conference, but it got Bilas to tweet me, right?

Anyways, I really want to focus on my last tweet. For those of you who don't know, VCU beat Drexel in the CAA tournament to clinch the league's automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. Drexel now has to rest its hopes on the selection committee adding them to the tournament as an at-large candidate. "Bubble" teams have always been a topic of heated discussion among experts and fans alike. Drexel is now a bubble team, and they will surely have polar opposite opinions on them.

Bilas argued that Drexel might not deserve to be in because the CAA isn't a top rated conference (13th by kenpom.com as Bilas notes). I would argue that because of what CAA teams have done in the recent past, that Drexel should be a lock for an at-large berth into the Dance. Allow me to explain...

First and foremost, Drexel won the regular season CAA title and sports a 27-6 record. They had won 19 straight up until the loss to VCU on Monday. It doesn't matter what conference you are in, 19 straight wins is an impressive feat. Drexel also had solid wins over VCU, George Mason, and Cleveland State during this run. They did have a couple of bad losses early in the season (Delaware, Georgia St.) but a lot of teams suffer bad losses to start a season. Overall, a solid (but not bulletproof) case to make the tournament as an at-large.

The real reason Drexel should make it is because of the CAA's success in the tournament. If teams from a conference succeed in the NCAA tournament, then other teams from that conference should start to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to selecting at-large teams. Let's explore.

Since 2006, the CAA has placed two teams in the Final Four (George Mason in 2006 and VCU in 2011). The combined record for CAA teams in the NCAA tournament over the last 5 years: 12-10, good for a .545 win percentage. In comparison, the PAC-10/12 has had 3 Final Four appearances (UCLA in 2006, 07 and 08) and has a record of 33-22 (.600). The PAC-10/12 teams were the higher ranked team in 32 of those games while the CAA teams were higher ranked in one (George Mason was an 8 seed and played 9th seeded Villanova. Not much of an advantage). Out of the 10 CAA teams to make the tournament in the last 5 years, 2 have made it to the Final Four. That gives the CAA a 20% Final Four success rate. For comparison...

The ACC has had 3 Final Four teams since 2006 (out of 32 teams that made the tournament, good for a 9% Final Four rate). The Big East has had 5 Final Four teams (out of 48 teams, giving them a 10% rate). The Big Ten had 3 Final Four teams (out of 34 teams, good for 9%). You get my point.

So I am not arguing that the CAA is the best conference ever, but I am arguing that the CAA is doing more with less in the NCAA tournament. With the success they have had, their teams should start to gain favor from the selection committee. Basically, Drexel should be a no brainer as an at-large team. They have a solid profile when standing alone; but paired with their conference's success, putting them in the tournament should be as easy as saying that Indiana or Marquette should make it.

And if Drexel makes it and gets pummeled in their first round matchup, then we know why Jay Bilas is on ESPN and I am on Blogspot.

But if they make the Final Four...