Scholarship table
I don’t mind expansion, but get rid of NIT if you do that. Most will be against this idea....that’s fine.
If you are going to expand it should be literally all mid majors that they add. I hate that schools that go 29-5 miss out because they lose there championship game yet a team thats 18-15 makes it from a big conference. Stories like George Mason, Loyola etc are what make march madness great. I wonder how many more we could have had if they just let the small school in instead of a power 5 team who had 30 games to show they dont belong.
Except those meaningless bowl games will get better TV rating than this weekend's Duke/UNC game.
Except not really. The first meeting of Duke / UVA had a 2.3 rating. Well below the major bowl games but equal to the 12th highest bowl game (tied with Wiscy / Miami) and above 28 other bowls. Not bad for an early January matchup. Also shows that the argument that nobody cares about college hoops until March just isn't true.
The superbowl and NFL has the issue. I'm not interested except for the commercials and they're awful....so I don't care so much.College football is also not as interesting to me. Did watch Clemson win but bowls are off my radar....I suppose if I lived in a college football town I might be more into it.I think the NFL could be in trouble. its not a superior product anymore to me....among sports, NBA is ascendant in my opinion.as for starting in January. There is some appeal...but not good for BBall only schools like MU.
So the absolute top regular season game has TV ratings are equal to a middle-level bowl game. Sort of makes my point about the relative popularity of college football versus college basketball.To the point of those above that say they don't care about college football, they are outliers. That is not how the rest of the world sees it.It's a football world, basketball just lives in it.
TAMUI do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.
No one is arguing any of this. College football and NFL dominate college basketball when they overlap.The argument is that the college basketball postseason is where the sport makes it money and right now it is the undisputed king of March with virtually zero competition.
I vote "yes" to unicorns playing in NCAA basketball games.
I'm not sure a legit unicorn discussion belongs in the superbar. Maybe merge with NM?
Yessir. It doesn't get much better than March Madness leading to the Final Four in the first weekend of April and then the Masters the following weekend. Plus, some MLB for those who can't get enough sports.As an aside, here's the latest: Vegas oddsmakers now say it's more likely that unicorns replace NCAA athletes than the college basketball season starting in January.
So the regular season is not that important. It's all about the tourney.
So increase it to 96 or 128 games and take a month.
Pretty much.Are you familiar with the law of diminishing returns?Maybe increasing to 96 or 128 would be worth it, I honestly don't know, but I don't think its as simple as "the more teams you add the more money the tournament will make"
You're adding an extra week which is why you would do it.
So the regular season is not that important. It's all about the tourney.So increase it to 96 or 128 games and take a month.