NCAA exploring the expansion of bids to NCAA tournament
Written by: noreply@blogger.com (muwarrior92)
The NCAA has begun to meet with television executives about possibly expanding the NCAA tournament field. I, for one, have been a proponent of this for a long time. There are now 347 Division 1 teams for 65 NCAA spots. This basically means that 18.7% of schools make the tournament and that number decreases each year. It has become harder and harder to get into the tournament, especially for some schools depending on their conference affiliation. In years past, the percentage of teams making the NCAA tournament was signficantly higher. For example, in 1985 when the field expanded from 48 to 64 teams, almost 25% of schools made the NCAA tournament.
The NCAA has the option to escape from their CBS 11-year, $6 billion deal if they wish. Talks ongoing now are preliminary in nature, but could lead to the tournament going partly (or fully) to cable (i.e. ESPN or FOX). At the end of the 2010 tournament, the NCAA can bolt the current deal.
The proposals being viewed would be to expand the tournament to 96 teams and eliminate the NIT all together. As we all know, the current field does not put the "best 65" into the tournament, but rather the best 40 to 45 plus a lot of conference tournament winners from smaller conferences. This has caused many smaller conference teams from being rejected because they lost in their conference tourney despite having a great season. This has also led to lopsided dominance for the 1, 2 and 3 seeds over the years in the NCAA tournament itself. The expanded field would bring more money to the NCAA and add one week of additional competition for some schools (top seeds would get a bye).
Of course, not everyone agrees. Many fans don't want the change and feel 65 is the correct number. In the end, this is about money. It's going to happen, the question is when. The tournament will expand to 72, 80 or 96 or even larger.
History of changes over the years:
1939 - 1950: eight teams
1951 - 1952: 16 teams
1953 - 1974: between 22 and 25 teams
1975 - 1978: 32 teams
1979: 40 teams
1980 - 1982: 48 teams
1983: 52 teams (four play-in games before the tournament)
1984: 53 teams (five play-in games before the tournament)
1985 - 2000: 64 teams
2001 - present: 65 teams
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2009/12/ncaa-exploring-expansion-of-bids-to.html
Hey, can anyone explain the expansion from 64 to 65?
Maybe they should just increase the # of play-in games. Slot the minor auto-bid conferences into the play-ins, and give them the #15 and #16 seeds if they win.
Take it to 96. More excitement, more money for NCAA, gets more schools involved in all the hoopla.
Then we stand a better chance of getting in the dance every year.
I would go along with 68, 70 or 72 and increase the number of play-in games. but that would result in 8, 12 or 16 teams playing on Tuesday, which would be a logistical nightmare. Going further would have to add a week to the tourney. Aside from $$$$$, I think thats silly and would water down the product.
I suspect a better answer for the lower Div I leagues would be to abandon their conference tourneys and send their regular-seasonchampions to the NCAAs. Can't believe that many (if any) of those leagues are making money on their conference toruneys?
Quote from: Nukem2 on December 09, 2009, 03:28:59 PM
I would go along with 68, 70 or 72 and increase the number of play-in games. but that would result in 8, 12 or 16 teams playing on Tuesday, which would be a logistical nightmare. Going further would have to add a week to the tourney. Aside from $$$$$, I think thats silly and would water down the product.
I suspect a better answer for the lower Div I leagues would be to abandon their conference tourneys and send their regular-seasonchampions to the NCAAs. Can't believe that many (if any) of those leagues are making money on their conference toruneys?
My argument to that is then that the product was "watered down" back in the 1980's when 25% of the teams made it. I don't think anyone was claiming that to be the case.
It's only a matter of when
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ncaa_expands_march_madness_to
4096 teams. Now everyone is happy.
You want to really have fun? Eliminate the conference tournaments and have every team play. It would only mean two more games for some teams...three for others. You could have the play in games on a Tuesday, and one extra Thurs through Sunday
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on December 09, 2009, 03:06:57 PM
Hey, can anyone explain the expansion from 64 to 65?
Maybe they should just increase the # of play-in games. Slot the minor auto-bid conferences into the play-ins, and give them the #15 and #16 seeds if they win.
As I recall, a new conference got an automatic bid and everyone else griped about decreasing the number of at large bids, so they created the play-in game. There was a new conference formed this year but they didn't get an NCAA automatic bid - I think they've got one to the NIT instead.
I'm not a fan of byes in the NCAA tourney. I'd prefer to see everyone play from the start, but 64 and 128 seem to be less than ideal numbers.
Quote from: dsfire on December 09, 2009, 03:39:18 PM
As I recall, a new conference got an automatic bid and everyone else griped about decreasing the number of at large bids, so they created the play-in game. There was a new conference formed this year but they didn't get an NCAA automatic bid - I think they've got one to the NIT instead.
Yes, it happened when the Mountain West split from the WAC. There was a fight over who should keep the automatic bid so the NCAA did what it normally does - screw the small teams because Lord knows that the big school that barely gets a 12 seed is really deserving of a bid.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 09, 2009, 03:33:34 PM
You want to really have fun? Eliminate the conference tournaments and have every team play. It would only mean two more games for some teams...three for others. You could have the play in games on a Tuesday, and one extra Thurs through Sunday
Might as well if you're going to take away from the need to earn something during the season and also make conference tournaments twice as irrelevent. Just because New Jersey Tech and 20 other equally don't-belong-in-D1 schools entered D1 doesn't mean teams like UWM should be hoping for an at-large bid any later in the season than...now. And no, if we are a bubble team and get snubbed I won't change my opinion; I'd rather earn something than get it handed to us, and making the tournament still means something for all but a dozen or so programs that may or may not take it for granted.
I like it the way it is. Teams should earn a spot, and all season long they should be playing hard so that they have a shot of getting their dance card punched. I say - leave it!
I'd go back to 24 or 32 teams. Only the conference champs and not every conference champ guaranteed a spot. But of course it will never happen because of big money. Nothing worse than a seventh or eighth place team whining about not making it into the tourney.
DON'T DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How about they take whatever number of teams they want to add to the basketball tournament and add them to the current two team football tournament?
No kidding. This proposal has all the makings of transforming the excitement of March Madness into the snoozefest of Bowl season.
I think 64 is the right number. Every team with even a one tenth of one percent chance to win the tournament currently makes it. What is the purpose of expanding it further, other than to make the coaches happy who can say they made the tournament x years in a row?
There are 34 at large berths currently, of which roughly 28-30 are eaten up by the 6 BCS conferences. Add the 6 winners, and in a normal year roughly 34-36 of 73 BCS schools make it (last year 36 of 73, almost half, made it). Despite this, I guarantee a bigger chunk of BCS schools than other schools will eat up the extra bids.
What teams missed last year that would have added excitement to the tournament other than for the fans/alumni of that school?
I'm sure it is inevitable that the tournament will expand (in the end, it's all about the money), but I don't see how it's a good thing for the NCAA basketball fan. When it does expand, have fun filling out your bracket for that exciting 14 vs 19 seed game between some 8th place 6-10 Big Ten team and the 3rd place MAAC team.
March Madness indeed.
Quote from: CTWarrior on December 10, 2009, 06:50:11 AM
What is the purpose of expanding it further, other than to make the coaches happy who can say they made the tournament x years in a row?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I think 96 will definitely water down the product. As was mentoined, though, some decent non-BCS teams end up in the NIT because they won the regular season but didn't win their tourney.
I think going to 72 would be reasonable. I would love to see both the regular season and tourney winners receive an automatic berth. Wonder how the math works out in terms of how that would reduce the at large bids given today? It is not as simple as two times the number of conferences since many years the smaller conference teams win both tourney and reg season; plus the big conference regular season winners would be going to the dance anyways.
Most teams are already in the tournament....its just that for most teams, that tournament starts and ends within their respective conference.
I would prefer the NCAA eliminate about 60 teams from D1.
These same arguments were made when they expanded in the past, and the tournament is fine.
I believe the comparison to the bowl games is way off base.
There are 34 bowl games for FBS schools which means 68 teams go to bowl games....there are only 120 FBS schools, so more than HALF go to a bowl game.
MORE THAN HALF. That is ridiculous.
By going to 96 teams in the tournament, it means 27.6% go to the tournament. We're not even talking about the same ballpark here. It also means teams that have solid records are going to go, not teams that are 6-6 like with the bowl games. TOTALLY inappropriate comparison.
As an example, here are the records of some teams last year that didn't go to the NCAA Tournament
Penn State 22-11 (ended up 27-11 and won the NIT)
Tulsa 24-10
Auburn 22-11
Baylor 20-14
Illinois State 24-9
Kansas State 22-11
Creighton 26-7
Etc, etc....this is not like the bowl games were mediocre teams go to play. These are good teams, capable of knocking off anyone in the tournament.
It's going to happen fellas....many folks involved in this and it's going to happen. Maybe not next year, but it's going to happen.
The flip side is scarier....the "haves" potentially break off and create a super division of football \ basketball only schools which leaves us and many others out. I don't think anyone wants that.
+ 1000 for Chico on this as there are more FB then BB teams comparing Bowl games to NCAA games. I would prefer 96 teams and let it rip.
no using the term BCS conferences to refer to conferences for bball.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 10, 2009, 09:32:28 AM
Penn State 22-11 (ended up 27-11 and won the NIT)
Tulsa 24-10
Auburn 22-11
Baylor 20-14
Illinois State 24-9
Kansas State 22-11
Creighton 26-7
So we have to add these mediocre teams and 24 more? The 72 example would include adding a group like this which is bad enough. Baylor went 5-11 in their conference. Penn State's out of conference schedule had 0 anywhere near quality wins, 2 losses, and they finished 10-8 in a conference where they won a game 38-33 and lost to Iowa. Team like these, that can't even go .500 against respectable, much less good opponents, don't deserve the excitement or the gratification of the NCAA tournament if making the tournament is going to continue to be any sort of accomplishment.
Comparing all bowl games to the NCAA tournament isn't apples to apples either. With the total postseason play 129 teams get to play in the postseason. Plus there's a conference tournament for everyone except the Ivy League instead of a single championship game for less than half of the conferences.
But adding 24 more mediocre teams would give MU a better chance of getting out of the first round! :-X
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 10, 2009, 09:32:28 AM
There are 34 bowl games for FBS schools which means 68 teams go to bowl games....there are only 120 FBS schools, so more than HALF go to a bowl game.
MORE THAN HALF. That is ridiculous.
By going to 96 teams in the tournament, it means 27.6% go to the tournament. We're not even talking about the same ballpark here. It also means teams that have solid records are going to go, not teams that are 6-6 like with the bowl games. TOTALLY inappropriate comparison.
I have to disagree with you here. Your comparison is totally irrelevant. The NCAA basketball tournament is the national championship tournament. In CFB, the BCS championship game is the NCAA championship tournament and only 2 teams make the tournament (1.7% of all teams if 120 is correct). The balance of the bowls are a bunch of NITs with better publicity.
Your argument supports expanding the NIT, not the NCAA tournament.
Of those teams you mentioned who nearly missed out, any one of them might have won a game or two, but none of them would have won the tournament if you played it 1,000 times or 100,000 times, so it serves no purpose other than money to invite them.
What makes those schools or any school mediocre? What makes college BB so superior to college football is that every D1 school has a shot at becoming National Champions, which is determined by PLAYING THE GAMES on the court, not some coaches' or sports writer's poll telling us who the best two teams are; and if a Rider or Monmoth College or any school should win six or seven Tournament games in a row they are the best team in the country and deserve the title of National Champion. If not, why have a tournament? I think expanding the tournament to 96 or 128 would be a good thing.
Crazy idea - why put a limit on the number of teams invited to the tournament at all? why not just focus on giving at large bids to schools that are good enough to realistically add something to the NCAA tournament? The number of teams invited would probably exceed the current limit of 65, but I doubt it would reach into the 80s or 90s. Some years there would be more, some years there would be less, but you wouldn't have quality teams (like Creighton last year) left out, and the committee wouldn't have to fill the final 5-10 (if the tournament did expand) slots with teams that don't really deserve to be there.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on December 10, 2009, 11:29:56 AM
What makes those schools or any school mediocre? What makes college BB so superior to college football is that every D1 school has a shot at becoming National Champions, which is determined by PLAYING THE GAMES on the court, not some coaches' or sports writer's poll telling us who the best two teams are; and if a Rider or Monmoth College or any school should win six or seven Tournament games in a row they are the best team in the country and deserve the title of National Champion. If not, why have a tournament? I think expanding the tournament to 96 or 128 would be a good thing.
Basically every college basketball team already has two chances to make the NCAA tournament. First, by their accomplishments during the regular season and second, by winning their conference tournament. In the current NCAA basketball system, any team with so much as a glimmer of hope of winning the tournament is in the tournament. Why do we need more?
In football, have a big injury early and lose two games in September and your championship shot is gone, regardless of the rest of your season.
If you're going to expand the tournament that much, what's the point of the regular season?
Agreed. Duke's coach K. says much the same. As he says, if the NCAAs were expanded to 96 or more, the conference tourneys should be ended. But, in the end, this will all come down to $$$$$$$$$$ rather than any common sense.
Comparisons with the bowls are spot on, at least in terms of BCS control.
37 of 65 teams were from BCS conferences in the 2009 NCAA Tournament.
45 of 68 Bowl teams were from BCS conferences in the 2009-10 Bowl Season (Assuming an Army loss against Navy).
Expanding the Tournament would be the basketball equivalent of the Yankee Bowl (starting next year pitting the 4th place team from the Big East against the 7th best team in the Big 12), and like the Yankee Bowl would be nothing more than a naked money grab for the biggest schools.
Does anyone really honestly believe that these extra spots will be taken up by Tennessee-Martin (2009 OVC Regular Season champs), Jacksonville (2009 Atlantic Sun regular season champs), Weber State (2009 Big Sky regular season champs), or Bowling Green (2009 MAC regular season champs)?
Or are they just going to go to the team that finishes 7-11 in the Big Ten? or 8-10 in the Big East? Come on. That's an easy call for the NCAA money-changers.
I think a huge issue here is that there are 340+ teams in D1 basketball. That is wayyyy too much stratification. 140 of those should be put into an entirely different division. Secondly, I feel the 96th best team in the country(or whereever that team may fall) just simply doesn't deserve to play for a championship. They have an entire season and a conference tourney to prove it. I agree it is practically ineveitable, but it's going to ruin the best sporting event and it's going to hurt the later rounds of the tourney, much like the already overloaded bowl season does. I wish they would focus on a BCS playoff instead, but the money must not be there.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 10, 2009, 09:32:28 AM
These same arguments were made when they expanded in the past, and the tournament is fine.
I believe the comparison to the bowl games is way off base.
There are 34 bowl games for FBS schools which means 68 teams go to bowl games....there are only 120 FBS schools, so more than HALF go to a bowl game.
MORE THAN HALF. That is ridiculous.
Why? People want to stage bowls...fans want to watch their team play....let them play. It does no harm.
Yuck. Keep it as is. Everyone has a chance of making the dance by winning their conference tourny. That is why I love the setup right now. You start adding more teams and games between November and February become meaningless.
Quote from: chapman on December 10, 2009, 10:27:07 AM
So we have to add these mediocre teams and 24 more? The 72 example would include adding a group like this which is bad enough. Baylor went 5-11 in their conference. Penn State's out of conference schedule had 0 anywhere near quality wins, 2 losses, and they finished 10-8 in a conference where they won a game 38-33 and lost to Iowa. Team like these, that can't even go .500 against respectable, much less good opponents, don't deserve the excitement or the gratification of the NCAA tournament if making the tournament is going to continue to be any sort of accomplishment.
Comparing all bowl games to the NCAA tournament isn't apples to apples either. With the total postseason play 129 teams get to play in the postseason. Plus there's a conference tournament for everyone except the Ivy League instead of a single championship game for less than half of the conferences.
It comes down to the old argument of playing in a tougher conference vs a weaker conference. Would Baylor have won or finished second in the WCC vs the Big 12? How would Gonzaga do in the Big East? Etc, etc. Just because a team finishes 8th in a conference (say the Big East or Big Ten) doesn't make them a mediocre team if that conference is absolutely loaded.
No. MU might have to play UWGB or UWM.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 10, 2009, 09:32:28 AM
These same arguments were made when they expanded in the past, and the tournament is fine.
It's more than fine now. That is the point. The current format is ideal, IMO. I don't know how you could improve on the most exciting and watchable four days in American sports.
I understand that this will probably happen due to $$$, but I wouldn't be surprised if expansion eventually waters the product down to the point that the cash benefit deteriorates. Will conference tourneys be as exciting? What about the end of the conference seasons? How exciting is conference play in the Big Ten if basically every team except IU makes the tourney?
They better proceed with caution here and consider diminishing returns as well as the second and third order effects. As I said before...
DON'T DO IT!!!!!!!!
I think the issues is there are so many poor teams from the weak conferences and yet some bubble teams from the large conferences could clean their clock. I think if you add the 12 teams that are next in line and then play the weaker conference teams against each other early, you have an exciting tournament. They are not going to knock off first seeds, but good teams with little size playing against each other is entertaining and then let the normal top teams play on the normal weeks with the winners of the earlier rounds in their normal seeding positions. That does create some excitement and good basketball. Makes it harder for the committee to do the seedings but that might be fun too.
Quote from: CTWarrior on December 10, 2009, 11:26:30 AM
I have to disagree with you here. Your comparison is totally irrelevant. The NCAA basketball tournament is the national championship tournament. In CFB, the BCS championship game is the NCAA championship tournament and only 2 teams make the tournament (1.7% of all teams if 120 is correct). The balance of the bowls are a bunch of NITs with better publicity.
Your argument supports expanding the NIT, not the NCAA tournament.
Of those teams you mentioned who nearly missed out, any one of them might have won a game or two, but none of them would have won the tournament if you played it 1,000 times or 100,000 times, so it serves no purpose other than money to invite them.
I didn't bring up the bowl game comparison, someone else did.... I simply showed the comparison of the two is not appropriate.
Quote from: LAZER on December 10, 2009, 02:31:29 PM
I think a huge issue here is that there are 340+ teams in D1 basketball. That is wayyyy too much stratification. 140 of those should be put into an entirely different division. Secondly, I feel the 96th best team in the country(or whereever that team may fall) just simply doesn't deserve to play for a championship. They have an entire season and a conference tourney to prove it. I agree it is practically ineveitable, but it's going to ruin the best sporting event and it's going to hurt the later rounds of the tourney, much like the already overloaded bowl season does. I wish they would focus on a BCS playoff instead, but the money must not be there.
Yes, but the problem is that it isn't the 96th best team in the country being left out, it's sometimes the 28th best team in the country. At least according to the ratings. Look at some of the programs that were left out in the last 6 years ranked in the top 40 but didn't go because 7 guys in a room said no. Or maybe 4 guys in the room said no and 3 guys said yes, but lost by 1 vote.
It's going to happen fellas. I'm sure there will be screams, etc. My guess is that it happens, people will love it, it's an extra week of upsets since the best part of the tournament is the first two rounds anyway....this adds another "upset" potential round.
The bowl games suck because you have 6-6 teams going that didn't beat anyone but travel well. The expanded NCAA tournament is going to put 20+ win teams into the field that have major, marquee wins and can knock off anyone.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 10, 2009, 06:59:05 PM
Yes, but the problem is that it isn't the 96th best team in the country being left out, it's sometimes the 28th best team in the country. At least according to the ratings. Look at some of the programs that were left out in the last 6 years ranked in the top 40 but didn't go because 7 guys in a room said no. Or maybe 4 guys in the room said no and 3 guys said yes, but lost by 1 vote.
It's going to happen fellas. I'm sure there will be screams, etc. My guess is that it happens, people will love it, it's an extra week of upsets since the best part of the tournament is the first two rounds anyway....this adds another "upset" potential round.
The bowl games suck because you have 6-6 teams going that didn't beat anyone but travel well. The expanded NCAA tournament is going to put 20+ win teams into the field that have major, marquee wins and can knock off anyone.
Does that "28th ranked" team have a chance in hell of winning the tournament? If no, then who cares? The only people a team has to blame for not making the tourney is themselves. The elite teams aren't being left out, conference champs aren't being left out. So really, who cares? Let the Coastal Carolinas of the world have their moment and forget about the under achieving bubble teams who haven't managed to turn their talent into wins.
Quote from: MUSF on December 10, 2009, 08:15:43 PM
Does that "28th ranked" team have a chance in hell of winning the tournament? If no, then who cares? The only people a team has to blame for not making the tourney is themselves. The elite teams aren't being left out, conference champs aren't being left out. So really, who cares? Let the Coastal Carolinas of the world have their moment and forget about the under achieving bubble teams who haven't managed to turn their talent into wins.
Well using that logic, we should only invite the top 8 teams to the tournament. Did Marquette have a chance to win the tournament last year? Of course not. Did UCLA? No. Wisconsin? No. Why bother inviting us then? Did George Mason a few years ago....No....wait....they made the Final Four and damn near had a shot. We don't know what we don't know if they don't get in.
32 years ago when Marquette was the last team in, were we supposed to win the tournament? Hell, many experts argued we shouldn't even have been invited but we were gifted in out of respect for Al's last year.
It will happen, at some point it will happen and people will bitch and then everything will be fine and people will forgot what the bitched about.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 10, 2009, 10:01:32 PM
Well using that logic, we should only invite the top 8 teams to the tournament. Did Marquette have a chance to win the tournament last year? Of course not. Did UCLA? No. Wisconsin? No. Why bother inviting us then? Did George Mason a few years ago....No....wait....they made the Final Four and damn near had a shot. We don't know what we don't know if they don't get in.
32 years ago when Marquette was the last team in, were we supposed to win the tournament? Hell, many experts argued we shouldn't even have been invited but we were gifted in out of respect for Al's last year.
It will happen, at some point it will happen and people will bitch and then everything will be fine and people will forgot what the bitched about.
No, you're missing the point.
In any given year, there are about 16-20 teams with a legitimate shot to win the title, and that is being generous. So, my point is, why get worked up if the last few bids go to the 28th best team in the country or the 70th best team in in the country. They both have an equal shot of winning the title... ZERO. I would rather see the George Masons of the CBB world make their run than see a major conference bubble team get in.
Here's what you are really missing. The major conference teams got their shot during the season. They played the top teams and didn't make the cut. The MAAC champ earns their one shot by winning their conference.
As I said before, I think they have the right mixture right now and I would rather see them stick with it. I get it. This will probably happen, as you like to point out in every post, but I think that the product will suffer for no benefit to the fan. It is unfortunate.
Hold on a minute. Today's paper said they are also discussing moving the tournament to cable TV. I am sorry if this was mentioned earlier, but this changes the whole issue for me. As an over-the-air viewer this would force me to consider swearing a curse on the heads of the committee members. College bball is pretty much the only sport that I can watch games that don't involve my team from beginning to end. I will watch any game in any sport but my interest will fade in and out.
Not cool!
I would'nt worry. I am sure a local OTA station would be able to pick up the games for a local school. Having said that I would have missed every MU game in the tournament except the final 4 game in 2003 if I only watched on a OTA station, since I live in New Jersey and not Milwaukee. Thank God for March madness on DirecTV, the only sports pak worth paying for.
Quote from: MUEng92 on December 11, 2009, 07:23:42 AM
Hold on a minute. Today's paper said they are also discussing moving the tournament to cable TV. I am sorry if this was mentioned earlier, but this changes the whole issue for me. As an over-the-air viewer this would force me to consider swearing a curse on the heads of the committee members. College bball is pretty much the only sport that I can watch games that don't involve my team from beginning to end. I will watch any game in any sport but my interest will fade in and out.
Not cool!
You don't have cable television? How quaint.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 11, 2009, 11:24:57 AM
How quaint.
That's a nicer response than I usually get around here when I mention I don't have cable. Typically, cheapskate, idiot, etc.
I say 68 or 72. Either every 1/16 match up has a play in game. I think this wouldn't negativly effect anything.
or 8 play in games for every 1 and 2 seed match up. More than that and you have too much crap playing in march.
Quote from: MUEng92 on December 11, 2009, 12:09:47 PM
That's a nicer response than I usually get around here when I mention I don't have cable. Typically, cheapskate, idiot, etc.
My grandmother doesn't have cable either. She's 90 and very sweet.
Wow, you just leapfrogged "cheapskate" and went mean on me. Ouch
If it makes you feel better, my 76 year old Mom does have cable.
Quote from: MUEng92 on December 11, 2009, 12:25:36 PM
Wow, you just leapfrogged "cheapskate" and went mean on me. Ouch
Hey...I compared you to my grandmother! Is there something wrong with that???? ;)
Quote from: MUEng92 on December 11, 2009, 07:23:42 AM
Hold on a minute. Today's paper said they are also discussing moving the tournament to cable TV. I am sorry if this was mentioned earlier, but this changes the whole issue for me. As an over-the-air viewer this would force me to consider swearing a curse on the heads of the committee members. College bball is pretty much the only sport that I can watch games that don't involve my team from beginning to end. I will watch any game in any sport but my interest will fade in and out.
Not cool!
Yes, that was originally discussed....ESPN or FOX....or perhaps a major satellite provider ;) could get involved.
It's all about the benjamins. Content is needed for ad dollars and subscribers....more games = more content = more benjamins which is why this is being considered by the NCAA.
The thing that folks aren't looking at is the benefit this does for Marquette. MU is in a very odd spot along with other non-football schools. Many of the BCS football schools would like to break away from the non-football schools and create an upper division, essentially a super Division I which could leave out Villanova, Marquette, Gonzaga, etc. If more money flows into the current setup, it makes it less likely those things happen. If the dollars continue to get smaller for those top BCS schools because they are going to be more inclined to leave....at least that is the argument being made.
Quote from: MU_B2002 on December 09, 2009, 03:33:11 PM
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ncaa_expands_march_madness_to
4096 teams. Now everyone is happy.
I love that one! Can't wait for that 637-678 matchup!
Go Online University of Liverpool!
I'm pulling for the University of Phoenix.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on December 09, 2009, 03:06:57 PM
Hey, can anyone explain the expansion from 64 to 65?
Maybe they should just increase the # of play-in games. Slot the minor auto-bid conferences into the play-ins, and give them the #15 and #16 seeds if they win.
I see no reason why they don't have 4 play in games. Keep it balanced. The lone playoff game is odd, figuratively and literally.