http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/news/story?id=5047800
Sounds like they are saying play it all in 3 weeks (same as today's tournament)....just as a few others of us have said. Logistically, this is not hard to pull off.
This will single handedly destroy the college basketball regular season
Quote from: KipsBayEagle on April 01, 2010, 06:31:37 PM
This will single handedly destroy the college basketball regular season
You forgot to put that in teal
Quote from: KipsBayEagle on April 01, 2010, 06:32:40 PM
No I didn't
Well then you can save a ton of time in the future by no longer being interested in MU or college basketball since it will be destroyed by the NCAA. Think about all the time you will be saving. ;)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 01, 2010, 06:33:50 PM
Well then you can save a ton of time in the future by no longer being interested in MU or college basketball since it will be destroyed by the NCAA. Think about all the time you will be saving. ;)
LoL, ok ok. I am just saying, this 96 team expansion really devalues the regular season. Jeez.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 01, 2010, 06:29:39 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/news/story?id=5047800
Sounds like they are saying play it all in 3 weeks (same as today's tournament)....just as a few others of us have said. Logistically, this is not hard to pull off.
Nearly everyone, besides coaches, is saying this is a bad idea. That press conference was an absolute joke. Shaheen couldn't or wouldn't answer numerous questions about the new field. Students will be forced to miss an entire week of school now the second week (not that it really matters anymore at most schools). I am not against expansion, but I am definitely against such a large expansion. Why not try to expand by a little like has been done in the past? Maybe expand to 72 schools first and see how that works.
There will be a lot bad/boring basketball played those first two days as middling teams battle it out. I'm sure there will prolly be a few more upsets in the round of 64 but I don't think it is a good trade-off. Is the Big East tournament better now with 16 teams than it was with 12? I don't think so; I actually think its worse and creates a lot of terrible games on the first day of the tournament.
Not only does this dilute the tournament and all that, but they also want to do it without adding another weekend? This makes being a fan far more complicated.
First who's taking Thusday off to watch the big Wofford - Rhode Island game? Thursday/Friday are currently the best days of the tournament and this having the top 32 teams not play would kill interest.
What about people that attend the tournament? Tuesday/Wednesday third (second) round games? Whichever site their at, first weekend or second weekend do you have to buy tickets for all three days? That's a very large commitment to stay at a place and attend games either Thursday - Tuesday or Tuesday - Saturday. Ticket sales have got to be at least somewhat important.
this is the worst decision ever. i hate the ncaa, they are all about money. look at how lopsided the BCS is in football. burn it down
I like this decision. Honestly, the tournament is already watered down when 8 teams from one conference get in. The fact that there would be two more days of quality basketball (on the Tuesday and Wednesday of the second week) is nice. Since sports are pretty much the only thing I watch on television anyway...
I think this rocks! Teams will be fighting and clawing to be one of the 32 that get a 1st round bye. Thus, the regular season will still mean something. The better teams from 33-96 will advance to the final 32 slots and God forbid a #1 seed might actually have to play a real game in round one. Also as has been mentioned in the past its highly unlikely that MU will miss the tournament given this format. An important factor considering the unstable nature of the Big East.
Everyone knows the major reason behind this is $$. And alot of people crow that doing this for $$ sake is wrong. Yet nobody seems to scream when the big 10/11/12 considers expanding for the exact same reason. Go figure...
I agree.
Everyone complains about the bowl season being watered down too, but I like having college football on my television every day between Christmas and New Years. What else am I supposed to watch?
QuoteEveryone complains about the bowl season being watered down too, but I like having college football on my television every day between Christmas and New Years. What else am I supposed to watch?
So you would like to watch a 6-6 Notre Dame team in a bowl game, or a 16-16 North Carolina team make it into the dance. College basketball is my favorite sport, yet I disagree with this entirely.
So, lets make the kids miss a week of school..which could be their midterms and then lets make the graduation rate for getting into the tourney from the previous graduation class of senior players 50% or else you won't make it in. Thereby allowing all teams in Division I in the tourney, lol. The talking heads have begun the demise.
I do agree that this dilutes results of regular season, but they are already diluted by Conference tournaments and 65 team format. This does two things:
1. Generates more revenue and more enthusiasm by adding more teams to the dance.
2. Allows for more quality teams to get in. Invariably, there are several that do not get in each year. This will eliminate most of the sour grapes after selection.
Realistically, the conference tournaments should be discontinued--but that won't happen because most of these things are driven by, as Joe Pesci said in Casino, "It's always the f---ing dollars."
Also, it appears to me that since there is a greater chance to get into the dance, then hopefully many of the high Majors will start to schedule more home and home series with other high majors. I would love to see MU schedule more non conference games with teams such as Illinois, Iowa or other Big 10 teams, and perhaps teams such as Xavier, Dayton, Creighton, St. Louis. etc., rather than Presbyterian, Maryland East Central, NW Southern Alaska and so on. Maybe some other regional rivalries with High Majors could be developed. These games would better prepare teams for the conference and Big Dance. Teams would be less likely to pad their records against the cream puffs, and this would in turn put more enthusiasm/emphasis on the regular season.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on April 02, 2010, 08:11:57 AM
I agree.
Everyone complains about the bowl season being watered down too, but I like having college football on my television every day between Christmas and New Years. What else am I supposed to watch?
College football, of all sports, has the most meaningless season. If the national champion in basketball was determined in the same way as college football, UNC would play Duke just about every year.
Quote from: damuts222 on April 02, 2010, 08:36:16 AM
So you would like to watch a 6-6 Notre Dame team in a bowl game, or a 16-16 North Carolina team make it into the dance. College basketball is my favorite sport, yet I disagree with this entirely.
So, lets make the kids miss a week of school..which could be their midterms and then lets make the graduation rate for getting into the tourney from the previous graduation class of senior players 50% or else you won't make it in. Thereby allowing all teams in Division I in the tourney, lol. The talking heads have begun the demise.
I would rather watch mediocre basketball than no basketball...and I'd rather watch mediocre college football than no football. And the marketplace pretty much agrees with me otherwise the proliferation of bowl games would have stopped long ago.
And don't give me this crap about missing a week of school. We already send these kids across the country for games and conference tournaments. They have plenty of academic support. And I honestly don't care about anyone's graduation rates but MU's.
Strange...when I started following the tournament it only had 32 teams. When it increased to 48...and then 64...I don't recall having this much angst and fear of change. People just seemed pleased that there was more basketball.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 01, 2010, 06:32:00 PM
You forgot to put that in teal
Chicos, how won't this destory the regular season? If there was a 96 team field this year Marquette's games against South Florida, Seton Hall, Rutgers, and St. John's all would have meant nothing. There's no way Marquette will miss the tournament next year, thus making the regular season meaningless.
And playing for seed is a joke. Seeding means nothing. Look at all of the upsets this year.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on April 02, 2010, 08:39:50 AM
College football, of all sports, has the most meaningless season. If the national champion in basketball was determined in the same way as college football, UNC would play Duke just about every year.
Actually, in terms of determining a national champion, college football's regular season is probably the most meaningful of all sports.
QuoteI would rather watch mediocre basketball than no basketball...and I'd rather watch mediocre college football than no football. And the marketplace pretty much agrees with me otherwise the proliferation of bowl games would have stopped long ago.
I agree with you that the marketplace does agree with you but thats because everyone wants the cash money. American sports continue to become more commercialized, and are now products rather than athletics. It's not whats good for the sport anymore, it's what will bring in more people/money. Thats why watching the olympic hockey games with no commercials to stop play and/or watching the World Cup with no stoppages excites the rest of the world and a small few here. I digress....
I am interested to see how people react to this once we do start playing a 96-team tourney. I hope for the sake of college basketball that it goes over well regardless of my personal feelings on the matter in terms of support and competition within the tourney.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on April 02, 2010, 08:44:45 AM
Chicos, how won't this destory the regular season? If there was a 96 team field this year Marquette's games against South Florida, Seton Hall, Rutgers, and St. John's all would have meant nothing. There's no way Marquette will miss the tournament next year, thus making the regular season meaningless.
And playing for seed is a joke. Seeding means nothing. Look at all of the upsets this year.
So being one of the 32 teams that dont have to play in round 1 will mean nothing? I disagree.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on April 02, 2010, 08:45:40 AM
Actually, in terms of determining a national champion, college football's regular season is probably the most meaningful of all sports.
Tell that to the BCS conferences that don't automatically qualify and to the non-BCS conferences that can't qualify.They don't even get a chance to prove it on the gridiron. The BCS champion (I wouldn't call it a national champion) is nothing more than some popularity contest voted on by the coaches and the media.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on April 02, 2010, 09:26:25 AM
Tell that to the BCS conferences that don't automatically qualify and to the non-BCS conferences that can't qualify.They don't even get a chance to prove it on the gridiron. The BCS champion (I wouldn't call it a national champion) is nothing more than some popularity contest voted on by the coaches and the media.
Largely determined before anyone even plays a game.
One benefit I see is having the trophy more "up for grabs" than ever. With a bye, the top seeds won't play more games. But other teams now in will have that "we just played and are warmed up" feeling. More KU & UK-like upsets to come. Does this mean hot teams at the end with mediocre season recods will be there to make for even interesting tournament results.
Quote from: damuts222 on April 02, 2010, 08:52:58 AM
I agree with you that the marketplace does agree with you but thats because everyone wants the cash money. American sports continue to become more commercialized, and are now products rather than athletics. It's not whats good for the sport anymore, it's what will bring in more people/money. Thats why watching the olympic hockey games with no commercials to stop play and/or watching the World Cup with no stoppages excites the rest of the world and a small few here. I digress....
The reason that there is so much money involved is because people want the product. The Eagle Bank Bowl in Washington, DC works because people want to watch it....or watch it enough to cover ESPN's investment into the bowl.
And don't get all excited about the purity of World Cup soccer. Soccer has numerous league titles, cup titles, etc. that completely water down the product. But soccer fans don't really care because they want the product as well.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on April 02, 2010, 08:44:45 AM
Chicos, how won't this destory the regular season? If there was a 96 team field this year Marquette's games against South Florida, Seton Hall, Rutgers, and St. John's all would have meant nothing. There's no way Marquette will miss the tournament next year, thus making the regular season meaningless.
And playing for seed is a joke. Seeding means nothing. Look at all of the upsets this year.
There is an upside, now we can listen to Seth Greenberg say there are not 96 teams better than his!!!!
Quote from: muwarrior69 on April 02, 2010, 09:26:25 AM
Tell that to the BCS conferences that don't automatically qualify and to the non-BCS conferences that can't qualify.They don't even get a chance to prove it on the gridiron. The BCS champion (I wouldn't call it a national champion) is nothing more than some popularity contest voted on by the coaches and the media.
I understand the drawbacks but you are off topic. A loss in the regular season is much more devastating to a team's national championship hopes than in college basketball. Theoretically, a team can lose every single regular season basketball game, win its conference championship, and the national championship. That simply cannot happen in college football. Hell, in college football Michigan State would never be able to play for the championship.
Quote from: M@RQUETTEW@RRIORS on April 02, 2010, 09:31:43 AM
Largely determined before anyone even plays a game.
Inaccurate. In some years that has a partial determination, but to say it is "largely" determined is just wrong.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on April 02, 2010, 10:29:01 AM
I understand the drawbacks but you are off topic. A loss in the regular season is much more devastating to a team's national championship hopes than in college basketball. Theoretically, a team can lose every single regular season basketball game, win its conference championship, and the national championship. That simply cannot happen in college football. Hell, in college football Michigan State would never be able to play for the championship.
Inaccurate. In some years that has a partial determination, but to say it is "largely" determined is just wrong.
And theoretically I will run for and win the office of POTUS in 2012. Why dont we stick with reality here.
Quote from: M@RQUETTEW@RRIORS on April 02, 2010, 09:08:01 AM
So being one of the 32 teams that dont have to play in round 1 will mean nothing? I disagree.
The four top teams in the Big East this year would have been included in the 32 teams with a bye.
How did the double bye treat them in the Big East Tournament? 3 of the 4 lost. It means nothing.
Quote from: LightBlueJerseys on April 02, 2010, 12:37:26 AM
this is the worst decision ever. i hate the ncaa, they are all about money. look at how lopsided the BCS is in football. burn it down
The NCAA doesn't control the BCS....please, educate yourself.
Quote from: jmayer1 on April 01, 2010, 07:03:55 PM
Nearly everyone, besides coaches, is saying this is a bad idea. That press conference was an absolute joke. Shaheen couldn't or wouldn't answer numerous questions about the new field. Students will be forced to miss an entire week of school now the second week (not that it really matters anymore at most schools). I am not against expansion, but I am definitely against such a large expansion. Why not try to expand by a little like has been done in the past? Maybe expand to 72 schools first and see how that works.
There will be a lot bad/boring basketball played those first two days as middling teams battle it out. I'm sure there will prolly be a few more upsets in the round of 64 but I don't think it is a good trade-off. Is the Big East tournament better now with 16 teams than it was with 12? I don't think so; I actually think its worse and creates a lot of terrible games on the first day of the tournament.
I'll bet dollars to donuts within 5 years people will look back and say, wow were we stupidly wrong for opposing this.
Are you really comparing the Big East tournament with the bottom 4 teams to an expanded NCAA tournament that adds 32 other pretty damn good teams? I don't see the correlation at all. The teams they would be adding are almost all going to be 20+ win teams (not all, but mostly). They'll be adding teams like Dayton, not teams like DePaul. The analogy doesn't make sense.
The reason why they likely won't expand to 72 or 80 is because logistically it's a nightmare. You either expand to 68 or 84 or 96. The easiest is 96 because you give the top 32 byes, you keep the same sites, you play in the same week...it's just a lot easier to run.
I had a great conversation with Dana O'Neil (ESPN) on this last night. She hates the idea and we have a bet that she will eat her words within 5 years.
We'll see.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on April 02, 2010, 08:44:45 AM
Chicos, how won't this destory the regular season? If there was a 96 team field this year Marquette's games against South Florida, Seton Hall, Rutgers, and St. John's all would have meant nothing. There's no way Marquette will miss the tournament next year, thus making the regular season meaningless.
And playing for seed is a joke. Seeding means nothing. Look at all of the upsets this year.
Playing for a seed is a joke? You mean having a bye in the NCAA tournament while another team has to play 2 days earlier means nothing? You're kidding...it was April 1st when you posted that so I have to assume you were kidding. That bye is pure gold.
And no, you and others said the regular season would be destroyed....if MU lost to USF, Seton Hall, Rutgers and St. John's, their record would have been 7-11 in the Big East and they would not go to the NCAA tournament. So I fail to see how your logic holds any water at all. They still have to win those games, that's entirely the point.
The people saying the regular season is ruined or destroyed somehow believe that if you cruise at the end and lose, it won't matter. That's so illogical. Do you think a 7-11 Big East team is going to get in because they added 32 slots? I got news for you.....it's not going to happen. Because what do they do to the 6-10 ACC teams and the 7-11 Big Ten teams, and the 7-11 Pac Ten teams and the 6-10 SEC teams and on and on. There aren't enough spots....it's not going to happen.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 02, 2010, 10:50:21 AM
Playing for a seed is a joke? You mean having a bye in the NCAA tournament while another team has to play 2 days earlier means nothing?
The four top teams in the Big East this year would have been included in the 32 teams with a bye.
How did the double bye treat them in the Big East Tournament? 3 of the 4 lost. It means nothing.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on April 02, 2010, 10:36:55 AM
The four top teams in the Big East this year would have been included in the 32 teams with a bye.
How did the double bye treat them in the Big East Tournament? 3 of the 4 lost. It means nothing.
Funny, when you look at other teams in other conference tournaments the exact opposite happened. The byes helped them. You can find data to support both sides, but every coach is playing for a bye or a double bye for a reason. It gives your club an advantage. Nothing is guaranteed which is why they play the games, but a bye is better than no bye. It's an advantage to your club.
Quite a few people will argue your team loses momentum by having the bye.
That's why 64 teams are perfect. No byes.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on April 02, 2010, 10:59:06 AM
Quite a few people will argue your team loses momentum by having the bye.
That's why 64 teams are perfect. No byes.
Well then let's go to 128 teams, no byes either. ;)
Yes, some people will argue the team loses momentum. There are some coaches that will tell you their team plays better on the road, too....less distractions.
What edge do you want your teams to have? My guess is most coaches are going to say they want the extra time off to prepare, to rest\heal up, and to play a team that had to exhaust themselves only 48 hours earlier.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on April 02, 2010, 10:51:53 AM
The four top teams in the Big East this year would have been included in the 32 teams with a bye.
How did the double bye treat them in the Big East Tournament? 3 of the 4 lost. It means nothing.
A team that clinches a bye in a conference tournament typically doesn't have that much to gain by winning in its conference tournament. A team with a bye doesn't have to play for its NCAA tournament life. Syracuse lost their first game in the BET this season and still got a #1 seed. Villanova lost their first game and still managed to get a #2 seed. Those teams didn't have too much to gain by winning games in the conference tournament.
I think they would likely approach their first game after a bye in the National Championship tournament a little differently.
Quote from: M@RQUETTEW@RRIORS on April 02, 2010, 10:35:33 AM
And theoretically I will run for and win the office of POTUS in 2012. Why dont we stick with reality here.
Fine....NC State in 1983. Very likely doesn't get in unless they win their conference championship. They go on to win the national championship. Their regular season was pretty much irrelevant. That doesn't happen in college football.
There are arguments how the byes are fair and unfair. Just get rid of the byes and keep it at 64!
Cripes, Chicos, is your annual bonus based on the tourney expanding?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 02, 2010, 10:46:16 AM
I'll bet dollars to donuts within 5 years people will look back and say, wow were we stupidly wrong for opposing this.
Are you really comparing the Big East tournament with the bottom 4 teams to an expanded NCAA tournament that adds 32 other pretty damn good teams? I don't see the correlation at all. The teams they would be adding are almost all going to be 20+ win teams (not all, but mostly). They'll be adding teams like Dayton, not teams like DePaul. The analogy doesn't make sense.
The reason why they likely won't expand to 72 or 80 is because logistically it's a nightmare. You either expand to 68 or 84 or 96. The easiest is 96 because you give the top 32 byes, you keep the same sites, you play in the same week...it's just a lot easier to run.
I had a great conversation with Dana O'Neil (ESPN) on this last night. She hates the idea and we have a bet that she will eat her words within 5 years.
We'll see.
I'm not comparing the bottom 4 teams of the Big East to 32 teams that will now get in to the tournament. I'm comparing the Big East tournament when it was at 12 teams to the Big East tournament when it was at 16 teams. I believe the tournament is worse now than it was before. Just as I believe diluting the field of the NCAA by so many teams will be bad as well. I guarantee some of those next 32 spots will go to a big conference team that has an 8-10 or 7-11 conference record. As it stands now, the vast majority of teams in the big conferences with winning records get in. I think it is inevitable that a few teams with subpar conference records are going to get into the tournament (similar to the NIT now).
Your 3rd paragraph is just ridiculous. Expanding to 72 or 80 is a nightmare logistically? Haha, are you serious? How? It doesn't take a rocket science to figure it out. With 72 teams you have 8 first round games to get to the field of 64 (2 in each region). With 80 teams, you have 16 first round games to get to the field of 64 (4 in each region). WOW, that would be such a nightmare!!!! It is so hard to subtract 64 from N to figure out how many first round games there would be. How is that harder than expanding it to 68, 80, or 96?
Great, you talked to somebody at ESPN. You must be a real bigshot over there at DirecTV. Color me impressed. Are you actually Tom Crean? What are Tony LaRussa, Barry Alvarez, and Mike McCarthy's thoughts on the expansion to 96 teams?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/name+dropping (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/name+dropping)
Quote from: jmayer1 on April 02, 2010, 12:12:51 PM
I'm not comparing the bottom 4 teams of the Big East to 32 teams that will now get in to the tournament. I'm comparing the Big East tournament when it was at 12 teams to the Big East tournament when it was at 16 teams. I believe the tournament is worse now than it was before. Just as I believe diluting the field of the NCAA by so many teams will be bad as well. I guarantee some of those next 32 spots will go to a big conference team that has an 8-10 or 7-11 conference record. As it stands now, the vast majority of teams in the big conferences with winning records get in. I think it is inevitable that a few teams with subpar conference records are going to get into the tournament (similar to the NIT now).
Your 3rd paragraph is just ridiculous. Expanding to 72 or 80 is a nightmare logistically? Haha, are you serious? How? It doesn't take a rocket science to figure it out. With 72 teams you have 8 first round games to get to the field of 64 (2 in each region). With 80 teams, you have 16 first round games to get to the field of 64 (4 in each region). WOW, that would be such a nightmare!!!! It is so hard to subtract 64 from N to figure out how many first round games there would be. How is that harder than expanding it to 68, 80, or 96?
Great, you talked to somebody at ESPN. You must be a real bigshot over there at DirecTV. Color me impressed. Are you actually Tom Crean? What are Tony LaRussa, Barry Alvarez, and Mike McCarthy's thoughts on the expansion to 96 teams?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/name+dropping (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/name+dropping)
Dude seriously? You expect people to take you seriously with this crap?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on April 02, 2010, 11:24:05 AM
Fine....NC State in 1983. Very likely doesn't get in unless they win their conference championship. They go on to win the national championship. Their regular season was pretty much irrelevant. That doesn't happen in college football.
You just mentioned on of the most famous games in NCAA history! Thank you ;D
Quote from: M@RQUETTEW@RRIORS on April 02, 2010, 12:43:25 PM
You just mentioned on of the most famous games in NCAA history! Thank you ;D
You're welcome....but it makes my point about the regular season.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on April 02, 2010, 01:20:22 PM
You're welcome....but it makes my point about the regular season.
I still disagree. 1 year in 70 does not make it enough of an issue to make me say the regular season wont matter. Will it happen sometime? Sure. Will it be bad if it does? I dont think so. Because the likelyhood is probably 1 out of 20 years....
I find it interesting that no one is talking about how this is going to make it much harder for the top seeds. We aren't adding the 66-96 best team, its more like the 34-64th best teams. Instead of KU playing Fake State U. they will be getting the winner of a 16 Va. Tech vs. 17 USF type game. Suddenly #10 seeds will be getting to play against the 1 bid leagues; not the big dogs.
Not necessarily a bad thing, but that will profoundly change the tournament landscape.
Quote from: M@RQUETTEW@RRIORS on April 02, 2010, 01:24:42 PM
I still disagree. 1 year in 70 does not make it enough of an issue to make me say the regular season wont matter. Will it happen sometime? Sure. Will it be bad if it does? I dont think so. Because the likelyhood is probably 1 out of 20 years....
You need to remember what you were arguing. I never said that the regular season won't matter. I said that the college football regular season matters more.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on April 02, 2010, 01:59:10 PM
You need to remember what you were arguing. I never said that the regular season won't matter. I said that the college football regular season matters more.
I absolutely HATE the college football system. Its a traveshamochery!
Before the season starts. All but about 16 teams are realistically eliminated from any title hopes. 6 conferences are all that matters and a good portion of most of them dont matter.
Take a look at this analogy. Lets say the Badgers somehow went 11-0 and fla an texas also went 11-0. Even a major school from the BCS in UW would still have no chance at the title. The football system is a complete joke and I would argue that the regular season means almost nothing for almost every team in the country before the season begins.
Quote from: jmayer1 on April 02, 2010, 12:12:51 PM
I'm not comparing the bottom 4 teams of the Big East to 32 teams that will now get in to the tournament. I'm comparing the Big East tournament when it was at 12 teams to the Big East tournament when it was at 16 teams. I believe the tournament is worse now than it was before. Just as I believe diluting the field of the NCAA by so many teams will be bad as well. I guarantee some of those next 32 spots will go to a big conference team that has an 8-10 or 7-11 conference record. As it stands now, the vast majority of teams in the big conferences with winning records get in. I think it is inevitable that a few teams with subpar conference records are going to get into the tournament (similar to the NIT now).
Your 3rd paragraph is just ridiculous. Expanding to 72 or 80 is a nightmare logistically? Haha, are you serious? How? It doesn't take a rocket science to figure it out. With 72 teams you have 8 first round games to get to the field of 64 (2 in each region). With 80 teams, you have 16 first round games to get to the field of 64 (4 in each region). WOW, that would be such a nightmare!!!! It is so hard to subtract 64 from N to figure out how many first round games there would be. How is that harder than expanding it to 68, 80, or 96?
Great, you talked to somebody at ESPN. You must be a real bigshot over there at DirecTV. Color me impressed. Are you actually Tom Crean? What are Tony LaRussa, Barry Alvarez, and Mike McCarthy's thoughts on the expansion to 96 teams?
Same stuff from you...always the same stuff (same digs, same everything)....Dana wrote an article on ESPN.com saying why the expansion was not a good idea. The same tired and LAZY points she uses are what you are using. I told her the same thing. For every point she makes it was easy to rebute them, all it takes is a little effort. Her point about how this will keep the kids away from school the entire week was beyond comical. The teams leave for their NCAA 1st round site on Monday or Tuesday anyway as it is, so nothing is changing for most teams. That's why I brought her up, because some of you seem to be reading this nonsense and regurgitating it without any usage of your own brain cells.
And as cute as you want to make your little mathematical statement. Let's play reality here, shall we. If you go to 72 teams, that means 9 teams per sites (today there are 8 teams). This means 1 team gets a bye, or another way to put it, there is one play in game. So this means you're going to have fans come out to these sites for one game and then come back 2 days later for 4 games. Not going to happen. The play-in game right now works for Dayton because every year they have that one game, but revolving it around from year to year at these sites is likely going to kill attendance for that one day. Won't happen IMO.
THAT IS WHY IT IS A LOGISTICAL NIGHTMARE. It makes no sense for television, no sense for running the tournament, no sense from a fan perspective.
If you have 4 games at that site on Tuesday and the winners move on to 4 more games on Thursday, now you're talking a ticket that people will buy, television will want to produce, viewers will want to watch.
Welcome to reality my friend. This is where the money part comes in and the television ratings. Having only 1 play in game on the Tuesday at each site is a non-starter for those two elements, IMO.
Happy Easter
Quote from: The Man in Gold on April 02, 2010, 01:52:09 PM
I find it interesting that no one is talking about how this is going to make it much harder for the top seeds. We aren't adding the 66-96 best team, its more like the 34-64th best teams. Instead of KU playing Fake State U. they will be getting the winner of a 16 Va. Tech vs. 17 USF type game. Suddenly #10 seeds will be getting to play against the 1 bid leagues; not the big dogs.
Not necessarily a bad thing, but that will profoundly change the tournament landscape.
Exactly....I said that last week. No longer are the top seeds going to get a free ride. Their first round game of 1 vs 16 is OVER! They will actually play a real opponent for their first game. I love it!!
Quote from: M@RQUETTEW@RRIORS on April 02, 2010, 02:07:02 PM
I absolutely HATE the college football system. Its a traveshamochery!
Before the season starts. All but about 16 teams are realistically eliminated from any title hopes. 6 conferences are all that matters and a good portion of most of them dont matter.
Take a look at this analogy. Lets say the Badgers somehow went 11-0 and fla an texas also went 11-0. Even a major school from the BCS in UW would still have no chance at the title. The football system is a complete joke and I would argue that the regular season means almost nothing for almost every team in the country before the season begins.
<sigh>
Sometimes it's like banging your head against a wall.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 02, 2010, 02:51:09 PM
If you go to 72 teams, that means 9 teams per sites (today there are 8 teams). This means 1 team gets a bye, or another way to put it, there is one play in game. So this means you're going to have fans come out to these sites for one game and then come back 2 days later for 4 games. Not going to happen. The play-in game right now works for Dayton because every year they have that one game, but revolving it around from year to year at these sites is likely going to kill attendance for that one day. Won't happen IMO.
How about 80 teams? That would be two more games at each site. Admittedly, it is not four games but 2 is better than 1. Even 88 teams is better than 96. That would mean three games at each site. I understand they have to balance the logistics, attendance, tv, money, etc.. but why can't they find a middle ground?
Quote from: MarquetteDano on April 02, 2010, 03:16:42 PM
How about 80 teams? That would be two more games at each site. Admittedly, it is not four games but 2 is better than 1. Even 88 teams is better than 96. That would mean three games at each site. I understand they have to balance the logistics, attendance, tv, money, etc.. but why can't they find a middle ground?
Why would 88 be better than 96?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on April 02, 2010, 03:27:36 PM
Why would 88 be better than 96?
88 is better than 96 in the same way that 96 is better than 256 (logistics aside). A lot people do not want to see a diluted tournament and ensure making the tourney to be an important accomplishment. I just don't get the 50% increase overnight. Every eight teams you add dilutes it further.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on April 02, 2010, 03:05:21 PM
<sigh>
Sometimes it's like banging your head against a wall.
Exactly...
Teams can go undefeated in the regular season, from a major conference in football. And still not have a chance at the national championship. That actually could happen. Not like the scenario you layed out in hoops where a team could lose every game and still make it to the championship. I cant agree that a sport where only 16% or so of its teams have a chance to play for anything substantial during the regular season would have a more meaningful regular season. If you want to say that those top 16 or so teams have a more meaningful regular season, then I would agree.
Quote from: M@RQUETTEW@RRIORS on April 02, 2010, 03:48:57 PM
Exactly...
Teams can go undefeated in the regular season, from a major conference in football. And still not have a chance at the national championship. That actually could happen. Not like the scenario you layed out in hoops where a team could lose every game and still make it to the championship. I cant agree that a sport where only 16% or so of its teams have a chance to play for anything substantial during the regular season would have a more meaningful regular season. If you want to say that those top 16 or so teams have a more meaningful regular season, then I would agree.
Not only could it happen, it has happened. In 2004 Auburn went undefeated, won their bowl game ended 13-0 but because there were 2 higher ranked undefeated teams Auburn still finished #2 behind #1 USC. If my memory is right some company offered the two schools a boatload of money to play after the bowl games ended and the BCS stepped in. That also isn't taking into account teams like Utah and Boise State who have gone undefeated and beaten the big 6 team they played.
I'm not arguing what system is better for determining a champion.
I am arguing that college football's regular season is more relevant. My solution for college football is to have a playoff limited to conference champions...because that would keep the integrity of the regular season and still allow everyone to have a chance.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on April 02, 2010, 03:31:14 PM
88 is better than 96 in the same way that 96 is better than 256 (logistics aside). A lot people do not want to see a diluted tournament and ensure making the tourney to be an important accomplishment. I just don't get the 50% increase overnight. Every eight teams you add dilutes it further.
So is 32 better than 64? Is 16 better than 32?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on April 02, 2010, 04:16:00 PM
So is 32 better than 64? Is 16 better than 32?
Haven't really thought about it because I know the NCAA will never go back to 32 or 16. We have 65 today and we know they are trying to increase that number. We know logistics says that only certain combinations makes sense. They are starting their P.R. campagin for 96.
I think if we did a poll here and many other college b-ball boards fans could probably deal with an increase. However, I think the majority would prefer a smaller increase than letting in 32 more teams. Thank God for logistics because they would have to add sites or weeks to the cbb calendar if they went beyond 96.
I am NOT going to be an alarmist and say that 96 ruins college basketball; or it makes the regular season completely worthless. However, they wouldn't be starting this P.R. campaign if they didn't fear some sort of a backlash. They could do a lot to reduce that by finding some middle ground here. I am saying my preference is 80 or so versus 96. I think the majority of fans would agree.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on April 02, 2010, 03:16:42 PM
How about 80 teams? That would be two more games at each site. Admittedly, it is not four games but 2 is better than 1. Even 88 teams is better than 96. That would mean three games at each site. I understand they have to balance the logistics, attendance, tv, money, etc.. but why can't they find a middle ground?
88 is certainly better than 80....I'm fine for anything above 80 but prefer 88 or 96 due to the growth of college basketball DI. I don't see how it makes financial or ratings success to do anything less than 3 additional games per site.
You need content (games) in volume to make this work at the arenas and the broadcasters. Not sure 80 teams delivers enough additional games to make the financial argument work.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 02, 2010, 04:33:05 PM
88 is certainly better than 80....I'm fine for anything above 80 but prefer 88 or 96 due to the growth of college basketball DI. I don't see how it makes financial or ratings success to do anything less than 3 additional games per site.
You need content (games) in volume to make this work at the arenas and the broadcasters. Not sure 80 teams delivers enough additional games to make the financial argument work.
Of the positives of increasing the tournament, I would
assume they would make the regular season champions of a conference automatic bids. That would be fantastic as it would actually make the regular conference season even more important for about 20 conferences out there. I really like that as I am sick of a small conference team proving themselves the whole season and playing in the NIT because they lost on a last second shot in their conference tourney.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on April 02, 2010, 04:38:24 PM
Of the positives of increasing the tournament, I would assume they would make the regular season champions of a conference automatic bids. That would be fantastic as it would actually make the regular conference season even more important for about 20 conferences out there. I really like that as I am sick of a small conference team proving themselves the whole season and playing in the NIT because they lost on a last second shot in their conference tourney.
My two cents, which I shared with my bosses who have been involved in the RFP process.
No team with a conference record worse than 2 games under .500 should get in. (i.e. 8-10 would or 7-9 would make it, but not 7-11 or 6-10). If you want to make it stricter, require a .500 record or better in conference, much like the bowls require a minimum of 6 FBS wins to become bowl eligible.
It gets tricky with the conference regular season winners because if you grant them automatic entry then I'd advocate killing the conference tournaments. The reason of this is that it's too easy for a regular season champion to tank it to allow more of their conference brethren into the tourney. But, yes, I would prefer having the regular season champion in the tournament....kill the conference tourney.
Include a graduation rate rider for seeding. Yes, this is way outside the box, but what the hell. If you have less than 50% graduation rates, it will affect your seeding in the tournament.
Adding 8 teams does not fit nicely into each location like some of the higher numbers, but they could easily play 4 games in one location (Dayton for example) on Tuesday and 4 games at another location on Wednesday. Then have the Tuesday teams play on Thursday and the Wednesday teams play on Friday. I don't think that would be too difficult.
I like the idea of teams having to be within at least two wins of .500 in conference but you are still looking at a lot of "BCS" teams that would get in I believe.
However, I doubt conference tournies are going anywhere. They way make way too much money (what this whole expansion thing is about anyway) for the conferences to stop having them.
At the end of the day, I don't think any teams are left out of the tourney that have a legitimate shot to win the tile (Nova was the highest seed at 8 to win) and that is the real point of the tournament, to crown the best (or hottest I guess) team. They have never had such a large expansion before, I don't know why they would now either.
Happy Easter to you and yours as well Chicos.
Quote from: jmayer1 on April 02, 2010, 06:25:56 PM
Adding 8 teams does not fit nicely into each location like some of the higher numbers, but they could easily play 4 games in one location (Dayton for example) on Tuesday and 4 games at another location on Wednesday. Then have the Tuesday teams play on Thursday and the Wednesday teams play on Friday. I don't think that would be too difficult.
I like the idea of teams having to be within at least two wins of .500 in conference but you are still looking at a lot of "BCS" teams that would get in I believe.
However, I doubt conference tournies are going anywhere. They way make way too much money (what this whole expansion thing is about anyway) for the conferences to stop having them.
At the end of the day, I don't think any teams are left out of the tourney that have a legitimate shot to win the tile (Nova was the highest seed at 8 to win) and that is the real point of the tournament, to crown the best (or hottest I guess) team. They have never had such a large expansion before, I don't know why they would now either.
Happy Easter to you and yours as well Chicos.
The problem with that scenario is that the NCAA won't get the television money and the networks won't get the ratings (= $$$$). The NCAA has some serious revenue concerns they have to cover in the next decade, a big reason why they are doing this. Adding only a few teams means only a few games which won't yield the content that elicits the money they need.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 03, 2010, 12:11:12 PM
The problem with that scenario is that the NCAA won't get the television money and the networks won't get the ratings (= $$$$). The NCAA has some serious revenue concerns they have to cover in the next decade, a big reason why they are doing this. Adding only a few teams means only a few games which won't yield the content that elicits the money they need.
Yep, obviously less games means less money and that's what it (and pretty much everything) comes down to. I just think that it (72 teams) would have worked, but it seems like a moot point since the 96 team tourney seems to be all but a done deal. Maybe I'm wrong, and hopefully I am, but I don't believe this yields a better product; at least not in the next 5-10 years. However, maybe over time, this will allow some of those teams that get in due to the bigger field to put a better team on the court due to increased revenue, visibility..etc and bring a little more parity between the "BCS" schools and the "mid-majors" (especially if MU eventually gets cast into the latter if the BE breaks up/loses some top teams).