I'm just curious how people think on this. One could argue that this is ammunition to give more mid majors and more teams the chance at the tournament.
VCU was widely panned as a team that shouldn't even have gotten in, and here they are 5 wins later playing in the Final Four. MU, 9th place team in the Sweet 16. Butler, if they had lost to UW-Milwaukee in the Horizon would have probably made it but it would have been close. I watched Alabama and Washington State the other day in the NIT, two pretty solid clubs with some length that would have been problematic.
I figure most people will say no, but it would have been a shame to miss what these two schools have done. You have to wonder what other great runs have we missed in the past because teams were left out.
The argument that these teams can't make a deep run is out the door. Just as the argument that non BCS teams can't compete with the big boys has been totally obliterated the last few years by Boise State, TCU, etc.
I have to say from a tournament standpoint, it is a good argument. I am one of the "keep the teams at 68 or around there" group but this year proved that going to 68 made a difference. I really believe had only 65 made it this year, VCU would not be in the Final Four.
I am just not sure this offsets the regular season downsides of so many teams making the tourney and making the regular season so much more anti-climatic. Plus seeing some really mediocre teams get in around the 85-96 rank range.
But I must say however, this year at least, 68 was better than 65.
Meh. Can see the argument, but there was so much parity in college basketball the year. Most years there are at least a few great teams, when this year there was maybe one. It would make for some boring first few rounds some years.
I still say that the expansion to 96 story was a smokescreen so they could go to 68 and no one would complain when they pull an at large bid to give the Great West an autobid next year.
People can make all the arguments they want to stay at 68, which by the way many did not like. But when a team like VCU gets in when many experts said they should not, then it is just a matter of time before the powers that be go to 96.
Let's face it, most years the top 20 are the only teams that have a realistic chance of winning--not always but most of the time--so why let 44 more in? Might as well open it to 96, becuase there is not much difference from 64 to 96 anyhow, interms of chance to win.
More money for NCAA, more opportunities for the fans, etc.
It sure as hell will be a 5 page bracket, however!!!
I thought 96 tams meant LESS money per team. More money overall but not enough when split 96 ways.
I also thought that 96 teams meant doing away with Conference tourneys to make room in the schedule. Then the regular season winner gets the automatic bid.
Am I correct on these stipulations? If so, does they change your view of 96 teams.
IMO, this decreases the chances of tournament expansion. The NCAA is run by, and for, the big name, money-making schools, not the VCUs and Butlers of the world. It's a nice story to have two mid-majors in the Final Four, but the NCAA would have much rather had Kansas and Florida because those schools garner more attention and bring in more money. Fans can claim that they like seeing small schools reach the Final Four, but the ratings will likely dictate otherwise.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 28, 2011, 06:55:09 AM
IMO, this decreases the chances of tournament expansion. The NCAA is run by, and for, the big name, money-making schools, not the VCUs and Butlers of the world. It's a nice story to have two mid-majors in the Final Four, but the NCAA would have much rather had Kansas and Florida because those schools garner more attention and bring in more money. Fans can claim that they like seeing small schools reach the Final Four, but the ratings will likely dictate otherwise.
I would be surprised to find out that the advertising rates really suffer that much. NCAA already has 3 corporate partners for the tournament and you can consider CBS & Turner a 4th & 5th as far as advertising during the Final Four, so there's a large block of advertising already taken up.
Nope. Good story, but a once in a lifetime type of run. No need to dilute it any further.
No. and i am not sure how or why Butler gets into this argument anyways considering they were a 8 seed and safely in.
I don't want further expansion. Despite their run, VCU still doesn't belong in this tournament based on their regular season body of work. What this proves is that there are still teams that are good around the 65-70 mark. Could Virginia Tech or Alabama have made the same run? Sure. But part of what makes Selection Sunday fun is the controversy of the last 4-6 teams in. The further out you go, the smaller the cries of protest will become. I think you either stay here or expand to either 256 or 320.
I also don't want to water down the accomplishment of getting in. Go to 96 and Seton Hall would have had an argument. Providence would have been in the picture. I'm glad that Marquette had to work at the end to get their spot. Our regular season slip-ups almost caught up with us and we had to win 5 of our last 7 to book a spot. That made
games against SHU and Providence that much more exciting. It makes 11 Big East teams (which would have happened even in a field of 64) that much more of an accomplishment.
All VCU proves us that there are still good teams at the end. I don't want the tourney to keep expanding just to find out at which point the true crap teams start.
The trouble with making selections is that November and early December wins and losses matter when they are deciding who to let in. However, they are not a good indication of how good you are now. Throw out the early records and there is no way Villanova gets in. I think VCU winning gives a lot of value to the play in games. Eventually a 16 will beat a one seed. As long as Kentucky does not win, this is the best tournament ever.
All that would do is mean adding 28 more teams that Barkley and Kenny Smith know nothing about.
I may be in the minority, but I don't like it when the tourney is over run by Cinderella teams. I feel that makes the tourney more of a crap shoot and the best team is less likely to win. With 96 teams, it's hard to win 6 straight games no matter who you are. I want less luck and more talent in these tourneys.
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on March 28, 2011, 08:55:03 AM
I may be in the minority, but I don't like it when the tourney is over run by Cinderella teams. I feel that makes the tourney more of a crap shoot and the best team is less likely to win. With 96 teams, it's hard to win 6 straight games no matter who you are. I want less luck and more talent in these tourneys.
I agree. The Cinderella story is nice when it's a rarity. If it becomes commonplace, it hurts the tournament because it cheapens the value of the championship.
One of my favorite notations from this morning's articles
"Two weeks ago #11 VCU didn't even bother watching the NCAA tournament invite opting to watch cartoons and go out for burgers while Kentucky spent 13 straight springs watching other schools play in the Final Four, a destination college basketball's winningest program considers its birthright. These 2 schools and their fans are heading to Houston for the Final Four."
Leave the tourney as is. I would even go back to 65 teams. Expansion = dilution (and, ultimately, less $$$ in my estimation as the ratings would go down).
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on March 28, 2011, 02:06:48 AM
I still say that the expansion to 96 story was a smokescreen so they could go to 68 and no one would complain when they pull an at large bid to give the Great West an autobid next year.
I assure you that was NOT the case. My company was involved in some of the bidding and 96 was VERY much in the discussion...no smokescreen at all.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 28, 2011, 06:38:14 AM
I thought 96 tams meant LESS money per team. More money overall but not enough when split 96 ways.
I also thought that 96 teams meant doing away with Conference tourneys to make room in the schedule. Then the regular season winner gets the automatic bid.
Am I correct on these stipulations? If so, does they change your view of 96 teams.
It's all based on the contract. If they go to 96 teams, it means more games on television which means more revenue for the NCAA.
Once you go to 96, then the 97th and 98 teams bitch. it never ends. 68 is fine.
Quote from: Nukem2 on March 28, 2011, 09:40:37 AM
Leave the tourney as is. I would even go back to 65 teams. Expansion = dilution (and, ultimately, less $$$ in my estimation as the ratings would go down).
Reality is that ratings are up this year WITH expansion
Up 17%
http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/212456/NCAA_Tournament_Ratings_Up_17_Percent_
I know this is off topic...
I am a huge fan of the new TV format of the NCAAs. I know some people have had trouble with TRU TV coverage, but this is the first year I could watch any game I wanted without having to buy the direct TV March Madness package or go to a bar.
68 teams is enough.
I used to be against expansion, because of the dilution factor. Now I am beginning to think we should eliminate conference tournys and go to 256. (48 at large bids to the best teams, the rest play for the right to advance) The more games lesser seeds play, the better chance that better teams advance further.
I don't have a problem per se with Cinderellas advancing. It does add interest (I rooted for Butler in the championship game last year).
I actually had a co-worker, a Big 1? football fan, make the argument that this proves the BCS has got it right because none of these 4 teams is anywhere close to being the best team in the country, that at least the bowls make the best teams play each other to see who is best. I just shook my head in disgust. If VCU wins this thing, there will be books written about this tournament.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 28, 2011, 09:37:21 AM
One of my favorite notations from this morning's articles
"Two weeks ago #11 VCU didn't even bother watching the NCAA tournament invite opting to watch cartoons and go out for burgers
I heard about that. Apparently Shaka Smart heard about it on the radio while in his office, and he's the one who ended up being the one who notified the AD.
Quote from: ringout on March 28, 2011, 10:27:59 AM
I used to be against expansion, because of the dilution factor. Now I am beginning to think we should eliminate conference tournys and go to 256. (48 at large bids to the best teams, the rest play for the right to advance) The more games lesser seeds play, the better chance that better teams advance further.
I don't have a problem per se with Cinderellas advancing. It does add interest (I rooted for Butler in the championship game last year).
So the cinderella teams would have to win like 8-10 games to win it all? No thanks.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 28, 2011, 10:09:36 AM
Reality is that ratings are up this year WITH expansion
Up 17%
http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/212456/NCAA_Tournament_Ratings_Up_17_Percent_
How much (if any) of that ratings bump is the direct result of those 3 additional teams? I'd guess very little. Correlation =/= causation.
Quote from: IAmMarquette on March 28, 2011, 11:11:44 AM
How much (if any) of that ratings bump is the direct result of those 3 additional teams? I'd guess very little. Correlation =/= causation.
Not sure but there will be analysis on that, rest assured.
Through yesterday, ratings are up 11% from 2010 and the highest in 18 years
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/03/28/ncaa-men%E2%80%99s-basketball-championship-delivers-highest-overall-tournament-ratings-in-18-years/87269
Quote from: MU B2002 on March 28, 2011, 10:21:10 AM
I know this is off topic...
I am a huge fan of the new TV format of the NCAAs. I know some people have had trouble with TRU TV coverage, but this is the first year I could watch any game I wanted without having to buy the direct TV March Madness package or go to a bar.
68 teams is enough.
That's what they used to say about 32, 48, 64, 65, ;D
I think 96 would devalue the regular season way to much.
Teams finishing 7-11 or maybe even 6-10 in major conferences would likely get some bids. Regular season games wouldn't be nearly as intense for teams that aren't in the top 20 because they'll know that finishing at least 9-9 at worst would no longer be required to get in.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 28, 2011, 03:11:48 PM
Not sure but there will be analysis on that, rest assured.
Through yesterday, ratings are up 11% from 2010 and the highest in 18 years
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/03/28/ncaa-men%E2%80%99s-basketball-championship-delivers-highest-overall-tournament-ratings-in-18-years/87269
The info is skewed because every game was shown in it's entirety. In previous seasons, if someone didn't care about the game that they were getting in their market, they'd switch to something else. If they're getting 4 games at once, they're more likely to stay tuned to at least one of the games. It shouldn't be at all surprising that ratings went up.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 28, 2011, 03:12:23 PM
That's what they used to say about 32, 48, 64, 65, ;D
But this isn't about their opinion, the thread asked for my opinion.
I am too young to remember 32 or 48. To
me there isn't much difference betweem 64 & 68. (To which you would respond, "tell that to VCU") I consider the dance to start on that first thursday, and I have yet to watch any of the play-in games, so for me the tourney is still 64 teams. I would probably prefer just a straight 64 teams, because I feel the play in games punish the small schools. But I can't see the NCAA ever decreasing the size of the tourney.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 28, 2011, 03:28:15 PM
The info is skewed because every game was shown in it's entirety. In previous seasons, if someone didn't care about the game that they were getting in their market, they'd switch to something else. If they're getting 4 games at once, they're more likely to stay tuned to at least one of the games. It shouldn't be at all surprising that ratings went up.
I do not disagree with you...that's why there will be more analysis down the road. A true apples to apples comparison will be difficult, but not impossible. You see, there is this satellite company that showed EVERY game the last 8 years that will be used a proxy with the subscribers they had as a benchmark. ;)
Quote from: MU B2002 on March 28, 2011, 03:31:18 PM
But this isn't about their opinion, the thread asked for my opinion.
I am too young to remember 32 or 48. To me there isn't much difference betweem 64 & 68. (To which you would respond, "tell that to VCU") I consider the dance to start on that first thursday, and I have yet to watch any of the play-in games, so for me the tourney is still 64 teams. I would probably prefer just a straight 64 teams, because I feel the play in games punish the small schools. But I can't see the NCAA ever decreasing the size of the tourney.
Even when some of the play in games involved "big schools" like Clemson and USC?
You are correct, the NCAA is not going to decrease it especially with the size of DI these days. That is, as long as their is a NCAA tournament. If the football schools ever break away to start their own gig, well that changes everything.
To add 28 more teams, if it was being done this year, wouldn't the odds be pretty high that the committee would have ended up adding teams like Northwestern who finished 7-11 in the Big Ten?
Any or all of Nebraska/Baylor/Oklahoma St. who finished 7-9/7-9/6-10 in the Big 12?
Mississippi St. from the SEC West who did finish 2nd, but mostly beat bad teams and had losses at home to teams like Florida Atlantic, E. Tennessee St., a brutal LSU squad, and a loss to a bad Hawaii team?
Shouldn't we avoid awarding teams with resumes like this in the regular season instead of rewarding them with an NCAA berth for simply not being completely terrible.
I'd add this is the first time since seedings began that no #1's or #2's made the Finsl Four. The combined seeding number of 26 is also the highest ever for a Final Four.
I'll go the other way and would vote for contraction back to 64.
Quote from: Eye on March 29, 2011, 03:40:39 AM
I'll go the other way and would vote for contraction back to 64.
+1000
Although, I'd be fine with 65 if the Play-In game was between the 2 teams who received the final at-large berths. If a low-level team wins its conference tourney and earns their way into the NCAA Tournament, they should actually get to play in the NCAA Tournament and not have to earn their way in again by playing some other small-time team...in Dayton...on a Tuesday.
I think UNC-Asheville enjoyed this tournament a lot more because they won a thriller in the play-in game rather than if they just got whipped by a 1. Despite the fact that I'd rather there weren't play-in games, I watched a lot of them.
I'm all for reduction to 64.
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 29, 2011, 11:25:09 AM
I think UNC-Asheville enjoyed this tournament a lot more because they won a thriller in the play-in game rather than if they just got whipped by a 1. Despite the fact that I'd rather there weren't play-in games, I watched a lot of them.
I'm all for reduction to 64.
What about Ark-LR? They earned the right to play in the Tournament but instead had to play UNC-Asheville.
Ideally, 64 would be the place I'd like to stay.
NCAA greed will prevent that genie from getting back into the bottle. That being the case, instead of allowing 28 more random (inferior) teams into the mix, extend for a weekend, allow 256 in, and allow the rabble to fight amongst themselves.
The NCAA will get to 256 eventually.
Quote from: ringout on March 29, 2011, 11:41:59 AM
Ideally, 64 would be the place I'd like to stay.
NCAA greed will prevent that genie from getting back into the bottle. That being the case, instead of allowing 28 more random (inferior) teams into the mix, extend for a weekend, allow 256 in, and allow the rabble to fight amongst themselves.
The NCAA will get to 256 eventually.
NCAA GREED? LOL. Do you have any idea what that money is used for? Any?
I fail to see how 68 made the tournament worse and would argue it most certainly made it BETTER. VCU is THE story this year and it doesn't happen without 68 teams.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 29, 2011, 01:11:09 PM
NCAA GREED? LOL. Do you have any idea what that money is used for? Any?
I fail to see how 68 made the tournament worse and would argue it most certainly made it BETTER. VCU is THE story this year and it doesn't happen without 68 teams.
Next year if the "play-in" teams all get blown out in their first game, would the tournament then be worse?
While VCU is the story of the tournament, they didn't deserve their berth to begin with.
64/68 is fine.
The dark unspoken side of the superbowl, monday night football and march madness are their perfect fit for betting. The two most common layman betting games are the superbowl, and NCAA brackets.
Pools for 64/68 brackets are easily managed, scored, and paid out at present.
96 team brackets becomes more than unwieldly---the difference between betting the horses, and playing the lottery.
The bracket business will reduce by a large percentage at 96. America never messes much with a good betting scheme.
Stay at 68
Quote from: houwarrior on March 29, 2011, 02:03:33 PM
64/68 is fine.
The dark unspoken side of the superbowl, monday night football and march madness are their perfect fit for betting. The two most common layman betting games are the superbowl, and NCAA brackets.
Pools for 64/68 brackets are easily managed, scored, and paid out at present.
96 team brackets becomes more than unwieldly---the difference between betting the horses, and playing the lottery.
The bracket business will reduce by a large percentage at 96. America never messes much with a good betting scheme.
Stay at 68
I forget how much money is bet privately, but it's something like $3-4 Billion. That's not counting Vegas' take.
Quote from: houwarrior on March 29, 2011, 02:03:33 PM
64/68 is fine.
The dark unspoken side of the superbowl, monday night football and march madness are their perfect fit for betting. The two most common layman betting games are the superbowl, and NCAA brackets.
Pools for 64/68 brackets are easily managed, scored, and paid out at present.
96 team brackets becomes more than unwieldly---the difference between betting the horses, and playing the lottery.
The bracket business will reduce by a large percentage at 96. America never messes much with a good betting scheme.
Stay at 68
If the committee went to 96 or 128 it would just mean more game to bet. As for "bracket" pools or calcuttas, they could still begin when the field is whittled to 64.
Quote from: houwarrior on March 29, 2011, 02:03:33 PM
64/68 is fine.
The dark unspoken side of the superbowl, monday night football and march madness are their perfect fit for betting. The two most common layman betting games are the superbowl, and NCAA brackets.
Pools for 64/68 brackets are easily managed, scored, and paid out at present.
96 team brackets becomes more than unwieldly---the difference between betting the horses, and playing the lottery.
The bracket business will reduce by a large percentage at 96. America never messes much with a good betting scheme.
Stay at 68
Agreed with the gambling aspect of the tourney.
That's also why it kills me to see the NFL having Thursday night games. Part of the reason the NFL has seen such an increase in popularity is fantasy football. It's so much better than fantasy baseball or basketball because a vast majority of the action happens on one day which is then followed by a MNF game that often decides FF games. Having a Thursday game throws off that dynamic.
Quote from: ringout on March 29, 2011, 11:41:59 AM
Ideally, 64 would be the place I'd like to stay.
NCAA greed will prevent that genie from getting back into the bottle. That being the case, instead of allowing 28 more random (inferior) teams into the mix, extend for a weekend, allow 256 in, and allow the rabble to fight amongst themselves.
The NCAA will get to 256 eventually.
Why stop at 256?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxyPeME9TbI
;D
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 29, 2011, 01:11:09 PM
NCAA GREED? LOL. Do you have any idea what that money is used for? Any?
I fail to see how 68 made the tournament worse and would argue it most certainly made it BETTER. VCU is THE story this year and it doesn't happen without 68 teams.
IDK. DIRECT TV?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 29, 2011, 01:29:15 PM
Next year if the "play-in" teams all get blown out in their first game, would the tournament then be worse?
While VCU is the story of the tournament, they didn't deserve their berth to begin with.
Only one group decides who deserved it....the SC. No one else.
If they all get blown out in the first game, the tournament would be no worse so what's the harm? Aren't you answering the question for me? No worse whatsoever and you have some teams that had the ability to participate. I'm glad they went to 68....tournament is as good if not better than ever.
Leave it as is. More games will not draw more interest and a VCU will happen from time to time in current system. Taking things out further is not needed.