MUScoop

September 11, 2023
Big 12, Big Ten, Big East in talks to participate in new postseason event for teams not in NCAA Tournament

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/big-12-big-ten-big-east-in-talks-to-participate-in-new-postseason-event-for-teams-not-in-ncaa-tournament/

If such a made-for-TV bracket did materialize, it would destabilize the National Invitation Tournament (NIT). For nearly six decades, the NIT — which has lost some of its luster in recent years — has been the consolation destination for schools that do not make the coveted NCAA Tournament. If this yet-to-be-named Fox-run tournament came to be, it would mean teams from those three power conferences would forfeit their right to play in the NIT, sources said. That could threaten the NIT model.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 11, 2023, 11:35:25 AM
September 11, 2023
Big 12, Big Ten, Big East in talks to participate in new postseason event for teams not in NCAA Tournament

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/big-12-big-ten-big-east-in-talks-to-participate-in-new-postseason-event-for-teams-not-in-ncaa-tournament/

If such a made-for-TV bracket did materialize, it would destabilize the National Invitation Tournament (NIT). For nearly six decades, the NIT — which has lost some of its luster in recent years — has been the consolation destination for schools that do not make the coveted NCAA Tournament. If this yet-to-be-named Fox-run tournament came to be, it would mean teams from those three power conferences would forfeit their right to play in the NIT, sources said. That could threaten the NIT model.

This would mean Fox would renew the BE TV contract. And I would assume these teams would get a decent appearance fee for the tournament.

Sign me up (but hopefully not)!

The NIT has become pretty meaningless anyway. If the payouts are better it is a no brainer.

The NIT has only "lost some of its luster in recent years"?

It's been an utterly inconsequential event for decades.

If the NIT indeed is doomed, few if any tears would be shed. Hell, few would even notice.

Quote from: MU82 on September 11, 2023, 01:02:14 PM
The NIT has only "lost some of its luster in recent years"?

It's been an utterly inconsequential event for decades.

If the NIT indeed is doomed, few if any tears would be shed. Hell, few would even notice.

The writing has been on the wall since the NCAA acquired the NIT. I'm surprised it has lasted this long, to be honest.

As long as it makes money, it will keep going.

The proposed Fox tournament would function on a much more compact timescale at a single location. So more like a conference tournament than the NIT.

Not sure how many eyeballs would actually watch it though.

I wonder if this also forces an NCAA expansion to more teams? 

Personally I hope not but I am sure expanding the NCAA tourney (with more buys for higher seeded teams) will make decent coin.

Goodbye NIT, Hello MIT!! (Mediocre Invitational Tournament)

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 11, 2023, 01:12:07 PM
As long as it makes money, it will keep going.

The proposed Fox tournament would function on a much more compact timescale at a single location. So more like a conference tournament than the NIT.

Not sure how many eyeballs would actually watch it though.

So, would you watch if Marquette was in it?

Quote from: muwarrior69 on September 11, 2023, 02:07:14 PM
So, would you watch if Marquette was in it?

We won't be in it. With Shaka, our worst post season performance from here on will be the Sweet Sixteen.

Here is the article.

https://www.nj.com/setonhall/2023/09/new-fox-sponsored-postseason-basketball-tournament-would-involve-big-east-big-ten-big-12.html

Seems to have an NIL component to it as well

Quote from: muwarrior69 on September 11, 2023, 02:07:14 PM
So, would you watch if Marquette was in it?

I would but I'm not a fair weather fan who only cares when Marquette is winning

The more I think about this, the less I think it's a threat to the NIT and the more I think it's a threat to the NCAA Tournament. This is the beginning of power leagues creating a breakaway tournament with only their members. Maybe it starts as the 16 bottom teams in these leagues, but this is how you get to a tournament that only allows the big boys and eventually could be expanded to include the top-64 teams in the top-5 leagues, maybe with a few invitations to whom they see fit.

More than half the NIT was composed of non-P5 last year. It will continue on with the middling attention it currently gets. The real danger is where this could go in 5-10 years if it starts to garner interest.

Scoopers should be on the selection committee, as they excel at NIT-picking.

Unfortunately, though, it appears they'd simply grab teams based on NET.

The timing though... AFTER the Elite 8?? 2.5+ weeks of waiting for a fake tourney seems odd.

Quote from: Jay Bee on September 11, 2023, 02:36:03 PM
Scoopers should be on the selection committee, as they excel at NIT-picking.

Unfortunately, though, it appears they'd simply grab teams based on NET.

The timing though... AFTER the Elite 8?? 2.5+ weeks of waiting for a fake tourney seems odd.

All the more reason to think this is aimed to destabilize the NCAAs and not the NIT. It's sliding into the biggest gap in the NCAA calendar (once the NCAAs start) where there are 5 straight days with no games. It tries to catch the college basketball popularity that already exists with large brands while everyone is waiting for the Final Four to tip off.

No idea if it will work, and it seems like most non-NCAA postseason tournaments are doomed to being an afterthought (NIT, Vegas 32 16 8, CBI, CIT, etc) but if your headliners are national brands (Michigan, Villanova, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Wisconsin all would've been in this last year) and you are timing it to go up against tournaments with CUSA teams at best, you are putting forward teams that people could viably think "they might've made the Final 4" in the days leading up to that event.

I'll be honest, I don't see any way, shape, or form that this tournament is a threat to the NCAAT. Alumni of the programs and college bball diehards will watch this, no one else. I don't see any way this is a danger to the NCAAT. It's FOX trying to shake a little money out of the couch cushions during a time of year when they have a lull in programming.

The champion could be awarded the Jean Lenti-Ponsetto Trophy. 

I still rank the NIT game Vs S Fla at the MECCA as one of my favorites that I've attended.

I wonder if we'll see kids "sit out" the games

Quote from: Coleman on September 11, 2023, 01:08:38 PM
The writing has been on the wall since the NCAA acquired the NIT. I'm surprised it has lasted this long, to be honest.

Brother Coleman

The NIT has been a "Not Invited" afterthought since the NCAA expanded its tournament to 48 and then 64 teams. Before the expansion, many high-quality, locked-out teams made this tournament fascinating.

But a tournament involving the seventh-best Big East team or the ninth best ACC team just doesn't cut it. That's why I used to argue Marquette shouldn't go at all. Period.

As constructed today, the NIT is for losers. We are not losers!

Precursor to all D1 teams enterin' da Tourney, aina?

Quote from: brewcity77 on September 11, 2023, 02:27:16 PM
The more I think about this, the less I think it's a threat to the NIT and the more I think it's a threat to the NCAA Tournament. This is the beginning of power leagues creating a breakaway tournament with only their members. Maybe it starts as the 16 bottom teams in these leagues, but this is how you get to a tournament that only allows the big boys and eventually could be expanded to include the top-64 teams in the top-5 leagues, maybe with a few invitations to whom they see fit.

More than half the NIT was composed of non-P5 last year. It will continue on with the middling attention it currently gets. The real danger is where this could go in 5-10 years if it starts to garner interest.

Agreed Brew.  I like that the Big East would have a seat at the table in this tournament at least.  Hopefully that would keep us at the table for when the ultimate break away occurs.  The Big East just needs to keep winning and have it be really difficult to leave us out when the inevitable occurs.

If it's not a true national championship, I don't think it will be a big threat. I guess it would have to be the Top 5/6 conferences getting together. Not just ESPN with a few and Fox with a few conferences making a glorified Gavitt Games.

Quote from: brewcity77 on September 11, 2023, 02:45:25 PM
All the more reason to think this is aimed to destabilize the NCAAs and not the NIT. It's sliding into the biggest gap in the NCAA calendar (once the NCAAs start) where there are 5 straight days with no games. It tries to catch the college basketball popularity that already exists with large brands while everyone is waiting for the Final Four to tip off.

No idea if it will work, and it seems like most non-NCAA postseason tournaments are doomed to being an afterthought (NIT, Vegas 32 16 8, CBI, CIT, etc) but if your headliners are national brands (Michigan, Villanova, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Wisconsin all would've been in this last year) and you are timing it to go up against tournaments with CUSA teams at best, you are putting forward teams that people could viably think "they might've made the Final 4" in the days leading up to that event.

I agree with this ...

there would be an NIL component with FOX planning "to encourage its corporate partners to set up Name, Image and Likeness deals for players who are competing; the network will not be able to pay players directly due to NCAA rules."

Either the NCAA also adopts NIL deals (share payout with the players), or this tourney is the beginning of the end for the "non-NIL" tournaments (both holiday and post-season).

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 11, 2023, 04:34:00 PM
I agree with this ...

there would be an NIL component with FOX planning "to encourage its corporate partners to set up Name, Image and Likeness deals for players who are competing; the network will not be able to pay players directly due to NCAA rules."

Either the NCAA also adopts NIL deals (share payout with the players), or this tourney is the beginning of the end for the "non-NIL" tournaments (both holiday and post-season).

Good point. Tying NIL will only make the players more interested in playing in this tournament. Currently, teams cannot refuse an NCAA bid thanks to Al McGuire, but might we see that challenged?

Teams can't turn down a bid. But players can. They are offering NIL so they will stick around to play.

Quote from: MU82 on September 11, 2023, 01:02:14 PM
The NIT has only "lost some of its luster in recent years"?

It's been an utterly inconsequential event for decades.

If the NIT indeed is doomed, few if any tears would be shed. Hell, few would even notice.

I've been alive for 30 years and can count on two fingers the amount of years I've paid any attention to the NIT.

Quote from: brewcity77 on September 11, 2023, 04:36:20 PM
Good point. Tying NIL will only make the players more interested in playing in this tournament. Currently, teams cannot refuse an NCAA bid thanks to Al McGuire, but might we see that challenged?

Isn't it, can't play any other tournaments if they refuse, verse not being able to refuse at all?

Quote from: #UnleashSean on September 11, 2023, 08:37:41 PM
I've been alive for 30 years and can count on two fingers the amount of years I've paid any attention to the NIT.

The NIT has a strong history with Catholic basketball schools.  There is a nostalgia factor at play with some because it did mean something at once. 

As you've stated, its recent history is irrelevant but for the older crowd, it used to mean something.  It hasn't for half a century plus.  At best, it was a decent consolation prize and chance to play a few extra games

Quote from: Herman Cain on September 11, 2023, 02:17:35 PM
Here is the article.

https://www.nj.com/setonhall/2023/09/new-fox-sponsored-postseason-basketball-tournament-would-involve-big-east-big-ten-big-12.html

Seems to have an NIL component to it as well

Here is the original article.

https://themessenger.com/sports/fox-sports-mens-college-basketball-proposed-tournament-las-vegas?utm_source=onsite&utm_medium=latest_news

I'd miss the NIT at least as much as I miss Jarts, smoking sections on airplanes, Quisp & Quake, and black vinyl sofas.

My opinion of the NIT is forever influenced by MU finishing the game with 4 players on the floor in Bloomington.

Quote from: brewcity77 on September 11, 2023, 02:45:25 PM
All the more reason to think this is aimed to destabilize the NCAAs and not the NIT. It's sliding into the biggest gap in the NCAA calendar (once the NCAAs start) where there are 5 straight days with no games. It tries to catch the college basketball popularity that already exists with large brands while everyone is waiting for the Final Four to tip off.

No idea if it will work, and it seems like most non-NCAA postseason tournaments are doomed to being an afterthought (NIT, Vegas 32 16 8, CBI, CIT, etc) but if your headliners are national brands (Michigan, Villanova, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Wisconsin all would've been in this last year) and you are timing it to go up against tournaments with CUSA teams at best, you are putting forward teams that people could viably think "they might've made the Final 4" in the days leading up to that event.

Or it is just the best time slot for the most TV revenue?

I think you're overthinking it. There' no way a tournament made up of a bunch of mediocre .500-ish teams from the Big East, Big Ten and Big 12 are going to seriously compete with March Madness.

Quote from: Coleman on September 12, 2023, 12:03:30 PM
Or it is just the best time slot for the most TV revenue?

I think you're overthinking it. There' no way a tournament made up of a bunch of mediocre .500-ish teams from the Big East, Big Ten and Big 12 are going to seriously compete with March Madness.

Yep. It's a Roller Derby event made for TV.

As suggested, the NIT will get combined with NCAAT with an expanded field. Much more media hype for the NCAAT.

Here's a harebrained idea, I'm not even sure I like it...but I'm curious to hear others opinions....

Revert the "official" NCAA tournament to 64 teams. 60 are chosen on selection Sunday. This includes all 32 conference tournament winners and 28 at-large selections.

But then hold a 32 team play-in tournament that is branded as the "NIT" the week before the NCAA - until you get to an NIT final four. This "NIT" would be 3 rounds (round of 32, round of 16, round of 8). It would be all at-large teams that are not chosen on Selection Sunday. You could also include Conference Regular Season Champions that were not chosen on Selection Sunday (like the NIT currently does).

The final 8 teams now are the play-in games for the final 4 spots in the NCAA. But they have to win 3 games to make the tournament. You then seed all the teams after the NIT NCAA qualifiers are decided.

You've essentially added the ability for up to 96 teams to win the National Championship by adding one more way to qualify, but you have not watered down the accomplishment of making the tournament. Only 64 teams make it. 32 NIT qualifiers have the ability to compete for 4 NCAA spots. Each NIT region winner would qualify for the Big Dance. There is no longer an "NIT Champion," but oh well, this has largely become an irrelevant title. You can have 4 NIT Regional Champions.

The NIT becomes part of (or at the very least, a prelude to) March Madness instead of some weird irrelevant side show. The teams playing in it are playing for something...a ticket to the Big Dance. It is an actually relevant third piece of the March fun (the others being the conference tournaments and the NCAA tournament).

The scheduling would be difficult to make work, you'd obviously have to push back the National Championship a week. But you'd have to do this by expanding the tournament anyway. You also do not punish the best teams by adding more games to win the National Championship.

They want the best teams to play more games. That's what drives the television ratings. 

Quote from: Coleman on September 12, 2023, 03:49:57 PM
Here's a harebrained idea, I'm not even sure I like it...but I'm curious to hear others opinions....

Revert the "official" NCAA tournament to 64 teams. 60 are chosen on selection Sunday. This includes all 32 conference tournament winners and 28 at-large selections.

But then hold a 32 team play-in tournament that is branded as the "NIT" the week before the NCAA - until you get to an NIT final four. This "NIT" would be 3 rounds (round of 32, round of 16, round of 8). It would be all at-large teams that are not chosen on Selection Sunday. You could also include Conference Regular Season Champions that were not chosen on Selection Sunday (like the NIT currently does).

The final 8 teams now are the play-in games for the final 4 spots in the NCAA. But they have to win 3 games to make the tournament. You then seed all the teams after the NIT NCAA qualifiers are decided.

You've essentially added the ability for up to 96 teams to win the National Championship by adding one more way to qualify, but you have not watered down the accomplishment of making the tournament. Only 64 teams make it. 32 NIT qualifiers have the ability to compete for 4 NCAA spots. Each NIT region winner would qualify for the Big Dance. There is no longer an "NIT Champion," but oh well, this has largely become an irrelevant title. You can have 4 NIT Regional Champions.

The NIT becomes part of (or at the very least, a prelude to) March Madness instead of some weird irrelevant side show. The teams playing in it are playing for something...a ticket to the Big Dance. It is an actually relevant third piece of the March fun (the others being the conference tournaments and the NCAA tournament).

The scheduling would be difficult to make work, you'd obviously have to push back the National Championship a week. But you'd have to do this by expanding the tournament anyway. You also do not punish the best teams by adding more games to win the National Championship.

I think expansion is just going to expand. Honestly, if the NCAA Tournament wants to survive, they probably need to. Adding 12-28 bids would kill the Fox plan in the cradle as they would take at least 4-5 teams from that BE/B12/B10 pool every year.

Quote from: brewcity77 on September 12, 2023, 08:42:48 PM
I think expansion is just going to expand. Honestly, if the NCAA Tournament wants to survive, they probably need to. Adding 12-28 bids would kill the Fox plan in the cradle as they would take at least 4-5 teams from that BE/B12/B10 pool every year.

Exactly

Quote from: brewcity77 on September 12, 2023, 08:42:48 PM
I think expansion is just going to expand. Honestly, if the NCAA Tournament wants to survive, they probably need to. Adding 12-28 bids would kill the Fox plan in the cradle as they would take at least 4-5 teams from that BE/B12/B10 pool every year.

Why stop at 12 to 28?  You can have all 300+ D1 teams.  Added another week and give first-round byes to the top 64, second-round byes to the top 32, and maybe even third-round to the top 8 or 16.  The first two rounds can be played on campus, and they would feed into the final 64.

Or, if you want to use the tennis terminology, call the first two rounds on campus the "qualifiers."

Perhaps this is an indication that the Big East is close to finalizing a new overall TV deal with Fox?

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 13, 2023, 09:34:03 PM
Why stop at 12 to 28?

Because the NCAA guideline is 25% of  teams in a sport included in the postseason, which the current crappy 68-team format comes up short of. 80 would get closer and if done right make for a better tournament. 96 is the more commonly mentioned number, though,

Man I can't imagine walking around thinking everything sucks. The NCAA Tournament format is the best tournament in all of sports.

I have my doubts that the way Fox is trying to get a P6 breakaway tournament is by having DePaul play Washington State leading up to a Duke vs. Kansas Final Four game. If that's their strategy, well that strategy does indeed suck.

Quote from: brewcity77 on September 11, 2023, 02:27:16 PM
The more I think about this, the less I think it's a threat to the NIT and the more I think it's a threat to the NCAA Tournament. This is the beginning of power leagues creating a breakaway tournament with only their members. Maybe it starts as the 16 bottom teams in these leagues, but this is how you get to a tournament that only allows the big boys and eventually could be expanded to include the top-64 teams in the top-5 leagues, maybe with a few invitations to whom they see fit.

More than half the NIT was composed of non-P5 last year. It will continue on with the middling attention it currently gets. The real danger is where this could go in 5-10 years if it starts to garner interest.

I came to say this and realized I didn't have to type it.  Thanks!

Quote from: withoutbias on September 14, 2023, 05:55:20 AM
Man I can't imagine walking around thinking everything sucks. The NCAA Tournament format is the best tournament in all of sports.

I don't think everything sucks. But 68 is not perfect. It's awkward. 64 was perfect. Since they expanded from there and there's no going back, the important thing is to make Tuesday/Wednesday matter rather than being relative afterthoughts for all but the diehard fans.

And the NCAA tournament format isn't the best Tournament in all of sports. That's the World Cup. But it is the one of the best annual tournaments, and by far the best in America.

Quote from: brewcity77 on September 14, 2023, 07:13:04 AM
I don't think everything sucks. But 68 is not perfect. It's awkward. 64 was perfect. Since they expanded from there and there's no going back, the important thing is to make Tuesday/Wednesday matter rather than being relative afterthoughts for all but the diehard fans.

And the NCAA tournament format isn't the best Tournament in all of sports. That's the World Cup. But it is the one of the best annual tournaments, and by far the best in America.

I have never watched a single World Cup game.

Quote from: Herman Cain on September 14, 2023, 10:54:59 AM
I have never watched a single World Cup game.

Oh, I guess maybe it isn't popular then.

Quote from: brewcity77 on September 14, 2023, 07:13:04 AM
I don't think everything sucks. But 68 is not perfect. It's awkward. 64 was perfect. Since they expanded from there and there's no going back, the important thing is to make Tuesday/Wednesday matter rather than being relative afterthoughts for all but the diehard fans.

And the NCAA tournament format isn't the best Tournament in all of sports. That's the World Cup. But it is the one of the best annual tournaments, and by far the best in America.

WC format's been ruined by $$$ too.

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 14, 2023, 11:28:09 AM
WC format's been ruined by $$$ too.

There's going to be forty more games and an extra knock out round. I think its great.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 14, 2023, 11:34:28 AM

There's going to be forty more games and an extra knock out round. I think its great.

In that sense yes, more games = more money.  Third place teams progressing diminishes the quality of the WC, as well as the quality of qualification.  The 32 team format was perfect.

To me, more games and more rounds makes it better - more games to watch and more potential for upsets.

Yes, but there's a law of diminishing returns.  Watching Qatar get embarrassed on the pitch last fall was not entertaining.  2026 has 8 AFC auto qualifiers with the potential for one more, so not only would Qatar be back, but you could see countries like Oman and the UAE there as well.  Watching Spain against the top OFC team (which is now guaranteed a spot in the tournament rather than just a play off), is the equivalent of Spain against Georgia, which we just saw end 7-1 in qualifying.  The 32 team format was perfect. 

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 14, 2023, 11:42:10 AM
In that sense yes, more games = more money.  Third place teams progressing diminishes the quality of the WC, as well as the quality of qualification.  The 32 team format was perfect.

I thought so, but watching players like Erling Haaland, Mo Salah, & Zlatan miss the last World Cup made me reconsider. Increasing the number of teams increases the opportunities for elite players from smaller countries to show their brilliance.

As constructed, the WC is the best. And as constructed, the NCAA Tournament has clear room for improvement. We'll see how well expansion of both is managed.

Quote from: brewcity77 on September 14, 2023, 12:26:39 PM
I thought so, but watching players like Erling Haaland, Mo Salah, & Zlatan miss the last World Cup made me reconsider. Increasing the number of teams increases the opportunities for elite players from smaller countries to show their brilliance.

As constructed, the WC is the best. And as constructed, the NCAA Tournament has clear room for improvement. We'll see how well expansion of both is managed.

Costs significantly outweigh the benefits IMO.

What "costs?" If you don't like to watch some of the games, don't watch them.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 14, 2023, 01:49:56 PM
What "costs?" If you don't like to watch some of the games, don't watch them.

Costs as in loss of format quality.  That's what hinged the discussion, Brew saying that the WC format was the best in all of sports.  It was, I don't think that's still the case.  I probably won't watch them.

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 14, 2023, 01:56:11 PM
Costs as in loss of format quality.  That's what hinged the discussion, Brew saying that the WC format was the best in all of sports.  It was, I don't think that's still the case.  I probably won't watch them.

I'll still watch. I'll still gamble on it. I'll eventually get used to it. HOWEVA - it will take some serious getting used to. Really hard to argue against watering down the product to let in more booty high major teams.

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 14, 2023, 01:56:11 PM
Costs as in loss of format quality.  That's what hinged the discussion, Brew saying that the WC format was the best in all of sports.  It was, I don't think that's still the case.  I probably won't watch them.

There were the same arguments when it went to 24 and 32. I'm sure also when it went from 16 to 24.

NCAA fans that cling to 68 like it's some sacrosanct number were up in arms when it expanded from 65 and when it expanded to 65.

Expansion is inevitable, so the key is to do it well. Keep what's good about the 64-team format while making the expanded games more compelling than the First Four is now.

Quote from: brewcity77 on September 14, 2023, 08:46:54 PM
There were the same arguments when it went to 24 and 32. I'm sure also when it went from 16 to 24.

NCAA fans that cling to 68 like it's some sacrosanct number were up in arms when it expanded from 65 and when it expanded to 65.

Expansion is inevitable, so the key is to do it well. Keep what's good about the 64-team format while making the expanded games more compelling than the First Four is now.

To be clear, I have no problem expanding the NCAA tournament.  My only concern would be when the "first 4" or "round 0" or whatever they'll end up calling it will be played.  I can take two days off of work to watch the best two days of sports of the year, but if they expand to the point where those first 4 games would be Tuesday and Wednesday afternoon, I don't think I could justify finding time to watch those as well. Right now you can watch every game of the tournament only taking two days off, I can't justify having to double that number to watch watch games consisting of two low majors or sub .500 P6 teams.

The WC however, I am upset about.  Not only do you go away from a perfect model, you simultaneously dilute the level of competition by expansion (where the drop-off between the last 4 in and first 4 out is much larger than CBB IMO), and you reward teams that finish 3rd in their group, which dilutes the competition further.  I'm sure there will still be entertaining games, many of which I will watch, but they're going away from a perfect model in order to make more $.  That is the upsetting part.

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 15, 2023, 07:10:10 AM
To be clear, I have no problem expanding the NCAA tournament.  My only concern would be when the "first 4" or "round 0" or whatever they'll end up calling it will be played.  I can take two days off of work to watch the best two days of sports of the year, but if they expand to the point where those first 4 games would be Tuesday and Wednesday afternoon, I don't think I could justify finding time to watch those as well. Right now you can watch every game of the tournament only taking two days off, I can't justify having to double that number to watch watch games consisting of two low majors or sub .500 P6 teams.

The WC however, I am upset about.  Not only do you go away from a perfect model, you simultaneously dilute the level of competition by expansion (where the drop-off between the last 4 in and first 4 out is much larger than CBB IMO), and you reward teams that finish 3rd in their group, which dilutes the competition further.  I'm sure there will still be entertaining games, many of which I will watch, but they're going away from a perfect model in order to make more $.  That is the upsetting part.

Having third place teams advance to the knock out round is a very common occurrence at tournaments throughout the world. It happens now at the Euros, Copa America and the African Cup of Nations. It even happened in the World Cup in the past - the US team in 1994 wouldn't have advanced to the knockout round otherwise.

So while you might think the current format is "perfect," a lot of people who organize some pretty big tournaments disagree.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 15, 2023, 08:04:05 AM

Having third place teams advance to the knock out round is a very common occurrence at tournaments throughout the world. It happens now at the Euros, Copa America and the African Cup of Nations. It even happened in the World Cup in the past - the US team in 1994 wouldn't have advanced to the knockout round otherwise.

So while you might think the current format is "perfect," a lot of people who organize some pretty big tournaments disagree.

The people that organize tournaments first priority isn't the quality of the product, it's maximizing $.  That's why you see countries like Qatar (and to a lesser extend the US) invited to the Copa America.

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 15, 2023, 08:14:51 AM
The people that organize tournaments first priority isn't the quality of the product, it's maximizing $.  That's why you see countries like Qatar (and to a lesser extend the US) invited to the Copa America.

I just don't see "the quality of the product" suffering all that much.

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 15, 2023, 08:14:51 AM
The people that organize tournaments first priority isn't the quality of the product, it's maximizing $.  That's why you see countries like Qatar (and to a lesser extend the US) invited to the Copa America.

Well yes, no one does any of this for the purity of the sport.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 15, 2023, 08:18:49 AM

I just don't see "the quality of the product" suffering all that much.

A small downgrade is still a downgrade.  There probably won't be a huge drop-off, but there will be one, an unnecessary one.

Quote from: Hards Alumni on September 15, 2023, 08:19:22 AM
Well yes, no one does any of this for the purity of the sport.

Sure, but the ideals of the "purist fan" and the ideals of the "organizers" have never been further apart. $ has always driven everything, but as $ has skyrocketed, organizers are getting greedier and greedier, to the detriment of the sport.

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 15, 2023, 08:24:40 AM
A small downgrade is still a downgrade.  There probably won't be a huge drop-off, but there will be one, an unnecessary one.

More games is a larger upgrade though.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 15, 2023, 08:29:24 AM

More games is a larger upgrade though.

Not if the games are uncompetitive, using your "more games is a larger upgrade mindset, every country should be invited.  It maximizes games right?

Quote from: brewcity77 on September 14, 2023, 08:46:54 PM


Expansion is inevitable, so the key is to do it well. Keep what's good about the 64-team format while making the expanded games more compelling than the First Four is now.

Curious on how you propose to make it more compelling. Adding the 15th place team from the Big 10 doesn't seem like that would work.

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 15, 2023, 08:31:05 AM
Not if the games are uncompetitive, using your "more games is a larger upgrade mindset, every country should be invited.  It maximizes games right?

I guess we have decided to just be ridiculous.

Anyway, the three third place teams to advance at Euro 2020 were Portugal (lost 1-0 to Belgium), Switzerland (lost in PKs to France after drawing 3-3), Czech Republic (beat the Netherlands 2-0), and Ukraine (beat Sweden 2-1 in extra time.)

I don't recall the details, but it doesn't seem like quality suffered all that much - in fact the match that looks like the least competitive was the one the third place team won.

But that's not the World Cup.  So lets go back to 1994 - the last time third place teams advanced to the knock outs.  They were USA (host lost 1-0 to Brazil), Argentina (lost 3-2 to Romania), Italy (advanced to finals where they lost in PKs), and Belgium (lost 3-2 to Germany).  Looks like a bunch of competitive games to me.

I just think the premise that this is going to be some massive downgrade in quality is a tad questionable.

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 15, 2023, 08:24:40 AM
A small downgrade is still a downgrade.  There probably won't be a huge drop-off, but there will be one, an unnecessary one.

Sure, but the ideals of the "purist fan" and the ideals of the "organizers" have never been further apart. $ has always driven everything, but as $ has skyrocketed, organizers are getting greedier and greedier, to the detriment of the sport.

Let me preface this by saying my decision is unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but this "purist" walked away from college football this year. 

I've been leaning this way for a few years because of realignment and the end of traditional rivalries.  The end of the Pac-12 and the thought of Oregon-Rutgers as a conference game?  Not my thing.

Ultimately, what was our traditions and rivalries that made us gravitate towards this sport being replaced by new rivalries or traditions will be the new normal in time.  It's just not a time for me.

I would caution the powers to be, to understand what makes the tournament great.  The hardcore fans that post on message boards watch beyond what the casual fan watches for which is the bracket and chaos.  The bracket is the thing that brings the casual fan into the tournament.  Gambling baby, we love it.  You start making it 80 teams or 96 and it becomes more consulted to follow?  The casual fan is punting.  You start making it tilt towards the favorites beyond what it is now?  The interest won't be the same. 

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 15, 2023, 08:39:49 AM
I guess we have decided to just be ridiculous.

Anyway, the three third place teams to advance at Euro 2020 were Portugal (lost 1-0 to Belgium), Switzerland (lost in PKs to France after drawing 3-3), Czech Republic (beat the Netherlands 2-0), and Ukraine (beat Sweden 2-1 in extra time.)

I don't recall the details, but it doesn't seem like quality suffered all that much - in fact the match that looks like the least competitive was the one the third place team won.

But that's not the World Cup.  So lets go back to 1994 - the last time third place teams advanced to the knock outs.  They were USA (host lost 1-0 to Brazil), Argentina (lost 3-2 to Romania), Italy (advanced to finals where they lost in PKs), and Belgium (lost 3-2 to Germany).  Looks like a bunch of competitive games to me.

I just think the premise that this is going to be some massive downgrade in quality is a tad questionable.

Of course I had to be ridiculous because you're making statements along the lines of "expansion=more games=more exertainment", like it's that simple.  Of course you wouldn't want a tournament with 211 FIFA recognized nations, but where do you draw the line?  For me, it's 32. It's at least 48 for you and Brew, if not higher. 

The argument isn't just that third place teams can advance as bad for the tournament, it's that third place teams can advance, coupled with expansion.  Comparing the third place teams from 1994 and 2026 is apples to oranges.

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 15, 2023, 08:46:28 AM
Of course I had to be ridiculous because you're making statements along the lines of "expansion=more games=more exertainment", like it's that simple.  Of course you wouldn't want a tournament with 211 FIFA recognized nations, but where do you draw the line?  For me, it's 32. It's at least 48 for you and Brew, if not higher. 

The argument isn't just that third place teams can advance as bad for the tournament, it's that third place teams can advance, coupled with expansion.  Comparing the third place teams from 1994 and 2026 is apples to oranges.

I guess if you keep wanting to shift goalposts, you'll get to make your point. Carry on.

Quote from: Uncle Rico on September 15, 2023, 08:43:53 AM
Let me preface this by saying my decision is unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but this "purist" walked away from college football this year. 

I've been leaning this way for a few years because of realignment and the end of traditional rivalries.  The end of the Pac-12 and the thought of Oregon-Rutgers as a conference game?  Not my thing.

The problem is the marketplace isn't agreeing with you.

https://sports.yahoo.com/is-next-year-the-year-fans-tune-out-college-football-because-of-the-disaster-that-is-nil-195458354.html

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 14, 2023, 11:44:24 AM
To me, more games and more rounds makes it better - more games to watch and more potential for upsets.

To you, it might be this simple, but to people that follow the sport, we know it's not.

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 14, 2023, 11:42:10 AM
In that sense yes, more games = more money.  Third place teams progressing diminishes the quality of the WC, as well as the quality of qualification.  The 32 team format was perfect.

2nd post on the topic.

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 14, 2023, 11:52:53 AM
Yes, but there's a law of diminishing returns.  Watching Qatar get embarrassed on the pitch last fall was not entertaining.  2026 has 8 AFC auto qualifiers with the potential for one more, so not only would Qatar be back, but you could see countries like Oman and the UAE there as well.  Watching Spain against the top OFC team (which is now guaranteed a spot in the tournament rather than just a play off), is the equivalent of Spain against Georgia, which we just saw end 7-1 in qualifying.  The 32 team format was perfect.

Third.

My goalposts have remained in place.  You refuse to answer a question on how big you want a tournament when your "more games and more rounds makes it better" comments get questioned.

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 15, 2023, 08:56:41 AM
To you, it might be this simple, but to people that follow the sport, we know it's not.

2nd post on the topic.

Third.

My goalposts have remained in place.  You refuse to answer a question on how big you want a tournament when your "more games and more rounds makes it better" comments get questioned.

Again, you decided to go absurd instead of dealing with historical realities.  So not only did you shift the goalposts, you built a nice strawman as well.  Congrats.

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 15, 2023, 07:10:10 AM
To be clear, I have no problem expanding the NCAA tournament.  My only concern would be when the "first 4" or "round 0" or whatever they'll end up calling it will be played.  I can take two days off of work to watch the best two days of sports of the year, but if they expand to the point where those first 4 games would be Tuesday and Wednesday afternoon, I don't think I could justify finding time to watch those as well. Right now you can watch every game of the tournament only taking two days off, I can't justify having to double that number to watch watch games consisting of two low majors or sub .500 P6 teams.

One of the main reasons I support going to 80 with 16 games on Tuesday/Wednesday at 4 sites is because you can package that into evening programming. Start at 6:00 EST, then continue to start a game every twenty minutes for the first window, so 6:20, 6:40, and 7:00. Then plan the next window to start at 8:40 to allow time between the first and second games at the opening site, with subsequent games at 9:00, 9:20, and 9:40. The last game should be done before midnight. Effectively cramming 8 games into a 6-hour window for two nights. Very doable.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 15, 2023, 08:59:28 AM

Again, you decided to go absurd instead of dealing with historical realities.  So not only did you shift the goalposts, you built a nice strawman as well.  Congrats.

So you again refuse to answer a question.  Congrats.  If you're going to have claims that the "right" number is somewhere between 32 and 211, but won't say where, then I guess you can paint with a broad enough brush to fall somewhere near a possibly correct answer. Good job.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 15, 2023, 08:55:01 AM

The problem is the marketplace isn't agreeing with you.

https://sports.yahoo.com/is-next-year-the-year-fans-tune-out-college-football-because-of-the-disaster-that-is-nil-195458354.html

Oh, I'm aware.  Wetzel's article is largely about NIL, though.  His point is the leaders of college athletics having been crying wolf for years about pending doom as athletes get more control and there isn't evidence that's been the case.  I'd argue it isn't the athletes that could doom college athletics but the so-called leaders.

Either way, there is no doom incoming.  For me and college football, it's a matter of aesthetics as much as anything.  If the Big East gets broken up or left behind in realignment, I'd have to see where Marquette ends up. 

Quote from: brewcity77 on September 15, 2023, 09:02:01 AM
One of the main reasons I support going to 80 with 16 games on Tuesday/Wednesday at 4 sites is because you can package that into evening programming. Start at 6:00 EST, then continue to start a game every twenty minutes for the first window, so 6:20, 6:40, and 7:00. Then plan the next window to start at 8:40 to allow time between the first and second games at the opening site, with subsequent games at 9:00, 9:20, and 9:40. The last game should be done before midnight. Effectively cramming 8 games into a 6-hour window for two nights. Very doable.

Considering that gambling very much plays a factor into the popularity of the tournament, where would you draw the line for brackets needing to be submitted by?  Right now, I believe that you can wait until right before tip on Thursday morning, if you push that back to Tuesday early evening how do you think that would effect the whole ordeal?  Or would you not include those games and keep it at Thursday morning?

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 15, 2023, 09:03:58 AM
So you again refuse to answer a question.  Congrats.  If you're going to have claims that the "right" number is somewhere between 32 and 211, but won't say where, then I guess you can paint with a broad enough brush to fall somewhere near a possibly correct answer. Good job.

His answer is the market determines the amount of games.  Which given enough time, it will.

If people don't care about the games and they are a net financial loser then a tournament would go smaller.  If games are well attended and watched then they will expand until a time they are not.

nm

Quote from: brewcity77 on September 15, 2023, 09:02:01 AM
One of the main reasons I support going to 80 with 16 games on Tuesday/Wednesday at 4 sites is because you can package that into evening programming. Start at 6:00 EST, then continue to start a game every twenty minutes for the first window, so 6:20, 6:40, and 7:00. Then plan the next window to start at 8:40 to allow time between the first and second games at the opening site, with subsequent games at 9:00, 9:20, and 9:40. The last game should be done before midnight. Effectively cramming 8 games into a 6-hour window for two nights. Very doable.

That might help, but what would really help, in my opinion, is not having those #16 play on Tuesday/Wed. Those games are buzzkills to me.

Quote from: lawdog77 on September 15, 2023, 09:16:59 AM
That might help, but what would really help, in my opinion, is not having those #16 play on Tuesday/Wed. Those games are buzzkills to me.

And honestly, that is really the crux of the question.  Is there an audience for more of those type of games? 

Quote from: Hards Alumni on September 15, 2023, 09:10:51 AM
His answer is the market determines the amount of games.  Which given enough time, it will.

If people don't care about the games and they are a net financial loser then a tournament would go smaller.  If games are well attended and watched then they will expand until a time they are not.

Another non-answer.  Number please.

This model also works fine when you can have increases in small increments.  64 to 68 is a bump of 6%, and didn't change the overall format of the tournament.  You can also point to teams like VCU or Syracuse and say the the expansion was a success before proposing more expansion.  If you're bumping the tournament 50% and 16 teams, as well as fundamentally changing the format of the tournament you're taking a larger gamble.  The fact that the tournament is also every 4 years rather than annually means that the risks are higher too.  The last time they expaned by 50% the format was so convoluted that they scrapped it after one go.

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 15, 2023, 09:20:40 AM
Another non-answer.  Number please.

This model also works fine when you can have increases in small increments.  64 to 68 is a bump of 6%, and didn't change the overall format of the tournament.  You can also point to teams like VCU or Syracuse and say the the expansion was a success before proposing more expansion.  If you're bumping the tournament 50% and 16 teams, as well as fundamentally changing the format of the tournament you're taking a larger gamble.  The fact that the tournament is also every 4 years rather than annually means that the risks are higher too.  The last time they expaned by 50% the format was so convoluted that they scrapped it after one go.

They scrapped the second group stage (which had been used in the two WCs prior) for an expanded group stage that included the use of third place teams. You know...the thing you think is terrible for 2026.

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 15, 2023, 09:20:40 AM
Another non-answer.  Number please.

This model also works fine when you can have increases in small increments.  64 to 68 is a bump of 6%, and didn't change the overall format of the tournament.  You can also point to teams like VCU or Syracuse and say the the expansion was a success before proposing more expansion.  If you're bumping the tournament 50% and 16 teams, as well as fundamentally changing the format of the tournament you're taking a larger gamble.  The fact that the tournament is also every 4 years rather than annually means that the risks are higher too.  The last time they expaned by 50% the format was so convoluted that they scrapped it after one go.

The number of teams in a tournament will continue to expand as long as there is money to be made from the expansion.  If there isn't enough money coming in, the number of teams invited will decrease. 

You not being happy with the answer doesn't make it a non-answer.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 15, 2023, 09:30:19 AM

They scrapped the second group stage (which had been used in the two WCs prior) for an expanded group stage that included the use of third place teams. You know...the thing you think is terrible for 2026.

Did I use the word terrible, or are you shifting goalposts... the thing you accuse me of?

Quote from: Hards Alumni on September 15, 2023, 09:18:31 AM
And honestly, that is really the crux of the question.  Is there an audience for more of those type of games?

I've always been a fan of getting rid of the two 16/16 seed play in games and replacing them with making two more games with the last at larges playing for entry. Last season this would have resulted in NC State vs Providence and two of USC/Utah St/Penn St/Boise St playing each other. That has to draw more eyeballs than Texas Southern vs Fairleigh Dickinson and TAMU-CC vs. SE MO St

Quote from: Hards Alumni on September 15, 2023, 09:34:37 AM
The number of teams in a tournament will continue to expand as long as there is money to be made from the expansion.  If there isn't enough money coming in, the number of teams invited will decrease. 

You not being happy with the answer doesn't make it a non-answer.

I've been asking for an opinion.

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 15, 2023, 08:46:28 AM
Of course I had to be ridiculous because you're making statements along the lines of "expansion=more games=more exertainment", like it's that simple.  Of course you wouldn't want a tournament with 211 FIFA recognized nations, but where do you draw the line?  For me, it's 32. It's at least 48 for you and Brew, if not higher. 

He's unable to give that because he wants to be argumentative, and not commit in the case his opinion would be wrong.

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 15, 2023, 09:40:01 AM
Did I use the word terrible, or are you shifting goalposts... the thing you accuse me of?

You said it "diminishes the quality of the WC." Do you not think diminishing the value of the World Cup would be terrible?  Or are we just playing word games here.

Quote from: Its DJOver on September 15, 2023, 09:42:52 AM
I've been asking for an opinion.

He's unable to give that because he wants to be argumentative, and not commit in the case his opinion would be wrong.

How can my opinion be wrong?  I think 48 is fine.  Maybe 96 would be better?  Who knows?

But I'm not the one claiming 32 is "perfect."

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 15, 2023, 09:43:03 AM

You said it "diminishes the quality of the WC." Do you not think diminishing the value of the World Cup would be terrible?  Or are we just playing word games here.

I've said since the beginning that 32 in perfect.  Any reduction from perfection is diminishment. I've admitted that it might be a small downgrade, but there will be a downgrade.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 15, 2023, 09:44:39 AM

How can my opinion be wrong?  I think 48 is fine.  Maybe 96 would be better?  Who knows?

But I'm not the one claiming 32 is "perfect."

Because the "market" may end up proving it wrong.  That's what decided whether opinions on future events are correct.  I'm sure there were some that believed that even going from 64 to 68 was wrong, and that was their opinion.  Hard's "market" has proven that opinion wrong.

Quote from: lawdog77 on September 15, 2023, 09:16:59 AM
That might help, but what would really help, in my opinion, is not having those #16 play on Tuesday/Wed. Those games are buzzkills to me.

I do think you need to keep those in and if I were king, I'd have all the 15/16 seeds be play-in games those days. That would essentially mean the current 53-68 autobid teams playing into the 15/16 seed spots. It would mean better teams playing in those games (teams that are now 13s and 14s would be included) and it would provide a better 64-team field on Thursday/Friday because 8 of the worst teams would be eliminated prior to those games and the teams that are left would provide more competitive games for the 1/2 seeds once they get there.

Consider this, from 1985 when the 64 team format was adopted through 2010 which was the last year of 65 teams, there were just 4 upsets by 15/16 seeds in that 26-year stretch. Since 2011, when the field went to 68, there have been 9 such upsets in 12 years.

Going from 64/65 to 68 meant pushing teams that would've been 14s or 15s in the past down a seed line which created increased competition and drama. Further expanding the auto-bid play-in would only increase that level of competition.

The gambling is an important note. I wonder if it might be best to start the tourney on Wednesday/Thursday with the play-in games, then have the first weekend wrap up on Monday. It would still give teams at least 3 days off before the S16 starts and just shift the weekend portion from Thursday-Sunday to Friday-Monday.

Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on September 15, 2023, 09:42:19 AM
I've always been a fan of getting rid of the two 16/16 seed play in games and replacing them with making two more games with the last at larges playing for entry. Last season this would have resulted in NC State vs Providence and two of USC/Utah St/Penn St/Boise St playing each other. That has to draw more eyeballs than Texas Southern vs Fairleigh Dickinson and TAMU-CC vs. SE MO St

I'd much rather watch your version.

Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on September 15, 2023, 09:42:19 AM
I've always been a fan of getting rid of the two 16/16 seed play in games and replacing them with making two more games with the last at larges playing for entry. Last season this would have resulted in NC State vs Providence and two of USC/Utah St/Penn St/Boise St playing each other. That has to draw more eyeballs than Texas Southern vs Fairleigh Dickinson and TAMU-CC vs. SE MO St

I get this perspective, but in order to expand you need more than just the high-majors to buy in. By keeping the low and mid majors in there, it guarantees more NCAA credits for their leagues (though fewer of the added credits than high-majors will expect) and allows more of their coaches to say they won an NCAA Tournament game. And culling those teams early is the best way to improve the quality of the competition once you pare the field to 64. If you have 15/16s as play-in winners, then the new 13s and 14s are essentially the old 11/12 autobids that were usually on the 11-13 lines, while the new 11s and 12s will all be play-in winners, meaning a higher percentage of high-major teams giving the field more overall talent.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 15, 2023, 08:04:05 AM

Having third place teams advance to the knock out round is a very common occurrence at tournaments throughout the world. It happens now at the Euros, Copa America and the African Cup of Nations. It even happened in the World Cup in the past - the US team in 1994 wouldn't have advanced to the knockout round otherwise.

So while you might think the current format is "perfect," a lot of people who organize some pretty big tournaments disagree.

To clarify, not all third place teams make it through in the Euros and the Copa. It's basically a wildcard format that two or three get through, not all. They do this so there aren't byes in the knockout rounds.

The World Cup allowed three teams from a four team group through until 1998 (when they expanded the field again). Three of four teams going through when it's a smaller elite field is much more palatable than putting three of four teams through in a diluted field.

Quote from: brewcity77 on September 15, 2023, 10:01:55 AM
I wonder if it might be best to start the tourney on Wednesday/Thursday with the play-in games, then have the first weekend wrap up on Monday. It would still give teams at least 3 days off before the S16 starts and just shift the weekend portion from Thursday-Sunday to Friday-Monday.

How about this?

Teams 33-96 play on Thursday-Friday (16 games each day, like it is now), and then 1-32 play the winners on Saturday-Sunday (16 games each day rather than 8).

Then the remaining 32 teams advance to the second weekend.  8 games on Thursday and Friday, 4 each on Saturday and Sunday.

The final 8 advance to the final weekend, rather than final four, played over five days (Thurs-Sat-Mon)

Quote from: SaveOD238 on September 18, 2023, 07:33:58 PM
How about this?

Teams 33-96 play on Thursday-Friday (16 games each day, like it is now), and then 1-32 play the winners on Saturday-Sunday (16 games each day rather than 8).

Then the remaining 32 teams advance to the second weekend.  8 games on Thursday and Friday, 4 each on Saturday and Sunday.

The final 8 advance to the final weekend, rather than final four, played over five days (Thurs-Sat-Mon)

It would work, though personally, I really like the idea of the 1/16 upset possibility continuing, and I also think the marketing of building up to the Final Four weekend is a value add they will want to keep.

Again, just personal, I also am not a huge fan of 96. I think that's where you start to get more push for second auto-bids for non-conference tourney winners (the math doesn't make that enough of an add for the big boys to agree to it) and it totally kills the quality of the NIT. Admittedly, that doesn't matter a ton, but I still think it's a fun event for the teams involved. Three win-or-go-home games at the Al in 2018 were a ton of fun, even if we weren't playing for the same stakes as NCAA teams were.

Quote from: SaveOD238 on September 18, 2023, 07:33:58 PM
How about this?

Teams 33-96 play on Thursday-Friday (16 games each day, like it is now), and then 1-32 play the winners on Saturday-Sunday (16 games each day rather than 8).

Then the remaining 32 teams advance to the second weekend.  8 games on Thursday and Friday, 4 each on Saturday and Sunday.

The final 8 advance to the final weekend, rather than final four, played over five days (Thurs-Sat-Mon)

I like it. I am still against expansion but this is honestly the best version I have heard so far.

Quote from: brewcity77 on September 18, 2023, 08:07:44 PM
It would work, though personally, I really like the idea of the 1/16 upset possibility continuing, and I also think the marketing of building up to the Final Four weekend is a value add they will want to keep.

I am also against expansion, but playing Devil's advocate..

Now there are possibilities of even crazier upsets...like a 1/24 upset.

And you still have the exact same Final Four weekend. The elite 8 is just played 4 days later at the same site as the Final Four. And 4 more teams are part of the build up. I think that all means more eyeballs, and more $$$.