MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: BallBoy on November 01, 2023, 07:27:39 PM
-
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/38794849/changes-postseason-nit-made-response-new-tournament
Gavitt was referring to a new tournament featuring the top 16 teams from the Big East, Big Ten and Big 12 that didn't make the NCAA tournament. The Messenger reported in September that Fox Sports is behind the event, which would be played at T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas.
This tournament aligned to Fox sports is a great sign for their investment into the Big East. Also looks like it will be a great event to see in Vegas.
-
I don't see much of anyone having interest in the 16-team Vegas tournament. Half the coaches will probably be fired by the time it would happen (week between E8 & F4) and any players with NBA aspirations will skip it. I think they would be better served creating an in-season Champions League tournament if they truly want to have an idea that actually drives interest, viewership, and money.
-
I don't see much of anyone having interest in the 16-team Vegas tournament. Half the coaches will probably be fired by the time it would happen (week between E8 & F4) and any players with NBA aspirations will skip it. I think they would be better served creating an in-season Champions League tournament if they truly want to have an idea that actually drives interest, viewership, and money.
I keep seeing Paint Touches talk about this, but honestly I just don't see it. Between the holiday tournaments and the expanded conference seasons, I am not sure there is going to be much interest by the schools in playing in something like that, and I am not sure the networks would have much interest in paying for more content either. Especially when they routinely just set up these types of match ups.
-
I keep seeing Paint Touches talk about this, but honestly I just don't see it. Between the holiday tournaments and the expanded conference seasons, I am not sure there is going to be much interest by the schools in playing in something like that, and I am not sure the networks would have much interest in paying for more content either. Especially when they routinely just set up these types of match ups.
Yep, and where is the time to do it?
-
Yep, and where is the time to do it?
Non-con play. It would start the first week of the season and be wrapped up before January 1. CBBCL games would replace non-con games. The toughest part would be getting everyone the same number of games within the event. But if you guaranteed everyone got 9 games, it could certainly work out.
Here's the latest AE proposal: https://www.anonymouseagle.com/2023/6/10/23755701/mens-college-basketball-needs-a-champions-league
-
Non-con play. It would start the first week of the season and be wrapped up before January 1. CBBCL games would replace non-con games. The toughest part would be getting everyone the same number of games within the event. But if you guaranteed everyone got 9 games, it could certainly work out.
Here's the latest AE proposal: https://www.anonymouseagle.com/2023/6/10/23755701/mens-college-basketball-needs-a-champions-league
I read this. I’m completely unconvinced that it would drive more revenue than the current system of holiday tournaments and various network controlled pre-season events.
-
I read this. I’m completely unconvinced that it would drive more revenue than the current system of holiday tournaments and various network controlled pre-season events.
I think it absolutely would, for the same reason the NCAA Tournament outdraws conference tournaments and the NIT, or why Champions League outdraws Copa del Rey or the FA Cup. The stakes would be bigger, the field would be more encompassing, and every league would have a stake in it. Fans can ignore 80% of the holiday tournaments that don't involve their team or their league, but this would involve all 32 leagues. It would also give stakes to the opening week by making games that would typically be throwaway games significant as those teams played to reach the group stage. It's the same reason the NBA is trying something similar, though this would be on a larger scale than the NBA's In-Season Tournament.
The topic comes up every year: why does the start of the NCAA season suck? Everyone is excited, but we get zero ranked vs ranked matchups on opening night? The best game is USC at K-State. You have to go to Friday until there's a game with two top-25 teams, and that's the only one in the entire first week of the season. They need better matchups to start the year and grab interest early, particularly on weeknights when the competition with football isn't there. This would solve that problem by giving early games actual stakes and forcing the best teams to actually play each other in the first 2 months of the season.
This year's Maui shows just how much something like this is needed. Maui is awesome because we get 1/3/5/9/11 and there's a real chance by the time it tips it could be 1/2/3. It's been talked about in the off-season because it is the best MTE field in the history of the sport. Imagine getting that every year, but better. A big part of the reason people don't pay attention to college basketball until after the New Year isn't just because of football, but because they are putting crap product on TV for most of November and December.
The current system of holiday tournaments and various network controlled pre-season events gives you too many crap matchups and not enough marquee ones. This would ensure the season starts with marquee matchups, and there would still be enough teams to fill all the worthwhile MTEs once you get past this field. I do think it needs some tweaking, but in terms of early season interest, this would blow the current format out of the water.
-
But I think you are misunderstanding two things here.
First, is that better match-ups isn't going to necessarily mean better ratings. IMO college basketball fans by and large follow their programs. The fan that will watch games between two teams they are not aligned with is not a large demographic. It's the general fan that drives the ratings, and those fans aren't really going to care about other games until March Madness comes around. This isn't football, which has a different hold on the American public for a variety of reasons. This is more like baseball. And sure baseball has a great opening day, but after that is weeks of sparse crowds and television ratings.
Second, this is going to seem like a contrived tournament to most people. March Madness works because of the tradition - filling out the brackets, crazy endings, the one-and-done nature of it all. IMO you can't just say "hey let's do this in the fall too." All these teams will keep on playing for dozens of additional games AND still have the "real championship" at the end. The Champions League works in Europe because it has sixty years of history behind it. I don't think you can say "that works there so it would work here too."
All and all I think there is too much worry about the start of the NCAA basketball season. The NBA season starts in a similar manner. Both of their seasons don't initially draw much interest, but motor along fine, picking up momentum along the way and then both have their time in the spotlight at the end. And that's OK.
-
But I think you are misunderstanding two things here.
First, is that better match-ups isn't going to necessarily mean better ratings. IMO college basketball fans by and large follow their programs. The fan that will watch games between two teams they are not aligned with is not a large demographic. It's the general fan that drives the ratings, and those fans aren't really going to care about other games until March Madness comes around. This isn't football, which has a different hold on the American public for a variety of reasons. This is more like baseball. And sure baseball has a great opening day, but after that is weeks of sparse crowds and television ratings.
Second, this is going to seem like a contrived tournament to most people. March Madness works because of the tradition - filling out the brackets, crazy endings, the one-and-done nature of it all. IMO you can't just say "hey let's do this in the fall too." All these teams will keep on playing for dozens of additional games AND still have the "real championship" at the end. The Champions League works in Europe because it has sixty years of history behind it. I don't think you can say "that works there so it would work here too."
All and all I think there is too much worry about the start of the NCAA basketball season. The NBA season starts in a similar manner. Both of their seasons don't initially draw much interest, but motor along fine, picking up momentum along the way and then both have their time in the spotlight at the end. And that's OK.
Bingo. This has a made for TV roller derby feel too it. Too much corporate control at the expense of the booster fan will kill the golden goose.
-
Bingo. This has a made for TV roller derby feel too it. Too much corporate control at the expense of the booster fan will kill the golden goose.
I feel similar about the "NBA Cup" that they are introducing this year. Introducing elements of European soccer just because they work over there doesn't mean they will work here.
-
But I think you are misunderstanding two things here.
First, is that better match-ups isn't going to necessarily mean better ratings. IMO college basketball fans by and large follow their programs. The fan that will watch games between two teams they are not aligned with is not a large demographic. It's the general fan that drives the ratings, and those fans aren't really going to care about other games until March Madness comes around. This isn't football, which has a different hold on the American public for a variety of reasons. This is more like baseball. And sure baseball has a great opening day, but after that is weeks of sparse crowds and television ratings.
More fans will watch Duke vs Kentucky than Winthrop vs Northern Kentucky. And meaningful games drive more ratings. Why do the small conferences get their best ratings during Championship Week? Because it has meaning. Creating an event with bigger matchups that have meaning is going to drive more ratings in the same way the Champions Classic, Gavitt Games, B10/ACC Challenge, and other events get bigger ratings than St. Joseph's vs Lafayette. That's not rocket science, and it's not really debatable.
Second, this is going to seem like a contrived tournament to most people. March Madness works because of the tradition - filling out the brackets, crazy endings, the one-and-done nature of it all. IMO you can't just say "hey let's do this in the fall too." All these teams will keep on playing for dozens of additional games AND still have the "real championship" at the end. The Champions League works in Europe because it has sixty years of history behind it. I don't think you can say "that works there so it would work here too."
How do traditions start? By doing it once. What might seem contrived to some today would seem less so in a decade. And when there are meaningful games every weekend in November and December and that's been the case for 10, 20, 30 years, it will grow in importance and meaning. Sure, you'll have some old whiners who say "I liked Warriors better and this new tournament is dumb" but eventually fans will accept reality. The NCAA Tournament as we know it grew over 80 years from an 8-team event to what it is today. It's beloved because it was allowed to do that. Shooting down an idea because it won't be fully formed tomorrow and trying to compare it with events that have been going on for decades ignores the simple reality that you need to start something before it can be around for decades. It's myopic and fails to understand how traditions are formed in the first place.
All and all I think there is too much worry about the start of the NCAA basketball season. The NBA season starts in a similar manner. Both of their seasons don't initially draw much interest, but motor along fine, picking up momentum along the way and then both have their time in the spotlight at the end. And that's OK.
I've never been a fan of the "change might not work perfectly so let's not bother trying" mentality. Things don't get better by staying the same, they get better by taking risks and innovating. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, but the only way to insure things don't improve is to actively avoid opportunities for improvement.
-
I'm certainly not saying they shouldn't try. I have said that I am "unconvinced it would drive more revenue" and gave the reasons why. You are right - it might work. I just don't think it will.
This is very similar to the conversations around the expanded football playoff. Until ESPN showed that they could maximize revenue by ditching the bowl system, there was no reason to. But I think media companies like Fox and ESPN, between the various "tip off classics" and holiday tournaments, probably believe they are squeezing out enough ratings at this point in the calendar. Hell, Dick Vitale, ESPN's most recognized college basketball personality, has been arguing for change at the beginning of the season for years, yet ESPN seems unmoved by it all.
-
Gonzaga's matchups early in the season with major teams supports Brew's take. I admire Few for his vision of showcasing a once virtually unknown team and launching them into the national spotlight. While it is only one team + high level opponents, it has worked very well on a small scale.
-
Non-con play. It would start the first week of the season and be wrapped up before January 1. CBBCL games would replace non-con games. The toughest part would be getting everyone the same number of games within the event. But if you guaranteed everyone got 9 games, it could certainly work out.
Here's the latest AE proposal: https://www.anonymouseagle.com/2023/6/10/23755701/mens-college-basketball-needs-a-champions-league
This sounds awful. Confusing, and no idea when you'd have time for it during the current schedule (maybe if you started the season in mid October or something), and decimates the freedom of scheduling your non-conference the way you like. This may work for soccer, but it just doesn't work for college basketball.
Events like this year's Maui Invitational actually show you don't need something like this. There are LOTS of great non-conference matchups against highly ranked teams.
I just don't see the appeal.
-
Most importantly, a Champions league based off last season's results have zero guarantee that the best teams will actually be participating. Players come and go every single year. A conference champion one year may be in the bottom half the next. It isn't like pro sports.
-
More fans will watch Duke vs Kentucky than Winthrop vs Northern Kentucky. And meaningful games drive more ratings. Why do the small conferences get their best ratings during Championship Week? Because it has meaning. Creating an event with bigger matchups that have meaning is going to drive more ratings in the same way the Champions Classic, Gavitt Games, B10/ACC Challenge, and other events get bigger ratings than St. Joseph's vs Lafayette. That's not rocket science, and it's not really debatable.
How do traditions start? By doing it once. What might seem contrived to some today would seem less so in a decade. And when there are meaningful games every weekend in November and December and that's been the case for 10, 20, 30 years, it will grow in importance and meaning. Sure, you'll have some old whiners who say "I liked Warriors better and this new tournament is dumb" but eventually fans will accept reality. The NCAA Tournament as we know it grew over 80 years from an 8-team event to what it is today. It's beloved because it was allowed to do that. Shooting down an idea because it won't be fully formed tomorrow and trying to compare it with events that have been going on for decades ignores the simple reality that you need to start something before it can be around for decades. It's myopic and fails to understand how traditions are formed in the first place.
I've never been a fan of the "change might not work perfectly so let's not bother trying" mentality. Things don't get better by staying the same, they get better by taking risks and innovating. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, but the only way to insure things don't improve is to actively avoid opportunities for improvement.
We Warriors have never been whiners. Al gave a big middle finger to the NCAA and went the traditional route winning the NIT in 1970 and from where I sit it paid big dividends leading to the Warriors Natty in '77. I don't oppose change as long as it respects traditions. The UW/Marquette rivalry is meaningful to basketball fans in Wisconsin even if both teams suck, of course more fun when both are winners. I am sure the Marquette/Notre Dame game will be a sell out or close to it, even though Notre will suck this season; because for us it has meaning. Rating are not everything.
-
This sounds awful. Confusing, and no idea when you'd have time for it during the current schedule (maybe if you started the season in mid October or something), and decimates the freedom of scheduling your non-conference the way you like. This may work for soccer, but it just doesn't work for college basketball.
Events like this year's Maui Invitational actually show you don't need something like this. There are LOTS of great non-conference matchups against highly ranked teams.
I just don't see the appeal.
This year's Maui actually shows that they DO need something like this because this year's Maui is the best MTE field in the roughly 40 year history of MTEs. It took us decades to get a field this good and no field in MTE history has been close to this Maui.
And as good as Maui is, as good as the PK80 and PK85 were, they wouldn't come close to what an annual CBBCL would provide. It would blow the doors off any MTE in history, including this year's Maui. You look at how great Maui is but you can't see the appeal of something that would be unquestionably better on an annual basis, not once every forty years?
-
This year's Maui actually shows that they DO need something like this because this year's Maui is the best MTE field in the roughly 40 year history of MTEs. It took us decades to get a field this good and no field in MTE history has been close to this Maui.
And as good as Maui is, as good as the PK80 and PK85 were, they wouldn't come close to what an annual CBBCL would provide. It would blow the doors off any MTE in history, including this year's Maui. You look at how great Maui is but you can't see the appeal of something that would be unquestionably better on an annual basis, not once every forty years?
Maui is great this year because it offers the possibility of bunch of top 10 ranked teams each getting 2 or 3 games against other top 10 ranked teams.
In the proposed tournament, if you're lucky, by the time you get to the final round, you'll have 8 teams that might come close to what Maui offers this year. But that assumes no upsets--and as we see from the NCAA tournament, upsets are common. Chances are good that a marquee team or three are no longer around and you don't see those matchups.
Also, there seems to be an assumption that people aren't paying attention to college hoops in December because the matchups aren't compelling. I might offer that most people in the world have other things going on in December, and don't have time for college hoops regardless of the quality of the matchup. There's this thing called Christmas that people are getting ready for.
-
Yes, because people stop watching TV in December because of Christmas. That has to be the funniest ridiculous Scoop Take ever.
-
Yes, because people stop watching TV in December because of Christmas. That has to be the funniest ridiculous Scoop Take ever.
It's actually funnier and more ridiculous how out of touch with reality you are that you don't notice that normal people spend more time in December on Christmas shopping, holiday travel, preparing for houseguests, studying for finals, salespeople trying to make their year-end quota, attending holiday parties for your company neighborhood, spouse's company, etc., and all the other things that happen to most normal people between Thanksgiving and Christmas.
-
It's actually funnier and more ridiculous how out of touch with reality you are that you don't notice that normal people spend more time in December on Christmas shopping, holiday travel, preparing for houseguests, studying for finals, salespeople trying to make their year-end quota, attending holiday parties for your company neighborhood, spouse's company, etc., and all the other things that happen to most normal people between Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Oh man, you are about to get dunked on so hard. You probably should have checked TV ratings during the holiday season.
Also, this ain't 1980
-
It's actually funnier and more ridiculous how out of touch with reality you are that you don't notice that normal people spend more time in December on Christmas shopping, holiday travel, preparing for houseguests, studying for finals, salespeople trying to make their year-end quota, attending holiday parties for your company neighborhood, spouse's company, etc., and all the other things that happen to most normal people between Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Casual reader here. I know there's some intelligent posters here but it's sometimes hard to identify who knows what they are talking about. Post's like these help the sorting process
-
Die hard college fans would be interested, but the majority start watching college hoops after the Super Bowl. I don’t see the ncaa’s motivation to create a tournament which competes with ncaa football post season viewership either.
-
Die hard college fans would be interested, but the majority start watching college hoops after the Super Bowl. I don’t see the ncaa’s motivation to create a tournament which competes with ncaa football post season viewership either.
I firmly because one of the main reasons fans don't tune in is because the schedule sucks. Zero ranked vs ranked matchups yesterday. Only a handful of high-major vs high-major games. Run big time games during the week and it will give people a reason to tune in. And if it doesn't work, what do they lose by trying to put bigger matchups together earlier? I don't see how anyone could argue the sport benefits from watching top-25 teams drill cupcakes by 20+ on repeat.
-
Non-con play. It would start the first week of the season and be wrapped up before January 1. CBBCL games would replace non-con games. The toughest part would be getting everyone the same number of games within the event. But if you guaranteed everyone got 9 games, it could certainly work out.
Here's the latest AE proposal: https://www.anonymouseagle.com/2023/6/10/23755701/mens-college-basketball-needs-a-champions-league
I read this and am thankful they don’t have it. I am a huge Real fan and watch deep into the UCL every year. This would completely replace all preseason tournaments and the non-conference schedule to get the equivalent of the NCAA tournament that is played 3 months later. Instead of the one and done format we have a complicated group stage to lead to a knock out stage of sweet sixteens. In order for this to work you would need 10 of these running concurrently so each team can play equal number of games. If you want to add more from one conference then you end up with fewer concurrent tournaments but still a scheduling nightmare as lower leagues would need to play the equivalent of the Europa League. Scheduling which can’t happen until the end of the season.
There are over 350 teams in NCAA. Unlike the UCL, those teams need to play an equal number of games. If you aren’t good you just don’t get to play in UCL. It is additive to league play and is the NCAA tournament played out over 6 months.
Next most UCL teams remain relatively intact year-over-year except during certain transfer windows. With graduation, transfers and the draft, entire starting line ups could turn over. The mid-majors with senior teams go from being Cinderella to doormats.
Those mid-majors also can’t get rewarded for scheduling a challenging schedule as they might not play in the top tier UCL because of how they did the year before.
Outside of scheduling and overall fairness, it cannibalizes revenue from already popular tournaments like Maui, Atlantis, which get most their money from TV rights.
-
I read this and am thankful they don’t have it. I am a huge Real fan and watch deep into the UCL every year. This would completely replace all preseason tournaments and the non-conference schedule to get the equivalent of the NCAA tournament that is played 3 months later. Instead of the one and done format we have a complicated group stage to lead to a knock out stage of sweet sixteens. In order for this to work you would need 10 of these running concurrently so each team can play equal number of games. If you want to add more from one conference then you end up with fewer concurrent tournaments but still a scheduling nightmare as lower leagues would need to play the equivalent of the Europa League. Scheduling which can’t happen until the end of the season.
There are over 350 teams in NCAA. Unlike the UCL, those teams need to play an equal number of games. If you aren’t good you just don’t get to play in UCL. It is additive to league play and is the NCAA tournament played out over 6 months.
Next most UCL teams remain relatively intact year-over-year except during certain transfer windows. With graduation, transfers and the draft, entire starting line ups could turn over. The mid-majors with senior teams go from being Cinderella to doormats.
Those mid-majors also can’t get rewarded for scheduling a challenging schedule as they might not play in the top tier UCL because of how they did the year before.
Outside of scheduling and overall fairness, it cannibalizes revenue from already popular tournaments like Maui, Atlantis, which get most their money from TV rights.
Correct on all counts. It just doesn't work with college basketball, at least as currently formulated.
If you wanted to do this, you'd have to start the season way earlier and add 10 games to everyone's schedule.
Even then, what are you trying to accomplish? You're just creating a tournament based on the results of teams with many players who aren't even there anymore. You are losing an average of at least 25% to attrition to graduation and the NBA every year, and 33% of college players transfer at least once.
This year's Marquette team is an outlier. Usually conference champions aren't better the next year. Look at the 2002-2003 team that won conference USA and compare to 2003-2004, which went to the NIT. And the 2012-2013 team that won the Big East went 17-15 the following year. Looking back, those are the teams that would have been participating in this tournament.
I think Brew is way overstating the interest this would garner. I'd much rather watch the current preseason tournaments.
-
One could also posit that the NCAA tournament at the end of the season IS like a Champions League, though without the group stage. Teams have to earn entry, including by winning their conference or tournament, to participate. And, in line with Coleman's point above, the tournament is played with the same players who earned the spot for their team/school.
-
I feel similar about the "NBA Cup" that they are introducing this year. Introducing elements of European soccer just because they work over there doesn't mean they will work here.
European basketball league has that type of tournament not just soccer and NBA wants Europe
-
It's actually funnier and more ridiculous how out of touch with reality you are that you don't notice that normal people spend more time in December on Christmas shopping, holiday travel, preparing for houseguests, studying for finals, salespeople trying to make their year-end quota, attending holiday parties for your company neighborhood, spouse's company, etc., and all the other things that happen to most normal people between Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Studying for finals? WTF? I went to Chicago for a Who concert in the middle of finals.
-
Correct on all counts. It just doesn't work with college basketball, at least as currently formulated.
If you wanted to do this, you'd have to start the season way earlier and add 10 games to everyone's schedule.
Even then, what are you trying to accomplish? You're just creating a tournament based on the results of teams with many players who aren't even there anymore. You are losing an average of at least 25% to attrition to graduation and the NBA every year, and 33% of college players transfer at least once.
This year's Marquette team is an outlier. Usually conference champions aren't better the next year. Look at the 2002-2003 team that won conference USA and compare to 2003-2004, which went to the NIT. And the 2012-2013 team that won the Big East went 17-15 the following year. Looking back, those are the teams that would have been participating in this tournament.
I think Brew is way overstating the interest this would garner. I'd much rather watch the current preseason tournaments.
No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't have to start earlier, you wouldn't have to add 10 games to the schedule. The CBBCL would replace much of a team's non-con schedule.
And seriously, anyone who diligently follows college basketball has heard the complaints all week. From the Parish and Norlander to Field of 68 to 3 Man Weave, the biggest topic so far is how bad this week's schedule has been. There's always the "no one tunes in until after football" while never acknowledging that it might just be because THE GAMES SUCK.
Maybe the coaches are cowards, maybe the athletic departments are lazy, maybe a million things, but the reality is every year we get treated to a terrible 1-2 weeks of basketball. If there are other ideas or better ideas that make the first weeks interesting, I'm all for hearing them, but the reality is no one watches because there is eff all worth watching.
-
No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't have to start earlier, you wouldn't have to add 10 games to the schedule. The CBBCL would replace much of a team's non-con schedule.
And seriously, anyone who diligently follows college basketball has heard the complaints all week. From the Parish and Norlander to Field of 68 to 3 Man Weave, the biggest topic so far is how bad this week's schedule has been. There's always the "no one tunes in until after football" while never acknowledging that it might just be because THE GAMES SUCK.
Maybe the coaches are cowards, maybe the athletic departments are lazy, maybe a million things, but the reality is every year we get treated to a terrible 1-2 weeks of basketball. If there are other ideas or better ideas that make the first weeks interesting, I'm all for hearing them, but the reality is no one watches because there is eff all worth watching.
What’s the incentive for teams to participate in it ? What’s the incentive for the ncaa to organize it?
Champions league offers monster prize money for teams qualifying and progressing. If we’re talking domestic tournaments, there is automatic qualification to Europe for the winners of some competition.
What would be the carrot in front of the horse for teams to want to do this?
-
No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't have to start earlier, you wouldn't have to add 10 games to the schedule. The CBBCL would replace much of a team's non-con schedule.
And seriously, anyone who diligently follows college basketball has heard the complaints all week. From the Parish and Norlander to Field of 68 to 3 Man Weave, the biggest topic so far is how bad this week's schedule has been. There's always the "no one tunes in until after football" while never acknowledging that it might just be because THE GAMES SUCK.
Maybe the coaches are cowards, maybe the athletic departments are lazy, maybe a million things, but the reality is every year we get treated to a terrible 1-2 weeks of basketball. If there are other ideas or better ideas that make the first weeks interesting, I'm all for hearing them, but the reality is no one watches because there is eff all worth watching.
Any concern that the schedules of the teams that would participate would almost be TOO loaded for a regular season load?
I’m Europe, most of the CL squads get a good portion of their regular league games that are fairly straight forward and they can play several guys and rest others as needed for the tougher games.
This is more true for the participants from the non top 4 leagues, but even an EPL or La Liga squad will get several softer games in their league season.
Some of these NCAAb leagues are becoming quite daunting when it comes to scheduling. The B12 comes to mind, but even the BE/B10 etc only really have a handful of “cupcakes” at best.
So you take that and load it up with a crap ton of elite games in the non-con and don’t you run the risk of a severely worn down team come the most important part of the season, the big dance?
I guess Marquettes schedule this year should be a decent litmus test in that it doesn’t have more than 6-8 “soft” games for the entirety of the season, and we’ve never really seen that before in my lifetime at MU.
It may be the near millennial in me but I just tend to worry about a completely slammed 30 game schedule with no breaks, a schedule that would appease you and I, not being the best for the March success of many of the “Champions League” participants
-
No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't have to start earlier, you wouldn't have to add 10 games to the schedule. The CBBCL would replace much of a team's non-con schedule.
And seriously, anyone who diligently follows college basketball has heard the complaints all week. From the Parish and Norlander to Field of 68 to 3 Man Weave, the biggest topic so far is how bad this week's schedule has been. There's always the "no one tunes in until after football" while never acknowledging that it might just be because THE GAMES SUCK.
Maybe the coaches are cowards, maybe the athletic departments are lazy, maybe a million things, but the reality is every year we get treated to a terrible 1-2 weeks of basketball. If there are other ideas or better ideas that make the first weeks interesting, I'm all for hearing them, but the reality is no one watches because there is eff all worth watching.
Except those crappy games don’t magically go away and the first two weeks would still be crappy if not worse.
1. Just like the champions league there would be some seeding process so they don’t have the Goliath’s all meet early. This means power 6 against the powerless 6 in the first 2 weeks. By weeks 2-4 you start to see some power vs power games but we see that in the current format. Illinois-MU, tournaments, the tournament of champions. So what you are saying is let’s scrape the current format to improve the first week.
2. With the turnover year-over-year the Power teams might not very powerful. So we are watching mediocre against inexperienced
3. You can’t really have more than one team from the same conference because they could end up playing each other.
4. As I mentioned before, there still needs to be equal games for all other teams so you would need another ten UCL running in parallel with more crappy 1st week games. If you don’t you get into a scheduling nightmare. MU couldn’t schedule Wisconsin every year because one or both might be in this tournament. Is seeing a guaranteed MU/Wisconsin matchup every year supersede a MU vs Sun Belt champion game? Absolutely. There is no way MU vs insert opponent is going to draw higher than MU v Wisconsin.
6. The champions league is the NCAA tournament. You get the champion of the sport. I don’t think you can find anyone, even in Europe, who would tell you the Champions league group stage is better than the opening weekend of the NCAA tournament.
7. Look at the scores from today and yesterday from the UCL. Horrible soccer. Real Madrid beat Braga 3-0. Inter vs FC Salzburg. The upset on paper was Man U versus FC Copenhagen but anyone will tell Man U has been sucking for years and aren’t good. The Champions league doesn’t get good until the knock out stage. Look at the group stage tables there are 16 teams who have accumulated less than 6 pts in the standing. 15 with less than 5. They only have points because they had to play each other. With 4 of the 6 games played, the best teams have already locked their place in the knockout stage which is going to lead to worse soccer because they start to rest the stars. I could go on but the point is lots of bad soccer.
8. If you look at MU’s schedule there are only 4 bad games. No way does a UCL have fewer than 4 bad games especially with a group stage.
-
No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't have to start earlier, you wouldn't have to add 10 games to the schedule. The CBBCL would replace much of a team's non-con schedule.
And seriously, anyone who diligently follows college basketball has heard the complaints all week. From the Parish and Norlander to Field of 68 to 3 Man Weave, the biggest topic so far is how bad this week's schedule has been. There's always the "no one tunes in until after football" while never acknowledging that it might just be because THE GAMES SUCK.
Maybe the coaches are cowards, maybe the athletic departments are lazy, maybe a million things, but the reality is every year we get treated to a terrible 1-2 weeks of basketball. If there are other ideas or better ideas that make the first weeks interesting, I'm all for hearing them, but the reality is no one watches because there is eff all worth watching.
I hear the complaints every year and I think it’s silly. Most good teams load up their non-conference and have 20 game conference schedules. Marquette has like four buy games this season? That’s fine.
The season doesn’t need to start with a bang. Most sports don’t. And that’s OK because it ends with one.
-
Except those crappy games don’t magically go away and the first two weeks would still be crappy if not worse.
1. Just like the champions league there would be some seeding process so they don’t have the Goliath’s all meet early. This means power 6 against the powerless 6 in the first 2 weeks. By weeks 2-4 you start to see some power vs power games but we see that in the current format. Illinois-MU, tournaments, the tournament of champions. So what you are saying is let’s scrape the current format to improve the first week.
2. With the turnover year-over-year the Power teams might not very powerful. So we are watching mediocre against inexperienced
3. You can’t really have more than one team from the same conference because they could end up playing each other.
4. As I mentioned before, there still needs to be equal games for all other teams so you would need another ten UCL running in parallel with more crappy 1st week games. If you don’t you get into a scheduling nightmare. MU couldn’t schedule Wisconsin every year because one or both might be in this tournament. Is seeing a guaranteed MU/Wisconsin matchup every year supersede a MU vs Sun Belt champion game? Absolutely. There is no way MU vs insert opponent is going to draw higher than MU v Wisconsin.
6. The champions league is the NCAA tournament. You get the champion of the sport. I don’t think you can find anyone, even in Europe, who would tell you the Champions league group stage is better than the opening weekend of the NCAA tournament.
7. Look at the scores from today and yesterday from the UCL. Horrible soccer. Real Madrid beat Braga 3-0. Inter vs FC Salzburg. The upset on paper was Man U versus FC Copenhagen but anyone will tell Man U has been sucking for years and aren’t good. The Champions league doesn’t get good until the knock out stage. Look at the group stage tables there are 16 teams who have accumulated less than 6 pts in the standing. 15 with less than 5. They only have points because they had to play each other. With 4 of the 6 games played, the best teams have already locked their place in the knockout stage which is going to lead to worse soccer because they start to rest the stars. I could go on but the point is lots of bad soccer.
8. If you look at MU’s schedule there are only 4 bad games. No way does a UCL have fewer than 4 bad games especially with a group stage.
I see a lot of wrong soccer takes on this thread. But no good games before the knockout stage? Have you seen Group F?
-
I see a lot of wrong soccer takes on this thread. But no good games before the knockout stage? Have you seen Group F?
I don't think he meant "no good games" in the group stage. Just that a lot of games aren't very competitive - which would also be the case in brew's suggested tournament as well.
-
I see a lot of wrong soccer takes on this thread. But no good games before the knockout stage? Have you seen Group F?
You mean the group with the team with the number 1 player in the world who flames out early every year because the team doesn’t travel outside of Paris.
Here are what people are saying about your Group of Death. “Four Average Teams with Big Names” “Better off playing in Europa” “none of them will win the CL”
https://youtu.be/2lVEXQleUjg?si=Cx9rixU6-21IaNrR
Correct Sultan.
-
You mean the group with the team with the number 1 player in the world who flames out early every year because the team doesn’t travel outside of Paris.
Here are what people are saying about your Group of Death. “Four Average Teams with Big Names” “Better off playing in Europa” “none of them will win the CL”
https://youtu.be/2lVEXQleUjg?si=Cx9rixU6-21IaNrR
Correct Sultan.
Calling those four teams average is comical. Saying teams most likely won't win the biggest club competition in the world doesn't automatically make you mediocre.
-
I hear the complaints every year and I think it’s silly. Most good teams load up their non-conference and have 20 game conference schedules. Marquette has like four buy games this season? That’s fine.
The season doesn’t need to start with a bang. Most sports don’t. And that’s OK because it ends with one.
Well said.
-
Calling those four teams average is comical. Saying teams most likely won't win the biggest club competition in the world doesn't automatically make you mediocre.
If the point of the NCAA BK CL is to avoid people complaining about bad games, then don't point to a group of which people are complaining about them being mediocre/average games.
If you look across all of the groups, you will see that most groups have one maybe two good teams. Take Real's Group. They play Braga, Napoli, and FC Union Berlin. None of those are compelling games. Real has and will steam roll through that group.
Look at Group G, Man City and a bunch of who cares. Look at Group E. Nothing compelling. Group D - As a la liga person, I am happy to see a La Liga team make it to the knock out stage but that group is not putting eyeballs to screens.
There are a lot of non-compelling games until the knockout stage.
-
If the point of the NCAA BK CL is to avoid people complaining about bad games, then don't point to a group of which people are complaining about them being mediocre/average games.
If you look across all of the groups, you will see that most groups have one maybe two good teams. Take Real's Group. They play Braga, Napoli, and FC Union Berlin. None of those are compelling games. Real has and will steam roll through that group.
Look at Group G, Man City and a bunch of who cares. Look at Group E. Nothing compelling. Group D - As a la liga person, I am happy to see a La Liga team make it to the knock out stage but that group is not putting eyeballs to screens.
There are a lot of non-compelling games until the knockout stage.
Do you know how they determine the groups and who is in them ?
-
Do you know how they determine the groups and who is in them ?
Yes I do. I have been watching it for over 20yrs. As a Real Madrid fan, I watch deep into the UCL every year.
Do you understand discussion in this thread? Let me help you.
One side: The non-conference games suck so we should create a CL equivalent tournament which will eliminate bad games. By doing that we need to eliminate all Non-Conference Games and Tournaments for this single tournament.
The other side: Even in the UCL after you select the "Top 32 teams", after you seed them and put them into groups, you still end up with bad or uninteresting games which don't drive more viewership. If your hypothesis is the UCL format will eliminate bad game and increase viewership in College basketball why doesn't it do that in Soccer.
-
Yes I do. I have been watching it for over 20yrs. As a Real Madrid fan, I watch deep into the UCL every year.
Do you understand discussion in this thread? Let me help you.
One side: The non-conference games suck so we should create a CL equivalent tournament which will eliminate bad games. By doing that we need to eliminate all Non-Conference Games and Tournaments for this single tournament.
The other side: Even in the UCL after you select the "Top 32 teams", after you seed them and put them into groups, you still end up with bad or uninteresting games which don't drive more viewership. If your hypothesis is the UCL format will eliminate bad game and increase viewership in College basketball why doesn't it do that in Soccer.
I agree with you that cbb champions league is a hair-brained idea that will never even come close to seeing the light of day.
I just want to talk some footy with a Madrid die hard who watches a fair amount of champions league !
We can continue the conversation in the college soccer thread in the Superbar if you’d like.
-
I agree with you that cbb champions league is a hair-brained idea that will never even come close to seeing the light of day.
I just want to talk some footy with a Madrid die hard who watches a fair amount of champions league !
We can continue the conversation in the college soccer thread in the Superbar if you’d like.
I am happy to talk Champions league. Here are my picks for each group.
Group A
Bayern - Already through
Man U - They are a prime example of someone who competes in name only. I love watching them languish in the middle of the EPL. Somehow they always seem to squeek by and not get eliminated in the Group Stage. THey have to play Bayern again but in a completely meaningless game for Bayern at that point.
Group B
Arsenal - Top of Group
Sevilla - More hope than reality but they get to face both Lens and PSV. PSV probably has the best chance
Group C - No questions here
Real
Napoli
Group D - This will come down to the last game of the group with a head to head between Inter and RS for top of group. I think Inter wins on experience and that they are the best in Italy right now
Inter
Real Sociedad
Group E - Atleti beats Rotterdam and Lazio beats Celtic making it impossible for Rotterdam to go through in their game against. Atleti beats Lazio to go top of table
Atleti
Lazio
Group F - PSG top of group
PSG - Beats BVB and Newcastle
AC Milan - Beats/Ties BVB and Newcastle. This could mean a tie on points. Currently GD would be in BVB favor but I think after AC cleans up on Newcastle and PSG beats BVB the GD will be in AC's favor
Group G - No question
Man City
RBL
Group H - Though Shakhtar had their day against Barca I don't think that carries forward against Porto. I pick Barca because event though they aren't playing great and Lewandowski hasn't been himself I think they still beat Porto in the head to head
Barca
Porto
With those picks my semis will have the following:
Man City - My pick to repeat. I don't like it but Haaland is really good right now and should have won the Ballon d'or.
Real Madrid - They are in a transition period which for others would mean no shot but they have been in the semis all but 2 years since 2012-2013 and won it five times.
Inter
Bayern
Ones with a shot at the semis will be Atleti and maybe Arsenal. Not high on Arsenal though. I am not an EPL guy so saying I think Man City repeats is hard. I think the EPL is overrated. I wouldn't be surprised if it is Inter/ManCity again.
-
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=27124.4575
-
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=27124.4575
Thank you.
~signed: all of us Scoopers who don't care about "footy".
-
I am happy to talk Champions league. Here are my picks for each group.
Group A
Bayern - Already through
Man U - They are a prime example of someone who competes in name only. I love watching them languish in the middle of the EPL. Somehow they always seem to squeek by and not get eliminated in the Group Stage. THey have to play Bayern again but in a completely meaningless game for Bayern at that point.
Group B
Arsenal - Top of Group
Sevilla - More hope than reality but they get to face both Lens and PSV. PSV probably has the best chance
Group C - No questions here
Real
Napoli
Group D - This will come down to the last game of the group with a head to head between Inter and RS for top of group. I think Inter wins on experience and that they are the best in Italy right now
Inter
Real Sociedad
Group E - Atleti beats Rotterdam and Lazio beats Celtic making it impossible for Rotterdam to go through in their game against. Atleti beats Lazio to go top of table
Atleti
Lazio
Group F - PSG top of group
PSG - Beats BVB and Newcastle
AC Milan - Beats/Ties BVB and Newcastle. This could mean a tie on points. Currently GD would be in BVB favor but I think after AC cleans up on Newcastle and PSG beats BVB the GD will be in AC's favor
Group G - No question
Man City
RBL
Group H - Though Shakhtar had their day against Barca I don't think that carries forward against Porto. I pick Barca because event though they aren't playing great and Lewandowski hasn't been himself I think they still beat Porto in the head to head
Barca
Porto
With those picks my semis will have the following:
Man City - My pick to repeat. I don't like it but Haaland is really good right now and should have won the Ballon d'or.
Real Madrid - They are in a transition period which for others would mean no shot but they have been in the semis all but 2 years since 2012-2013 and won it five times.
Inter
Bayern
Ones with a shot at the semis will be Atleti and maybe Arsenal. Not high on Arsenal though. I am not an EPL guy so saying I think Man City repeats is hard. I think the EPL is overrated. I wouldn't be surprised if it is Inter/ManCity again.
Calling feyenoord rotterdam is something I’ve never heard before. Not sure if the United takes are true. I don’t think they’ve qualified for champions league in a long time much less made it out of their group. The prem overrated is also an interesting take…
Otherwise feel free to drop by the superbar !
-
Calling feyenoord rotterdam is something I’ve never heard before. Not sure if the United takes are true. I don’t think they’ve qualified for champions league in a long time much less made it out of their group. The prem overrated is also an interesting take…
Otherwise feel free to drop by the superbar !
I responded there.
Also of note, the UCL is changing its format next year to draw more interest and have more games.
-
Can we get this thread back on topic?
Thoughts on Trump's testimony anyone?
-
Can we get this thread back on topic?
Thoughts on Trump's testimony anyone?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTWgFv8fovy0F1pOGAceYXDYruLyReXBjr8Gg&usqp=CAU)