(08-10-2017 03:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The Power 5 and if you add the Big East, the Major 6, already got 32 of the 36 at-large bids and 13 more teams in the NIT. That is 51 of 75 (Auburn pulled their name from consideration too). Pretty much all the rest of the schools had poor seasons. They are getting all the exposure and revenue they could ask for. For all intents and purposes they have what they want, and have thrown the minimum bones to the non-major schools.

Mid-Majors get 4 at-large (WCC, A-10, AAC, and usually MWC compete for those, an insurance policy to make sure ranked teams get in), and 19 NIT bids (10 went to AQ for those 1st place teams who didn't win their mid-major tourney). That appeases them enough.

TV is set up so NIT dominates Tuesdays and Wednesdays (22 of 31 games), which don't really compete with the NCAA -except the first 4-, nor those that fell of Monday (4 of the 8 2nd round), nor the Championship game on Thursday Night. The exposure is maximized for the Major 6.

The NCAA tournament, many complained the best of the Mid-Major schools were forced to play-in or play against each other in the first round effectively eliminating most of them, which was true. The set-up pretty much guarantees the Major 6 will have 13 to 15 of the final 16 schools. The entire set-up benefits the Major conferences and maximizes revenues.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Major 6 ALREADY run the NCAA and NIT tournaments. They have nothing to gain.

I disagree.

They have a lot to gain in the way of revenue especially if alterations are made that would increase the value of the currently deflated regular season.

While my original proposal would have cut out most of the mid-majors from the process, that doesn't have to be the case. Ensure that the mid-major conferences have access to the money regardless of how many of their teams get in and you can still build a better product.

Revenue is a big part of it -- no doubt the top conferences want more of it delivered directly to the conferences based on who makes the tournament and wins tournament games.

Also, compared to a tournament that invited the top 68 teams by some measure (computer ranking or whatever), only about 50 of those top 68 teams are actually in the tournament in any year; the 13-16 seeds are almost always autobid teams outside the top 68. All but one or two of the teams that are in the top 68 but not invited to the NCAAs (i.e., 16 or 17 out of those 18 teams) are in a P5 conference or the Big East.

So what more would the top conferences want, aside from more revenue or actual control of the tournament? This: Any expansion of the number of at-large teams. If the tournament was expanded to 80 teams, for example, that's 12 new at-large bids and 10 or 11 of them in any given year would go to P5 or Big East teams, based on computer rankings (whether you like KenPom or Sagarin or Massey's composite of rankings or whatever).

(08-10-2017 12:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  One of the things I was striving for was a way to take out of the selection committee's hands decisions about who makes the field. They would still be needed to handle the logistical chore of which bracket each team goes to by taking into account geography and travel considerations, especially for the 16 sub-regional sites (which would now include five teams each instead of four).

I wouldn't want them to be able to move any team more than one line up or down to accommodate travel.

Using a composite of three major (and respected) ratings would take a lot of controversy out of the selection and seeding process, IMO.

Are you kidding me? We saw how that worked with the BCS.

(08-10-2017 03:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The Power 5 and if you add the Big East, the Major 6, already got 32 of the 36 at-large bids and 13 more teams in the NIT. That is 51 of 75 (Auburn pulled their name from consideration too). Pretty much all the rest of the schools had poor seasons. They are getting all the exposure and revenue they could ask for. For all intents and purposes they have what they want, and have thrown the minimum bones to the non-major schools.

Mid-Majors get 4 at-large (WCC, A-10, AAC, and usually MWC compete for those, an insurance policy to make sure ranked teams get in), and 19 NIT bids (10 went to AQ for those 1st place teams who didn't win their mid-major tourney). That appeases them enough.

TV is set up so NIT dominates Tuesdays and Wednesdays (22 of 31 games), which don't really compete with the NCAA -except the first 4-, nor those that fell of Monday (4 of the 8 2nd round), nor the Championship game on Thursday Night. The exposure is maximized for the Major 6.

The NCAA tournament, many complained the best of the Mid-Major schools were forced to play-in or play against each other in the first round effectively eliminating most of them, which was true. The set-up pretty much guarantees the Major 6 will have 13 to 15 of the final 16 schools. The entire set-up benefits the Major conferences and maximizes revenues.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Major 6 ALREADY run the NCAA and NIT tournaments. They have nothing to gain.

Nothing to gain is overstating it. They could fill every second round game and beyond. The question is would it be worth it to do so? While you ensure all money goes to you, you eliminate the variety, surprise and Cinderella factor which the mid-majors and the close-to-majors provide. You could lose money because suddenly the NCAA Tournament lacks the surprise factor it once had.

What you guys are talking about is inviting the 19-13 type P5 schools (e.g., Syracuse, Illinois, Georgia Tech, Georgia, TCU, California) in the NIT to a Major 6 (M6) only 48-team Tournament. Or perhaps 52 if you drag Auburn or Ohio State in last year, so you can have a first 4 play-in to get to 48 (16 teams get byes). This only costs you 4 Thursday and 4 Friday games.

But what's the point? You have the exact same M6 schools playing in post season. It would only add a few credits to the P5 but at the expense of ratings, and thus long term revenue and thus lowering the value of each credit. Those other 275 schools from the mid-majors pull in far more fans, perhaps doubling interest. You may have gone to SEMO or SJSU or Akron or LIU, but that you conference champ goes gives you a small rooting stake. Without these fans the value starts to drop. There is less revenue, not more by breaking away.

The other reason is political. The P5/M6 do not want to take over the functions of the NCAA. It's more hassle than it's worth, more liabilities than they want (removes a layer between them and litigation, which is big concern in FB). The NCAA gives them cover and protects them. As it is set-up now the Mid-Majors are paid only a fraction of the G6/M6.

If it ain't broke why fix it?

(08-10-2017 05:06 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Those other 275 schools from the mid-majors pull in far more fans, perhaps doubling interest. You may have gone to SEMO or SJSU or Akron or LIU, but that you conference champ goes gives you a small rooting stake. Without these fans the value starts to drop. There is less revenue, not more by breaking away.

The TV ratings don't support that argument. What was the most-watched sweet 16 game last season? Kentucky-UCLA. Most watched elite 8 game? Kentucky-UNC. Each of those games got about as many viewers as the combined rating for all four prime-time telecasts on the first Thursday or Friday. Cinderellas are fun if you're a sportswriter looking for something to write about, but the most-watched games in the tournament are those involving two well-known programs. And that's what the TV guys care about. Try putting on a tournament one year without the top conferences, without big names like Kentucky or UCLA or UNC, and see what the ratings are like. If CBS and Turner are asking for that, I must have missed reading about it.

Cinderellas are a thrill, the problem is that as many bracket busters as there are, the majority of the 3-14 and above matchups are over before they start. That and people have to split their attention in the early rounds while the later rounds may cause a split between only two games.

The point is Mid-Major fans who watch a couple round one games, stick to watching through the tournament. If they don;t have teams in it, fewer of them watch, lowering the value.

I had no particular rooting interest after the 2nd round, but having started watching basketball, I kept watching to the end. Also I filled a few brackets, and continued for the fun of it. (I also like looking at potential NBA players here and there). But again if you have many fewer schools in, then the betting pool starts to shrink, the fan interest becomes less in total.

A break away almost certainly means a March Mildness tournament for the Mid-Majors and that will pull off some fans. But it will hurt both brackets. The Cinderella effect is not just while the Mid-Major schools are in it, it continues to the finals because those fans don't go away. But if Cinderella never comes to the ball, neither do her fans show up, and the party is much smaller.

Let me throw this out there...

There may be a way to expand the size of the tournament without increasing the number of rounds or play-in games...a way to include both a larger number of Majors and Mid-majors without watering down the regular season results even more.

I still like basing Tournament participation on conference standings, but I've already made that point. How about this for the Tournament structure Start mimicking what might possibly be the most content rich, fair, and fun postseason format in college sports...add regionals.

I'm not suggesting switching the format to completely model what baseball and softball does. Rather, alter the way the first round works.

1) Take 128 schools who qualify based on regular season finish in their conference.
2) Group them into 4 team regionals for the 1st round.
3) Seed each team and allow the top seed in each regional to host the first round at their campus site or perhaps a preferred local arena.
4) Play double elimination over the course of 4 or 5 days
5) The team who wins the regional advances to the Round of 32.
6) Start up the next weekend at neutral sites with the traditional single elimination format
7) Play the Round of 32 and the Sweet 16 in the same weekend
8) Throw in the new wrinkle of playing the Elite 8, Final 4, and the Championship Game at the same location...Elite 8 on Thursday, Final 4 on Saturday, and Championship on Monday

There are some weird confluences with this model. You're playing at more sites(32 in the first round alone) while simultaneously reducing travel. You've added more games, but kept the same number of rounds. You've added more teams, but still increased the value of the regular season conference schedule.

Thoughts?

That's way too much. College basketball isn't like football, win your conference tournament and you're in. If you want, make the NIT part of the main bracket to give regular season champions a last chance. Otherwise, you have numerous chances to make it. Leave it as is.

(08-10-2017 06:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  What was the most-watched sweet 16 game last season? Kentucky-UCLA. Most watched elite 8 game? Kentucky-UNC. Each of those games got about as many viewers as the combined rating for all four prime-time telecasts on the first Thursday or Friday. Cinderellas are fun if you're a sportswriter looking for something to write about, but the most-watched games in the tournament are those involving two well-known programs.

This is a contrived argument for those looking to suck the fun out of life, and give more bids to the P5/make a P5 only tournament. It's bunk.

March Madness (ie, the first weekend) itself is rivaled only by the Super Bowl in how much total interest it draws, from all sources and formats, by both actual sports fans and casual watchers.

But the ratings do improve as the tournament goes on. That's not deniable, though I struggle to understand why that is the case. Maybe it's because only about 10-15 games are actually close and you have to split your attention (and viewers) 4 ways rather than 2 ways. But then, the second round ratings are worse than the later ones. Maybe everyone is both at work and then later watching it in groups like at the sports bar.

You've hit on the fundamental failure: that there is only a single metric, and that it so poorly captures what actually matters -- people's attention and willingness to view an advertisement.

I'll say again, for posterity: other than the Super Bowl, there is no other sporting event that rivals the first weekend of March Madness for capturing the attention of both sports fans and casual viewers alike.

The only change that I would make to the tournament would be to have the NCAA distribute about $50 million of the $70 million that they are keeping through the tournament allotments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk