08-01-2013, 06:43 AM
08-01-2013, 11:07 AM
(08-01-2013 06:43 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketba...fe-forever
Not unless they want to kill the goose laying the golden egg for the NCAA Basketball tournament. The David vs. Goliath matchups in the first few rounds is what makes the thing so universally popular and watched.
08-01-2013, 11:09 AM
The NCAA won't kill it, but the money schools might.
08-01-2013, 12:12 PM
(08-01-2013 11:09 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]The NCAA won't kill it, but the money schools might.
I can't access the article on my work computer. I have wondered if that is eventually what will happen when the BCS schools break away on their own like they have been talking about doing.
08-01-2013, 12:17 PM
They will break away because they don't want to be controlled on the money football end. What happens in basketball is irrelevant.
08-01-2013, 01:27 PM
Their problem is that any "national title" now, without the new non-football Big East, will be a farce.
08-01-2013, 03:55 PM
(08-01-2013 01:27 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]Their problem is that any "national title" now, without the new non-football Big East, will be a farce.
That is correct
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
08-01-2013, 09:09 PM
I'm not sure that a power 5 NCAA tournament would make more money. I can see how maybe it would, but I don't think it is a given.
As he said there are the Cinderella story lines that people like. Take those away and doesn't it diminish the experience that is March Madness? I think so and I think a lot of people would agree with me. You might even say that it would cost the tourney its soul. Do they lose viewers if there are no unthinkable runs? Maybe.
Although the power conferences obviously have the largest fan bases, the combined alumni bases of the other conferences are a huge number of people. If the alumni of the UALR's and WKU's of the world no longer feel like participants does the tournament lose its universal appeal? Not on their own. But collectively? Combined with the alumni bases of the UCA's and Eastern Kentuckys and the St. Marys? One of the reasons that I have always loved the NCAA tournament is because that even my team from my little town had a shot to win the title just like everybody else. If THE tournament no longer included WKU I simply would not care any more. Instead of watching the tournament every year I would stop watching altogether. I'm sure many are with me. Quite possibly millions are with me. Quite possibly a lot of people that might think that they are on board with this would lose interest and stop watching.
It ain't broke and it doesn't need fixing. The power conferences are just staring at that goose as it lays golden eggs and all they can think about is how delicious a goose dinner would be.
As he said there are the Cinderella story lines that people like. Take those away and doesn't it diminish the experience that is March Madness? I think so and I think a lot of people would agree with me. You might even say that it would cost the tourney its soul. Do they lose viewers if there are no unthinkable runs? Maybe.
Although the power conferences obviously have the largest fan bases, the combined alumni bases of the other conferences are a huge number of people. If the alumni of the UALR's and WKU's of the world no longer feel like participants does the tournament lose its universal appeal? Not on their own. But collectively? Combined with the alumni bases of the UCA's and Eastern Kentuckys and the St. Marys? One of the reasons that I have always loved the NCAA tournament is because that even my team from my little town had a shot to win the title just like everybody else. If THE tournament no longer included WKU I simply would not care any more. Instead of watching the tournament every year I would stop watching altogether. I'm sure many are with me. Quite possibly millions are with me. Quite possibly a lot of people that might think that they are on board with this would lose interest and stop watching.
It ain't broke and it doesn't need fixing. The power conferences are just staring at that goose as it lays golden eggs and all they can think about is how delicious a goose dinner would be.
08-02-2013, 09:50 AM
I definitely would not watch it at all without the "little guys" in it. I don't watch all of it now after the first couple of rounds anyway. It depends on who is playing after that.
08-02-2013, 10:57 AM
There is no lack of stupidity in the world and if the "little guys" were left out of the tournament, it would be a perfect example. The NCAA tournament is great the way it is. Why mess with it? Better leave well enough alone.
08-02-2013, 11:39 AM
(08-02-2013 10:57 AM)outsideualr Wrote: [ -> ]There is no lack of stupidity in the world and if the "little guys" were left out of the tournament, it would be a perfect example. The NCAA tournament is great the way it is. Why mess with it? Better leave well enough alone.
The "big boys" are going to split at some point. Maybe one year, maybe 5 years. But at some point, the NCAA tournament, as we know it, will be history.
08-02-2013, 01:55 PM
If they're going to do that, they could still salvage something by having two tournaments. One for the big boys and one for the rest and let the two winners meet for a national championship. That way you'd still have the David-Goliath situation but it would just be one game. Better than nothing.