Here's my line of thinking with this. It provides more revenue for D-1 schools, especially for those that don't play football. It allows up to 2 more games for fans to watch/attend. It allows conferences with 11 or 12 members to have double round robin schedules (20 or 22 games). It doesn't have a huge effect on academics as it would not be cramming more games in the same time frame, just adding a week and 2 games on the front end.

So, what do you think?

(10-09-2016 04:17 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Here's my line of thinking with this. It provides more revenue for D-1 schools, especially for those that don't play football. It allows up to 2 more games for fans to watch/attend. It allows conferences with 11 or 12 members to have double round robin schedules (20 or 22 games). It doesn't have a huge effect on academics as it would not be cramming more games in the same time frame, just adding a week and 2 games on the front end.

So, what do you think?

Sounds decent but beware reductio ad absurdum... why not start 2 weeks soon and play 4 games... 3 weeks and 6 games...

(10-09-2016 04:21 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(10-09-2016 04:17 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Here's my line of thinking with this. It provides more revenue for D-1 schools, especially for those that don't play football. It allows up to 2 more games for fans to watch/attend. It allows conferences with 11 or 12 members to have double round robin schedules (20 or 22 games). It doesn't have a huge effect on academics as it would not be cramming more games in the same time frame, just adding a week and 2 games on the front end.

So, what do you think?

Sounds decent but beware reductio ad absurdum... why not start 2 weeks soon and play 4 games... 3 weeks and 6 games...

Because it would cut too much into the football season.

NO.They should start two weeks later.Reduce games by 1. Unfortunately football steals all the attention and the early season is ignored by the majority.Maybe extend the season by one week.No football in March.The number of games and season overlap has contributed to a national apathy toward college BBall(sad but true).

It's honestly pretty fine as is now.

Teams get 10 days (opening Friday to the following Sunday) to play about 3 games to start the season. This week sets up nice:

(1) The better teams can "warm up" with some buy games. Not the worst way to ease into the season.

(2) ESPN can promote the start of their season with the college hoops marathon. There are a few high-profile games, particularly the KU/Kentucky/Duke/MSU annual thing, that are a highlight of this week.

(3) Schools can fairly easily align these games on the same weekend (Friday or Sunday) of a home football game (if they have a football home game). Gets a few extra fans (and $$$) for those games.

Then its Thanksgiving Week. There are A LOT of exempt tournaments played during this week any more. It's rare to find a legitimately good team that doesn't participate in one of these. These games tend to be better competition vs. the games in the first 10 days. Coaches like that, gradually stepping things up. A lot of these games aren't well-attended, given it's the holiday week, but that doesn't really matter for these games.

Then it's December. Play the rest of your OOC schedule. Take a week off for Finals, depending on your school's academic calendar. Pretty easy to fit in 6 games over 25 days.

Then conference play beginning right after Christmas and into the New Year.

(10-09-2016 04:17 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Here's my line of thinking with this. It provides more revenue for D-1 schools, especially for those that don't play football. It allows up to 2 more games for fans to watch/attend. It allows conferences with 11 or 12 members to have double round robin schedules (20 or 22 games). It doesn't have a huge effect on academics as it would not be cramming more games in the same time frame, just adding a week and 2 games on the front end.

So, what do you think?

The early season games don't get much attention. If anything, they should move the start back.

(10-09-2016 05:04 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  It's honestly pretty fine as is now.

Teams get 10 days (opening Friday to the following Sunday) to play about 3 games to start the season. This week sets up nice:

(1) The better teams can "warm up" with some buy games. Not the worst way to ease into the season.

(2) ESPN can promote the start of their season with the college hoops marathon. There are a few high-profile games, particularly the KU/Kentucky/Duke/MSU annual thing, that are a highlight of this week.

(3) Schools can fairly easily align these games on the same weekend (Friday or Sunday) of a home football game (if they have a football home game). Gets a few extra fans (and $$$) for those games.

Then its Thanksgiving Week. There are A LOT of exempt tournaments played during this week any more. It's rare to find a legitimately good team that doesn't participate in one of these. These games tend to be better competition vs. the games in the first 10 days. Coaches like that, gradually stepping things up. A lot of these games aren't well-attended, given it's the holiday week, but that doesn't really matter for these games.

Then it's December. Play the rest of your OOC schedule. Take a week off for Finals, depending on your school's academic calendar. Pretty easy to fit in 6 games over 25 days.

Then conference play beginning right after Christmas and into the New Year.

I like squeezing in 1 or 2 non-conference games into late January through end of February. I think it makes things interesting and makes for a better judge of the relative strength of conferences in March. The better teams from mid-major conferences did this from 2003-2013 in ESPN's Bracket Busters Challenge and I think it's a great concept.

Late January is traditionally when UC plays Xavier (except for years when ESPN demanded we move it to December) so it works well for us anyways.

(10-09-2016 05:21 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I like squeezing in 1 or 2 non-conference games into late January through end of February. I think it makes things interesting and makes for a better judge of the relative strength of conferences in March. The better teams from mid-major conferences did this from 2003-2013 in ESPN's Bracket Busters Challenge and I think it's a great concept.

Late January is traditionally when UC plays Xavier (except for years when ESPN demanded we move it to December) so it works well for us anyways.

The Big XII/SEC weekend was a very nice addition to last season's college hoops schedule. Perfectly timed as well. I really liked that. I do miss Bracket-Busters.

UC/Xavier is also well-timed this year. That one is seemingly always at the mercy of ESPN - Ugh.

Basketball season shouldn't start until January 1st.

(10-09-2016 04:17 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Here's my line of thinking with this. It provides more revenue for D-1 schools, especially for those that don't play football. It allows up to 2 more games for fans to watch/attend. It allows conferences with 11 or 12 members to have double round robin schedules (20 or 22 games). It doesn't have a huge effect on academics as it would not be cramming more games in the same time frame, just adding a week and 2 games on the front end.

So, what do you think?

Sure, why not? You could start the season in May, August, September, no one will watch until March anyway.

More regular season basketball games would be pointless. If it's money you want... extend the tournament by two rounds. It would produce a lot more interest and money. The field would be 256. But every game would be meaningful and it wouldn't just benefit schools that can turn a profit with a regular season game.

I'd actually be fine making basketball a one semester sport - start the season in January, and end in mid-May. The NBA (playoffs) may not be thrilled about it, but I'd think they'd adjust. CBS may whine a little since they couldn't promote the Masters during the tournament, but the Masters would essentially be the lead-in to the NCAA tournament.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And earlier start would be fine by me. The wait between seasons is brutal enough as it is. With the Royals not in the playoffs, I have nothing to enjoy until basketball starts.

But I don't mind it as it is. Anyone talking about pushing the start back is just insane. There's no way they're going to shorten the season and I don't think they want to push it any farther into April or even into May. But I also understand that some on here think football is the only sport that matters at all. Good early season basketball games still get pretty good ratings and the Thanksgiving tournaments do quite well.

I'm sure I'm in the minority around here, but I don't think I've watched one single snap of college football this year. Though I hope that changes in the next few years.

Except preseason tournaments, basketball shouldn't be allowed to start until final exams are done. This means way more non-conference games in January and February. I'm game for that.

(10-09-2016 04:28 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  NO.They should start two weeks later.Reduce games by 1. Unfortunately football steals all the attention and the early season is ignored by the majority.Maybe extend the season by one week.No football in March.The number of games and season overlap has contributed to a national apathy toward college BBall(sad but true).

When ranked Indiana and Butler can't draw as well as the New Mexico Bowl featuring two unranked teams, the marketplace has spoken and said we like to watch middle of the pack college football more than top tier college basketball.

Basketball has a post-season problem. Two top teams meeting in December is really about little more than the two making their case to be a one seed. That's the drama. Wait so if they lose they are still going to make the tournament, they will play the same number of tournament games to become champion? It's not a compelling storyline.

So we play a bunch of games and maybe 10-15 schools are angling to grab at-large spots once the season gets rolling. The rest are either playing for seeding in the NCAA tournament or they are playing for seeding in their conference tournament.

Cutting a game reduces the margin of error so maybe that helps fan interest.

(10-13-2016 09:06 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  When ranked Indiana and Butler can't draw as well as the New Mexico Bowl featuring two unranked teams, the marketplace has spoken and said we like to watch middle of the pack college football more than top tier college basketball.

... as long as they call it a bowl game and give it a time slot without CFB competition. But how many would be watching if the same teams played this Saturday at the same time as Alabama-Tennessee?

Or maybe they could make the Tourney auto-bid only and let the polls determine the champion. That'd reenergize the NIT.

Come on, that's just the way it is. At least college basketball has a legit playoff, a much more exciting playoff than college football because even if it's unfairly weighed to the majors, everyone has mostly equal access to the title, even if there isn't the week-to-week intrigue there is in football.

(10-09-2016 07:30 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Basketball season shouldn't start until January 1st.

This.

(10-13-2016 10:53 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(10-09-2016 07:30 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Basketball season shouldn't start until January 1st.

This.

And football season should end January 1st.

Like I said after final exams, the football regular season is over and nothing but minor bowls are on at that time. And it's actually fair to the student athletes, the real ones. Everyone wins in this scenario.