(02-01-2020 12:10 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Maybe FOX would jump in and dump money for an expanded tournament so they can air 8 1st Round games on FOX/FS1/FS2 each?

An expanded tournament could work with ratings if 1st Round isn’t on Tuesday/Wednesday. Either an add extra weekend for the 1st round, or shift the Elite 8 into the Final 4 (4 games Saturday, 2 games Sunday).

Part of the reason First Four games don’t have big ratings is because they feel like play-in games. They don’t impact your bracket whatsoever, which is what draws casuals. It’s like a spin-off show.

TV pays the NCAA $1 billion a year to broadcast March Madness. They are probably overpaying already, when you compare the ratings for March Madness with the ratings for NFL games. (CBS also pays $1 billion a year for NFL games.) The TV execs aren't going to see any good reason to pay more.

Just looking at the #15 seeds for the 2019 tournament, the kind of teams likely to be playing on Tuesday/Wednesday if the field is expanded to 72, there would be more Tuesday/Wednesday games like Colgate vs. Abilene Christian or Montana vs. Bradley. How much money is TV going to pay for those games?

(02-01-2020 12:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 12:10 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Maybe FOX would jump in and dump money for an expanded tournament so they can air 8 1st Round games on FOX/FS1/FS2 each?

An expanded tournament could work with ratings if 1st Round isn’t on Tuesday/Wednesday. Either an add extra weekend for the 1st round, or shift the Elite 8 into the Final 4 (4 games Saturday, 2 games Sunday).

Part of the reason First Four games don’t have big ratings is because they feel like play-in games. They don’t impact your bracket whatsoever, which is what draws casuals. It’s like a spin-off show.

TV pays the NCAA $1 billion a year to broadcast March Madness. They are probably overpaying already, when you compare the ratings for March Madness with the ratings for NFL games. (CBS also pays $1 billion a year for NFL games.) The TV execs aren't going to see any good reason to pay more.

Just looking at the #15 seeds for the 2019 tournament, the kind of teams likely to be playing on Tuesday/Wednesday if the field is expanded to 72, there would be more Tuesday/Wednesday games like Colgate vs. Abilene Christian or Montana vs. Bradley. How much money is TV going to pay for those games?

The one caveat there, though, is that the relative value of all sports programs have increased, so I can definitely see how Fox or ESPN would be willing to give the NCAA a huge pay raise. Putting aside the NFL (as nothing is comparable to them), the $1 billion for NCAA Tournament games isn’t being compared to other sports, but rather what other programming investments do networks have put there that can guarantee a live audience year-after-year. There’s basically nothing other than sports and a handful of awards shows (like the Oscars, Grammys and Golden Globes) that deliver that type of audience today. That’s particularly important for OTA channels that depend more on advertising revenue (AKA live viewers) than most cable networks and streaming services.

So whenever people look at ratings declines, they need to put them into context. All network programs have seen significant ratings declines, but sports have seen either a lot lower ratings declines by comparison or even staying even or rising in the case of the NFL. It’s actually not even close. Piloting a bunch of expensive scripted shows only to get undercut by Netflix or Disney+ makes sports programming even more attractive to networks today as investments. Networks know that people will still way the NCAA Tournament, Power 5 football and other top sports 10 years from now and those are *locked in* dependable viewers, while even the most successful scripted programs today might only get a few seasons and they need to be heavily promoted in order for viewers to even know that they exist.

That’s why sports rights continue to rise (and rise a *ton*) despite the wolf cries of a sports rights bubble. When you compare sports rights to the terrible returns that the networks are getting on scripted programs right now, investing in sports makes a lot more sense.

(02-01-2020 09:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 12:53 AM)46566 Wrote:  What are people's thoughts on the possibility of expanding the NCAA tournament to at least 72 teams? At 72 all 16 seeds play in a play-in game. With the expansion you take away either the CIT or CBI tournaments. In all it would be a net loss of teams playing in the post season. Would this be fair as it may hurt the smaller conferences who send the bulk of the teams to the CBI or CIT. The only problem with this is that is the lower conferences may be in the 12-15 seed purgatory below at large teams.(not much different from now) the other 2 spots could be for the 10 or 11 seed.

Another thought or change is changing how play in games are handled. Have play-in games for at large teams. The one bid leagues are usually 12-16 seeds anyway.. Maybe have 10 and 11 seeds as play in game teams?

I think it should be reduced back to 52. We don't need the 8th, 9th, 10th place team in the ACC in the tourney. They had their chance in the regular season. They had their chance in the conference tourney.

Along that lines, about 10 conferences should be moved back to Division II.

If you don't want lower teams from any conference (8,9,10 spot) maybe add requirements for at large berths. Maybe something like having a winning record in conference play. Anyone going 9-9 or worse cannot receive a at large berth unless they win the conference tournament. I actually don't personally don't mind the smaller conferences in the tournament as they normally lose in the first round anyway and it's more bonus for better program to try for a good season by having a easier first round game.

(02-01-2020 12:56 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 09:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 12:53 AM)46566 Wrote:  What are people's thoughts on the possibility of expanding the NCAA tournament to at least 72 teams? At 72 all 16 seeds play in a play-in game. With the expansion you take away either the CIT or CBI tournaments. In all it would be a net loss of teams playing in the post season. Would this be fair as it may hurt the smaller conferences who send the bulk of the teams to the CBI or CIT. The only problem with this is that is the lower conferences may be in the 12-15 seed purgatory below at large teams.(not much different from now) the other 2 spots could be for the 10 or 11 seed.

Another thought or change is changing how play in games are handled. Have play-in games for at large teams. The one bid leagues are usually 12-16 seeds anyway.. Maybe have 10 and 11 seeds as play in game teams?

I think it should be reduced back to 52. We don't need the 8th, 9th, 10th place team in the ACC in the tourney. They had their chance in the regular season. They had their chance in the conference tourney.

Along that lines, about 10 conferences should be moved back to Division II.

If you don't want lower teams from any conference (8,9,10 spot) maybe add requirements for at large berths. Maybe something like having a winning record in conference play. Anyone going 9-9 or worse cannot receive a at large berth unless they win the conference tournament. I actually don't personally don't mind the smaller conferences in the tournament as they normally lose in the first round anyway and it's more bonus for better program to try for a good season by having a easier first round game.

I totally disagree about the hard and fast requirements for at-large bids. The NCAA Tournament committee has actually been historically very good at completing the field, so they should be able to apply whatever criteria that they see that’s best suited to that particular season. Maybe a 10-10 Big Ten team shouldn’t get into the NCAA Tournament based on its body of work for that season, but they certainly shouldn’t be *automatically* disqualified compared to a 9-7 WCC team simply based on conference records. That’s the whole point of at-large bids - there shouldn’t be hard-and-fast requirements. Basketball has the luxury of a lot of data points and rational computer metrics compared to football, so the value of hard-and-fast requirements is even lower in basketball by comparison.

Frankly, the NCAA Tournament is almost as perfect of a postseason event as you can get. To the extent that there are issues with the NCAA Tournament, they are very tiny marginal ones, especially compared to some of the core fundamental issues with the CFP structure in football. I can go on for pages and pages about the changes that I’d want for the college football playoff system, but if the NCAA Tournament stays as-is for the rest of my life, I’d be perfectly happy.

(02-01-2020 12:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 10:42 AM)XLance Wrote:  Tournament should be reduced back to 64.

It’s not ever getting reduced. No sport, pro or college, has ever willingly reduced the size of their playoff system in modern history. However, I think going to 128 teams would completely crush any value to the regular season at all (and it’s diluted enough already in today’s system). Teams still need to have some legit regular season achievements to get an at-large bid today (even if they aren’t all true national title contenders), but having 128 teams effectively removes any sense of needing to achieve anything in the regular season entirely. Going to 72 is probably a bit more reasonable (and maybe inevitable) to account for the increase in Division I programs and possibly more conferences (e.g. if the proposed A-Sun splits actually works).

Which is why I prefer the 112 team model I proposed above. The six power conferences would get about the same number of teams in that they do now - no more than a handful more.

The biggest difference would be that in the round of 64, the #16 seeds would be pretty good teams and not cupcakes. The #1's should still win most of the time, but the chances of an upset would be improved exponentially compared to the current model.

In FBS football we only allow 4 of 130 teams into the playoff. That is 3.076% of all teams. There are 353 Division I basketball teams, meaning we should actually reduce the field and only have an 11 team basketball tournament.

It boggles my mind that so many people on this board are concerned about an “unworthy” Power 5 conference champ getting an upset auto-bid to the college football playoff, yet we then see proposals to expand the NCAA Tournament to over 100 teams. What?!

Out of all of the high profile events in American sports, the NCAA Tournament is probably the *last* on the list that needs any type of changes (except for maybe the NFL playoffs, which I consider to be a perfect format as-is, too). Let’s figure out college football and the MLB/NBA/NHL playoff systems before we even think about anything other than minor marginal tweaks to the NCAA Tournament.

Going to 72 teams from 68 I don't think would hurt anything as a response to the creation of a 33rd of 34th D1 conference.

Pushing over 80 teams seems like it starts to feel like everyone gets in.

(02-01-2020 10:42 AM)XLance Wrote:  Tournament should be reduced back to 64.

One thing to your point that I didn't consider before is that moving to 64 and increasing the number of conferences to 34 pushes the seed line up.

For a conference champion out of the 12th rated conference rated 12 in the current system they are looking at an overall seed of 48 (20 from the bottom) with 32 conferences and 68 teams.

In the 64/34 system they would be looking at an overall seed of 42 (22 from the bottom). That gives them a 10 seed as opposed to a 12 seed in a typical year which means they have to play a 7 seed in the first round.

A larger field of 68/72 protects the "Top 40" showcase but it erodes the seed of a MAC/MVC/CUSA level conference.

(02-01-2020 12:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 11:42 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 02:06 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 01:17 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I think expansion to 72 per the ACC’s proposal is bound to happen — guaranteed if the ASun pulls off the extra autobid. Extra First Four site should be Hinkle or the Palestra.

***

Personally, I’d love a 128-team NCAA Tournament like the Tennis Grand Slams. 32-team NIT; abolish all EIEIO’s.

Is going to 128 worth sacrificing the regular season. Right now there's not much reason to watch as almost everyone who has an argument to get to the NCAA tourney gets in. Expand it to 128 and 80-90% of the P5 teams get in. What's the point of watching the regular season.

But you said it already - there's no point in watching it now.
Duke got upset earlier this year; it was awesome but didn't matter a lick since they are guaranteed ba postseason spot. And no, seeding doesn't matter.

Does a single bad loss by Duke keep them out of the NCAA Tournament entirely in the way a bad loss can keep a football team out of the CFP? No.

However, that bad loss can certainly send them from being a 1-seed lock down to a 2-seed or a 3-seed, which can change Dukes’s path to the Final Four from virtual home games in places like Greensboro and Atlanta to a more inhospitable path.

Each regular season game also certainly matters today to the vast majority of teams. My alma mater of Illinois is ranked #19 right now, but we can’t afford to drop many (if any) games to subpar teams and we have a stretch of playoff several ranked opponents in a row which will probably make or break our season. Those regular season games are even more important to everyone ranked below us. So, I’m watching every Illini game with a ton of intensity as if every game is a playoff game.

One regular season game may have a mitigated impact in today’s system, but there’s still an overall body of work element where even the teams in the toughest conferences generally need at least a winning conference record plus 20 wins overall. Going to 128 teams totally destroys any semblance of the value of the *overall* regular season at all (even if any single particular regular season game might have relatively low value). There’s still an important value to the regular season in the *aggregate* today.

I think going to 128 ruins the regular season as we know it; ACC and B1G battling out the regular season on TV for at-large spots.

That is because every .500 power conference team would be guaranteed in the dance at 128 and there would be no discussion about a B1G team with an NBA talent on the roster but nobody else around him getting a shot. This kind of team would be definitely in.

Of course it would destroy the NIT as an entity with no power club representation. The NIT has for years functioned as a tier for power teams to go if they just missed the cut. Let's say a new coach for Syracuse comes in with all freshman. They make the NIT and win it as a springboard to a successful NCAA tournament season next year. But at 128 the NIT would no longer serve its purpose as a developmental tournament.

(02-01-2020 12:29 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I like the idea of having the play in games Thursday and Friday and moving the round of 64 to Saturday and Sunday.

The round of 32 and round of 16 get played on the second weekend.

Elite 8 games get played the next Thursday and Friday followed by the two final 4 games Saturday and Sunday night. Tuesday is your title game.

If they moved to 72 teams with 8 teams playing on the first Thursday and Friday.

A double header to start off Thursday and Friday. Also make it the last 8 out of the tournament instead of requiring 16 seeds to having to do a play-in game. That would make Thursday and Friday night more valuable as it would feature mostly power conference teams with a VCU or BYU peppered in.

(02-01-2020 02:27 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 10:42 AM)XLance Wrote:  Tournament should be reduced back to 64.

One thing to your point that I didn't consider before is that moving to 64 and increasing the number of conferences to 34 pushes the seed line up.

For a conference champion out of the 12th rated conference rated 12 in the current system they are looking at an overall seed of 48 (20 from the bottom) with 32 conferences and 68 teams.

In the 64/34 system they would be looking at an overall seed of 42 (22 from the bottom). That gives them a 10 seed as opposed to a 12 seed in a typical year which means they have to play a 7 seed in the first round.

A larger field of 68/72 protects the "Top 40" showcase but it erodes the seed of a MAC/MVC/CUSA level conference.

The other issue is more basic: going back down to 64 would reduce the revenue for the NCAA Tournament without increasing any revenue for the regular season. The number of organizations out there (whether sports or not) willingly deciding to take less money are few and far between.

With the size of Division I, we’re probably at the point where there isn’t any type of reduction in the size of the NCAA Tournament (even the more drastic proposals of reducing the field by dozens of teams) that would increase *overall* revenue when combining the regular season and postseason. Simply making the tournament more exclusive or even more competitive is largely irrelevant: the only thing that matters is revenue.

It’s like the calls for MLB to have fewer regular season games or the NBA or NHL to reduce the number of playoff teams. That’s all well and good from a competitive aspect, but if a proposal is reducing a single dime of revenue to the powers that be, then that proposal is DOA.

(02-01-2020 02:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 02:27 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 10:42 AM)XLance Wrote:  Tournament should be reduced back to 64.

One thing to your point that I didn't consider before is that moving to 64 and increasing the number of conferences to 34 pushes the seed line up.

For a conference champion out of the 12th rated conference rated 12 in the current system they are looking at an overall seed of 48 (20 from the bottom) with 32 conferences and 68 teams.

In the 64/34 system they would be looking at an overall seed of 42 (22 from the bottom). That gives them a 10 seed as opposed to a 12 seed in a typical year which means they have to play a 7 seed in the first round.

A larger field of 68/72 protects the "Top 40" showcase but it erodes the seed of a MAC/MVC/CUSA level conference.

The other issue is more basic: going back down to 64 would reduce the revenue for the NCAA Tournament without increasing any revenue for the regular season. The number of organizations out there (whether sports or not) willingly deciding to take less money are few and far between.

With the size of Division I, we’re probably at the point where there isn’t any type of reduction in the size of the NCAA Tournament (even the more drastic proposals of reducing the field by dozens of teams) that would increase *overall* revenue when combining the regular season and postseason. Simply making the tournament more exclusive or even more competitive is largely irrelevant: the only thing that matters is revenue.

It’s like the calls for MLB to have fewer regular season games or the NBA or NHL to reduce the number of playoff teams. That’s all well and good from a competitive aspect, but if a proposal is reducing a single dime of revenue to the powers that be, then that proposal is DOA.

That is a good point and that every dime counts.

I like the idea of changing the first week from 68/64/32 to a 72/64 weekend. The play-in 8 on Thursday/Friday night with the 64 on Saturday/Sunday.

Next weekend 32/16 which go together. Then 8/4. Then I guess what do you do with a national championship game play it a week after?

Or go 72/64/32 with the first 8 the last 16 at-large in the NCAA tournament to produce more interest instead of including 16 seeds in it. More power names would lead to more ratings on Tuesday/Wednesday. I think most people are skipping Tuesday/Wednesday because 16 seeds are included.

(02-01-2020 12:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 12:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 12:10 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Maybe FOX would jump in and dump money for an expanded tournament so they can air 8 1st Round games on FOX/FS1/FS2 each?

An expanded tournament could work with ratings if 1st Round isn’t on Tuesday/Wednesday. Either an add extra weekend for the 1st round, or shift the Elite 8 into the Final 4 (4 games Saturday, 2 games Sunday).

Part of the reason First Four games don’t have big ratings is because they feel like play-in games. They don’t impact your bracket whatsoever, which is what draws casuals. It’s like a spin-off show.

TV pays the NCAA $1 billion a year to broadcast March Madness. They are probably overpaying already, when you compare the ratings for March Madness with the ratings for NFL games. (CBS also pays $1 billion a year for NFL games.) The TV execs aren't going to see any good reason to pay more.

Just looking at the #15 seeds for the 2019 tournament, the kind of teams likely to be playing on Tuesday/Wednesday if the field is expanded to 72, there would be more Tuesday/Wednesday games like Colgate vs. Abilene Christian or Montana vs. Bradley. How much money is TV going to pay for those games?

The one caveat there, though, is that the relative value of all sports programs have increased, so I can definitely see how Fox or ESPN would be willing to give the NCAA a huge pay raise. Putting aside the NFL (as nothing is comparable to them), the $1 billion for NCAA Tournament games isn’t being compared to other sports, but rather what other programming investments do networks have put there that can guarantee a live audience year-after-year. There’s basically nothing other than sports and a handful of awards shows (like the Oscars, Grammys and Golden Globes) that deliver that type of audience today. That’s particularly important for OTA channels that depend more on advertising revenue (AKA live viewers) than most cable networks and streaming services.

Expanding the CFP playoff from 4 to 8 or more would add attractive games featuring big name teams that draw large audiences. That's worth a lot to TV.

Expanding March Madness from 68 to 72 or more would add marginal games with TV ratings no better than those of the current first four games.

(02-01-2020 11:58 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 09:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 12:53 AM)46566 Wrote:  What are people's thoughts on the possibility of expanding the NCAA tournament to at least 72 teams? At 72 all 16 seeds play in a play-in game. With the expansion you take away either the CIT or CBI tournaments. In all it would be a net loss of teams playing in the post season. Would this be fair as it may hurt the smaller conferences who send the bulk of the teams to the CBI or CIT. The only problem with this is that is the lower conferences may be in the 12-15 seed purgatory below at large teams.(not much different from now) the other 2 spots could be for the 10 or 11 seed.

Another thought or change is changing how play in games are handled. Have play-in games for at large teams. The one bid leagues are usually 12-16 seeds anyway.. Maybe have 10 and 11 seeds as play in game teams?

I think it should be reduced back to 52. We don't need the 8th, 9th, 10th place team in the ACC in the tourney. They had their chance in the regular season. They had their chance in the conference tourney.

Along that lines, about 10 conferences should be moved back to Division II.

There are talks that D1 could go 1A and 1AA for all sports. 1A would be football center group while 1AA would be perfect for basketball type of schools. Big Least would be 1AA instead of 1A since they do not care about football.

You're kidding yourself.
And why are they the Big LEast again? Because they are private schools?

(02-01-2020 03:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 12:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 12:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 12:10 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Maybe FOX would jump in and dump money for an expanded tournament so they can air 8 1st Round games on FOX/FS1/FS2 each?

An expanded tournament could work with ratings if 1st Round isn’t on Tuesday/Wednesday. Either an add extra weekend for the 1st round, or shift the Elite 8 into the Final 4 (4 games Saturday, 2 games Sunday).

Part of the reason First Four games don’t have big ratings is because they feel like play-in games. They don’t impact your bracket whatsoever, which is what draws casuals. It’s like a spin-off show.

TV pays the NCAA $1 billion a year to broadcast March Madness. They are probably overpaying already, when you compare the ratings for March Madness with the ratings for NFL games. (CBS also pays $1 billion a year for NFL games.) The TV execs aren't going to see any good reason to pay more.

Just looking at the #15 seeds for the 2019 tournament, the kind of teams likely to be playing on Tuesday/Wednesday if the field is expanded to 72, there would be more Tuesday/Wednesday games like Colgate vs. Abilene Christian or Montana vs. Bradley. How much money is TV going to pay for those games?

The one caveat there, though, is that the relative value of all sports programs have increased, so I can definitely see how Fox or ESPN would be willing to give the NCAA a huge pay raise. Putting aside the NFL (as nothing is comparable to them), the $1 billion for NCAA Tournament games isn’t being compared to other sports, but rather what other programming investments do networks have put there that can guarantee a live audience year-after-year. There’s basically nothing other than sports and a handful of awards shows (like the Oscars, Grammys and Golden Globes) that deliver that type of audience today. That’s particularly important for OTA channels that depend more on advertising revenue (AKA live viewers) than most cable networks and streaming services.

Expanding the CFP playoff from 4 to 8 or more would add attractive games featuring big name teams that draw large audiences. That's worth a lot to TV.

Expanding March Madness from 68 to 72 or more would add marginal games with TV ratings no better than those of the current first four games.

No. It would add another 4 power/major conference teams.

Last 16 at-large teams can play-in (8 games Tuesday/Wednesday). Make it into a whole tournament week. Reward conference tournament winners with a Thursday/Friday start.

(02-01-2020 03:51 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 03:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 12:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 12:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 12:10 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Maybe FOX would jump in and dump money for an expanded tournament so they can air 8 1st Round games on FOX/FS1/FS2 each?

An expanded tournament could work with ratings if 1st Round isn’t on Tuesday/Wednesday. Either an add extra weekend for the 1st round, or shift the Elite 8 into the Final 4 (4 games Saturday, 2 games Sunday).

Part of the reason First Four games don’t have big ratings is because they feel like play-in games. They don’t impact your bracket whatsoever, which is what draws casuals. It’s like a spin-off show.

TV pays the NCAA $1 billion a year to broadcast March Madness. They are probably overpaying already, when you compare the ratings for March Madness with the ratings for NFL games. (CBS also pays $1 billion a year for NFL games.) The TV execs aren't going to see any good reason to pay more.

Just looking at the #15 seeds for the 2019 tournament, the kind of teams likely to be playing on Tuesday/Wednesday if the field is expanded to 72, there would be more Tuesday/Wednesday games like Colgate vs. Abilene Christian or Montana vs. Bradley. How much money is TV going to pay for those games?

The one caveat there, though, is that the relative value of all sports programs have increased, so I can definitely see how Fox or ESPN would be willing to give the NCAA a huge pay raise. Putting aside the NFL (as nothing is comparable to them), the $1 billion for NCAA Tournament games isn’t being compared to other sports, but rather what other programming investments do networks have put there that can guarantee a live audience year-after-year. There’s basically nothing other than sports and a handful of awards shows (like the Oscars, Grammys and Golden Globes) that deliver that type of audience today. That’s particularly important for OTA channels that depend more on advertising revenue (AKA live viewers) than most cable networks and streaming services.

Expanding the CFP playoff from 4 to 8 or more would add attractive games featuring big name teams that draw large audiences. That's worth a lot to TV.

Expanding March Madness from 68 to 72 or more would add marginal games with TV ratings no better than those of the current first four games.

No. It would add another 4 power/major conference teams.

Last 16 at-large teams can play-in (8 games Tuesday/Wednesday). Make it into a whole tournament week. Reward conference tournament winners with a Thursday/Friday start.

You sound very enthusiastic about "rewarding" the lucky autobid teams from conferences whose teams are only in D-I to collect March Madness money. I would be surprised if the decisionmakers share that enthusiasm.

(02-01-2020 03:34 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 11:58 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 09:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 12:53 AM)46566 Wrote:  What are people's thoughts on the possibility of expanding the NCAA tournament to at least 72 teams? At 72 all 16 seeds play in a play-in game. With the expansion you take away either the CIT or CBI tournaments. In all it would be a net loss of teams playing in the post season. Would this be fair as it may hurt the smaller conferences who send the bulk of the teams to the CBI or CIT. The only problem with this is that is the lower conferences may be in the 12-15 seed purgatory below at large teams.(not much different from now) the other 2 spots could be for the 10 or 11 seed.

Another thought or change is changing how play in games are handled. Have play-in games for at large teams. The one bid leagues are usually 12-16 seeds anyway.. Maybe have 10 and 11 seeds as play in game teams?

I think it should be reduced back to 52. We don't need the 8th, 9th, 10th place team in the ACC in the tourney. They had their chance in the regular season. They had their chance in the conference tourney.

Along that lines, about 10 conferences should be moved back to Division II.

There are talks that D1 could go 1A and 1AA for all sports. 1A would be football center group while 1AA would be perfect for basketball type of schools. Big Least would be 1AA instead of 1A since they do not care about football.

You're kidding yourself.
And why are they the Big LEast again? Because they are private schools?

If they cared about football? They would be in the ACC right now instead of the later invites like Pittsburgh, Syracuse or Louisville.

(02-01-2020 05:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 03:51 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 03:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 12:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 12:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  TV pays the NCAA $1 billion a year to broadcast March Madness. They are probably overpaying already, when you compare the ratings for March Madness with the ratings for NFL games. (CBS also pays $1 billion a year for NFL games.) The TV execs aren't going to see any good reason to pay more.

Just looking at the #15 seeds for the 2019 tournament, the kind of teams likely to be playing on Tuesday/Wednesday if the field is expanded to 72, there would be more Tuesday/Wednesday games like Colgate vs. Abilene Christian or Montana vs. Bradley. How much money is TV going to pay for those games?

The one caveat there, though, is that the relative value of all sports programs have increased, so I can definitely see how Fox or ESPN would be willing to give the NCAA a huge pay raise. Putting aside the NFL (as nothing is comparable to them), the $1 billion for NCAA Tournament games isn’t being compared to other sports, but rather what other programming investments do networks have put there that can guarantee a live audience year-after-year. There’s basically nothing other than sports and a handful of awards shows (like the Oscars, Grammys and Golden Globes) that deliver that type of audience today. That’s particularly important for OTA channels that depend more on advertising revenue (AKA live viewers) than most cable networks and streaming services.

Expanding the CFP playoff from 4 to 8 or more would add attractive games featuring big name teams that draw large audiences. That's worth a lot to TV.

Expanding March Madness from 68 to 72 or more would add marginal games with TV ratings no better than those of the current first four games.

No. It would add another 4 power/major conference teams.

Last 16 at-large teams can play-in (8 games Tuesday/Wednesday). Make it into a whole tournament week. Reward conference tournament winners with a Thursday/Friday start.

You sound very enthusiastic about "rewarding" the lucky autobid teams from conferences whose teams are only in D-I to collect March Madness money. I would be surprised if the decisionmakers share that enthusiasm.

You are saying they are lucky because they won their conference tournament? Some of them are league favorites.

As the system exists now those 16 seeds by virtue of winning the play-in game earn for themselves and conference an additional NCAA basketball unit. Under my proposal they would leave that cash on the table.

For the power/major conferences in the last 16 out while they would play an extra game they would be picking up additional tourney cash in addition to the tourney bringing in more TV money for each unit with this format.

(02-01-2020 05:31 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 05:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 03:51 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 03:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 12:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The one caveat there, though, is that the relative value of all sports programs have increased, so I can definitely see how Fox or ESPN would be willing to give the NCAA a huge pay raise. Putting aside the NFL (as nothing is comparable to them), the $1 billion for NCAA Tournament games isn’t being compared to other sports, but rather what other programming investments do networks have put there that can guarantee a live audience year-after-year. There’s basically nothing other than sports and a handful of awards shows (like the Oscars, Grammys and Golden Globes) that deliver that type of audience today. That’s particularly important for OTA channels that depend more on advertising revenue (AKA live viewers) than most cable networks and streaming services.

Expanding the CFP playoff from 4 to 8 or more would add attractive games featuring big name teams that draw large audiences. That's worth a lot to TV.

Expanding March Madness from 68 to 72 or more would add marginal games with TV ratings no better than those of the current first four games.

No. It would add another 4 power/major conference teams.

Last 16 at-large teams can play-in (8 games Tuesday/Wednesday). Make it into a whole tournament week. Reward conference tournament winners with a Thursday/Friday start.

You sound very enthusiastic about "rewarding" the lucky autobid teams from conferences whose teams are only in D-I to collect March Madness money. I would be surprised if the decisionmakers share that enthusiasm.

You are saying they are lucky because they won their conference tournament? Some of them are league favorites.

As the system exists now those 16 seeds by virtue of winning the play-in game earn for themselves and conference an additional NCAA basketball unit. Under my proposal they would leave that cash on the table.

For the power/major conferences in the last 16 out while they would play an extra game they would be picking up additional tourney cash in addition to the tourney bringing in more TV money for each unit with this format.

Propose it all you want; as I said above, I would be very surprised if the folks making these decisions agree.